Page 2, lines 22 -26: Review writing:
Suggestion: HPP can inactivate or activate pectinases, polyphenol oxidases, peroxidases and other enzymes in fruit juices, pulps and purees. High pressure treatment can inactivate the enzymes due to the alteration of the conformation of the protein structure and the active site. Depending on the enzyme, pressure, pH, temperature and treatment time, HPP can increase enzyme activity due to the release of membrane-bound enzymes and also due to changes in protein conformation and active site that facilitate interaction with the substrate.

Page 4, lines 64-65: Delete the paragraph described below:
These catalytic reactions with increased concentrations of hydrogen peroxide, induce color modification in fruit juices [16].

Page 4, lines 67-70: Write about the mode of action of polyphenoloxidases and peroxidases citing substrates and formed products.

Page 5, lines 86-88: Review writing: It is essential to control both the activity and stability of food quality-related enzymes during food processing to obtain premium quality food products.
Suggestion: It is essential to control both the activity and stability of deterioratives enzymes during food processing to obtain premium quality food products.

Page 6, Figure 1: Could you explain why peroxidase would be activated up to 600 MPa (majority at < 400 MPa) at 50oC and inactivated at 100- 500 MPa at 60-70C or < 10oC?

Page 6, line 102: Review writing: Likewise, PPO (heat resistant) was found more labile to treatment than POD.
Page 6, lines 107-108 : Review writing: According to Juarez-Enriquez et al. [37], HPP modified the active sides of enzymes, which activated enzymes or denatured them.
...active site... ( Not: ....”active sides”...)

Page 7, lines 124- 126: Review writing: “Sometimes high-pressure tends to lose the contact between the enzyme and contact surface and drives physical changes of substances (phase transition) that control enzyme activity, which activates enzymes. “

Page 7, lines 128-132: Review writing: During reversible protein denaturation slow refolding of proteins occurs when pressure release, which can increase active sites (more accessible active sides due to refolding of enzymes conformational structure) and partial/complete recovery of enzyme activity.

Page 7, lines 137-140 : Review writing: Besides, the activation of enzymes was linked to the partial denaturation or binding of isoenzymes with the added chemical reactive.

Page 7, lines 138-140: Review writing: Furthermore, it was established that fruit juice has two isoenzymes that exist in PPO and POD: one was sensitive to pressure and the other was stable.
Suggestion: Some fruits may have PFO and POD isoenzymes that are sensitive to pressure treatments and others that are stable.

Page 8, lines 159-167: Review writing: The authors Yi et al (44) studied the potential of kiwifruit pure and a clean label ingredient to stabilize high pressure pasteurized cloudy apple juice during storage. In lines 159-167 the use of kiwifruit puree as an ingredient to stabilize the apple juice was not mentioned.

Page 9, lines178-180: Review writing: Wibowo et al. [21] explained that oxidation reduces the substrate present in the product and the oxidized products could inhibit the enzyme’s activity.
... reduces the substrate ?

Page 11, lines 215-220. Better explain the deteriorating effect of β-glucosidase in strawberry juice.

Page 11, line 217: Suggestion: Cao et al. [48] reported that the strawberry β-glucosidase was activated at 400 MPa and its activity increased with extending treatment times, the highest activity being 116.7% after 25 min.

Table 1, Page 12-17: Review the written results of the literature review on the effects of HPP on the enzymatic activity of fruit juices (Table 1). Please improve the writing of activation or inactivation results of PPO, POD, PME, PG, SOD enzymes after high pressure processing of fruit juices:

Page 13., lines 35-37: PPO: reduced 54.9-18.8% RA, PME: reduced 81.2-49.6% RA
Page 13, lines 38-41: PPO: 51.2% decrease, POD: 6.8% decrease
Page 14, lines 8-10: PME: inactivated by 22.5%, POD: increased by 10.4%
Page 14, line 13-14: Increased the activity by 17.1%
Page 15, line 41, page 16, lines 3-6: A decreased trend of PPO and POD activities (100% and 79% activities inhibited, respectively) was observed during storage.
Page 17, lines 10-17: 90% inactivation of PPO was possible at 500 MPa/70 °C/20 min (at the lowest pressure), 600 MPa/60 °C/15 min (at the lowest temperature) compared to 92% inactivation during TP. POD: complete inactivation at 600 MPa/15 min/60 °C.

Page 19, line 267: Review writing: ..”.barro– resistant enzyme.”

Page 19, lines 288-289: Review writing: Aaby et al. [29] observed a reduction to 11–30% in PPO activity after HPP (400–600 MPa for 1.5-3 min) as compared to the heat treatment treated (24% reduction) in strawberry purée.

Page 20, lines 293-295: Review writing and explain better: Besides, no PPO activity was observed in HPP treated strawberry juice after processing and storage, indicating that PPO was associated with discarded parts of strawberry.

Page 20, lines 298: .....have an insignificant effect on strawberry PPO (highly thermostable with a maximum inactivation of 28%) .....

Page 24: Review writing and explain better: Inactivation of PPO, POD, and PME were 600 MPa/60 ºC/9 min, 600 MPa/60 ºC/10 min, and 600 MPa/60 ºC/10 min for the samples of pH 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0, respectively.

Page 24: Review writing and explain better: Inactivated 88% RA for Nashi pear purée at 62 °C.

Page 25, line 3-5: Review writing and explain better: Inactivated 89% RA at room temperature and 59% RA at 62 °C.

Page 25, lines 7- 13: Review writing and explain better: Inactivated from 63% RA (5 min) to 8% RA (60 min).

Page 25, lines 19 , 25 : Review writing: Fragaria × ananassa

Page 25, lines 24-25: Review writing and explain better: Inhibited 11–30% RA.

Page 26, line 15: Review writing and explain better: RA PPO (28.4–34%)

Page 27, lines 14-20: Review writing: RA at the end of refrigerated and accelerated storage were PME: 14– 30, 30–42, and PPO: 54–69% and 27–40, POD: 36–72, and 75–91%, respectively.

Page 27, lines 31-36: Review writing and explain better: Decrease inactivity (45%) after 4 min at 345 MPa but with an important activation at the 414 MPa.

Page 27, lines 37-40: Review writing and explain better: PPO: RA increased by 41.5% at 300 MPa/5 min. POD: RA increased by 46.8% at 500 MPa/5 min. PME: no changes were observed.

Page 28: lines 7-12: Review writing and explain better: PPO: 100 to 101% RA, POD: 100 to 91.3% RA, PME: 2.67 to 1.58 (μ g−1) RA.

Standardize the writing (upper and lower case) of the manuscript titles: page 30, lines 383-384; 388-389; page 32, lines 419-421; 432-433; page 33, lines 442-443; page 35, line 483; page 36, lines 506-507; 514-515; page 37, lines 544-545, page 39, lines 586-587, page 40, line 608; page 41, lines 617-618

Write the names of microorganisms and plants in italics. Check the upper and lower case letters: page 30, line 392; page 31, lines 395, 400; page 34, lines 470, 473. Page 36: line 518; page 37, line 542; page 38, line 551, page 41, lines 618, 622, 630, 633, page 42, line 641.

page 31, line 412: Review the writing of the authors' names.

Page 39, line 585: Write the name of the scientific journal.