4.6 Article

The potential of bifidobacteria as a source of natural folate

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 112, Issue 5, Pages 975-984

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05261.x

Keywords

bifidobacteria; folate; folic acid; HPLC; probiotic

Funding

  1. Swedish Institute
  2. Lundgrenska Stiftelserna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To screen 19 strains of bifidobacteria for main folate forms composition in synthetic folate-free and complex folate-containing media. Methods and Results: HPLC was used to analyse deconjugated folates extracted from bacterial biomass. Most strains had a total folate content above 4000 mu g per 100 g dry matter (DM). The highest value of 9295 mu g per 100 g DM was found in Bifidobacterium catenulatum ATCC 27539 and the lowest in Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. animalis ATCC 25527 containing 220 mu g per 100 g DM. Ten strains grew in a synthetic folate-free medium (FFM), showing folate autotrophy and suggesting folate auxotrophy of the remaining nine. In the autotrophic strains, a consistently higher folate level was found in FFM as compared to a more complex folate-containing medium, suggesting reduced requirements for folates in the presence of growth factors otherwise requiring folates for synthesis. The contents of total folate, 5-CH3-H(4)folate and H(4)folate were strain dependent. 5-CH3-H(4)folate dominated in most strains. Conclusions: Our results show that bifidobacteria folate content and composition is dynamic, is strain specific and depends on the medium. Suitable selection of the growth conditions can result in high levels of folate per cell unit biomass. Significance and Impact of the Study: This suggests that certain bifidobacteria may contribute to the folate intake, either directly in foods, such as fermented dairy products, or in the intestine as folate-trophic probiotics or part of the natural microbiota.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available