4.7 Article

Influences of structures of galactooligosaccharides and fructooligosaccharides on the fermentation in vitro by human intestinal microbiota

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL FOODS
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 158-168

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2014.12.044

关键词

Prebiotics; Galactooligosaccharides; Fructooligosaccharides; In vitro fermentation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31201422, 31171750]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2011651]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A structure-function study was carried out to expand the knowledge base of the effects of carbohydrate glycosidic linkage, monosaccharide composition and degree of polymerization (DP) on the selectivity of fermentation by mixed culture. Galactooligosaccharides (GOS) with beta-(1 -> 4)- and beta-(1 -> 6)-linkages were prepared from the transgalactosylation of beta-D-galactosidases from Bacillus circulans and Aspergillus oryzae with lactose as substrate, respectively, whereas fructooligosaccharides (FOS) with varied DP from three to five were commercially obtained. Pure single components of GOS and FOS were purified and characterized by mass spectrometry with an electrospray ionization source and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and a prebiotic index (PI) was calculated for each oligosaccharide. The results demonstrated that GOS showed a relatively high selective stimulation toward bifidobacteria as well as higher PI value compared with FOS, and GOS with beta-(1 -> 6)-linkage exhibited relatively higher PI value than GOS with beta-(1 -> 4)-linkage, whereas higher value toward lactobacilli was observed for FOS. Additionally, with the exception of GOS with beta-(1 -> 6)-linkages, all investigated oligosaccharides gave similar PI values at 24 h, although significant variations were found for the growth of different genus bacteria in mixed cultures. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据