4.3 Article

In vitro evaluation of potential prebiotic effects of a freeze-dried juice fromPilosocereus gounellei(A. Weber ex K. Schum. Bly. Ex Rowl) cladodes, an unconventional edible plant from Caatinga biome

期刊

3 BIOTECH
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13205-020-02442-8

关键词

Cactaceae; Prebiotic; Probiotic; Metabolic activity; Valorization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated in vitro the potential prebiotic effects of a freeze-dried juice extracted from cladodes ofPilosocereus gounellei(A. Weber ex K. Schum.) Bly. Ex Rowl, an unconventional edible plant from Brazilian Caatinga biome and popularly known as xique-xique. Prebiotic effects of freeze-dried xique-xique cladode juice (XCJ, 20 g/L) were evaluated by measurements of prebiotic activity scores and stimulatory effects on growth and metabolic activities of probioticLactobacillus acidophilusLA-05,L. caseiL-26 andL. paracaseiL-10, which are beneficial species found as part of human gut microbiota. XCJ showed positive prebiotic activity scores on all examined probiotics, indicating a selective stimulatory effect on these microorganisms in detriment to enteric pathogens. Examined probiotics had high viable counts (> 8 log CFU/mL) after 48 h of cultivation in media with XCJ (20 g/L), representing an increase of > 2 log CFU/mL when compared to viable counts found on time zero. Cultivation of probiotics in media with XCJ resulted in decreased pH during the 48 h-incubation. Contents of fructose and glucose decreased in media with XCJ inoculated withL. acidophilusLA-05,L. caseiL-26 orL. paracaseiL-10 during the 48 h-cultivation, in parallel with an increase in contents of acetic and lactic acids. Measured effects of XCJ on probiotics were overall similar to those exerted by fructoligosaccharides (20 g/L), a proven prebiotic ingredient. These results showed that XCJ could exert selective stimulatory effects on differentLactobacillusspecies, which are indicative of potential prebiotic properties.

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

4.3
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