4.8 Article

Sporopollenin Exine Microcapsules as Potential Intestinal Delivery System of Probiotics

期刊

SMALL
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/smll.202004573

关键词

flow cytometry; lactobacillus casei; microencapsulation; mrs plate count; probiotics; scanning electron microscope; sporopollenin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a novel encapsulation method using sporopollenin exine capsules opened by silica particles to encapsulate Lactobacillus casei cells, which results in significantly higher encapsulation yield and improved viability compared to other methods, showing potential as a delivery system for probiotics in the human gastrointestinal tract.
Despite several decades of research into encapsulation of bacteria, most of the proposed technologies are in the form of immobilized cultures. In this work, sporopollenin exine capsules (SECs) opened, using silica particles which act as pressing micro-probes, and loaded with Lactobacillus casei (L. casei) cells, are described for the first time. The proposed encapsulation provided approximate to 30x higher encapsulation yield (30.87%), compared to direct compression of SECs (0.99%). Encapsulated L. casei cells show 1.21- and 2.25-folds higher viability compared to free cells, in in vitro simulated fasted and fed media representing the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract, respectively. Encapsulated L. casei can proliferate inside the SECs, generating enough pressure to cause the SECs to burst and release the viable and metabolically active cells. The noticeable difference with the application of the SECs as a means of encapsulation is that the SECs may act as a bioreactor and provide time for the encapsulated cells to multiply thousands of times before being released, following the SEC's burst. The unique advantages of SECs alongside the proposed encapsulation method, demonstrates the potential application of SECs as delivery system of probiotics to the distal part of the human GI tract.

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

4.8
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