4.6 Article

Variation in characterization and probiotic activities of polysaccharides from litchi pulp fermented for different times

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.993828

关键词

litchi; fermentation; polysaccharide; chemical structure; probiotic activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the chemical structures and probiotic potential of polysaccharides extracted from litchi pulp fermented with Lactobacillus fermentum for different times. The results showed that fermentation time affected the properties of the polysaccharides, and suitable fermentation time enhanced their probiotic activities.
This study investigated the chemical structures and probiotic potential of different polysaccharides (LPs) extracted from the litchi pulp that fermented with Lactobacillus fermentum for different times (i.e., 0-72 h corresponding to LP-0 through LP-72, respectively). Fermentation times affected the yields, total sugar contents, uronic acid contents, molecular weights, and monosaccharide compositions of LPs. The LPs yields and uronic acid contents exhibited irregular trends in association with fermentation time, while total sugar contents decreased, and the molecular weights increased. Particularly, LP-6 contained the highest extraction yields (2.67%), lowest uronic acid contents, and smallest average Mw (104 kDa) (p < 0.05). Moreover, analysis of the monosaccharide composition in the fermented LPs indicated that the proportions of glucose decreased, while arabinose and galacturonic acid proportions increased relative to unfermented LP-0. Further, LP-6 demonstrated the highest growth for Bifidobacterium compared to LP-0, while the other fermentation time led to comparable or worse probiotic promoting activities. These results suggest that lactic acid bacteria fermentation alters the physicochemical properties of litchi polysaccharides, such that suitable fermentation time can enhance their probiotic activities.

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

4.6
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