4.7 Article

The Effects of Cellular Membrane Damage on the Long-Term Storage and Adhesion of Probiotic Bacteria in Caco-2 Cell Line

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15153484

关键词

viability; fluid bed drying; lactic acid bacteria; stress; quality control; imaging flow cytometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adhesion is a crucial aspect of probiotic properties in the human gut, and it is determined by membrane proteins affected by cellular damage. Fluid-bed-dried preparations containing probiotic bacteria were analyzed for stability and shelf life, and the results showed that subpopulations with no or low levels of cell membrane damage exhibited adhesion.
Adhesion is one of the main factors responsible for the probiotic properties of bacteria in the human gut. Membrane proteins affected by cellular damage are one of the key aspects determining adhesion. Fluid-bed-dried preparations containing probiotic bacteria were analyzed in terms of their stability (temperature of glass transition) and shelf life in different conditions (modified atmosphere, refrigeration). Imaging flow cytometry was utilized to determine four subpopulations of cells based on their physiological and morphological properties. Lastly, adhesion was measured in bacteria cultured in optimal conditions and treated with heat shock. The results show that the subpopulations with no or low levels of cell membrane damage exhibit the ability to adhere to Caco-2 cells. The temperature of protein denaturation in bacteria was recorded as being between 65 & DEG;C and 70 & DEG;C. The highest glass transition temperature (Tg) value for hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (used as a coating substance) was measured at 152.6 & DEG;C. Drying and coating can be utilized as a sufficient treatment, allowing a long shelf-life (up to 12 months). It is, however, worth noting that technological processing, especially with high temperatures, may decrease the probiotic value of the preparation by damaging the bacterial cells.

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