4.6 Article

Structural characteristics and functional properties of a fucose containing prebiotic exopolysaccharide from Bifidobacterium breve NCIM 5671

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 134, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jambio/lxad262

关键词

Bifidobacterium breve; capsular exopolysaccharide; fucose; prebiotic property; antioxidant activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the structure and functions of capsular exopolysaccharide (CPS) from Bifidobacterium breve NCIM 5671 and found that the CPS has the potential to be used as a prebiotic food supplement. The CPS has a high molecular weight and contains rhamnose, fucose, galactose, and glucose. Additionally, the CPS showed antioxidant activity and resistance to digestion.
Aim To evaluate the structure and functions of capsular exopolysaccharide (CPS) from Bifidobacterium breve NCIM 5671.Methods and results A CPS produced by the probiotic bacteria B. breve NCIM 5671 was isolated and subjected to characterization through GC analysis, which indicated the presence of rhamnose, fucose, galactose, and glucose in a molar ratio of 3:1:5:3. The average molecular weight of the CPS was determined to be similar to 8.5 x 105 Da. Further, NMR analysis revealed the probable CPS structure to be composed of major branched tetra- and penta-saccharide units alternately repeating and having both alpha- and beta-configuration sugar residues. CPS displayed an encouraging prebiotic score for some of the studied probiotic bacteria. Compared to standard inulin, CPS showed better resistance to digestibility against human GI tract in vitro. DPPH, total antioxidant, and ferric reducing assays carried out for CPS displayed decent antioxidant activity too.Conclusion This study indicates that the CPS from B. breve NCIM 5671 has the potential to be utilized as a prebiotic food supplement. It is a high-molecular-weight (similar to 8.5 x 105 Da) capsular heteropolysaccharide containing rhamnose, fucose, galactose, and glucose.

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