4.7 Article

Growth interactions and antilisterial effects of the bacteriocinogenic Lactococcus lactis subsp cremoris M104 and Enterococcus faecium KE82 strains in thermized milk in the presence or absence of a commercial starter culture

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 145-154

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.12.019

关键词

Lactococcus lactis subsp cremoris M104; Enterococcus faeciuni KE82; Listeria monocytogenes; Thermized milk

资金

  1. TRUEFOOD (Traditional United Europe Food)
  2. European Commission [FOOD-CT-2006-016264]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional Greek cheeses are often produced from thermized milk (TM) with the use of commercial starter cultures (CSCs), which may not inhibit growth of Listeria monocytogenes completely. Therefore, this study evaluated the behavior of an artificial L. monocytogenes contamination in commercially TM (63 degrees C; 30 s) inoculated with a CSC plus Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis M104 and/or Enterococcus faecium KE82, two indigenous strains producing nisin A and enterocin A and B, respectively. Inoculation treatments included TM with the CSC only, and TM without the CSC but with strain M104 alone, or combined with strain KE82. All treatments were incubated at 37 degrees C for 6 h followed by 66 h at 18 degrees C. L. monocytogenes grew by 0.66-1.24 log cfu/ml at 37 degrees C, whereas its further growth at 18 C was retarded, suppressed, or accompanied by different inactivation rates, depending on each TM treatment. Strain M104 caused the greatest inactivation, whereas the CSC per se was the least effective treatment. Strain KE82 assisted the CSC in controlling pathogen growth at 37 degrees C, whereas both reduced the nisin A mediated antilisterial activity of strain M104. Overall, the most 'balanced' treatment against monocytogenes was CSCd-M104+KE82. Hence, this starter/co-starter combination may be utilized in traditional Greek cheese technologies. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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