4.7 Article

Characterization of lactic acid bacteria recovered from atole agrio, a traditional Mexican fermented beverage

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 109-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.004

关键词

Lactic acid bacteria; Identification; Fermentation; Beverages

资金

  1. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [247650]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [CSD2007-00063]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana [PROMETEO/2012/040]
  4. Mexican Council CONACYT [CB-2008-01101784]
  5. Olvi Foundation
  6. Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our aim was to identify and characterize the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) of atole agrio, a fermented Mexican maize-based beverage and to evaluate whether starters could be obtained to produce it under controlled conditions. Atole agrio fermentation process was variable with an abundant presence of Enterobacteriaceae throughout the fermentation. Based on RAPD-PCR, Weissella (29.2%), Pediococcus (24.0%), Lactococcus (17.8%) and Lactobacillus (16.4%) were the most abundant LAB genera. Out of 88 identified LAB strains, 87.5% produced folates, 71.6% degraded phytates, 38.6% produced exopolysaccharides (EPS) and 12.5% had amylolytic activity. The majority of the strains (81.8%) were resistant to at least two of the screened nine antibiotics and 11.4% to one antibiotic. Six potential starters; L. plantarum IL4l1, L. plantarum A1MM10, Lc. lactis IL5l1, Lc. lactis A1MS3, Leuc. pseudomesenteroides IL5l2 and Ped. pentosaceus S0l10, were selected for further studies. All selected strains were phytase producers, showed antimicrobial activity and had good acidification and growth properties. In addition L. plantarum IL4l1, Ped. pentosaceus S0l10 and Leuc. pseudomesenteroides IL5l2 were EPS producers and had together with Lc. lactis IL5l1 amylolytic activity. L. plantarum IL4l1, L. plantarum A1MM10 and Lc. lactis IL5l1 were folate producers. (C) 2017 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