4.6 Article

An ecological study of lactic acid bacteria from Almagro eggplant fermentation brines

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 103, 期 5, 页码 1553-1561

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03387.x

关键词

almagro eggplants; genetic diversity; lactic acid bacteria; pickled vegetables; randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Identification of the predominant lactic acid bacteria (LAB) involved in spontaneous fermentations of Almagro eggplants, and evaluation of the biodiversity by molecular typing. Methods and Results: Almagro eggplant fermentations in three factories (A, B and C) enjoying Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status were monitored by chemical and microbiological analysis of brines. LAB isolates from brines were identified by phenotypic analysis and by species-specific PCR reactions and typed by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD)-PCR. All isolates from factories A and C belonged to the genus Lactobacillus (Lact.), whereas isolates from factory B belonged to Lactobacillus (50%), Leuconostoc (Ln.) (25%) and Lactococcus (Lc.) (25%); 1.9% of this microbiota was considered cosmopolitan. The genera Leuconostoc and Lactococcus and the species Lact. acidophilus and Lact. paracasei had never previously been reported in Almagro eggplant fermentations. Conclusion: Considerable differences in the composition of the lactic acid microbiota participating in the Almagro eggplant fermentations exist. Brine NaCl concentration has a notable influence both in number and in the species participating. Significance and Impact: The original aspect of this work consists of an ecological study of the LAB taking part in spontaneous Almagro eggplant fermentations from different factories. Participation of Leuconostoc and Lactococcus species and of Lact. acidophilus and Lact. paracasei, which had never before been described for this pickle, and the evidence that a lactic fermentation does not always take place, were the most relevant results.

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