4.6 Article

Kinetics and metabolism of Bifidobacterium adolescentis MB 239 growing on glucose, galactose, lactose, and galactooligosaccharides

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 11, 页码 3637-3644

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02914-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The kinetics and the metabolism of Bifidobacterium adolescentis MB 239 growing on galactooligosaccharides (GOS), lactose, galactose, and glucose were investigated. An unstructured unsegregated model for growth in batch cultures was developed, and kinetic parameters were calculated with a recursive algorithm. The growth rate and cellular yield were highest on galactose, followed by lactose and GOS, and were lowest on glucose. Lactate, acetate, and ethanol yields allowed the calculation of carbon fluxes toward fermentation products. Distributions between two- and three-carbon products were similar on all the carbohydrates (55 and 45%, respectively), but ethanol yields were different on glucose, GOS, lactose, and galactose, in decreasing order of production. Based on the stoichiometry of the fructose-6-phosphate shunt and on the carbon distribution among the products, the ATP yield was calculated. The highest yield was obtained on galactose, while the yields were 5, 8, and 25% lower on lactose, GOS, and glucose, respectively. Therefore, a correspondence among ethanol production, low ATP yields, and low biomass production was established, demonstrating that carbohydrate preferences may result from different distributions of carbon fluxes through the fermentative pathway. During the fermentation of a GOS mixture, substrate selectivity based on the degree of polymerization was exhibited, since lactose and the trisaccharide were the first to be consumed, while a delay was observed until longer oligosaccharides were utilized. Throughout the growth on both lactose and GOS, galactose accumulated in the cultural broth, suggesting that beta(1-4) galactosides can be hydrolyzed before they are taken up.

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