4.7 Article

Mannitol production by heterofermentative Lactobacillus reuteri CRL 1101 and Lactobacillus fermentum CRL 573 in free and controlled pH batch fermentations

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 2519-2527

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-011-3617-4

关键词

Mannitol; Polyol; Fermentation; Lactic acid bacteria

资金

  1. CONICET
  2. FONCyT
  3. MINCyT from Argentina
  4. FWO-Flanders from Belgium [FWO/06/01]
  5. CONICET-Argentina
  6. IMDO-Vrije Universiteit Brussel
  7. Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Certain lactic acid bacteria, especially heterofermentative strains, are capable to produce mannitol under adequate culture conditions. In this study, mannitol production by Lactobacillus reuteri CRL 1101 and Lactobacillus fermentum CRL 573 in modified MRS medium containing a mixture of fructose and glucose in a 6.5:1.0 ratio was investigated during batch fermentations with free pH and constant pH 6.0 and 5.0. Mannitol production and yields were higher under constant pH conditions compared with fermentations with free pH, the increase being more pronounced in the case of the L. fermentum strain. Maximum mannitol production and yields from fructose for L. reuteri CRL 1101 (122 mM and 75.7 mol%, respectively) and L. fermentum CRL 573 (312 mM and 93.5 mol%, respectively) were found at pH 5.0. Interestingly, depending on the pH conditions, fructose was used only as an alternative external electron acceptor or as both electron acceptor and energy source in the case of the L. reuteri strain. In contrast, L. fermentum CRL 573 used fructose both as electron acceptor and carbon source simultaneously, independently of the pH value, which strongly affected mannitol production by this strain. Studies on the metabolism of these relevant mannitol-producing lactobacilli provide important knowledge to either produce mannitol to be used as food additive or to produce it in situ during fermented food production.

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