4.3 Article

Lactic acid bacteria fermentation of human milk oligosaccharide components, human milk oligosaccharides and galactooligosaccharides

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 315, 期 2, 页码 141-148

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.02185.x

关键词

lactic acid bacteria; human milk oligosaccharides; galactooligosaccharides; N-acetylglucosamine

资金

  1. AVAC Ltd
  2. ALIDF
  3. Alberta Milk
  4. Research Chairs of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human milk contains about 7% lactose and 1% human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) consisting of lactose with linked fucose, N-acetylglucosamine and sialic acid. In infant formula, galactooligosaccharides (GOSs) are added to replace HMOs. This study investigated the ability of six strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus reuteri, Streptococcus thermophilus and Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. cremoris, to digest HMO components, defined HMOs, and GOSs. All strains grew on lactose and glucose. N-acetylglucosamine utilization varied between strains and was maximal in L. plantarum; fucose utilization was low or absent in all strains. Both hetero- and homofermentative LAB utilized N-acetylglucosamine via the Embden-Meyerhof pathway. Lactobacillus acidophilus and L. plantarum were the most versatile in hydrolysing pNP analogues and the only strains releasing mono- and disaccharides from defined HMOs. Whole cells of all six LAB hydrolysed oNP-galactoside and pNP-galactoside indicating beta-galactosidase activity. High beta-galactosidase activity of L. reuteri, L. fermentum, S. thermophilus and L. mesenteroides subsp. cremoris whole cells correlated to lactose and GOS hydrolysis. Hydrolysis of lactose and GOSs by heterologously expressed beta-galactosidases confirmed that LAB beta-galactosidases are involved in GOS digestion. In summary, the strains of LAB used were not capable of utilizing complex HMOs but metabolized HMO components and GOSs.

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

4.3
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