Analysis of the Cell Surface Hydrophobicity of Yoghurt Fermentation Bacteria

Article Preview

Abstract:

The cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) of lactic acid bacteria was considered to colonization and adhesion, and playing a prebiotic function in the digestive tract. Therefore, CSH of yoghurt fermentation bacteria most commonly used was analyzed, such as Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus to identify initially CSH and the influencing factors of CSH of these strains and provided a theoretical basis for the future production of high-quality dairy fermentation agents and probiotics. The method of bacterial adhesion to hydrocarbons (BATH) was utilized to determine CSH of these strains and used the different conditions to process the cell. Through this research, the results was that L. acidophilus had a strong CSH, greater than L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus. And the influencing factors of CSH of L. acidophilus were time, temperature, pH, concentration, Ca2+ and protease. But CSH was significantly reduced by trypsin and pepsin. CSH L. acidophilus was connected with the adhesion ability. In addition, it was speculated that some substances which could mediate CSH of L. acidophilus may be a class of proteins. Therefore, in the process of dairy fermentation agent, these factors could be controlled to obtain high-quality products.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 361-363)

Pages:

1274-1278

Citation:

Online since:

October 2011

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2012 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Y. Zhong, C.Y. Huang, T. He, H.M.J. Harmsen and R.J. Vonk. Journal of Hygiene Research. 35 (2006), p.587 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[2] M.F. Bernet, D. Brassart and J.R. Neeser. Appl Environ Microbiol. 59 (1993), p.4121

Google Scholar

[3] M. Candela, F. Perna and P. Carnevali. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 125 (2008), p.286

Google Scholar

[4] L.J. Fooks and G.R. Gibson. Br J Nutr. 88 Suppl 1 (2002), p. S39

Google Scholar

[5] S. Bengmark. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 17 (2003), p.833

Google Scholar

[6] W.H. Pan, P.L. Li and Z. Liu. Anaerobe, 12 (2006),p.148

Google Scholar

[7] E. Canzi, S. Guglielmetti and D. Mora. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 88 (2005), p.207

Google Scholar

[8] X.Y. Lin and Z.X. Liu. Chinese Journal of Microbiology and Immunology. 25 (2005), p.1022 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[9] X.Q. Ma and D.Q. Zhou. Acta Microbiologica Sinica. 37 (1997), p.62 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[10] J. Chen, S. Chang, Y.P. Zhang and G.X. Xiao. Acta Academiae Medicine Militaris Tertiae. 25(2002), p.138 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[11] L.C. Douglas and M.E. Sanders. J Am Diet Assoc. 108 (2008), p.510

Google Scholar

[12] B. Kos, J. Suskovic and S. Vukovic. Journal of Applied Microbiology., 94 (2003), p.981

Google Scholar

[13] J. Frece, B. Kos, L.K. Svetec, Z. Zgaga, V. Mrsa and J. Suskovic. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 98 (2005), p.285

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02473.x

Google Scholar

[14] A.C. Ouwehand, S. Tolkko and Salminen S. Journal of Food Science. 66 (2001), p.856

Google Scholar