4.7 Article

Effects of cryoprotectants on viability of Lactobacillus reuteri CICC6226

期刊

APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 609-616

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-011-3269-4

关键词

Lactobacillus reuteri CICC6226; Cryoprotectants; Probiotics; Freeze-drying; Cell membrane fluidity and integrity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20836003, 30871952]
  2. National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2009BADC1B02, 2009BADB9B05]
  3. 111 project [B07029]
  4. Researcher Program of Jiangsu Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Freeze-drying is commonly used to preserve probiotics, but it could cause cell damage and loss of viability. The cryoprotectants play an important role in the conservation of viability during freeze-drying. In this study, we investigated the survival rates of Lactobacillus reuteri CICC6226 in the presence of cryoprotectants such as sucrose, trehalose, and reconstituted skim milk (RSM). In addition, we determined the activities of hexokinase (HK), pyruvate kinase (PK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and ATPases immediately following the freeze-drying. The results showed that the differences in HK and PK activities with and without the cryoprotectants during freeze-drying were not significant, but cell viability and activities of LDH and ATPase were significantly different (P < 0.01) prior to and after freeze-drying. Meanwhile, the results showed that the maintenance of the membrane integrity and fluidity was improved in the presence of the 10% trehalose or 10% RSM than other treatments during freeze-drying. These results have provided direct biochemical and metabolic evidence of injured cell during freeze-drying. Freeze-drying damaged membrane structure and function of cell and inactivated enzymes (LDH and ATPases). The results imply that LDH and ATPases are key markers and could be used to evaluate the effect of cryoprotectants on viability and metabolic activities of L. reuteri CICC6226 during freeze-drying.

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