Advertisement

Biotechnology Letters

, Volume 41, Issue 4–5, pp 633–639 | Cite as

Mild heat stress limited the post-acidification caused by Lactobacillus rhamnosus hsryfm 1301 in fermented milk

  • Chenchen Zhang
  • Liting Yang
  • Ruihan Gu
  • Zixuan Ding
  • Chengran Guan
  • Maolin Lu
  • Ruixia GuEmail author
Original Research Paper
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Fermented milk is the optimal vehicle for delivering probiotic bacteria. However, the viable count of probiotic bacteria such as some lactic acid bacteria and the post-acidification of fermented milk are a contradiction. The objective of this study was to restrict the post-acidification of the fermented milk containing living Lactobacillus rhamnosus hsryfm 1301.

Results

Mild heat stress treatment (46 °C, 1 h) was chosen to help control the post-acidification caused by L. rhamnosus hsryfm 1301. When fermented milk was produced by single L. rhamnosus hsryfm 1301, the heat stress treatment reduced the post-acidification from 0.39 to 0.11% lactic acid, and the viable cells were maintained above 2.0 × 108 CFU mL−1 during 21 days of storage. Although the post-acidification limitation of heat treatment was relatively weak in fermented milk produced by L. rhamnosus hsryfm 1301 and S. thermophilus grx02 (from 0.26 to 0.10% lactic acid), this treatment was still effective. Furthermore, no whey separation in the fermented milk was caused by the treatment.

Conclusions

Mild heat stress treatment could limit the post-acidification caused by L. rhamnosus hsryfm 1301 by decreasing its metabolism and proliferation. This treatment is a promising strategy to improve the shelf life of probiotic fermented milk.

Keywords

Post-acidification limitation Probiotics Proliferation Shelf life Stress treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (CN) (BK20180910, BK20170496) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 31801565, 31571855).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Bali V, Panesar PS, Bera MB, Kennedy JF (2016) Bacteriocins: recent trends and potential applications critical reviews in food science and nutrition. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 56(5):817–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandan RC, O’Rell KR (2006) Yogurt plant: quality assurance. In: Chandan RC (ed) Manufacturing yogurt and fermented milks. Wiley, New York, pp 247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen D et al (2014) The effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus hsryfm 1301 on the intestinal microbiota of a hyperlipidemic rat model. BMC Complement Altern Med 14(1):386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Almada CN, Nunes de Almada C, Martinez RCR, Sant’Ana AS (2015) Characterization of the intestinal microbiota and its interaction with probiotics and health impacts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:4175–4199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Almada CN, Almada CN, Martinez RCR, Sant’Ana AS (2016) Paraprobiotics: evidences on their ability to modify biological responses, inactivation methods and perspectives on their application in foods. Trends Food Sci Technol 58:96–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaichumjai P, Valyasevi R, Assavanig A, Kurdi P (2010) Isolation and characterization of acid-sensitive Lactobacillus plantarum with application as starter culture for Nham production. Food Microbiol 27(6):741–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jayamanne VS, Adams MR (2006) Determination of survival, identity and stress resistance of probiotic bifidobacteria in bio-yogurts. Lett Appl Microbiol 42(3):189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jia R, Chen H, Chen H, Ding W (2016) Effects of fermentation with Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on product quality and fatty acids of goat milk yogurt. J Dairy Sci 99(1):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanmani P, Satish Kumar R, Yuvaraj N, Paari KA, Pattukumar V, Arul V (2013) Probiotics and its functionally valuable products-a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53(6):641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kort R et al (2015) A novel consortium of Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Streptococcus thermophilus for increased access to functional fermented foods. Microb Cell Fact 14(1):195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marco ML et al (2017) Health benefits of fermented foods: microbiota and beyond. Curr Opin Biotechnol 44:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nguyen HTH, Ong L, Lefevre C, Kentish SE, Gras SL (2014) The microstructure and physicochemical properties of probiotic buffalo yoghurt during fermentation and storage: a comparison with bovine yoghurt. Food Bioprocess Technol 7:937–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papadimitriou K et al (2016) Stress physiology of lactic acid bacteria microbiology and molecular biology reviews. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 80(3):837–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Segers M, Lebeer S (2014) Towards a better understanding of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG-host interactions. Microb Cell Fact 13(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Settachaimongkon S et al (2015) Effect of sublethal preculturing on the survival of probiotics and metabolite formation in set-yoghurt. Food Microbiol 49:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Settachaimongkon S, Van Valenberg HJF, Gazi I, Nout MJR, Van Hooijdonk T, Zwietering MH, Smid EJ (2016) Influence of Lactobacillus plantarum WCFS1 on post-acidification, metabolite formation and survival of starter bacteria in set-yoghurt. Food Microbiol 59:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sieuwerts S, de Bok FA, Mols E, De Vos WM, Vlieg JE (2008) A simple and fast method for determining colony forming units. Lett Appl Microbiol 47(4):275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tannock GW, Munro K, Harmsen HJM, Welling GW, Smart J, Gopal PK (2000) Analysis of the fecal microflora of human subjects consuming a probiotic product containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus DR20. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(6):2578–2588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Varmanen P, Savijoki K (2011) Responses of lactic acid bacteria to heat stress. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wickens K et al (2012) A protective effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001 against eczema in the first 2 years of life persists to age 4 years. Clin Exp Allergy 42(7):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang C, Lu J, Yang D, Chen X, Huang Y, Gu R (2018) Stress influenced the aerotolerance of Lactobacillus rhamnosus hsryfm 1301. Biotechnol Lett 40(4):729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang C, Yang L, Ding Z, Yin B, Chen D, Guan C, Gu R (2019) New selective media for isolation and enumeration of Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Streptococcus thermophilus. J Food Meas Charact.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-019-00059-x Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Food Science and EngineeringYangzhou UniversityYangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Safety ControlYangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Jiangsu Dairy Biotechnology Engineering Research CenterYangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations