Sugar Tech

pp 1–5 | Cite as

Identification of New Leuconostoc Species Responsible for Post-harvest Sucrose Losses in Sugarcane

Short Communication
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Sugarcane (Saccharum sps. hybrids) is one of the most important commercial crops which account for ~ 80% sugar production in the world. Cut-to-crush sucrose loss is mainly incurred due to bacterial infestation/entry from the cut ends of the harvested cane causing inversion of sucrose. In the present investigation, the associated Leuconostoc species isolated from 34 sugarcane juice samples was molecularly characterized. Along with biochemical indicators, a PCR fragment of 742 bp with species-specific primers indicated that L. lactis is responsible for the inversion of sucrose in sugarcane.

Keywords

Post-harvest sucrose loss Sugarcane Leuconostoc PCR 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Senior author is thankful to Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, for providing financial help in the form of women scientist (WOS-A) project award.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chandra, A., K. Roopendra, P. Singh, R. Jain, C.P. Prajapati, and S. Solomon. 2014. Time-course expression of soluble acid invertase (SAI) gene mirroring post-harvest cane quality deterioration: effective treatments cause reduction of SAI gene expression. Current Science 107: 184–186.Google Scholar
  2. Eggleston, G. 2002. Deterioration of cane juice-sources and indicators. Food Chemistry 78: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Garvie, E.I. 1986. Genus Leuconostoc van Tieghem 1878. In Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, ed. P.H.A. Sneath, N.S. Mair, M.E. Sharpe, and J.G. Holt, 1071–1075. Baltimore, MD: The Williams and Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
  4. Kim, H.S., D. Kim, H.J. Ryu, and J.F. Robyt. 2000. Cloning and sequencing of the α 1 6 dextransucrase gene from Leuconostoc mesentroides. Journal of Microbiolgy and Biotechnology 10: 559–563.Google Scholar
  5. Lee, Hye-Ja, Sae-Young Park, and J. Kim. 2000. Multiples PCR-based detection and identification of Leuconostoc species. FEMS Microbiology Letters 193: 243–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Liu, B., W. Qiao, and H. Gu. 2015. 16S rRNA gene sequence of lactic acid bacteria strain Zizania aquatic, NCBI data base.Google Scholar
  7. Singh, P., S. Solomon, A. Chandra, and C.P. Prajapati. 2012. Minimization of sucrose losses in harvested cane with spraying of electrolyzed water and palm oil. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology 27: 65–67.Google Scholar
  8. Sobrun, Y., A. Bhaw-Luximon, D. Jhurry, and D. Puchooa. 2012. Isolation of lactic acid bacteria from sugar cane juice and production of lactic acid from selected improved strains. Advances in Biosciences and Biotechnology 3: 398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Solomon, S. 2000. Post-harvest deterioration and its milling consequences. Sugar Tech 2: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Solomon, S. 2009. Post-harvest deterioration of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 11: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Solomon, S., P. Singh, A.K. Shrivastava, P. Singh, A. Chandra, R. Jain, and C.P. Prajapati. 2011. Physio-biochemical method of preserving sucrose in harvested sugarcane at high ambient temperature in a subtropical climate. Sugar Tech 13: 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plant Physiology and BiochemistryICAR-Indian Institute of Sugarcane ResearchLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations