22 research outputs found
āļāļĨāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļĢāļīāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ·āđāļ Lactobacillus plantarum KL102 āđāļāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļ(EFFECT OF RESISTANT STARCH AND DIETARY FIBER EXTRACT ON GROWTH OF LACTOBACILLUS PLANTARUM KL102 IN FERMENTED SAUSAGE MODEL)
āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĢāļąāđāļāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļ§āļąāļāļāļļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāđāđāļāļ·āđāļāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļāļāļāļīāļāđāļāđāļāļāļīāļāļāļĩāđāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļāđāļ§āļĒāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļ (Resistant Starch Extract) āļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāđāļĄāļāđāļāļĢāđāļāļĒāļĨāļ° 1 āļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļ (Dietary Fiber Extract) āļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāđāļĄāļāđāļāļĢāđāļāļĒāļĨāļ° 1 āļāļĩāđāļŠāļāļąāļāļāļēāļāđāļāļ·āđāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļāļĨāļ·āļāļāļāļĨāđāļ§āļĒ āļāļēāļĄāļĨāļģāļāļąāļ āļĢāđāļ§āļĄāļāļąāļāđāļāļ·āđāļ Lactobacillus plantarum KL102 (KL102) āļāļģāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđāļāđāļāļĄāļđāļĨāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļĢāļīāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļīāļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļŠāļ āļēāļ§āļ°āđāļāđāļāļāļĢāļāļāļāļ KL102 āđāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļĨāļ§ MRS āđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāļāļĩāđāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĄāđāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāļāļģāļāļĩāđāļāļļāļāļŦāļ āļđāļĄāļī 30 āļāļāļĻāļēāđāļāļĨāđāļāļĩāļĒāļŠ āļāđāļĄāđāļāđāļāđāļ§āļĨāļē 72 āļāļąāđāļ§āđāļĄāļ āļāļēāļāļāļĨāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļ§āđāļēāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāđāļāđāļāđāļŦāļĨāđāļāļāļāļāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļāļąāđāļāļŦāļĄāļ āļāļēāļĄāļĨāļģāļāļąāļ āđāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļĨāļ§ MRS āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļ KL102 āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāđāļāļĢāļīāļāļ āļēāļĒāđāļ 3 āļāļąāđāļ§āđāļĄāļāđāļĢāļāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļĄ āđāļāļāļāļ°āļāļĩāđāđāļāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļāļāļāļĩāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāđāļāļĢāđāļāđāļāļāļīāļāļāļāļīāļāļāļĩāđāļāļ°āđāļāļĢāļīāļāļ āļēāļĒāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļĄ 3 āļāļąāđāļ§āđāļĄāļ āļāļķāđāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāļāļģāđāļŦāđāļāļąāļāļĢāļēāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļĢāļīāļāļŠāļđāļāļŠāļļāļāđāļāļīāđāļĄāđāļĨāļ°āļĢāļ°āļĒāļ°āđāļ§āļĨāļēāļŦāļāļķāđāļāļāļąāđāļ§āļāļēāļĒāļļāļĨāļāļĨāļ (p < 0.05) āđāļāļĒāđāļĄāļ·āđāļāļŠāļīāđāļāļŠāļļāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļĄāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāļĄāļĩāļāļģāļāļ§āļ KL102 āļāļĩāđāļĢāļāļāļāļĩāļ§āļīāļāļĄāļēāļāļāļ§āđāļēāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļĨāļ§ MRS āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļ (p < 0.05) āļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĩāđāļĒāļąāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāļĨāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ·āđāļ Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus āđāļĨāļ° Listeria monocytogenes āđāļāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļāļāļ§āđāļēāđāļāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļŦāļĨāļ§ MRS āđāļĨāļ°āđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļ āļāļĩāļāļāļąāđāļāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļāļŦāļĢāļ·āļāđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļāļĒāļąāļāļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāļĨāļāļĨāļāļāļāļāļāđāļē pH āđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļĢāđāļāļīāđāļĄāļāļķāđāļāļāļāļāļāļĢāļīāļĄāļēāļāļāļĢāļāđāļĢāđāļ§āļāļ§āđāļēāđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļ āļāļąāļāļāļąāđāļ āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĩāđāđāļŠāļāļāđāļŦāđāđāļŦāđāļāļ§āđāļēāļāļĢāļĩāđāļāđāļāļāļīāļāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļĻāļąāļāļĒāļ āļēāļ 2 āļāļāļīāļ āļāļ·āļ āđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļāļĩāđāļŠāļāļąāļāļāļēāļāļāļĨāļāļĨāļāļĒāđāļāđāļāļāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļĢāļĢāļđāļāļāļĨāđāļ§āļĒ āļāļķāđāļāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāļāļģāđāļāđāļāđāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļĨāļīāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļāđāļāļāļāļīāļāđāļāđāļāļāļīāļāđāļāļāļāļēāļāļāđāļāđāļāļģāļŠāļģāļāļąāļ: āđāļĨāļāđāļāļāļēāļāļīāļĨāļąāļŠ āđāļāļĨāļāļāļēāļĢāļąāļĄ āđāļāđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĒāļŠāļāļąāļ  āđāļĒāļāļēāļŦāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļąāļ  āđāļāļāļāļģāļĨāļāļāđāļŠāđāļāļĢāļāļāļŦāļĄāļąāļ āļāļēāļĢāđāļāđāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĒāļāļāđāļāļāļāļāļĨāļāļĨāļāļĒāđāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļāļĢāļĢāļđāļāļāļĨāđāļ§āļĒThe purpose of this research was to study synbiotic fermented sausage model (FSM) containing 1%(w/v) of resistant starch extract (RSE) or 1%(w/v) of dietary fiber extract (DFE), extracted from banana pulp or peel, respectively, with Lactobacillus plantarum KL102 (KL102). The growth profile and acidification activity of KL102 were monitored in MRS broth, FSM supplemented without and with RS or DF incubated at 30°C for 72 h. The results showed that RSE and DFE were determined as a rich source of resistant starch and dietary fiber, respectively. KL102 grew during the first 3 h in MRS broth and FSM supplemented with RSE or DFE, whereas this probiotic bacterium grew after 3 h in FSM. Similarly, RSE or DFE supplementation raised the maximum specific growth rate and lowered the generation time significantly (p < 0.05). In addition, FSM supplemented with RSE or DFE yielded KL102 survival with higher values of KL102 than FSM and MRS broth in the end of fermentation (p < 0.05). For pathogens, decrease of Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes in MRS broth and FSM supplemented RSE or DFE had faster than those in FSM. Furthermore, the decrease in the extracellular pH and increase total acid had lower and higher, respectively, than in the case of the FSM containing RSE or DFE when compared with FSM. Therefore, this research examined the ability of two potential prebiotics; RSE and DFE extracted from by-products of banana processing. They can be used the production of synbiotic fermented sausage in future.Keywords: Lactobacillus plantarum, Resistant Starch Extract, Dietary Fiber Extract, Fermented Sausage Model, Utilization of By-product from Banana Processin
Effects of Monolaurin on Oral Microbe-Host Transcriptome and Metabolome
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of monolaurin against Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) and determine their effects on the host transcriptome and metabolome, using an oral cell/bacteria co-culture dual-chamber model to mimic the human periodontium. For this, the Aa, was applied to cross the monolayer of epithelial keratinocytes (OBA-9) to reach the fibroblasts layer (HGF-1) in the basal chamber. The Monolaurin treatments (25 or 50 ÞM) were added immediately after the inoculation of the dual-chamber with Aa. After 24 h, the transcriptional factors and metabolites produced were quantified in the remaining cell layers (insert and basal chamber) and in supernatant released from the cells. The genes IL-1ÃÂą, IL-6, IL-18, and TNF analyzed in HGF-1 concentrations showed a decreased expression when treated with both concentration of Monolaurin. In keratinocytes, the genes IL-6, IL-18, and TNF presented a higher expression and the expression of IL-1ÃÂą decreased when treated with the two cited concentrations. The production of glycerol and pyruvic acid increased, and the 2-deoxytetronic acid NIST, 4-aminobutyric acid, pinitol and glyceric acid, presented lower concentrations because of the treatment with 25 and/or 50 ÞM of Monolaurin. Use of monolaurin modulated the immune response and metabolite production when administered for 24 h in a dual-chamber model inoculated with A. actinomycetemcomitans. In summary, this study indicates that monolaurin had antimicrobial activity and modulated the host immune response and metabolite production when administered for 24 h in a dual-chamber model inoculated with A. actinomycetemcomitans
Quality of steak restructured from beef trimmings containing microbial transglutaminase and impacted by freezing and grading by fat level
Objective The objective of this research was to evaluate the physico-chemical, microbiological and sensorial qualities of restructured steaks processed from beef trimmings (grade I and II) and frozen beef (fresh beef as control and frozen beef). Methods Beef trimmings from commercial butcher were collected, designated into 4 treatments differing in beef trimmings grade and freezing, processed into restructured steaks with 1% microbial transglutaminase and then analyzed for product quality. Results The results showed that all meat from different groups could be tightly bound together via cross-linking of myosin heavy chain and actin as observed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Microbial counts of psychrotrophic and mesophilic bacteria were not affected by treatments (p>0.05), and no detectable of thermophilic bacteria were found. Regarding effect of beef trimmings grade, steaks made from beef trimmings grade II (16.03% fat) showed some superior sensorial qualities including higher tenderness score (p<0.05) and tendency for higher scores of juiciness and overall acceptability (p<0.07) than those made from beef trimmings grade I (2.15% fat). Moreover, a hardness value from texture profile analysis was lower in steaks processed from beef trimmings grade II than those made from grade I (p< 0.05). Although some inferior qualities in terms of cooking loss and discoloration after cooking were higher in steaks made from beef trimmings grade II than those made from beef trimmings grade I (p<0.05), these differences did not affect the sensory evaluation. Frozen beef improved the soft texture and resulted in effective meat binding as considered by higher cohesiveness and springiness of the raw restructured product as compared to fresh beef (p<0.05). Conclusion The results indicated the most suitable raw beef for producing restructured steaks without detrimental effect on product quality was beef trimmings grade II containing up to 17% fat which positively affected the sensory quality and that frozen beef trimmings increased tenderness and meat binding of restructured beef steaks