Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Isolation, identification and potential probiotic characterization of lactic acid bacteria from Thai traditional fermented food

  • The probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from Thai traditional fermented food was investigated. Forty-two samples were collected from four markets in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province. Out of 50 isolated LAB, 6 (a3, f4, f8, K1, K4 and K9) obtained from pla-ra and bamboo shoot pickle samples showed high tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions. These isolates were selected to identify and characterize their probiotic properties. Isolate a3 was identified as Weissella thailandensis, isolates f4 and f8 were identified as belonging to Enterococcus thailandicus and isolates K1, K4 and K9 were determined as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. All six LAB exhibited high autoaggregation ability (93.40–95.01%), while W. thailandensis isolate a3 showed potential for coaggregation in almost all the pathogenic bacteria tested. Cell-free supernatant (CFS) obtained from all isolates did not inhibit Staphylococcus aureus. CFS derived from L. fermentum isolate K4 showed the most efficient antimicrobial activity, in particular against Gram-negative bacteria, while L. fermentum isolate K4 presented high surface hydrophobicity in the presence of xylene and n-hexane. All LAB isolates were found to be resistant to clindamycin and nalidixic acid, whereas E. thailandicus isolate f8 exhibited resistance to most of the antibiotics tested. L. fermentum isolate K4 showed promise as a suitable probiotic candidate for future applications in the food industry due to tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions with high surface hydrophobicity and inhibited most of the pathogens tested.

    Citation: Sunisa Suwannaphan. Isolation, identification and potential probiotic characterization of lactic acid bacteria from Thai traditional fermented food[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(4): 431-446. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021026

    Related Papers:

    [1] Thomas Bintsis . Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(4): 665-684. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.665
    [2] Hisako Nakagawa, Tadaaki Miyazaki . Beneficial effects of antioxidative lactic acid bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 1-7. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.1
    [3] Sukrita Punyauppa-path, Pongpat Kiatprasert, Jutaporn Sawaengkaew, Polson Mahakhan, Parichat Phumkhachorn, Pongsak Rattanachaikunsopon, Pannida Khunnamwong, Nantana Srisuk . Diversity of fermentative yeasts with probiotic potential isolated from Thai fermented food products. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 575-594. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022037
    [4] Smita H. Panda, Jyothsna Khanna Goli, Sushrirekha Das, NakulanandaMohanty . Production, optimization and probiotic characterization of potential lactic acid bacteria producing siderophores. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 88-107. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.88
    [5] Olena Livinska, Oksana Ivaschenko, Inna Garmasheva, Nadezhda Kovalenko . The screening of lactic acid bacteria with antioxidant properties. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(4): 447-459. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.4.447
    [6] Yen Thi Ngoc Phan, Minh Thuy Tang, Tu Thi Minh Tran, Van Huu Nguyen, Trang Hien Nguyen, Takeshi Tsuruta, Naoki Nishino . Diversity of lactic acid bacteria in vegetable-based and meat-based fermented foods produced in the central region of Vietnam. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(1): 61-70. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.61
    [7] Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 502-524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502
    [8] M Alegría Serna-Barrera, Claudia Bas-Bellver, Lucía Seguí, Noelia Betoret, Cristina Barrera . Exploring fermentation with lactic acid bacteria as a pretreatment for enhancing antioxidant potential in broccoli stem powders. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 255-272. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024013
    [9] Srisan Phupaboon, Farah J. Hashim, Parichat Phumkhachorn, Pongsak Rattanachaikunsopon . Molecular and biotechnological characteristics of proteolytic activity from Streptococcus thermophilus as a proteolytic lactic acid bacteria to enhance protein-derived bioactive peptides. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(4): 591-611. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023031
    [10] Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011
  • The probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from Thai traditional fermented food was investigated. Forty-two samples were collected from four markets in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province. Out of 50 isolated LAB, 6 (a3, f4, f8, K1, K4 and K9) obtained from pla-ra and bamboo shoot pickle samples showed high tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions. These isolates were selected to identify and characterize their probiotic properties. Isolate a3 was identified as Weissella thailandensis, isolates f4 and f8 were identified as belonging to Enterococcus thailandicus and isolates K1, K4 and K9 were determined as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. All six LAB exhibited high autoaggregation ability (93.40–95.01%), while W. thailandensis isolate a3 showed potential for coaggregation in almost all the pathogenic bacteria tested. Cell-free supernatant (CFS) obtained from all isolates did not inhibit Staphylococcus aureus. CFS derived from L. fermentum isolate K4 showed the most efficient antimicrobial activity, in particular against Gram-negative bacteria, while L. fermentum isolate K4 presented high surface hydrophobicity in the presence of xylene and n-hexane. All LAB isolates were found to be resistant to clindamycin and nalidixic acid, whereas E. thailandicus isolate f8 exhibited resistance to most of the antibiotics tested. L. fermentum isolate K4 showed promise as a suitable probiotic candidate for future applications in the food industry due to tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions with high surface hydrophobicity and inhibited most of the pathogens tested.



    Traditionally, fermented foods have been used to preserve and improve food flavor in many Asian countries. Thai traditional fermented foods are made from meat, fish, cereals, legumes, vegetables and fruits by several processes of natural fermentation. They have many health benefits as rich sources of bioactive compounds and probiotics. Two major sources of probiotic microorganisms are the gastrointestinal tract (humans, pigs, rats, poultry, marine and freshwater fishes) and fermented dairy products (kurat, kefir, koumiss, yogurt, sheep and cow milks and cheese). Plant and animal-based fermented foods also offer important alternatives to isolate probiotic bacteria for viable and useful applications [1]. Possible sources of probiotic candidates isolated in Thailand are derived from fermented fruits (buay-dorng, loog-pling-dorng, ma-kaam-dorng and poot-sa-dorng), fermented vegetables (phak-gard-dorng, horm-dorng, hooa-phak-gard-dorng, kra-tiam-dorng, ginger and bamboo shoot pickles), fermented soybeans (see-iu, tao-hoo-yee and tao-jieo), fermented fishes (pla-ra, nam-pla, bu-du, pla-chom, kung-chom, pla-uan and som fak), fermented shrimp and other sea foods (ka-pi, koei-cha-loo, koei-nam, koong som, hoi-kraeng-dorng, hoi-som and poo-khem) and fermented animals (mam, naem and sai-krok-prieo) [2][4].

    Probiotics are living organisms, and when administrated in sufficient amounts they confer health benefits on the host [5]. Recently, increased interest has been shown in probiotics in view of their recorded safe use and recognized effects on human health. Probiotics have diverse health benefits including promoting good digestion, enhancing resistance to infection, improving the immune system [6], restoring and balancing the gut microflora [7], pathogen interference, as anti-carcinogenic and anti-mutagenic agents and ameliorating the effects of diseases such as diabetes and antibiotic-associated acute diarrhea and constipation [8]. Most probiotic microorganisms emanate from Lactobacillus (L. bulgaricus, L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. paracasei, L. helveticus, L. lactis, L. salivarius, L. plantarum, L. gasseri, L. brevis, L. pentosus, L. rhamnosus, L. coryniformis and L. johnsonii), Limosilactobacillus (L. fermentum and L. reuteri), Bifidobacterium (B. animalis, B. longum, B. breve, B. bifidum and B. infantis), Leuconostoc (L. kimchi, L. mesenteroides and L. fallax), Weissella (W. koreenis, W. confusa and W. cibaria), Streptococcus (S. thermophilus), Pediococcus (P. pentosaceus), Enterococcus (E. faecalis and E. faecium) and Bacillus (B. siamensis, B. breve and B. clausii) [1],[9][11] as Gram-positive, with the main fermentation product as lactic acid [12]. Several researchers have isolated probiotic bacteria from Thai fermented food such as L. salivarius and L. paracasei from sai-krog-prieo, L. brevis from naem, phak-gard-dorng, som-fak and pla-som, L. fermentum from fermented fish, fermented pork and fermented tea leaves, L. plantarum from bamboo shoot pickle, phak-gard-dorng and sai-krog-prieo, P. halophilus from pla-ra, bu-du, hoi-som and ka-pi and B. siamensis from phak-dorng [4],[11]. Probiotic strains possess properties such as tolerance to gastrointestinal conditions (gastric, intestinal and bile acids). Other functional properties used to characterize probiotics are surface hydrophobicity, autoaggregation, coaggregation with pathogenic bacteria, antimicrobial activity and antibiotic susceptibility [13]. Nowadays, screening probiotic bacteria from fermented food has gained increasing attention to obtain new probiotic strains with satisfactory technological properties in the food industry [14]. Therefore, here, probiotic bacteria isolated from Thai traditional fermented food in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province were identified and their properties such as tolerance to simulated gastric juice and bile salt, autoaggregation, coaggregation, surface hydrophobicity, antimicrobial activity and antibiotic susceptibility were investigated.

    Forty-two samples of Thai traditional fermented food such as bamboo shoots and ginger pickles, phak-gard-dorng, pla-ra and Thai fermented pork sausage were collected from four markets in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province as Grand, Chao Phrom, DD and 4 Right Development. All samples were stored at 30 °C until required for use.

    LAB were isolated on MRS agar (HiMedia, India) supplemented with bromocresol purple as an indicator and incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h. Single bacterial colonies that produced a yellow zone were selected according to morphological differences. Gram-staining and catalase tests were carried out for 135 colonies. Only Gram-positive and catalase negative colonies were sub-cultured in MRS broth and kept in glycerol before experimental use.

    Tolerance to simulated gastric and intestinal fluid was evaluated according to the method of Arboleya et al. [15]. Briefly, cells of isolated LAB from 16 h MRS culture were harvested by centrifugation (7,500 × g at 4 °C for 10 min), washed twice with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) pH 7.4 and resuspended in 500 µL of the same buffer. A 100 µL aliquot of cell suspension was added to 900 µL of simulated gastric juice (NaCl 125 mM, KCl 7 mM, NaHCO3 45 mM and pepsin 3 g/L), with final pH adjusted to 2.5 or bile juice (45 mM NaCl, 1 g/L pancreatin and 3 g/L bile salt, adjusted to pH 8.0). Suspensions were then incubated at 37 °C for 2 h under anaerobic condition. The samples were aliquoted at time 0 and after 2 h. These samples were serially diluted in 0.85% NaCl and viable cells were counted by the spread plate method using MRS agar, and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. The percentage of LAB survival was determined as follows:

    Survival(%)=log CFU of viable cell after 2 h of incubation×100log CFU of initial viable cell

    Survival at more than 75% was considered tolerant to gastrointestinal conditions.

    Bacteria showing high tolerance to gastrointestinal conditions were molecularly identified using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and pure cultures were sequenced by Macrogen Inc (Seoul, Republic of South Korea). Primers 785F 5′ (GGATTAGATACCCTGGTA) 3′ and 907R 5′ (CCGTCAATTCMTTTRAGTTT) 3′ were used to amplify the 16S rDNA gene. The PCR reaction was carried out with 20 ng of genomic DNA as the template in a 30 µL reaction mixture using an EF-Tag (SolGent, Korea) as follows: activation of Taq polymerase at 95 °C for 2 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95 °C for 1 min, 55 °C, and 72 °C for 1 min each, with a final 10-min step at 72 °C. The amplification products were purified with a multiscreen filter plate (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA, USA). Sequencing reaction was performed using a PRISM BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit. DNA samples containing the extension products were added to Hi-Di formamide (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). The mixture was incubated at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 5 min on ice, and then analyzed by an ABI Prism 3730XL DNA analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). A homology search was performed using BLAST software, and 16S rDNA sequences of the isolated LAB were deposited in GenBank.

    Autoaggregation and coaggregation assays were determined according to Re et al. [16]. Isolated LAB were cultured at 37 °C for 16 h in MRS broth. The cells were harvested by centrifugation (7,500 × g at 4 °C for 10 min), washed twice, resuspended in PBS buffer pH 7.4 and adjusted for optical density at 600 nm of 1.0. The suspensions were then incubated at 37 °C for 4 h and 0.1 mL of the upper suspension was aliquoted and added to 1.9 mL PBS. The suspensions were measured at OD600 nm, with percentage autoaggregation evaluated as follows:

    Autoaggregation(%)=1(OD600of upper suspension)×100OD600of total isolated LAB suspension

    Coaggregation of isolated LAB and 8 pathogenic bacteria were investigated. Cell suspensions were prepared similarly to the autoaggregation evaluation. A 1 mL aliquot of isolated LAB was mixed with 1 mL of pathogenic strain and incubated at 37 °C for 4 h. The mixtures were measured at OD600 at time 0 and 4 h. Coaggregation percentage was calculated as follows:

    Coaggregation(%)=OD600of initial cellOD600of suspension after 4 h incubation×100OD600 of initial cell

    Surface hydrophobicity was measured according to Guan et al. [17]. The isolated LAB was grown in MRS broth at 37 °C for 24 h and the cell pellet was harvested by centrifugation. The cells were resuspended and washed twice in PBS buffer. The OD600 of suspension was adjusted to 0.5 ± 0.05, then 4 mL of cell suspension were mixed with 0.4 mL xylene or hexane, with PBS buffer used as the control. The aqueous phase was determined at OD600 after 1 h of incubation at room temperature. Surface hydrophobicity was calculated as follows:

    Surface hydrophobicity(%)=OD600of controlOD600of suspension after 1 h incubation×100OD600  of control

    Antibacterial activity of cell-free supernatant (CFS) of isolated LAB was investigated against eight pathogenic bacteria by the agar well diffusion method [18]. Overnight cultures of isolated LAB were collected by centrifugation (7,500 × g at 4 °C for 10 min). The CFS was divided into two groups. Group 1 was unadjusted for pH, while group 2 was adjusted to pH 6.5 using 1 N NaOH to eliminate inhibition from pH reduction. The CFS samples were filter-sterilized through 0.45 µm pore size filters.

    Eight intestinal pathogens including Escherichia coli ATCC25922, Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 14028, Enterobacter aerogenes ATCC 13048, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212, Enterococcus faecium ATCC35667, Shigella sonnei ATCC 25931 and Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883 were grown in Mueller-Hinton broth at 37 °C for 24 h. The OD600 was adjusted to 1 and spread on nutrient agar. Then, a hole with a diameter of 5 mm is punched aseptically with a sterile cork borer and 30 µL of CFS were added to each hole and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The diameter of the inhibition zone was measured, with Streptomycin (10 µg/mL) used as the control.

    The antibiotic susceptibility of isolated LAB was assessed using the agar well diffusion method according to Tagg and McGiven [18]. The isolated LAB was spread on MRS agar and antibiotic solution containing penicillin (10 µg), ampicillin (10 µg), amoxicillin (30 µg), clindamycin (2 µg) and nalidixic acid (30 µg) was added to each well. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h and the inhibition zones were measured. Results were interpreted according to the cut-off levels proposed by Charteris et al. [19].

    All experiments were carried out in triplicate. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., USA). Duncan's multiple range test was used to determine the level of significant differences (P < 0.05).

    Fifty colonies were isolated from 42 samples on MRS agar. Among these Gram-positive and catalase-negative strains, 26 strains were isolated from pla-ra obtained from all four markets, 19 strains were obtained from bamboo shoot pickles obtained from Chao Phrom and four Right Development markets, 3 strains from phak-gard-dorng obtained from Chao Phrom market and 2 strains from Thai fermented pork sausage obtained from four Right Development market. LAB were not observed from ginger pickle (Table 1). Results showed that pla-ra and bamboo shoot pickle were the main sources of LAB, concurring with Miyashita et al. [20] who isolated LAB from 144 kinds of pla-ra belonging to Aerococcus viridans, Enterococcus avium, E. faecalis, E. faecium, E. hirae, E. thailandicus, L. plantarum, L. lactis, L. paracasei, Pediococcus pentosaceus, P. acidilactici, Tetragenococcus halophilus, W. cibaria, W. confusa, W. paramesenteroides and W. viridescens. Rodpai et al. [21] also reported that Tetragenococcus, Halanaerobium and Lactobacillus were the dominant bacteria in pla-ra from Northeastern Thailand, while Thakur et al. [22], Lindayani et al. [23] and Mir et al. [24] isolated Lactobacillus spp. and Streptococcus spp. from bamboo shoot pickle and L. plantarum from fermented vegetables. All isolates were used to further investigate intolerance to simulated gastrointestinal conditions.

    Table 1.  Isolation of LAB from Thai tradition fermented food in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya Province.
    Market Fermented food Samples Number Isolates
    Grand Phak-gard-dorng 3 0
    Bamboo shoots pickles 2 0
    Pla-ra 3 5 H1, H2, H3, H4, H6

    Chao Phrom Phak-gard-dorng 4 3 S2, S4, S6
    Bamboo shoots pickles 4 13 K1, K2, K4, K5, K6, K8, K9, K10, L1, Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6
    Pla-ra 3 6 N4, N5, O5, P1, P3, P5

    DD Phak-gard-dorng 3 0
    Bamboo shoots pickles 3 0
    Ginger pickles 1 0
    Pla-ra 5 10 a3, b6, f1, f3, f4, f6, f7, f8, f9, f10

    4 Right Development Phak-gard-dorng 3 0
    Bamboo shoots pickles 3 6 k1, m1, m2, m3, m4, m5
    Ginger pickles 1 0
    Pla-ra 3 5 q2, t1, t2, t4, t5
    Thai fermented pork sausage (Sai-krog-prieo) 1 2 x1, x2

    Total 42 50

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    High tolerance capabilities against simulated gastric juice and bile salt were associated with the bilayer membrane structure, which enables easy tolerance of inverse condition [25]. A 75% survival rate of LAB after 2 h of incubation in simulated gastric juice and bile salt was considered the cut-off level for tolerance. Fifty isolates from Thai traditional fermented food showed varied tolerance to simulated gastric juice and bile salt. Most isolates exhibited low survival in simulated gastric juice, and these isolates were not further tested. The remaining three isolates (a3, f4 and f8) from pla-ra and three isolates (K1, K4 and K9) from bamboo shoot pickle showed high tolerance to acidic condition with survival rate of 78.47–93.01%. Isolate f4 showed the strongest tolerance to simulated gastric juice in comparison with the other isolates (Table 2). Resistant to bile salt is a significant property of a potential probiotic because the small intestine and colon have high concentrations of bile salt that is toxic to cells. Most LAB isolates displayed tolerance to bile salt at higher than 75% survival, except isolates H4, H6, K5, K6, K8, S2, S4, t4, t5 and q2. Out of the 50 isolates, 6 were selected for identification with their higher tolerances to gastrointestinal tract conditions.

    Table 2.  Tolerance to simulated gastric juice and bile salt of LAB isolates.
    Isolate Tolerance to gastric juice (%) Tolerance to bile salt (%) Isolate Tolerance to gastric juice (%) Tolerance to bile salt (%)
    a3 78.47 ± 0.13 93.31 ± 0.32 m2 14.30 ± 0.14 97.87 ± 0.84
    b6 13.84 ± 0.79 79.87 ± 0.58 m3 49.09 ± 0.08 99.87 ± 0.56
    f1 70.90 ± 0.06 98.15 ± 1.17 m4 41.78 ± 2.18 86.65 ± 0.33
    f3 64.33 ± 0.93 78.68 ± 0.13 m5 12.13 ± 0.46 99.44 ± 1.25
    f4 93.01 ± 0.12 91.63 ± 1.84 N4 12.33 ± 1.56 99.84 ± 0.00
    f6 54.51 ± 0.31 85.75 ± 0.02 N5 11.56 ± 0.78 95.36 ± 1.77
    f7 73.61 ± 0.03 89.62 ± 0.89 O5 50.58 ± 0.44 93.51 ± 0.82
    f8 83.42 ± 0.76 93.70 ± 0.35 P1 11.10 ± 0.16 91.09±1.68
    f9 40.85 ± 1.64 94.46 ± 0.40 P3 55.89 ± 0.23 90.41 ± 1.24
    f10 57.29 ± 0.16 99.19 ± 0.09 P5 10.92 ± 0.16 83.71 ± 2.18
    H1 63.73 ± 1.02 89.98 ± 0.93 Q1 74.34 ± 0.32 93.78 ± 1.32
    H2 46.78 ± 0.41 99.48 ± 0.33 Q2 70.42 ± 0.30 94.42 ± 2.12
    H3 56.41 ± 1.59 91.91 ± 1.48 Q4 65.72 ± 0.66 99.13 ± 0.14
    H4 63.75 ± 0.04 64.39 ± 1.72 Q6 69.69 ± 0.03 99.58 ± 0.27
    H6 72.97 ± 0.42 55.43 ± 0.97 S2 9.21 ± 2.11 48.51 ± 2.49
    K1 81.85 ± 0.25 95.21 ± 2.31 S4 11.48 ± 0.16 71.07 ± 0.87
    K2 12.98 ± 0.35 95.93 ± 0.46 S6 10.25 ± 2.12 97.38 ± 0.18
    K4 90.75 ± 0.05 94.62 ± 2.80 t1 44.32 ± 0.95 83.97 ± 0.42
    K5 70.09 ± 0.19 55.11 ± 2.83 t2 11.52 ± 0.31 75.13 ± 1.31
    K6 54.03 ± 0.56 67.32 ± 6.21 t4 43.96 ± 0.19 55.21 ± 3.22
    K9 78.50 ± 0.06 89.94 ± 1.73 t5 42.18 ± 0.23 57.82 ± 2.12
    K8 55.41 ± 0.33 19.63 ± 2.25 x1 49.70 ± 0.10 77.34 ± 1.22
    K10 54.83 ± 0.07 98.88 ± 1.81 x2 46.88 ± 0.58 79.08 ± 0.56
    L1 10.87 ± 0.16 96.39 ± 0.48 k1 10.21 ± 3.12 94.08 ± 0.67
    m1 13.94 ± 0.18 83.39 ± 0.18 q2 9.23 ± 0.93 63.15 ± 3.95

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Isolate a3 was identified as Weissella thailandensis, whereas isolates f4 and f8 were identified as belonging to Enterococcus thailandicus (Table 3). W. thailandensis and E. thailandicus were previously isolated from pla-chom and fermented sausage (mum) in Thailand, respectively [26],[27]. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first report of isolation of W. thailandensis and E. thailandicus from pla-ra. Isolates K1, K4 and K9 were determined as belonging to Limosilactobacillus fermentum, consistent with Chen et al. [28] and Behera and Balaji [29] who reported that L. fermentum was isolated from jiang-sun (fermented bamboo shoot) in Taiwan and dry fermented bamboo shoot in India, respectively. The high potential tolerance in simulated gastric juice of E. thailandicus isolates f4, f8 and L. fermentum isolates K1, K4 and K9 concurred with Hanghshenas et al. [30] who reported that Enterococcus and Lactobacillus strains showed high (51–82%) and moderate survival rates (71–76%) at low pH values, respectively. This finding suggested that these 6 isolates have the potential to survive in the human gastrointestinal tract and can likely survive passage through the stomach and small and large intestines.

    Table 3.  Identification of LAB with high tolerance in simulated gastric juice and bile salt.
    Isolates Genus Identities (%) GenBank ID of reference strain Accession number
    a3 W. thailandensis 99 LC097077.1 MZ577177
    f4 E. thailandicus 99 LT223669.1 MZ577179
    f8 E. thailandicus 100 LT223669.1 MZ577180
    K1 L. fermentum 99 MK418588.1 MZ577182
    K4 L. fermentum 100 MN589591.1 MZ577208
    K9 L. fermentum 100 MN589591.1 MZ577210

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The autoaggregation property of probiotics plays a major role in the colonization of host epithelial cells, resulting in improvement of host defense mechanisms against the gut [31]. Autoaggregation at higher than 40% is required for a potential probiotic strain [32]. Six LAB exhibited autoaggregation ranging from 93.40–95.01%, demonstrating good adhesion ability (Table 4). There were no significant differences in autoaggregation among the six isolates. Autoaggregation of E. thailandicus isolates f4 and f8 and L. fermentum isolates K1, K4 and K9 were 93.40–94.83% and 94.57–95.01%, respectively and higher than those of Enterococcus spp. from fermented sausage (29.0–67.0%) [33] and Lactobacilli from cocoa fermentation (31.18%) [34]. Results implied that these isolates can protect themselves from environmental stresses, and have the capacity to survive in gastrointestinal tract conditions [35]. Coaggregation is related to the ability to interact with other bacteria to form a barrier that prevents colonization by pathogenic bacteria. W. thailandensis isolate a3 showed higher coaggregation with other pathogenic bacterial LAB isolates, except with E. faecalis and K. pneumoniae, while E. thailandicus isolates f4 and L. fermentum isolate K4 and K9 had low coaggregation ability against pathogenic bacteria. All LAB isolates showed the highest coaggregation with S. aureus (10.15–38.50%), while L. fermentum K1, K4 and K9 aggregated with E. coli (5.56–8.62%) at a lower level than L. plantarum aggregation with E. coli O157:H7 (21.49–27.25%) [36]. Results indicated that isolate a3 prevented colonization of most pathogenic bacteria on the intestine.

    Table 4.  Autoaggregation and coaggregation ability of LAB isolates against pathogenic bacteria.
    Isolate Autoaggregation (%) Coaggregation (%)
    E. coli S. aureus Salmonella Typhimurium E. aerogenes E. faecalis E. faecium S. sonnei K. pneumoniae
    a3 95.00 ± 0.09* 11.73 ± 1.84Ba 38.50 ± 0.45Aa 14.36 ± 4.48Ba 4.95 ± 0.10C* 3.13 ± 0.39Cc 10.01 ± 2.92Ba 12.06 ± 1.14Ba 2.60 ± 0.41Cd
    f4 94.83 ± 0.30* 5.13 ± 0.94Cc 12.94 ± 1.35Acd 12.13 ± 0.90Aa 5.86 ± 0.95BC* 8.08 ± 1.31Ba 5.46 ± 1.67Cb 4.97 ± 0.55Cc 5.73 ± 0.90BCc
    f8 93.40 ± 0.33* 9.01 ± 0.32Bb 15.62 ± 2.66Ac 14.93 ± 3.35Aa 8.07 ± 1.84B* 5.72 ± 0.70Babc 9.11 ± 1.74Bab 2.24 ± 1.52Cd 8.25 ± 0.20Bb
    K1 95.01 ± 0.28* 8.62 ± 0.81ABb 23.23 ± 3.76Ab 5.48 ± 1.56Cb 7.93 ± 1.62BC* 6.65 ± 0.27BCab 7.07 ± 1.56BCab 7.70 ± 0.73BCb 10.38 ± 0.69Ba
    K4 94.57 ± 0.06* 7.15 ± 1.17Bbc 11.83 ± 0.38Acd 10.74 ± 1.95Aa 7.44 ± 1.30B* 4.35 ± 0.87Cbc 8.05 ± 1.16Bab 6.11 ± 0.10BCbc 6.24 ± 0.33BCc
    K9 94.62 ± 0.15* 5.56 ± 0.74Cc 10.15 ± 2.07ABd 12.41 ± 2.17Aa 7.48 ± 0.17BC* 5.61 ± 1.81Cabc 5.76 ± 0.13Cb 5.69 ± 1.22Cbc 5.81 ± 0.07Cc

    Lowercase letters indicate significant differences in percentage coaggregation among the 6 isolates against the same pathogenic bacteria (P < 0.05). Capital letters indicate significant differences in percentage coaggregation of each isolate against 8 pathogenic bacteria (P < 0.05).

    *indicates no significant difference in percentage autoaggregation or coaggregation (P > 0.05).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Significant differences in surface hydrophobicity values were found between LAB, even within the same species. L. fermentum isolate K4 showed high surface hydrophobic values as 39.15% and 78.09% with xylene and n-hexane, respectively (Figure 1). These values were lower and higher than Kocabay et al. [37], who reported surface hydrophobicity in the presence of xylene at 63.94% and n-hexane 57.59%, respectively. Surface hydrophobic values of L. fermentum isolate K4 also differed from Tamang and Tamang [38] who reported that L. fermentum isolated from fermented bamboo products of Arunachal Pradesh in India did not have a hydrophobic nature. Results indicated that L. fermentum isolate K4 may favor strong colonization through interaction with the organic mucin layer of the gut and play an important role in the adhesion of bacteria to epithelial cells [39]. E. thailandicus isolate f4 had surface hydrophobicity value of 42.83% in the presence of n-hexane, higher than reported by Santos et al. [40] who noted that E. faecium EM485 and E. faecium EM 925 had surface hydrophobicity values of 8.18% and 11.33% in the presence of n-hexadecane, respectively. Although, both xylene and n-hexane were non-polar solvents, most LAB isolates had higher surface hydrophobicity values with n-hexane than xylene, except W. thailandensis isolate a3 and L. fermentum isolate K9 that had surface hydrophobicity of 0% in the presence of both organic solvents. This finding differed from Xiong et al. [41] who reported that W. confusa possessed high surface hydrophobicity.

    Figure 1.  Surface hydrophobicity of LAB in the presence of xylene □ and █ n-hexane. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences in surface hydrophobicity percentages among 6 isolates in the presence of xylene or n-hexane (P < 0.05). Capital letters indicate significant differences in surface hydrophobicity percentages of each isolate in the presence of xylene and n-hexane (P < 0.05). *indicates no significant difference in surface hydrophobicity percentage (P > 0.05).

    The antibacterial activity of CFS samples of all LAB disappeared when they were neutralized at pH 6.5 (data not shown). Results concurred with Zeng et al. [42] who reported that CFS from L. plantarum strains neutralized at pH 5.5 did not inhibit pathogenic bacteria. This finding suggested that antimicrobial activity of CFS derived from LAB was mainly due to organic acids such as lactic, formic and acetic acids that also play a role during growth in gastrointestinal tract conditions [43]. No CFS was obtained from 6 LAB that inhibited S. aureus, which is a Gram-positive bacteria because Gram-positive pathogens were less sensitive than Gram-negative pathogens (Table 5). This result concurred with Hartayanie et al. [2] who reported that Lactobacillus A1, A13, A17 and A19 isolated from bamboo shoot pickle had no antimicrobial capability against S. aureus, while Haghshenas et al. [30] noted that Gram-positive pathogens (B. cereus subsp. Kenyae PTCC 1539 and E. faecalis PTCC 1394) were more resistant than Gram-negative pathogens (K. pneumoniae PTCC 1053 and Serratia marcescens PTCC 1187). CFS samples without adjusting the pH obtained from W. thailandensis isolate a3 and E. thailandicus isolate f8 did not inhibit all pathogenic bacteria tested. L. fermentum isolates K9 and K4 showed the largest antimicrobial spectrum, exhibiting inhibitory activity against 4 and 6 pathogenic bacteria tests, respectively. This result concurred with Haghshenas et al. [30] who reported that Lactobacillus strains exhibited better anti-pathogenic activity due to excretion of organic acid, hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins and biosurfactant.

    Table 5.  In vitro inhibition of pathogenic bacteria by LAB isolates.
    Isolate Diameter of inhibition zones (mm)
    Escherichia coli Staphylococcus aureus Salmonella Typhimurium Enterobacter aerogenes Enterococcus faecalis Enterococcus faecium Shigella sonnei Klebsiella pneumoniae
    a3 0.00 ± 0.00*d 0.00 ± 0.00** 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*c 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*c 0.00 ± 0.00*c
    f4 0.00 ± 0.00Bd 0.00 ± 0.00B* 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00Bc 0.00 ± 0.00Bb 0.00 ± 0.00Bb 10.00 ± 0.00Aa 0.00 ± 0.00Bc
    f8 0.00 ± 0.00*d 0.00 ± 0.00** 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*c 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*b 0.00 ± 0.00*c 0.00 ± 0.00*c
    K1 7.50 ± 0.70Ac 0.00 ± 0.00B* 0.00 ± 0.00Bb 0.00 ± 0.00Bc 0.00 ± 0.00Bb 0.00 ± 0.00Bb 0.00 ± 0.00Bc 0.00 ± 0.00Bc
    K4 9.00 ± 0.00Cb 0.00 ± 0.00D* 9.30 ± 0.50Ba 9.00 ± 0.00Cb 0.00 ± 0.00Db 9.00 ± 0.80Ca 9.00 ± 0.00Cb 11.00 ± 0.70Aa
    K9 9.90 ± 0.80Ba 0.00 ± 0.00C* 0.00 ± 0.00Cb 10.00 ± 0.00Aa 10.00 ± 0.00Aa 0.00 ± 0.00Cb 0.00 ± 0.00Cc 10.00 ± 0.00Ab
    Streptomycin 16.40 ± 1.50 17.00 ± 1.80 12.70 ± 0.50 21.00 ± 0.00 39.00 ± 1.10 23.20 ± 3.20 16.30 ± 3.70 18.70 ± 1.10

    Lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the diameter of the CFS inhibition zone obtained from the 6 isolates against the same pathogenic bacteria (P < 0.05).

    Capital letters indicate significant differences in diameter of the inhibition zone of CFS obtained from each isolate against the 8 pathogenic bacteria (P < 0.05).

    *indicates no significant difference in the diameter of the inhibition zone (P > 0.05).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All LAB isolates were resistant against clindamycin and nalidixic acid, as antibiotics that inhibited protein synthesis and nucleic acid synthesis, respectively. They were also susceptible or moderately susceptible to ampicillin (Table 6). W. thailandensis isolate a3 and E. thailandicus isolates f4 and f8 exhibited resistance to penicillin. W. thailandensis isolate a3 had a different antibiotic susceptibility profile than the profile reported by Kamboj et al. [44]. They found that Weissella spp. exhibited susceptibility to penicillin and clindamycin, while E. thailandicus isolates f4 and f8 had different results from those reported by Wu et al. [45] who noted that E. thailandicus TC1 was found to be susceptible to penicillin. E. thailandicus isolate f8 showed high potential for resistance to 4 out of 5 antibiotics, whereas L. fermentum isolates K1, K4 and K9 only exhibited resistance to clindamycin and nalidixic acid. This result differed from EgervÄrn et al. [46] who indicated that L. plantarum exhibited low minimum inhibitory concentration (MICs) for ampicillin and clindamycin.

    Table 6.  Antibiotic resistant of isolated LAB.
    Isolates Antibiotic
    Penicillin Ampicillin Amoxicillin Clindamycin Nalidixic acid
    a3 R S MS R R
    f4 R S MS R R
    f8 R MS R R R
    K1 MS S S R R
    K4 MS S MS R R
    K9 MS S MS R R

    Susceptibility is expressed as R (resistant), MS (moderate susceptible) or S (susceptible).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Pla-ra and bamboo shoot pickle from markets in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya were identified as major sources for isolation of LAB. Six isolating of LAB showing high tolerance to gastrointestinal tract conditions were identified as W. thailandensis, E. thailandicus and L. fermentum. L. fermentum isolate K4 showed outstanding probiotic properties such as tolerance to simulated gastric juice and bile salt with survival of 90.75 and 94.64%, high surface hydrophobicity, inhibition of various pathogenic bacteria and resistance to clindamycin and nalidixic acids. Isolate K4 showed potential as a candidate for further in vivo investigations to evaluate potential health benefits and safety assessment of probiotics for applications in the food industry.


    Acknowledgments



    The author would like to thank graduate student Miss Suteema Phanit who kindly assisted in data collection and analysis.

    Conflict of interest



    The author declares no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Fontana L, Bermudez-Brito M, Plaza-Diaz J, et al. (2013) Sources, isolation, characterization and evaluation of probiotics. Br J Nutr 109: 35-50.
    [2] Hartayanie L, Lindayani, Murniati MP (2016) Antimicrobial activity of Lactic acid bacteria from bamboo shoot pickles fermented at 15 °C. Microbiol Indones 10: 71-77.
    [3] Ayyash M, Liu SQ, Mheiri AA, et al. (2019) In vitro investigation of health-promoting benefits of fermented camel sausage by novel probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum: A comparative study with beef sausage. LWT-Food Sci Technol 99: 346-354.
    [4] Yongsmith B, Malaphan W (2016) Traditional Fermented Foods in Thailand. Traditional Foods New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 31-58.
    [5] FAO/WHO FAO/WHO working group report on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food, London, Ontario, Canada, April 30 and May 1, World Health Organization (2002) .Available from: https://www.who.int/foodsafety/\fs_management/en/probiotic_guidelines.pdf.
    [6] Abulfazl B (2012) Isolation and molecular study of potentially probiotic lactobacilli in traditional white cheese of Tabriz in iran. Ann Biol Res 3: 2213-2216.
    [7] Arshad FA, Mehmood R, Hussain S (2018) Lactobacilli as probiotics and their isolation from different sources. Br J Res 5: 1-11.
    [8] Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, et al. (2017) The International scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Expert Consensus Statement 14: 491-502.
    [9] Musikasang H, Tani A, H-kittikun A, et al. (2009) Probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from chicken gastrointestinal digestive tract. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 25: 1337-1345.
    [10] Ranadheera RDCS, Baines SK, Adams MC (2010) Importance of food in probiotic efficacy. Food Res Int 43: 1-7.
    [11] Sivamaruthi BS, Kesika P, Chaiyasut C (2018) Thai fermented foods as a versatile source of bioactive microorganisms-A comprehensive review. Sci Pharm 86: 2-11.
    [12] Yadav R (2017) Probiotics for Human Health. Current Progress and Applications. Recent advances in Applied Microbiology Singapore: Springer, 133-147.
    [13] Soccol CR, Vandenberghe LPDS, Spier MR, et al. (2010) The potential of probiotics: A review. Food Technol Biotechnol 48: 413-434.
    [14] Hoque MZ, Akter F, Hossain KM, et al. (2010) Isolation, identification and analysis of probiotic properties of Lactobacillus spp. From selective regional yoghurts. World J Dairy Food Sci 5: 39-46.
    [15] Arboleya S, Ruas-Madiedo P, Margolles A, et al. (2011) Characterization and in vitro properties of potentially probiotic Bifidobacterium strains isolated from breast-milk. Int J Food Microbiol 149: 28-36.
    [16] Re BD, Sgorbati B, Miglioli M, et al. (2000) Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longumLett Appl Microbiol 31: 438-442.
    [17] Guan C, Chen X, Jiang X, et al. (2020) In vitro studies of adhesion properties of six lactic acid bacteria isolated from the longevous population of China. RSC Adv 10: 24234-24240.
    [18] Tagg JR, McGiven AR (1971) Assay system for bacteriocins. Appl Microbiol 21: 943.
    [19] Charteris WP, Kelly PM, Morelli L, et al. (1998) Antibiotic susceptibility of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus species. J Food Prot 61: 1636-1643.
    [20] Miyashita M, Yukphan P, Chaipitakchonlatarn W, et al. (2012) 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented foods in Thailand. Microbiol Cult Coll 28: 1-9.
    [21] Rodpai R, Sanpool O, Thanchomnang, et al. (2021) Investigating the microbiota of fermented fish products (Pla-ra) from different communities of northeastern Thailand. PLos One 16: e0245227.
    [22] Thakur K, Rajani CS, Kumar S, et al. (2016) Fermented bamboo shoots: a riche niche for beneficial microbes. J Bacteriol Mycol 2: 87-93.
    [23] Lindayani L, Hartayanie L, Murniati MP (2018) Probiotic potential of lactic acid bacteria from yellow bamboo shoot fermentation using 2.5% and 5% brine at room temperature. Microbiol Indones 12: 30-34.
    [24] Mir SA, Raja J, Masoodi FA (2018) Fermented vegetables, a rich repository of beneficial probiotics-a review. Ferment Technol 7: 1-6.
    [25] Ben SR, Trabelsi I, Ben MR, et al. (2012) A new Lactobacillus plantarum strain, TN8, from the gastro intestinal tract of poultry induces high cytokine production. Anaerobe 18: 436-444.
    [26] Tanasupawat S, Shida O, Okada S, et al. (2000) Lactobacillus acidipiscis sp. nov. and Weissella thailandensis sp. nov., isolated from fermented fish in Thailand. Int J Syst Evol 50: 1479-1485.
    [27] Tanasupawat S, Sukontasing S, Lee JS (2008) Enterococcus thailandicus sp. nov., isolated from fermented sausage (‘mum’) in Thailand. Int J Syst Evol 58: 1630-1634.
    [28] Chen YS, Wu HC, Liu CH, et al. (2010) Isolation and characterization of lactic acid bacteria from jiang-sun (fermented bamboo shoots), a traditional fermented food in Taiwan. J Sci Food Agric 90: 1977-1982.
    [29] Behera P, Balaji S (2021) Health benefits of fermented bamboo shoots: The twenty-first century green gold of northeast India. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 193: 1800-1802.
    [30] Haghshenas B, Nami Y, Almasi A, et al. (2017) Isolation and characterization of probiotics from dairies. Iran J Microbiol 9: 234-243.
    [31] Abrunhosa L, Inês A, Rodrigues AI, et al. (2014) Biodegradation of ochratoxin A by Pediococcus parvulus isolated from Douro wines. Int J Food Microbiol 188: 45-52.
    [32] Roghmann MC, McGrail L (2006) Novel ways of preventing antibiotic-resistant infections: What might the future hold? Am J Infect Control 34: 469-475.
    [33] Alkalbani NS, Turner MS, Ayyash MM (2019) Isolation, identification, and potential probiotic characterization of isolated lactic acid bacteria and in vitro investigation of cytotoxicity, antioxidant, and antidiabetic activities in fermented sausage. Microb Cell Fact 18: 3-12.
    [34] Pessoa WFB, Melgaco ACC, de Almeida ME, et al. (2017) In vitro activity of Lactobacilli with probiotic potential isolated from cocoa fermentation against Gardnerella vaginalisBiomed Res Int 2017: 1-10.
    [35] Trunk T, Khalil HS, Leo JC (2018) Bacterial autoaggregation. Microbiology 4: 140-164.
    [36] Tuo Y, Yu H, Ai L, et al. (2013) Aggregation and adhesion properties of 22 Lactobacillus strains. J Dairy Sci 96: 4252-4257.
    [37] Kocabay S, Çetinkaya S (2020) Probiotic properties of a Lactobacillus fermentum isolated from new-born faeces. J Oleo Sci 69: 1579-1584.
    [38] Tamang B, Tamang JP (2009) Lactic acid bacteria isolated from indigenous fermented bamboo products of Arunachal Pradesh in India and their functionality. Food Biotechnol 23: 133-147.
    [39] He X, Lux R, Kuramitsu HK, et al. (2009) Achieving probiotic effects via modulating oral microbial ecology. Adv Dent Res 21: 53-56.
    [40] Santos KMO, Vieira ADS, Salles HO, et al. (2015) Safety, beneficial and technological properties of Enterococcus faecium isolated from Brazilian cheeses. Braz J Microbiol 46: 237-249.
    [41] Xiong L, Ni X, Niu L, et al. (2019) Isolation and preliminary screening of a Weissella confusa strain from giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 11: 535-544.
    [42] Zeng Y, Li Y, Wu QP, et al. (2020) Evaluation of the antibacterial activity and probiotic potential of Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from Chinese homemade pickles. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2020: 1-11.
    [43] Powthong P, Suntornthicharoen P (2015) Isolation, identification and analysis of probiotic properties of lactic acid bacteria from selective various traditional Thai fermented food and kefir. Pak J Nutr 14: 67-74.
    [44] Kamboj K, Vasquez A, Balada-Liasat JM (2015) Identification and significance of Weissella species infections. Front Microbiol 6: 1-7.
    [45] Wu Z, Wu B, Li Y, et al. (2021) Identification and safety assessment of Enterococcus thailandicus TC1 isolated from healthy pigs. PLoS One 16: e0254081.
    [46] EgervÄrn M, Danielsen M, Roos F, et al. (2007) Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus fermentumJ Food Prot 70: 412-418.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Xi-han Sun, Xin Qi, Yu-di Han, Zhi-jun Guo, Cheng-bi Cui, Chang-qing Lin, Characteristics of changes in volatile organic compounds and microbial communities during the storage of pickles, 2023, 409, 03088146, 135285, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.135285
    2. Bhagavathi Sundaram Sivamaruthi, Karthikeyan Alagarsamy, Natarajan Suganthy, Subramanian Thangaleela, Periyanaina Kesika, Chaiyavat Chaiyasut, The Role and Significance of Bacillus and Lactobacillus Species in Thai Fermented Foods, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 635, 10.3390/fermentation8110635
    3. Şeyma Suyabatmaz, Şengül Alpay Karaoğlu, Arif Bozdeveci, Rahşan Akpınar, Honeybee-associated lactic acid bacteria and their probiotic potential for human use, 2023, 39, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-022-03427-w
    4. Sadia Ahmed, Sargun Singh, Vaidhvi Singh, Kyle D. Roberts, Arsalan Zaidi, Alexander Rodriguez-Palacios, The Weissella Genus: Clinically Treatable Bacteria with Antimicrobial/Probiotic Effects on Inflammation and Cancer, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 2427, 10.3390/microorganisms10122427
    5. Hacer Meral Aktaş, Ahmet Erdoğan, Characterization of technological properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from Turkish Beyaz (white) cheese, 2022, 46, 0145-8892, 10.1111/jfpp.16837
    6. Adnan Mehmood, Muhammad Nawaz, Masood Rabbani, Muhammad Hassan Mushtaq, In Vitro Characterization of Probiotic Potential of Limosilactobacillus fermentum against Salmonella Gallinarum Causing Fowl Typhoid, 2023, 13, 2076-2615, 1284, 10.3390/ani13081284
    7. Kamila Rachwał, Klaudia Gustaw, Ilona Sadok, Enhancing Food Sustainability through Probiotics Isolated from Fermented Cauliflower, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 8340, 10.3390/su16198340
    8. Meng Hou, Yabin Lu, Mengjun Ye, Na Li, Yawei Sun, Gang Yao, Jinquan Wang, Fangfang Yin, Qimin Peng, Sheng Jia, Rui Shi, Xuxiang Wang, Characterization and Assessment of Sheep-Origin Probiotic Bacillus licheniformis B63 Strain for Potential Use in Intestinal Health and Disease, 2023, 1867-1306, 10.1007/s12602-023-10172-5
    9. Manisha Sethi, Arjun OK, Jayalaxmi Dash, Deepti Parida, Salona Kar, Swayambara Mishra, Aliva P. Minz, Anubhab Padhi, Kirti Ranjan Das, Biswaranjan Pradhan, Tulika Prakash, Shantibhusan Senapati, Whole Genome Mining and Characterization of a New Probiotic Strain Levilactobacillus brevis ILSH3 from Handia: An Ethnic Fermented Beverage of Odisha, India, 2024, 1867-1306, 10.1007/s12602-024-10217-3
    10. Mostafa Rahmati-Joneidabad, Behrooz Alizadeh Behbahani, Morteza Taki, Mohammad Ali Hesarinejad, Omer Said Toker, Evaluation of the probiotic, anti-microbial, anti-biofilm, and safety properties of Levilactobacillus brevis Lb13H, 2024, 207, 00236438, 116636, 10.1016/j.lwt.2024.116636
    11. G. Adithi, S. Divyashree, B. Shruthi, N. Deepa, M.Y. Sreenivasa, Evaluation of Limosilactobacillus fermentum MYSAGAM1 isolated from herbal Amla juice as a probiotic candidate with antifungal characteristics against Fusarium equiseti, 2024, 58, 22124292, 103843, 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.103843
    12. Suroshree Bhattacharyya, Dharitri Borgohain, Green gold (Bamboo) fermentation: A traditional approach to combat modern diseases, 2023, 30, 0971-9415, 154, 10.54207/bsmps2000-2023-C57W9Z
    13. Adalet Dışhan, Zafer Gonulalan, ACID-RESISTANT LIMOSILACTOBACILLUS FERMENTUM ISOLATES RECOVERED FROM FERMENTED TURKISH SUCUK: SCREENING OF PROBIOTIC CHARACTERIZATION AND PHYLOGENY, 2024, 49, 1300-3070, 312, 10.15237/gida.GD23139
    14. Subrota Hati, Krupali Ramanuj, Bethsheba Basaiawmoit, V. Sreeja, Ruchika Maurya, Mahendra Bishnoi, Kanthi Kiran Kondepudi, Birendrakumar Mishra, Safety aspects, probiotic potentials of yeast and lactobacillus isolated from fermented foods in North-Eastern India, and its anti-inflammatory activity, 2023, 54, 1517-8382, 2073, 10.1007/s42770-023-01093-0
    15. David Nugroho, Reggie Surya, Jirapad Janshongsawang, Aphinya Thinthasit, Rachadaporn Benchawattananon, Som tum, the famous ethnic food of Thailand: its benefit and innovations, 2023, 10, 2352-6181, 10.1186/s42779-023-00204-4
    16. Xiya Zhang, Aixia Wang, Hanlin Yao, Wenling Zhou, Manxing Wang, Bangqi Liang, Fengzhong Wang, Li-Tao Tong, Research advancements on the flavor compounds formation mechanism of pickled bamboo shoots in river snails rice noodles, 2023, 186, 00236438, 115226, 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115226
    17. Yuan Liu, Chen Yin, Jian Wang, Weihai Xing, Yali Huang, Zhiyu Yan, Jiachen Chen, Yu Han, Weiran Zhu, Yidi Zhao, Kai Zhang, Tingting Tian, Xinru Guo, Lin Yuan, Yang Liu, Characterization of the microbial communities and their correlations with volatile flavor compounds and physicochemical factors in Bashang suancai, a traditional Chinese pickle, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1478207
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5333) PDF downloads(370) Cited by(17)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(6)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog