Abstract
The demand for functional foods is increasing each year because consumers are gaining awareness about the importance of a healthy diet in the proper functioning of the body. Probiotics are among the most commonly known, commercialized, and studied foods. However, the loss of viability of probiotic products is observed during their formulation, processing, and storage. This study aimed to investigate the co-encapsulation of two Lactobacillus paracasei probiotic strains (LBC81 and ELBAL) with fructooligosaccharides (FOS) in a calcium alginate matrix using extrusion technology with gelatin as a coating material. The viability of the strains under gastrointestinal conditions and in storage at low temperature was also assessed. An immobilization yield of more than 59% was observed for both bacterial strains. Exposure to 2% biliary salts led to a decrease in the viability of free cells in the two L. paracasei strains, whereas the viability of microencapsulated cells increased up to 47%. After 35 days of storage at 4°C, the population of free cells was reduced, but microencapsulated cells remained stable after storage at low temperature. LBC81 bacteria microencapsulated with 1.5% FOS coated with gelatin were the most resistant to the stressful environments tested. Therefore, these results showed that co-encapsulation with FOS in a calcium alginate matrix coated with gelatin improved L. paracasei survival and may be useful for the development of more resistant probiotics and new functional foods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The demand for functional foods is increasing each year because of the awareness among consumers regarding the role of a healthy diet in the proper functioning of the body. Foods for health improvement provide basic nutrition and are safe to be consumed without medical supervision [1,2,3]. Probiotics are one of the most popular, commercialized, and researched foods.
According to Fortune Business Insight [4], the global market for probiotics was estimated at US$ 42.55 billion in 2017 and is projected to reach US$ 74.69 billion by 2025. Consumption of probiotics stimulates the growth of beneficial microorganisms in the intestine, thus eliminating potentially harmful bacteria, reinforcing the immune system, and helping in the management of lactose intolerance [5,6,7]. However, to prolong the beneficial effects, probiotic bacteria need to be metabolically stable and active during product consumption and need to remain alive while passing through the host gastrointestinal tract, which is a hostile environment for bacterial survival due to its low pH and presence of biliary salts [8,9,10].
The loss of viability of probiotic products is observed during their formulation, processing, and storage. Some factors that influence probiotic cells are pH, oxygen levels, storage temperature, inhibitors, and microbial contaminants that cause high stress to probiotic cells. Thus, technological innovations are extensively explored to provide solutions to problems relating to the stability and viability of probiotic foods [11, 12].
In this context, the loss of viability can be reduced using microencapsulation technology, which involves cell imprisonment in a polymeric matrix with sodium alginate. Sodium alginate is a non-toxic, low-cost, and easy-to-handle compound that dissolves in the intestine, thus releasing cells from the microcapsules. However, the use of sodium alginate has limitations because it may form a porous gel and become unstable in the presence of chelating agents. These problems can be solved by coating these capsules with other polymers, such as resistant amide, chitosan, or gelatin [8, 10, 13, 14].
Gelatin and sodium alginate can form a strong complex because of electrostatic interactions between the amide group of gelatin and the carboxylic groups of alginate. The advantages of gelatin include an excellent capability of membrane formation, probiotic biocompatibility, and non-toxicity to the consumer. Previous studies showed that an alginate matrix coated with gelatin can improve the survival of probiotic bacteria under adverse conditions [15,16,17].
To improve probiotic cell viability during production and storage of microcapsules, the use of prebiotics has gained increasing attention among researchers. The process of encapsulation of probiotic cells with a prebiotic compost is called co-encapsulation. The main advantage of co-encapsulation is improvement of probiotic resistance to stressful conditions in the gastrointestinal tract of the host. The use of symbiotic microcapsules in foods is an important strategy in food functionalization [9, 18, 19].
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of microencapsulation in a calcium alginate matrix with or without gelatin coating on the viability of two Lactobacillus paracasei strains under refrigerated storage conditions, in the presence of biliary salts, and at low pH. Moreover, the effect of co-encapsulation using different concentrations of fructooligosaccharides (FOS) on the viability of probiotics cells was assessed to determine the most protective treatment that can be applied to bacterial cells for their use in probiotic beverages.
Materials and methods
Bacterial reactivation and cellular suspension
The probiotic bacteria used were L. paracasei subsp. paracasei (LBC81) and L. paracasei (ELBAL). LBC81 was purchased from DuPontTM, Danisco®, and ELBAL was isolated from commercial, fermented milk. Inocula were prepared by inoculating an isolated colony from each bacterium in 2 mL de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS, Merck Whitehouse Station, EUA) broth. After 24 h of incubation at 37°C, the supernatant was discarded, and the biomass was used to inoculate 10 mL of the same broth. This process was repeated under the same conditions, and the biomass was transferred to 100 mL MRS broth. After 24 h, cell counting was performed by serial dilution and drop plating in MRS agar containing 0.1% cysteine hydrochloride [20,21,22].
A cellular suspension was prepared as described by Lima et al. [23] with modifications. Cultures were centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 min, and the pellet was resuspended in 0.5 mL sterile distilled water to produce a cellular suspension to be used for microencapsulation. The concentration and initial cell viability were determined as described by Adams [20].
Bacterial microencapsulation
Extrusion technology was used according to the procedure described by Krasaekoopt and Watcharapoka [2] with modifications. A cellular suspension (0.5 mL) was added to 5 mL of sterile solution containing 0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of FOS and immediately mixed to 20 mL of 2.0% (m/v) sterile sodium alginate solution. The solution was dripped through a sterile insulin syringe in a 0.05 M calcium chloride solution, and the solution was slightly agitated. The distance between the syringe and calcium chloride solution was set to 25 cm [24]. Microcapsules were maintained in a static condition for 30 min to promote gelling. Later, half of the microcapsules were coated with gelatin.
Coating was performed as described previously [17]. Briefly, microcapsules were immersed in 100 mL of 4.0% (m/v) commercial, no-flavor gelatin solution (Fleischmann) and agitated at 1 g for 40 min in an orbital agitator. Subsequently, the microcapsules were washed with sterile distilled water and maintained in 0.1% peptone solution at 4°C until further use. Table 1 lists all treatments and FOS concentrations used in the production of the microcapsules.
Counting of cell population within the microcapsules was performed according to Krasaekoopt and Watcharapoka [2], with modifications. Microcapsules (0.1 g) were added to 9.9 mL phosphate buffer (pH 7.0; 0.1 M) and mechanically homogenized for 10 min at 14 g using a homogenizer (Marconi ® 440/CF). Cell counting of the suspension was performed according to Adams [20]. The immobilization yield, which combines the measures of the effectiveness of entrapment and survival of viable cells during microencapsulation was assessed as described by Trabelsi et al. [17] (Eq. 1).
where IY refers to immobilization yield, N is the number of viable entrapped cells released from the microparticles, and N0 is the number of free cells added during microencapsulation.
Size and viability of free and encapsulated bacteria under refrigerated conditions
Microcapsule diameter was measured using a digital pachymeter. The microstructure analysis of microcapsules was performed using an optical microscope (×40) at days 1 and 35 of storage at 4°C [24]. The viability of microencapsulated bacteria after storage at 4°C was assessed by cell counting as mentioned above. The population of free cells (control) was also assessed by cell counting. Bacterial survival was measured after days 1, 14, 28, and 35 [17].
Survival analysis of free and microencapsulated bacteria subjected to low pH
Bacterial survival in low pH was analyzed according to Mandal et al. [25], with modifications. In total, 0.1 g microcapsules were added to a 1 mL of acidic solution (0.2 % NaCl; pH 1.5) and incubated at 37°C. After 90 min, microcapsules were washed, homogenized for 10 min, and plated by drop plate method [20, 21]. A suspension of 100 μL free cells was used as the control and incubated under the same conditions as those applied to the microencapsulated cells.
Survival analysis of free and microencapsulated bacteria subjected to different concentrations of biliary salts
A solution of bovine bile (Ox Bile, NutriCology®) was prepared according to Guo et al. [26], with modifications. Briefly, 1.0% or 2.0% bovine bile was added to MRS broth, and the final solution was sterilized using a 0.45-μm sterile filter (polytetrafluoroethylene membrane; non-pyrogenic and non-cytotoxic). A total of 0.1 g of microcapsules and 100 μL of free cells were separately added to 1-mL tubes containing 0%, 1.0%, and 2.0% of bovine bile and incubated at 37°C. After 3 h and 12 h, free cells were plated by drop plate method, and the microcapsules were washed twice with sterile distilled water and quantified as mentioned previously in the “Survival analysis of free and microencapsulated bacteria subjected to low pH” section [25].
Statistical analysis
All experiments were performed three times, and samples were analyzed in triplicate. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mean values were compared using Scott-Knott test. Statistical analysis was performed using SISVAR 5.3 software [27]. Values of p < 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results and discussion
Size of microcapsules
The uncoated microcapsules of both LBC81 and ELBAL bacterial strains ranged from 1.55 to 1.75 mm in size and were significantly smaller than the microcapsules coated with gelatin, which ranged from 1.84 to 2.00 mm in size (Supplementary Table 1). This may be because of the addition of one more layer of polymer during coating, which resulted in a double protective wall. A previous study showed that microcapsule diameter produced using extrusion technology range from 500 μm to 3 mm [28]. Previous studies by Krasaekoopt and Watcharapoka [2] and Krasaekoopt [29] also reported similar microcapsule diameters results as those found in this study.
The addition of prebiotics during microencapsulation did not influence the size of the microcapsules. However, studies have shown that the addition of prebiotics can increase the size of microcapsules [2, 30]. Apart from prebiotics, other factors, such as the concentration and composition of sodium alginate, needle diameter used, and the distance between the gelling solution and the place where the drops falls, can also contribute to differences in the size of the microcapsules [10, 31].
The ideal size of microcapsules depends on bacterial growth and mechanical resistance of the capsule. Previous studies reported that microcapsules with a diameter of less than 1 mm of diameter may result in mechanical instability during long-term fermentation and may not protect probiotic bacteria against stimulated gastric juices when compared with free cells. In contrast, microcapsules with a diameter of more than 1 mm may result in a rough texture, thereby negatively affecting the sensory acceptance of the food product [32,33,34,35].
Microencapsulation yield
Extrusion technology for the microencapsulation of probiotic microorganisms is considered the most recommended and commonly used technique because it is performed under mild conditions for the cells and provides high levels of immobilization [35,36,37]. The initial cell count used for immobilization process was 9.0 log CFU/mL for both L. paracasei strains. Immobilization yield for LBC81 ranged from 59.0 to 71.0% and for ELBAL ranged from 63.0 to 73.0%. There was no statistically significant difference in the immobilization yield among all treatments or between the two bacterial strains (Supplementary Table 2).
Similar results were described by Trabelsi et al. [17], who obtained maximum yield of 68.0% after immobilization of L. plantarum in alginate coating with chitosan and gelatin. Several factors, including microcapsule size, alginate concentration, cell population used, and calcium chlorate concentration, can affect microencapsulation yield [36].
To examine the viability of microencapsulated bacteria, the microcapsules were dissolved using chemical and physical methods, and the number of free bacteria were calculated. However, this method can be repetitive, demanding and may cause false results by identifying cells that are metabolically active but difficult to grow. Furthermore, disintegration of some rigid microcapsules using homogenization may affect cell viability. Hence, the development and standardization of fast and non-destructive methods for the assessment of cell viability are necessary [34, 38].
Survival of free and encapsulated bacteria at low pH
A food marketed as having high functional properties must contain probiotics that are resistant to stress and can survive in an acidic environment similar to that found in the stomach. Usually, probiotic L. paracasei cells are resistant to stress and remain viable in pH ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 [39,40,41]. The effects of acidic conditions on the viability of free and encapsulated LBC81 and ELBAL cells are shown in Fig. 1.
After exposure to an acidic solution for 3h at pH 1.5, the viability of free LBC81 and ELBAL cells decreased 82.0% and 63.7%, respectively. In co-encapsulation experiments, after exposure to an acidic solution for 3h, a reduction in the viability of microencapsulated LBC81 cells was observed, which decreased 4.0%, 2.3%, and 3.1% with the uncoated treatments using 0% FOS and 1.5% FOS and with treatment using 1% FOS coated with gelatin, respectively. Using uncoated 1.0% FOS, 0% FOS coated with gelatin, and 0.5% FOS coated with gelatin, the viability decreased 34.0%, 70.0%, and 71.0%, respectively. In contrast, using uncoated 0.5% and 1.5% FOS treatments, the cell viability increased 2.3% and 7.8%, respectively. There was a loss of viability ranging from 20.0 to 56.0% in microcapsules containing ELBAL bacteria.
Microencapsulated cells of the L. paracasei LBC81 strain were more resistant than those of the ELBAL strain because they remained stable at low pH, as observed with several treatments. It is known that lactic acid bacteria from the same species can present different resistance levels to low pH because of specific characteristics of their molecular structure that promote resistance against changes in pH and provide stability under acidic conditions [42]. In this study, gelatin coating did not significantly improve the viability of microencapsulated bacteria at low pH, possibly because gelatin did not act as an efficient barrier for diffusion in acidic solution diffusion. Therefore, these results suggest that only encapsulation with calcium alginate is sufficient to protect cells against acidic conditions.
There is a synergic effect between FOS and L. paracasei strains, as described by Al-Sheraji et al. [43]. However, in this study, microcapsules containing FOS did not significantly improve bacterial survival. This result was unexpected because several reports showed that the presence of FOS and other prebiotics as well as coating with other polymers significantly improved the survival of probiotic bacteria at low pH [2]. The presence of prebiotics improves the survival of probiotics because prebiotics can act as a carbon source for probiotic cells [2]. Possibly, the duration of exposure of microencapsulated cells to the acidic solution (3 h) was not sufficient to initiate the use of FOS by cells as a carbon source to improve the cell viability significantly compared with the viability of free bacterial cells.
Microencapsulated bacteria may suffer from stress due to environmental changes, resulting in its reduced metabolism. This may explain why FOS was unable to improve the viability of co-encapsulated cells compared with that of the microencapsulated cells without FOS [44]. However, the presence of FOS did not negatively affect bacterial survival.
Another important characteristic was that the alginate gel remained stable in a low pH solution, becoming insoluble and more compact with water loss. This characteristic provides better protection to the encapsulated material because it prevents the release of the material into the external environment [33]. In general, microencapsulation of the two L. paracasei strains improved bacterial resistance to an acidic environment, similar to the finding of previous studies [25, 32, 45].
Survival of free and microencapsulated bacteria subjected to biliary salts
Microcapsules in the body are exposed to an acidic environment in the stomach and neutral pH and biliary salts in the intestine. Biliary salts are a major threat to probiotic survival because of their detergent properties responsible for connections with lipids in the bacterial membrane. These connections result in alterations in the integrity and permeability of the bacterial membrane that can lead to cellular death [33, 46, 47]. Biliary salts are also responsible for the generation of free radicals, which can alter the secondary structure of RNA, induce DNA damage, and activate DNA repair enzymes. The average concentration of biliary salts in the small intestine ranges from 0.2 to 2.0% [46,47,48,49]
In this study, the cell populations before and after exposure to 0%, 1.0%, and 2.0% of biliary salts for 12 h were assessed and are listed in the Table 2. There was a decreased in the free cells population of the two bacterial strains, LBC81 and ELBAL, in the absence of biliary salts (control), but no statistical difference was found between the initial and final cell population. A significant increase was observed in microencapsulated LBC81 cells treated with 1.5% FOS with or without gelatin coating, whereas a significant increase was observed in microencapsulated ELBAL cells with 0% FOS treatment with or without gelatin coating. Thus, gelatin coating did not affect nutrient diffusion to the interior of the microcapsules.
In the presence of 1.0% biliary salts, the population of free LBC81 cells decreased significantly after 12 h, showing a decreased of 60.0% in their viability. Free ELBAL cells were more resistant than free LBC81 cells, showing a decrease of 15.0% in their viability. All microencapsulated cells showed an increase in viability with all treatments. This increase in the number of viable cells was possibly because of a carbon source provided by the prebiotic FOS in the microcapsules, resulting in growth of the co-encapsulated probiotic cells [2].
In the presence of 2.0% biliary salts, free cells from the two bacterial strains were significantly impacted, with a decrease of 39.0% and 36.0% in the LBC81 and ELBAL cell populations, respectively. Microencapsulated bacteria were protected and showed an increase in the number of viable LBC81 cells (1.0 to 31.0%). There was a slight loss of viability only in case of microencapsulated cells treated with 0.5% FOS with gelatin coating. The highest growth was observed in case of microencapsulated LBC81 cells treated with 1.5% FOS with gelatin coating. ELBAL cell population showed an increase in viability (5.0 to 47.0%) with all treatments after 12 h exposure to a solution containing 2.0% biliary salts for 12 h; the microencapsulated cell population in all treatments was significantly higher than the free cell population. The presence of FOS and gelatin coating did not significantly improve cell viability.
Several factors, such as resistance of strains to biliary salts, concentration and type of encapsulant materials, types of polymers incorporated into the encapsulation matrix, encapsulation method, and source of biliary salts, can influence the protection and survival of encapsulated probiotics [47]. Cell morphology is an important indicator of the tolerance of probiotics toward biliary salts. Šušković et al. [50] showed that rough colonies of L. acidophilus are more sensitive to biliary salts, suggesting that this difference is because of a phenotypic environmental response. Smooth cells are smaller and have more compact chain structures, whereas cells with a rough surface morphology are larger and more vulnerable to the surfactant effect of biliary salts.
The two L. paracasei strains used in this study showed smooth morphology, and this characteristic may contribute to the resistance of encapsulated cells. The number of free cells may also be favored by this morphology because they were not completely lost in the presence of biliary salts, although the final population was smaller than the initial population. Other factors such as different pH value, temperature, and environment can also promote the presence of probiotic bacteria that are more vulnerable or resistant to biliary salts [48].
For the survival of a sufficient number of probiotic bacteria exposed to biliary salts to colonize the gastrointestinal tract, an elevated population of cells should be microencapsulated. Hence, the concentration of cells used in this study was approximately 109 CFU/mL. In the presence of 2.0% biliary salts, the final cell population was higher than 6.0 log CFU/g for both microencapsulated L. paracasei strains. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, this is the minimum bacterial concentration recommended for probiotic foods to be beneficial to organisms.
Survival of free and microencapsulated bacteria during storage at low temperature and visualization of microcapsules
During 35 days of storage at low temperature, there was no difference between the initial and final cell population in all treatments with immobilized cells, suggesting that probiotic microencapsulated bacteria were protected by microcapsules. However, the viability of free LBC81 and ELBAL cells (control) decreased to 28.0% and 35.0%, respectively (Table 3).
The stability of microencapsulated bacteria of both strains after 35 days is shown in Fig. 2. At days 1 and 35 after microencapsulation, microcapsules were visualized using an optical microscope to verify surface degradation after storage at low temperature (Fig. 3). All microcapsules, independent of bacterial and FOS concentrations, presented rounded shape. More uniform edges were observed in microcapsules coated with gelatin than in those without coating. After 35 days, microcapsules presented the same morphology as that observed at day 1 without deformations. Studies on encapsulated probiotic stability in the intestinal environment are necessary to further explore this technology and for the development of new functional probiotic foods [51].
Conclusions
The results found in this study showed that the use of extrusion technology did not affect the viability of L. paracasei cells and provided a good yield after microencapsulation. Probiotic L. paracasei LBC81 and ELBAL cells co-encapsulated with FOS in calcium alginate matrix with gelatin coating showed an increase in viability when subjected to an environment mimicking the gastrointestinal tract and during storage at a low temperature. Free bacterial cells did not survive without the protection provided by microencapsulation to the cells. LBC81 cells treated with 1.5% FOS with gelatin coating were the most resistant cells to the stressful conditions tested in this study. Therefore, these results showed that co-encapsulation of L. paracasei cells with a calcium alginate matrix coated with gelatin improved cell survival. This co-encapsulation method has immense potential for the development of more resistant probiotics, new functional foods, and probiotic beverages.
References
Buriti FCA, Bedani R, Saad SMI (2016) Probiotic and prebiotic dairy desserts. In Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802189-7.00023-X
Krasaekoopt W, Watcharapoka S (2014) Effect of addition of inulin and galactooligosaccharide on the survival of microencapsulated probiotics in alginate beads coated with chitosan in simulated digestive system, yogurt and fruit juice. LWT-Food Sci Technol 57:761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.01.037
Turkmen N, Akal C, Özer B (2019) Probiotic dairy-based beverages: a review. J Funct Foods 53:62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2018.12.004
Fortune Business Insight. (2019). Probiotics market size, share and industry analysis by microbial genus (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, yeast), by application (functional food and beverage, dietary supplement, animal feed), by distribution channel (supermarkets/hypermarkets, pharmacies/health stores, convenience stores, online retail) and regional forecast 2018-2025. Fortune Business Insight – Market Research Report, 120. Retrieve from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/probiotics-market-100083
Miao J, Xu M, Guo H, Ele L, Gao X, DiMarco-Crook C, Xiao P, Cao Y (2015) Optimization of culture conditions for the production of antimicrobial substances by probiotic Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. Tolerans FX-6. J Funct Foods 18:244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.07.011
Pimentel TC (2011) Probióticos e benefícios à saúde. Rev Saúde e Pesquisa 4:101–107
Soares LF, Peracini LC, Freitas S, Ferreira FP, Santos LF, Manhani LC, Benedeti TL, Manochio-Pina MG (2016) Aspectos nutricionais e metabólicos da intolerância à lactose. Rev Inv Med Vet 15:103–107
Cook MT, Tzortzis G, Charalampopoulos D, Khutoryanskiy VV (2012) Microencapsulation of probiotics for gastrointestinal delivery. J Control Release 162:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.003
De Prisco A, Mauriello G (2016) Probiotication of foods: a focus on microencapsulation tool. Trends Food Sci Technol 48:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.009
Krasaekoopt W (2013) Microencapsulation of probiotics in hydrocolloid gel matrices: a review. Agro Food Ind Hi Tec 24:76–83
Barbosa PPM, Gallina DA (2017) Viability of bacteria (starter and probiotics) in beverages made with yogurt and mango pulp. Journal of Candido Tostes Dairy Institute 72:85–95. https://doi.org/10.14295/2238-6416.v72i2.580
Terpou A, Papadaki A, Lappa IK, Kachrimanidou V, Bosnea LA, Kopsahelis N (2019) Probiotics in food systems: significance and emerging strategies towards improved viability and delivery of enhanced beneficial value. Nutrients 13:e1591. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11071591
Burgain J, Gaiani C, Linder M, Scher J (2011) Encapsulation of probiotic living cells: from laboratory scale to industrial applications. J Food Eng 104:467–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.12.031
Chávarri M, Marañón I, Villarán MC (2012) Encapsulation technology to protect probiotic bacteria. Probiotics:501–540. https://doi.org/10.5772/50046
Etchepare MA, Barin JS, Cichoski AJ, Jacob-Lopes E, Wagner R, Fries LLM, Menezes CR (2015) Microencapsulation of probiotics using sodium alginate. Cienc Rural 45:1319–1326. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20140938
Li XY, Chen XG, Cha DS, Park HJ, Liu CS (2009) Microencapsulation of a probiotic bacteria with alginate-gelatin and its properties. J Microencapsul 26:315–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652040802328685
Trabelsi I, Ayadi D, Bejar W, Bejar S, Chouayekh H, Ben Salah R (2014) Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum immobilization in alginate coated with chitosan and gelatin on antibacterial activity. Int J Biol Macromol 64:84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.11.031
Avila-Reyes SV, Garcia-Suarez FJ, Jiménez T, Martin-Gonzalez MFS, Bello-Perez LA (2014) Protection of L. rhamnosus by spray-drying using two prebiotics colloids to enhance the viability. Carbohydr Polym 102:423–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.11.033
Nazzaro F, Orlando P, Fratianni F, Coppola R (2012) Microencapsulation in food science and biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol 23:182–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2011.10.001
Adams MH (1959) Bacteriophages. Interscience, New York, pp 450–451
Naghili H, Tajik H, Mardani K, Razavi Rouhani SM, Ehsani A, Zare P (2013) Validation of drop plate technique for bacterial enumeration by parametric and nonparametric tests. Vet Res Forum 4:179–183
Santos CCADOA, Libeck BDAS, Schwan RF (2014) Co-culture fermentation of peanut-soy milk for the development of a novel functional beverage. Int J Food Microbiol 186:32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.06.011
Lima JR, Locatelli GO, Finkler L, Luna-Finkler CL (2014) Incorporação de Lactobacillus casei microencapsulado em queijo tipo coalho. Rev Ciência e Saúde 7:27–34. https://doi.org/10.15448/1983-652X.2014.1.15639
Mirzaei H, Pourjafar H, Homayouni A (2012) Effect of calcium alginate and resistant starch microencapsulation on the survival rate of Lactobacillus acidophilus La5 and sensory properties in Iranian white brined cheese. Food Chem 132:1966–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.12.033
Mandal S, Hati S, Puniya AK, Khamrui K, Singh K (2014) Enhancement of survival of alginate-encapsulated Lactobacillus casei NCDC 298. J Sci Food Agric 94:1994–2001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.005
Guo XH, Kim JM, Nam HM, Parque SY, Kim JM (2010) Anaerobe Screening lactic acid bacteria from swine origins for multistrain probiotics based on in vitro functional properties. Anaerobe 16:321–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.03.006
Ferreira DF (2011) Sisvar: a computer statistical analysis system. Ciência e Agrotecnologia (UFLA) 35:1039–1042. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542011000600001
Etchepare MD, Menezes MFSC, Barreto AR, Cavalheiro CP, Menezes CR (2015) Microencapsulation of probiotics by extrusion method associated with electrostatic interactions. CeN 37:75–86
Krasaekoopt W, Bhandari B, Deeth H (2004) The influence of coating materials on some properties of alginate beads and survivability of microencapsulated probiotic bacteria. Int Dairy J 14:737–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2004.01.004
Valero-Cases E, Frutos MJ (2015) Effect of different types of encapsulation on the survival of Lactobacillus plantarum during storage with inulin and in vitro digestion. LWT Food Sci Technol 64:824–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.06.049
Goh CH, Heng PWS, Chan LW (2012) Alginates as a useful natural polymer for microencapsulation and therapeutic applications. Carbohydr Polym 88:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.012
Dimitrellou D, Kandylis P, Lević S, Petrović T, Ivanović S, Nedović V, Kourkoutas Y (2019) Encapsulation of Lactobacillus casei ATCC 393 in alginate capsules for probiotic fermented milk production. Food Sci. Technol (Campinas) 116:108501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108501
Heidebach T, Först P, Kulozik U (2012) Microencapsulation of probiotic cells for food applications. Crit Rev Food Sci 52:291–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2010.499801
Samedi L, Charles AL (2019) Viability of 4 probiotic bacteria microencapsulated with arrowroot starch in the simulated gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and yoghurt. Foods 8:175. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8050175
Yee WL, Yee CL, Lin NK, Phing PL (2019) Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM incorporated with mannitol and its storage stability in mulberry tea. Cienc Agrote 43:e005819. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054201943005819
Pungrasmi W, Intarasoontron J, Jongvivatsakul P, Likitlersuang S (2019) Evaluation of microencapsulation techniques for MICP bacterial spores applied in self-healing concrete. Sci Rep 9:12484. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49002-6
Shi LE, Li Z-H, Li D-T, Xu M, Chen H-Y, Zhang Z-L, Tang Z-X (2013) Encapsulation of probiotic Lactobacillus bulgaricus in alginate’milk microspheres and evaluation of the survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions. J Food Eng 117:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.02.012
Rathore S, Desai PM, Liew CV, Chan LW, Heng PWS (2013) Microencapsulation of microbial cells. J Food Eng 116:369–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.12.022
Batt CA, Tortorello ML (2014) Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology. Elsevier, Second ed
Ilha EC, Silva T, Lorenz JG, Rocha GO, Sant’Anna ES (2015) Lactobacillus paracasei isolated from grape sourdough: acid, bile, salt, and heat tolerance after spray drying with skim milk and cheese whey. Eur Food Res Technol 240:977–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-014-2402-x
Valencia MS, Salgado SM, Andrade SAC, Padilha VM, Livera AVS, Stamford TLM (2016) Development of creamy milk chocolate dessert added with fructo-oligosaccharide and Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei LBC 81. LWT-Food Sci Technol 69:104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.039
Corcoran BM, Stanton C, Fitzgerald GF, Ross RP (2005) Survival of probiotic lactobacilli in acidic environments is enhanced. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:3060–3067. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.6.3060-3067.2005
Al-Sheraji SH, Ismail A, Manap MY, Mustafa S, Yusof RM, Hassan FA (2013) Prebiotics as functional foods: a review. J Funct Foods 5:1542–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2013.08.009
Chávarri M, Maranón I, Ares R, Ibáñez FC, Marzo F, Villarán MC (2010) Microencapsulation of a probiotic and prebiotic in alginate-chitosan capsules improves survival in simulated gastro-intestinal conditions. Int J Food Microbiol 142:185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.022
Rodrigues D, Sousa S, Gomes AM, Pintado MM, Silva JP, Costa P, Amaral MH, Rocha-Santos T, Freitas AC (2012) Storage stability of Lactobacillus paracasei as free cells or encapsulated in alginate-based microcapsules in low pH fruit juices. Food Bioprocess Technol 5:2748–2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-011-0581-z
Holm R, Mul̈lertz A, Mu H (2013) Bile salts and their importance for drug absorption. Int J Pharm 453:44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.04.003
Shori AB (2015) The effect of encapsulating materials on the survival of probiotics during intestinal digestion: a review. CTMAT 27:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctmat.2015.07.002
Li G (2012) Intestinal probiotics: interactions with bile salts and reduction of cholesterol. Procedia Environ Sci 12:1180–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.405
Zughaid H, Forbes B, Martin GP, Patel N (2012) Bile salt composition is secondary to bile salt concentration in determining hydrocortisone and progesterone solubility in intestinal mimetic fluids. Int J Pharm 422:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.11.012
Šušković J, Kos B, Matošić S, Besendorfer V (2000) The effect of bile salts on survival and morphology of a potential probiotic strain Lactobacillus acidophilus M92. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:673–678. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008909505651
Mandal S, Hati S, Puniya AK, Khamrui K, Singh K (2014) Enhancement of survival of alginate-encapsulated Lactobacillus casei NCDC 298. J Sci Food Agric 94:1994–2001. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6514
Funding
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - Universal 2014, Grant number 460882/2014-7).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Elaine Cristina Pereira de Martinis
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
da Conceição, R.C.N., Batista, R.D., Leal Zimmer, F.M.d. et al. Effect of co-encapsulation using a calcium alginate matrix and fructooligosaccharides with gelatin coating on the survival of Lactobacillus paracasei cells. Braz J Microbiol 52, 1503–1512 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-021-00484-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-021-00484-5