Production of conjugated linoleic acid by probiotic<i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i>La-5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To study the ability of the probiotic culture Lactobacillus acidophilus La-5 to produce conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which is a potent anti-carcinogenic agent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The conversion of linoleic acid to CLA was studied both by fermentation in a synthetic medium and by incubation of washed cells. Accumulation of CLA was monitored by gas chromatography analysis of the biomass and supernatants. While the fermentation conditions applied may not be optimal to observe CLA production in growing La-5 cells, the total CLA surpassed 50% of the original content in the washed cells after 48 h under both aerobic and micro-aerobic conditions. The restriction of oxygen did not increase the yield, but favoured the formation of trans, trans isomers. CONCLUSIONS: The capability of L. acidophilus La-5 to produce CLA is not dependant on the presence of milk fat or anaerobic conditions. Regulation of CLA production in this strain needs to be further investigated to exploit the CLA potential in fermented foods. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: Knowledge gained through the conditions on the accumulation of CLA would provide further insight into the fermentation of probiotic dairy products. The capacity of the nongrowing cells to produce CLA is also of great relevance for the emerging nonfermented probiotic foods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".