Survival of <i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i> RC‐14 and <i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i> GR‐1 in milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Dairy products are suitable vehicles for delivering beneficial microorganisms to consumers. Both Lactobacillus reuteri RC‐14 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR‐1 are considered as probiotic agents with therapeutic properties. The objective of this study was to monitor growth and survival of these bacteria in milk during storage period. Four formulations of milk (1% fat) with 0.33% yeast extract (Y), 0.4% inulin (I), 0.33% yeast extract and 0.4% inulin (YI) and one with no additives (N) were prepared. The mixtures were autoclaved for 15 min, cooled to 37 °C and inoculated with 1% of starter culture. They were then incubated anaerobically at 37 °C overnight. Viable numbers of L. reuteri RC‐14 and L. rhamnosus GR‐1 were determined after 1, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days of storage at 4 °C. Both bacteria were able to grow and survive in all samples; however, they showed a higher survival rate ( P < 0.05) in YI treatment. After 1 day of storage, the total colony counts of treatment YI for L. reuteri RC‐14 and L. rhamnosus GR‐1 were 2 × 10 8 and 1 × 10 9 CFU mL −1 , respectively. The total colony counts for treatment YI decreased by 1 log cycle for both bacteria after 28 days of storage. The results of this study indicate that these bacteria can remain viable over the storage period, and there is potential for incorporating them into fermented dairy products.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".