Formation of Oligosaccharides and Polysaccharides by <i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i> LTH5448 and <i>Weissella cibaria</i> 10M in Sorghum Sourdoughs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Gluten‐free breads, which are composed of gluten‐free flours, starch, and hydrocolloids, differ from wheat and rye breads in relation to texture, volume, and crumb structure. Moreover, the dietary fiber content is lower compared with wheat or rye breads. Cereal isolates of lactic acid bacteria frequently produce oligo‐ and homopolysaccharides from sucrose, which can improve the nutritional and technological properties of gluten‐free breads as prebiotic carbohydrates and hydrocolloids, respectively. Sorghum sourdough was fermented with Lactobacillus reuteri LTH5448 or Weissella cibaria 10M, which synthesize fructooligosaccharides (FOS) and levan, and isomaltooligosaccharides and dextran, respectively. The gluten‐free bread was produced with 14% sourdough addition. L. reuteri LTH5448 formed FOS and 1.5 g of levan/kg DM in quinoa sourdoughs. FOS were digested by the baker's yeast during proofing, and the levan could be qualitatively detected in the bread. W. cibaria 10M produced >60 g of isomaltooligosaccharides/kg DM and 0.6 g of dextran/kg DM, which could still be detected in the bread. Breads prepared with W. cibaria 10M were less firm compared with breads prepared with L. reuteri LTH5448 or a FOS and levan‐negative mutant of L. reuteri LTH5448. The addition of sourdoughs fermented with oligo‐ and polysaccharide forming starter cultures can increase the content of prebiotic oligosaccharides in gluten‐free breads.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".