Stability of Lactobacillus reuteri in Different Types of Microcapsules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This study was designed to find the most suitable method and wall material for microencapsulation of the probiotic bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri to maintain cell viability during gastric challenge. Five L. reuteri strains were individually encapsulated using alginate, alginate plus starch, K‐carrageenan with locust bean gum, or xanthan with gellan by extrusion or phase separation (emulsion). The morphology of the microcapsules was studied using phase contrast and cryo‐scanning electron microscopy (cryo‐SEM). The resistance of these microcapsules and the viability of contained L. reuteri to simulated gastric juice were studied. The shape and size of the microcapsules produced varied with the preparation method and type of wall material. Extruded microcapsules were larger and more uniformly shaped. Survival of microencapsulated L. reuteri was significantly better than that of planktonic cells and varied with the strain, method of microencapsulation, and wall material used. In general, microencapsulation using alginate and alginate with starch by both extrusion and phase separation were found to provide bacteria significantly greater protection ( P < 0.05) against simulated gastric juice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".