The Ability of Lactobacillus rhamnosus in Solution, Spray-Dried or Lyophilized to Bind Aflatoxin B1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Aflatoxin B<sub>1</sub> (AFB<sub>1</sub>) can cause carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic and immunosuppressive effects in humans and animals. Several lactic acid bacteria species have the ability to bind AFB<sub>1 </sub><em>in vitro</em>, showing a potential application for reducing the bioavailability of AFB<sub>1</sub> in contaminated products. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of <em>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</em>, non-viable and dried, in removing the AFB<sub>1</sub> from a contaminated medium. <em>L. rhamnosus</em> were cultured in MRS broth, sterilized (121 ºC, 15 min.) to inactivate their metabolism and then dried by spray-drying or freeze-drying (lyophilization). Binding assays using AFB<sub>1</sub> (1.0 µg/ml) and <em>L. rhamnosus</em> cells (1×10<sup>10</sup> cells, in suspension or spray-dried or freeze-dried) were conducted at pH 3.0 and 6.0, room temperature and contact time of 60 min. Quantification of AFB<sub>1</sub> was achieved by high performance liquid chromatography. Scanning electron microscope was also performed in order to analyze the drying effect on the atomized and lyophilized <em>L. rhamnosus</em> cells. For pH 3.0 and 6.0, there were no significant differences between AFB<sub>1</sub> binding efficiency by <em>L. rhamnosus</em> cells in solution (45.9 ± 8.8% and 35.8 ± 7.7%, respectively) or freeze-dried (36.6 ± 7.1% and 27.2 ± 4.0%, respectively). However, the spray-dried cells lost completely the AFB<sub>1</sub> binding capacity during atomization, which damaged the structural and functional properties of the bacterial cell wall. In conclusion, <em>L. rhamnosus</em> retained its AFB<sub>1</sub> binding ability only when its cell wall remained intact as observed in the lyophilization procedure. Lyophilized <em>L. rhamnosus</em> cells therefore can be a practicable alternative for decontamination of food products susceptible to aflatoxin contamination.</p>
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".