The Ability of Lactobacillus rhamnosus in Solution, Spray-Dried or Lyophilized to Bind Aflatoxin B1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) can cause carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic and immunosuppressive effects in humans and animals. Several lactic acid bacteria species have the ability to bind AFB1 in vitro, showing a potential application for reducing the bioavailability of AFB1 in contaminated products. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the capacity of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, non-viable and dried, in removing the AFB1 from a contaminated medium. L. rhamnosus 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 AFB1 (1.0 µg/ml) and L. rhamnosus cells (1×1010 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 AFB1 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 L. rhamnosus cells. For pH 3.0 and 6.0, there were no significant differences between AFB1 binding efficiency by L. rhamnosus 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 AFB1 binding capacity during atomization, which damaged the structural and functional properties of the bacterial cell wall. In conclusion, L. rhamnosus retained its AFB1 binding ability only when its cell wall remained intact as observed in the lyophilization procedure. Lyophilized L. rhamnosus cells therefore can be a practicable alternative for decontamination of food products susceptible to aflatoxin contamination.
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".