MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509645324 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v5n5p56

Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG during Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions Depending on Food Matrix

2016· article· en· W2509645324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Riin Karu, Ingrid Sumeri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusFood scienceProbioticChemistryGastrointestinal tractBacteriaLactobacillusBiologyBiochemistryFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When developing new probiotic foods, their protective properties in maintaining viability of probiotics under gastrointestinal conditions should be evaluated. In the current study, human upper gastrointestinal tract simulator (GITS) was used to compare the effect of different food matrixes on the survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG). pH-auxostat was chosen for the cultivation of LGG cells to obtain culture samples in the same physiological state at maximum growth rate for the GITS experiments. The LGG culture was centrifuged and fast frozen in liquid nitrogen in various liquid food matrixes (commercial UHT milk, soymilk, apple juice, titrated apple juice, whey protein powder drink and M.R.S. Broth as reference) and stored at -400C. During 3-month storage, reduction of viability was significant only for apple juice. In the GITS experiments, bile had a greater negative impact on LGG than acid conditions, also the effect of food matrix was noted - in the case of milk, soymilk and whey protein powder drink only the highest concentration of bile (0.4%) caused a significant drop in the viability of bacteria when compared to apple juice. To maximize the health benefits of foodstuffs, it should be taken into account that the survival of probiotics during fast freezing, storage and gastrointestinal passage is dependent on the food matrix.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207