Effects of production methods and protective ingredients on the viability of probiotic <i>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</i> R0011 in air-dried alginate beads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to use a microencapsulation technology to prepare air-dried concentrated cultures of Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011. The cultures were microencapsulated in alginate beads, which were added to a growth medium to allow cell multiplication inside the matrix; the beads were recovered, dipped in protective solutions, and air-dried. The effects of fermentation technology and of the composition of the protective solutions on subsequent survival during air-drying were examined. The cells prepared under a constant pH of 6.2 had only 2.5% survival to air-drying at 25 °C when the protective solution was composed of sucrose and phosphate. Allowing the pH to drop to 4.2 during the biomass production step and using a protective medium composed of glycerol, maltodextrin, yeast extract, and ascorbate increased survival to 20%. If the ingredients of the protective medium at the beginning of drying were concentrated at a water activity of 0.96 rather than 0.98, survival during air-drying increased further to 56%. This rate was similar to that of a traditional freeze-drying process. These data suggest that applying a combination of acid and osmotic stresses to L. rhamnosus R0011 cells improves their subsequent stability during the air-drying process. Dried microencapsulated cultures having 2.6 × 1011 CFU·g–1 were obtained.
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) | 0.000 | 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".