Investigation of in situ and ex situ mode of lactic acid bacteria incorporation and the effect on dough extensibility, bread texture and flavor quality during shelf-life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactococcus lactis subsp. diacetylactis , Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus , and Lb. rhamnosus were evaluated for their efficiencies in preserving bread texture and flavor during shelf-life. The investigated LABs exhibited efficiency during preliminary screening in expressing selected enzymes (protease, xylanase, α-amylase, laccase, and glucose oxidase) and producing exopolysaccharide (EPS). Dough samples were supplemented with either sourdough starters containing live LAB cells or LAB cell lysates . Prolonged fermentation further enhanced the protective advantage of sourdough starter incorporation. During the 5-day shelf-life period, in situ enrichment with Lb. rhamnosus led to a mere 12.5–35.4 % hardness change and 13.8–20.7 % overall texture change. Furthermore, sourdough bread with live LAB cell supplementation displayed a more diverse and intense flavor profile, with high concentration of bread key odorants maintained during shelf-life, including 2,3-butanedione, 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline, and 3-methylbutanal. Meanwhile, no significant improvement was found in bread enriched with LAB cell lysates during shelf-life. • LAB protect bread flavor, texture, and overall quality during shelf-life. • Protection efficiency varies with LAB strains and application mode ( in situ , ex situ ). • Sourdough breads experience less flavor and texture change during shelf-life. • Longer fermentation produces and maintains more key flavors in sourdough breads. • Dough extensibility and bread textural/physical properties correlate in LAB metabolites-enriched breads.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".