Lactic acid bacteria obtained from cereal-based fermented food products at different processing stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Selective consumption of fermented foods obtained from dairy sources have resulted from problems of lactose intolerance, dairy allergies and strict vegetarian dietary habits. Non-dairy, cereal-based fermented food products undergo different processing stages and it is believed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB), is involved in the fermentation process. However, there are little or no information on the specific LAB that are involved at the various intermediate stages. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore indigenous cereal food products as an alternative source of LAB as well as isolate and identify LAB from cereal-based fermented food obtained at different processing stages. Methods: Two varieties of corn/maize and sorghum (guinea corn) were cleaned, steeped in water and milled. Samples obtained at different processing stages were collected into sterile containers. LAB were isolated on De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar and characterized using biochemical, microscopic and molecular methods. Results: The total viable bacterial cell count ranged from 9.22 to 9.66 log10 CFU/ml. Conventional identification method revealed rod-shaped, Gram positive, catalase negative, non-spore forming bacteria with single, paired and long chain cell arrangements. The 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis identified diverse species of two LAB groups namely: Lactobacillus (93.02%) and Pediococcus (6.98%) with L. fermentum as the dominant Lactobacillus spp. Conclusion: This study revealed the presence of LAB from fermented maize and sorghum at different processing stages. Our findings show that the slurry-processed-stage, which is the commonly consumed fermented food product apparently contains similar diverse LAB as identified in the milled whole product.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".