Tasty bread is healthy bread?improved bread quality by fermentation with Limosilactobacillus reuteri expressing a reuteransucrase and an α-4,6-glucanotransferase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reuteransucrase GtfA and 4,6-α-glucanotransferase GtfB are glycoside hydrolase family 70 enzymes that convert sucrose and starch, respectively, to indigestible α-glucans with potential applications in baking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of lactobacilli expressing GtfA and GtfB reduces the digestibility of starch. An initial experiment investigated the role of GtfB using the GtfB negative Lactiplantibacillus plantarum TMW1.460 and the GtfB positive Limosilactobacillus reuteri TMW1.656Δ gtfA to produce white wheat sourdough bread with addition of 10 % and 30 % sourdough. The use of the GtfB expressing Lm. reuteri TMW1.656Δ gtfA in recipes with 10 % sourdough did not increase the bread volume or the dietary fibre content but reduced the in vitro starch digestibility. Subsequently, Lm. reuteri TMW1.656 was compared to single and double knock out mutants lacking GtfA and/or GtfB to produce white wheat sourdough bread with addition of 30 % sourdough. GtfA and GtfB showed a synergistic effect, increasing bread volume by 8.8 % ( P < 0.05) and reducing in vitro starch digestibility by 5.2 % ( P < 0.05). GtfB increased the total dietary fibre content of sourdough bread by 16.9 % relative to the mutants lacking GtfB ( P < 0.05). The characterization of starch in bread revealed that GtfB modified amylopectin toward higher resistance to hydrolysis. In conclusion, lactobacilli expressing GtfA and GtfB are improve both the sensory and the nutritional bread quality. • Sourdough fermented with strains expressing GtfA and GtfB improves bread quality. • GtfB increased the total dietary fibre content of sourdough bread. • GtfB modified amylopectin toward higher resistance to hydrolysis. • GtfA and GtfB act synergistically on bread volume and in vitro starch digestibility.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".