Polyphasic Characterisation of Non-Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria from Algerian Raw Camel's Milk and Their Technological Aptitudes.
acidifying
biogenic amines
camel’s milk
lactic acid bacteria
molecular identification
proteolytic
Journal
Food technology and biotechnology
ISSN: 1330-9862
Titre abrégé: Food Technol Biotechnol
Pays: Croatia
ID NLM: 9703690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
entrez:
7
12
2020
pubmed:
8
12
2020
medline:
8
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Consumption of spontaneously fermented camel´s milk is common in Algeria, making it a feasible source of diverse lactic acid bacteria (LAB) with the potential to be used as adjunct cultures to improve quality and safety of fermented dairy products. Twelve raw camel´s milk samples were used as a source of indigenous LAB, which were further characterised by examining39 phenotypic traits with technological relevance. Thirty-five non-starter LAB (NSLAB) were isolated from 12 Algerian raw camel's milk samples and they were microbiologically, biochemically and genetically characterised. Some isolates showed proteolytic activity, acidifying capacity, the ability to use citrate, and to produce dextran and acetoin. Ethanol, acetaldehyde, methyl acetate, acetoin and acetic acid were the major volatile compounds detected. Cluster analysis performed using the unweighted group with arithmetic average (UPGMA) method, and based on the thirty-nine phenotypic characteristics investigated, reflected the microbial diversity that can be found in raw camel´s milk. The isolated strains, from a non-typical source, showed interesting technological traits to be considered as potential adjunct cultures. Cluster analysis based on the examined phenotypic characteristics proved to be a useful tool for the typification of isolates when no genetic information is available. These findings may be of use towards an industrialised production of camel's milk dairy products.
Sections du résumé
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Consumption of spontaneously fermented camel´s milk is common in Algeria, making it a feasible source of diverse lactic acid bacteria (LAB) with the potential to be used as adjunct cultures to improve quality and safety of fermented dairy products.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
METHODS
Twelve raw camel´s milk samples were used as a source of indigenous LAB, which were further characterised by examining39 phenotypic traits with technological relevance.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Thirty-five non-starter LAB (NSLAB) were isolated from 12 Algerian raw camel's milk samples and they were microbiologically, biochemically and genetically characterised. Some isolates showed proteolytic activity, acidifying capacity, the ability to use citrate, and to produce dextran and acetoin. Ethanol, acetaldehyde, methyl acetate, acetoin and acetic acid were the major volatile compounds detected. Cluster analysis performed using the unweighted group with arithmetic average (UPGMA) method, and based on the thirty-nine phenotypic characteristics investigated, reflected the microbial diversity that can be found in raw camel´s milk.
NOVELTY AND SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION
UNASSIGNED
The isolated strains, from a non-typical source, showed interesting technological traits to be considered as potential adjunct cultures. Cluster analysis based on the examined phenotypic characteristics proved to be a useful tool for the typification of isolates when no genetic information is available. These findings may be of use towards an industrialised production of camel's milk dairy products.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33281482
doi: 10.17113/ftb.58.03.20.6598
pii: FTB-58-260
pmc: PMC7709455
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
260-272Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors report no conflict of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.
Références
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jan;38(1):415-8
pubmed: 10618129
Mol Biol Evol. 1999 Sep;16(9):1125-34
pubmed: 10486968
Nucleic Acids Res. 2016 Jul 8;44(W1):W242-5
pubmed: 27095192
Int J Food Microbiol. 1999 Sep 15;50(1-2):131-49
pubmed: 10488849
Microorganisms. 2020 Feb 22;8(2):
pubmed: 32098373
J Gen Microbiol. 1957 Feb;16(1):9-15
pubmed: 13406215
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1989 Aug;55(8):1901-6
pubmed: 2782870
Food Microbiol. 2010 Sep;27(6):691-7
pubmed: 20630311
Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Dec 15;105(3):377-87
pubmed: 16085331
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005 Aug;29(3):591-610
pubmed: 15935512
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016 Mar;100(5):2335-46
pubmed: 26685674
Front Microbiol. 2012 May 28;3:180
pubmed: 22783233
Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Sep 1;25(17):3389-402
pubmed: 9254694
J Appl Microbiol. 2001 Nov;91(5):937-43
pubmed: 11722674
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Aug;74(15):4737-45
pubmed: 18539803
J Bacteriol. 1983 Apr;154(1):1-9
pubmed: 6403500
Microbiol Res. 2009;164(1):81-91
pubmed: 17187971
Food Microbiol. 2012 May;30(1):132-8
pubmed: 22265293
Int J Food Microbiol. 1999 Mar 1;47(1-2):1-24
pubmed: 10357269
J Bacteriol. 1991 Jan;173(2):697-703
pubmed: 1987160
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1980 Apr;39(4):926-7
pubmed: 16345559
Food Chem. 2013 Aug 15;139(1-4):1029-35
pubmed: 23561206
Recent Pat DNA Gene Seq. 2013 Apr 1;7(1):66-73
pubmed: 22921084
Food Microbiol. 2017 May;63:178-190
pubmed: 28040167
Int J Food Microbiol. 2008 Sep 1;126(3):286-90
pubmed: 17897747
J Appl Microbiol. 2001 Jan;90(1):59-67
pubmed: 11155123
Food Microbiol. 2011 Aug;28(5):891-9
pubmed: 21569931