AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June 2000, p. 2682-2684, Vol. 66, No. 6
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Fermentation of Fructooligosaccharides by Lactic Acid Bacteria and Bifidobacteriadagger

Handan Kaplan and Robert W. Hutkins*

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583-0919

Received 17 December 1999/Accepted 21 March 2000


    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

Lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria were screened of their ability to ferment fructooligosaccharides (FOS) on MRS agar. Of 28 strains of lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria examined, 12 of 16 Lactobacillus strains and 7 of 8 Bifidobacterium strains fermented FOS. Only strains that gave a positive reaction by the agar method reached high cell densities in broth containing FOS.


    TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References

The number of food and other dietary products containing live Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus bacteria has increased significantly in recent years (20); this is due, in part, to the beneficial effects these probiotic organisms are believed to confer. Although substantial research efforts are currently in progress to investigate these claims, the available evidence indicates that ingestion of probiotic bacteria may promote desirable changes in the gastrointestinal tracts of humans and other animals (8, 12, 13, 16). For example, ingestion of probiotic bacteria may reduce the severity and frequency of diarrheal diseases, as well as improve lactose digestibility among lactose-intolerant individuals (6, 18).

The criteria established to select suitable Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus strains and to identify which strains possess these desired traits are also the subject of much research interest. Several specific characteristics possessed by these bacteria are thought to be desirable or necessary (7). Probiotic bacteria should resist low pH and survive gastric acidity, they should tolerate bile salts at concentrations present in the intestinal tract, they should adhere to intestinal mucosal cells, and they should provide clinically proven benefits. Recently, it has been suggested that the ability of probiotic bacteria to ferment oligosaccharides may be an especially important characteristic (1, 2, 4, 9, 14, 21). This is because the availability of carbohydrates that escape metabolism and adsorption in the small intestine have a major influence on the microflora that become established in the colon. If certain carbohydrates, such as oligosaccharides, are fermented only by specific strains of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli, then diets containing so-called "prebiotic" substrates could select for those strains of probiotic bacteria. Such a scenario, if true, could be "one of the most important stories to emerge in nutrition and gut microbiology since the turn of the century" (9).

One specific group of oligosaccharides that has attracted much commercial interest as prebiotics is the fructooligosaccharides (FOS). These compounds, which are marketed commercially as Raftilose and Nutraflora, can be obtained from natural sources (e.g., inulin) or synthesized naturally from sucrose (2, 5, 15, 23). The FOS product Nutraflora belongs to the latter category. It consists of a glucose monomer (G) linked alpha -1,2 to two or more beta -2,1-linked fructosyl units (F), to give 1-kestose (GF2), nystose (GF3), and 1F-fructofuranosyl nystose (GF4). FOS have been self-affirmed by the manufacturers as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) (19) and have been added to infant formulas, yogurt, and other food products and food supplements.

Despite the considerable commercial and research interests in oligosaccharides and probiotic bacteria, relatively little is known about which strains actually metabolize these materials. Because commercial oligosaccharide preparations often contain glucose, fructose, sucrose, or other fermentable sugars, it has been difficult to establish that growth in FOS-containing medium is due to actual utilization of FOS (10, 11, 22). In this study, we incorporated a pure form of FOS into MRS medium in order to identify lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria capable of fermenting FOS.

A commercial FOS mixture containing three FOS species, GF2 (32.0%), GF3 (53.6%), and GF4 (9.8%), was supplied by The GTC Nutrition Company (Westminster, Colo.). The balance consisted of 2.3% glucose and fructose and 2.3% sucrose. To prepare pure FOS, a 40% (wt/vol) FOS solution was applied to a column (30 by 5 cm) containing activated charcoal (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.). Glucose and fructose were eluted by using distilled water, and sucrose was eluted by the addition of 5% ethanol. Finally, FOS was eluted by using 15% ethanol, and the solution was lyophilized (FTS Systems, Inc., Stone Ridge, N.Y.). The purity of the FOS and the concentration of each FOS moiety (GF2, GF3, and GF4) were determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) (Waters Corp., Milford, Mass.) using an Aminex HPX-42C column (0.78 by 30 cm; Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, Calif.) and an RI-410 detector (Waters). The column temperature was kept constant at 85°C, and water was used as the mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.6 ml/min.

An MRS-FOS agar medium was prepared by adding 2% (wt/vol) purified FOS to MRS agar (3) containing 0.05% L-cysteine, 1.5% agar, and 30 mg of bromcresol purple per liter. The MRS basal medium (i.e., MRS without carbohydrate) was autoclaved, and the FOS was filter sterilized and then added to the tempered agar. A total of 28 strains were evaluated, including 6 strains used as commercial probiotics (Table 1). Each strain was initially grown in MRS broth and then diluted and spread onto the MRS-FOS agar plates to give approximately 25 to 50 colonies. The plates were incubated anaerobically for 24 h. Strains that fermented FOS (and produced acid end products) grew as colonies surrounded by a yellow zone (>3 mm) against a purple background. Nonfermenting colonies produced smaller white colonies without a yellow zone. Thus, although the basal MRS medium was sufficiently rich to promote colony formation by all of the 28 strains examined, only the 19 strains that could ferment FOS produced enough acid to cause a noticeable color change (Table 1). All of the Lactobacillus acidophilus strains fermented FOS, a result consistent with that recently reported by Sghir et al. (17). Among the FOS-fermenting L. acidophilus isolates were two strains, DDS-1 and NCFM, that are widely promoted as probiotics. Three other commercial probiotic strains, L. plantarum MR240, L. casei MR191, and L. casei 685, also fermented FOS, whereas Lactobacillus strain GG, one of the best-studied probiotic strains, was found to be a nonfermenter. Interestingly, most of the L. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus strains, ordinarily used for yogurt manufacture, were FOS nonfermenters.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1.   FOS utilization by lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria

To confirm that growth was dependent on FOS utilization, strains were also inoculated into MRS basal broth containing either 2% glucose, 2% commercial FOS or 2% purified FOS as the carbohydrate source. To account for the glucose, fructose, and sucrose in the commercial FOS, an equivalent amount of these sugars was added to a set of control MRS broths to give a final carbohydrate concentration of 0.1%. All strains, even those previously identified as FOS nonfermenters, grew in MRS-FOS broth, due apparently to the presence of background levels of carbohydrate in the basal MRS broth or, to a limited extent, to contaminating sugars in the commercial FOS (Table 1 and Fig. 1). However, final cell densities of FOS-fermenting Bifidobacterium infantis 17930 (Fig. 1A) and L. acidophilus NCFM (Fig. 1B) were twice that of the FOS-nonfermenting Lactobacillus strain GG (Fig. 1C). We also observed that when L. acidophilus NCFM was first grown in MRS broth (containing 2% glucose) and then transferred to MRS-FOS broth, only a short lag phase occurred. In addition, growth rates on FOS and glucose were the same. These results suggest that FOS utilization did not require an induction period and that FOS was equally as good a substrate as glucose in supporting growth.


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.   Growth of B. infantis 17930 (A), L. acidophilus NCFM (B), and Lactobacillus strain GG (C) in MRS broth containing either no added sugar (black-lozenge ), 2% glucose (black-triangle), 2% commercial FOS (), or 2% pure FOS (). To account for the glucose, fructose, and sucrose in the commercial FOS, cells were also grown in MRS broth containing equivalent amounts of these sugars (diamond ).

That only FOS-fermenting strains consumed FOS was also confirmed more directly by HPLC analysis of the fermentation broths (Fig. 2). In these experiments, cultures were grown in MRS-FOS broth containing 25 mM concentrations each of GF2 and GF3 and 8 mM GF4. L. plantarum 1195, a FOS fermenter, rapidly consumed GF2 and GF3 at near equal rates and reduced the pH to below 4.0. Utilization of these saccharides by Lactobacillus strain GG was minimal, and the pH decreased to only 6.0. Interestingly, none of the strains examined were able to use the GF4 moiety. We are currently studying the molecular basis for FOS metabolism by these strains.


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.   Utilization of FOS by L. plantarum 1195 (A) and Lactobacillus strain GG (B). Cells were grown in MRS-FOS broth containing 25 mM GF2 (), 25 mM GF3 (black-triangle), or 8 mM GF4 (black-lozenge ). The optical density (open circle ) and pH () are also shown.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported, in part, by a grant from Dairy Management, Inc.

We thank The GTC Nutrition Company for providing the FOS. We also thank Lisa Durso for reviewing the manuscript.


    FOOTNOTES

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Food Science and Technology, 338 FIC, University of Nebraska---Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0919. Phone: (402) 472-2820. Fax: (402) 472-1693. E-mail: rhutkins1{at}unl.edu.

dagger Published as paper no. 12877, Journal Series Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, Lincoln.


    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Text
References

1. Collins, M. D., and G. R. Gibson. 1999. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: approaches for modulating the microbial ecology of the gut. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 69(Suppl.):1052S-1057S[Abstract/Free Full Text].
2. Crittenden, R. G. 1999. Prebiotics, p. 141-156. In G. W. Tannock (ed.), Probiotics: a critical review. Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
3. de Man, J. C., M. Rogosa, and M. E. Sharpe. 1960. A medium for the cultivation of lactobacilli. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 23:130-135.
4. Gibson, G. R., and M. B. Roberfroid. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr. 125:1401-1412.
5. Hikada, H., M. Hirayama, and N. Sumi. 1988. A beta -FOS-producing enzyme from Aspergillus niger ATCC 20611. Agric. Biol. Chem. 52:1181-1187.
6. Kolars, J. C., M. D. Levin, M. Aouiji, and D. A. Savaiano. 1984. Yogurt---an autodigesting source of lactose. N. Engl. J. Med. 310:1-3[Abstract].
7. Kullen, M. J., and T. R. Klaenhammer. 1999. Genetic modification of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, p. 65-84. In G. W. Tannock (ed.), Probiotics: a critical review. Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
8. Kurmann, J. A., and J. L. Rasic'. 1991. The health potential of products containing bifidobacteria, p. 117-158. In R. K. Robinson (ed.), Therapeutic properties of fermented milks. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., London, England.
9. Macfarlane, G. T., and J. H. Cummings. 1999. Probiotics and prebiotics: can regulating the activities of intestinal bacteria benefit health? Br. Med. J. 318:999-1003[Free Full Text].
10. McKellar, R. C., and H. W. Modler. 1989. Metabolism of fructo-oligosaccharides by Bifidobacterium spp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 31:537-541[CrossRef].
11. Modler, H. W., R. C. McKellar, and M. Yaguchi. 1990. Bifidobacteria and bifidogenic factors. Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 23:29-41.
12. Ouwehand, A. C., P. V. Kirjavainen, C. Shortt, and S. Salminen. 1999. Probiotics: mechanisms and established effects. Int. Dairy J. 9:43-52.
13. Reid, G. 1999. The scientific basis for probiotic strains of Lactobacillus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65:3763-3766[Free Full Text].
14. Roberfroid, M. B. 1998. Prebiotics and synbiotics: concepts and nutritional properties. Br. J. Nutr. 80(Suppl. 2):S197-S202[Medline].
15. Roberfroid, M. B., J. A. E. Van Loo, and G. R. Gibson. 1998. The bifidogenic nature of chicory inulin and its hydrolysis products. J. Nutr. 128:11-19[Abstract/Free Full Text].
16. Sanders, M. E. 1993. Summary of conclusions from a consensus panel of experts on health attributes of lactic cultures: significance to fluid milk products containing cultures. J. Dairy Sci. 76:1819-1828[Abstract].
17. Sghir, A., J. M. Chow, and R. I. Mackie. 1998. Continuous culture selection of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli from human faecal samples using fructooligosaccharide as selective substrate. J. Appl. Microbiol. 85:769-777[CrossRef][Medline].
18. Siitonen, S., H. Vapaatalo, S. Salminen, A. Gordin, M. Saxelin, R. Wikberg, and A.-L. Kirkkola. 1990. Effect of Lactobacillus GG yoghurt in prevention of antibiotic associated diarrhoea. Ann. Med. 22:57-59[Medline].
19. Speigel, J. E., R. Rose, P. Karabell, V. H. Frankos, and D. F. Schmitt. 1994. Safety and benefits of fructooligosaccharides as food ingredients. Food Technol. 48:85-89.
20. Tannock, G. W. 1999. Introduction, p. 1-4. In G. W. Tannock (ed.), Probiotics: a critical review. Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
21. Wang, X., and G. R. Gibson. 1993. Effects of the in vitro fermentation of oligofructose and inulin by bacteria growing in the human large intestine. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 75:373-380[Medline].
22. Yazawa, K., K. Imai, and Z. Tamura. 1978. Oligosaccharides and polysaccharides specifically utilizable by bifidobacteria. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 26:3306-3311.
23. Yun, J. W., M. G. Lee, and S. K. Song. 1994. Batch production of high-content fructo-oligosaccharides from sucrose by the mixed-enzyme system of fructofuranosidase and glucose oxidase. J. Ferment. Bioeng. 77:159-163.

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, June 2000, p. 2682-2684, Vol. 66, No. 6
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kaplan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hutkins, R. W.

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals