Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:16:39.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilization of citrate by lactobacilli isolated from dairy products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

T. F. Fryer
T. F. Fryer
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Twenty-five strains of lactobacilli isolated from dairy products, including Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus brevis species, were grown in semi-defined media and examined for their ability to ferment citrate and produce formate. Of 7 strains of L. casei, all utilized citrate to varying extents, as did 9 of 10 strains of L. plantarum and 3 of 8 strains of L. brevis. L. casei produced 19–35% of the theoretical yield of formate from the citrate utilized, L. plantarum 0–11% and L. brevis 0–28%. Of 2 strains of L. casei tested for their abilities to ferment citrate in the presence of 2% lactose, strain C 5 was unaffected by lactose whereas strain C 2 showed a 45% decrease in the citrate utilized. However, lactose used at 2% concentration greatly reduced formate production by L. casei C 5, which produced 62% of the theoretical yield of formate from citrate after 35 days in the absence of lactose and only 8% in its presence. The yield of diacetyl produced by L. casei C 5 from citrate plus lactose (both at 2% concentration) was 145 times that produced from citrate alone, and 800 times that from lactose alone.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , February 1970 , pp. 9 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Campbell, J. J. R. & Gunsalus, I. C. (1942). J. Bact. 44, 721.Google Scholar
Christensen, M. D. & Pederson, C. S. (1958). Appl. Microbiol. 6, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Man, J. C. (1956). Ned. Melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 10, 240.Google Scholar
de Man, J. C., Rogosa, M. & Sharpe, M. E. (1960). J. appl. Bact. 23, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggleton, P., Elsden, S. R. & Gough, N. (1943). Biochem. J. 37, 526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, F. (1964). Annls Inst. Pasteur, Paris 106, 778.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. & Abdel-Malek, Y. (1945). J. Dairy Res. 14, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. J. & Collins, E. B. (1961). J. Bact. 82, 954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hungate, R. E. (1950). Bact. Rev. 14, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddie, R. M. (1959). J. appl. Bact. 22, 403.Google Scholar
Keenan, T. W. & Lindsay, R. C. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marier, J. R. & Boulet, M. (1958). J. Dairy Sci. 41, 1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Hamer, G. J. A. (1960). Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Wood, H. G. & Gest, H. (1957). Meth. Enzym. 3, 287.Google Scholar