Professional Documents
Culture Documents
]. Firstly, a pro-
biotic must have scientically validated health properties
and demonstrated safety. It should also have good tech-
nological properties so that it can be produced on a large
scale and incorporated into food products without loosing
viability and functionality or creating unpleasant avor or
texture. Additionally, a probiotic must exhibit highsurvival
rates in downstream processes (such as centrifugation and
drying) and in food products during storage. High survival
through the upper gastrointestinal tract and high viability
at its site of action are also a requirement, together with
high activity in the gut environment.
The viability of probiotics is a key parameter for devel-
oping probiotic foods. Although the amount of cells
required to produce therapeutic benets is not known
and might vary as a function of the strain and the health
effect desired, in general a minimum level of more than
10
6
viable probiotic bacteria per millilitre or gram of food
product is accepted [6]. Several factors illustrated in
Figure 1 affect the viability of probiotic bacteria until
they reach the target site of the host. Despite the import-
ance of viability, several surveys have shown large uctu-
ations and poor viability of probiotic bacteria in food
[7,8]. Currently commercial strains are largely selected
for their technological properties, ruling out some strains
with promising health properties. Consequently, indus-
trial demand for new technologies that enable high cell
yield at large scale and ensure probiotic stability in food
remains strong, because many strains of intestinal origin
are difcult to propagate and high survival is important
for both economic reasons and health effects. In addition,
more efcient technologies could lead to greater product
efcacy and strain diversication with the development of
technologically unsuitable strains into products.
This paper discusses the latest developments in fermenta-
tiontechnologies for producingprobiotic bacteria as well as
potential new approaches for enhancing the performance
of these fastidious organisms during fermentation, down-
stream processing, and utilization in commercial products,
and for improving functionality in the gut. Processes that
includesublethal stress applications duringcell production
and new fermentation technologies, such as immobilized
cell biolm-type fermentations, are promising in this
respect and could be used to prole cell physiology to
optimize survival and functionality in the gut.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2007, 18:176183 www.sciencedirect.com
Technologies currently used to enhance cell
viability
Industrial processes for food culture production, includ-
ing probiotics, almost exclusively use conventional batch
fermentation with suspended cells. Several approaches
have been investigated to enhance cell viability during
downstream processing, storage and eventually digestion
[9]. These include the application of sublethal stresses
during fermentation, the addition of protectants, includ-
ing compatible solutes (e.g. betaine which has been
extensively studied), and cell protection by microencap-
sulation (discussed by Champagne and Fustier in this
issue). The ability of microorganisms to grow and survive
depends largely on their capacity to adapt to changing
environments. Adaptation to adverse environments is
usually associated with the induction of a large number
of genes, the synthesis of stress-response proteins, and
the development of cross-resistance to various stresses
[10
].
The response of different strains of bidobacteria to
increasing sublethal temperatures, salt or bile salt treat-
ments by synthesizing specic stress-protecting proteins
resulted in improved cell tolerance to further homologous
or heterologous stresses [12]. Heat adaptation with cross
protection (i.e. heat and salt stress conditioning) has been
shown to improve the survival of Lactobacillus paracasei
NFBC 338 during spray drying [13]. In another study, the
survival of Bidobacterium longum in growth medium at
6 8C signicantly increased when cells were submitted to
starving conditions for 30 or 60 min [14]. Likewise the
acid tolerance of Bidobacterium lactis (at pH 3.5 in syn-
thetic gastric uid) increased signicantly after decreas-
ing the growth medium pH from 6.0 to 5.2 and under
conditions of starvation. Stationary-phase acid and heat
treatments of bidobacteria strains also produced differ-
ent adaptative and cross-protective responses [15]. Cell
responses to sublethal stresses depend on the strain and
applied stresses [16]. Therefore, in the absence of general
mechanisms for sublethal stress adaptation, fermentation
conditions must be determined for each bacterium. This
process is labour-intensive and costly. In addition, sub-
lethal stresses can lead to decreases in cell activity and
yield [13] and eventually to changes in the functionality
of probiotic cells in the gut. Clearly there is a need to
develop a more in-depth understanding of stress-response
mechanisms of probiotics.
New fermentation technologies using
suspended cells
Continuous fermentation
Until now, very few data have been reported on continu-
ous fermentations with probiotics, although this approach
could provide benets as recently reviewed by Doleyres
et al. [11
]
Increased survival during freeze-drying
b
Increased survival in gastrointestinal conditions
b
Decreased sensitivity to antibiotics
b
Decreased sensitivity to nisin Z
b
FC batch
a
/IC batch Lactobacillus rhamnosus Changed exopolysaccharide production from soluble to insoluble
b
[36]
Induced aggregation
b
FC batch
a
/IC continuous
fermentation
Lactobacillus rhamnosus Increased acidifying capacity
b
[34]
Increased acid tolerance
b
Increased nisin Z tolerance
b
Lactococcus lactis Increased acidifying capacity
b
IC continuous fermentation Lactobacillus delbueckii Increased acidifying capacity
b
[35]
Decreased autolytic activity
b
Increased survival during freeze-drying
b
a
Used as a reference for the comparison.
b
Time effect was shown. FC, free cell; IC, immobilised cell.
www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2007, 18:176183
acid bacteria and probiotics, and reviewed by Junter et al.
[32
].
The very high cell packing in peripheral layers of beads
and the close contacts between immobilized cells might
induce physiological characteristics that are typically con-
trolled by quorum sensing and regulate the expression of
certain genes. In a cell-density-dependent quorum-sen-
sing system, bacteria produce extracellular signaling mol-
ecules such as peptides or post-translationally modied
peptides that act as inducers for gene expression when
concentrations of these molecules exceed a certain
threshold value. These changes might eventually lead
to competitive advantages for the population, more effec-
tive adaptation and responses to changing environmental
conditions, or the co-ordination of interactions between
bacteria and their abiotic and biotic environments [37]. As
such, cells produced by immobilized cell technology
might exhibit physiology proles that are better suited
for adaptation to growth in the very competitive con-
ditions of the gastrointestinal tract, but this remains to be
demonstrated.
Current data suggest that cell immobilization combined
with continuous culture might be used to efciently
produce, in a one-step process, probiotic cells with
enhanced tolerance to environmental stresses and
improved technological and functional characteristics.
Moreover, a second fermentation stage can be added to
perform additional adaptation under conditions of
starvation or other sublethal stresses. However, additional
studies are needed to unravel the molecular and physio-
logical mechanisms of these effects and to develop indus-
trial applications based on this innovative technology.
Biomarkers for viability and functionality
assessment and for process monitoring
Because probiotics must maintain optimal viability in
both products and the gut, previous studies on technology
and stress adaptation of probiotic bacteria have almost
exclusively relied on cell viability measurements, mainly
with plate counts. However, culture-based methods pro-
vide only a biased estimate of viable cell numbers
because sublethally injured or dormant bacteria often
cannot be detected [38]. In addition, culture-based
analysis of viability is not an adequate predictor for
probiotic functionality, which should be the ultimate
marker for technological developments, as recently
shown by Matto et al. [39]. Therefore, in the eld of
probiotics, additional methods should be used to study
cell physiology for fundamental research, process devel-
opment and monitoring, and product assessment. Mol-
ecular methods such as ow cytometry and uorescence
in situ hybridization can be used to assess viability in
products, as recently shown for the quality assessment of
commercial probiotic capsules and non-dairy drinks [40
].
Flow cytometry also enables subpopulations to be dis-
tinguished and physically sorted for further characteriz-
ation [41
], but
also for developing physiological prole targets for pro-
biotic production. More generally, the omics technol-
ogies transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics
could be used to assess and compare the physiological
proles of probiotics in the gut, at different stages of
production, and following their addition to food. One
possible aim for process development and optimization
could be to obtain cells during and after production that
have similar proles to cells in the gut, in addition to high
cell yield and viability.
Flow cytometry and PCR methods might provide rapid
and efcient tools for the characterization of cell
180 Food biotechnology
Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2007, 18:176183 www.sciencedirect.com
physiology during and after production. After the identi-
cation of biomarkers for cell functionality by omics
methods, new uorescent stains for these biomarkers
could be developed and applied for process monitoring
and product quality control. For example ow cytometry
can quantify specic intracellular proteins and measure
membrane integrity [43]. Recently, automated ow cyto-
metry has been developed and used to monitor continu-
ous fermentations at the single-cell level [44,45].
Conclusions
Until now, technological developments for the pro-
duction of probiotics have focused on approaches to
obtain as many cells as technically and/or economically
possible. Clearly, in addition to high cell numbers, cell
physiology is crucial to ensure that cells are well-suited to
survival during downstream processes and that they exhi-
bit high functionality. Astrategy for future research aimed
at optimizing probiotic production is presented in
Figure 3. Furthermore innovative fermentation technol-
ogies to produce food cultures need to be investigated in
relation to generating cells with high viability and func-
tionality upon delivery. Reliable and convenient bio-
markers need to be developed for process monitoring
and product assessment. In this regard, the omics tech-
nnologies could be particularly useful for identifying such
functionality-relevant biomarkers. These approaches
could also help to identify the mechanisms for cell tness
and stress-adaptation that will be needed to develop more
generic and science-based technologies for the pro-
duction of sensitive probiotics, thereby enlarging the
range of commercial probiotics and product applications.
Moreover, these tools might facilitate screening
approaches to identify new probiotic strains that combine
suitable technological and functional qualities.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
of special interest
of outstanding interest
1. Schrezenmeir J, de Vrese M: Probiotics, prebiotics, and
synbiotics approaching a denition. Am J Clin Nutr 2001,
73:361-364.
2. Saxelin M, Tynkkynen S, Mattila-Sandholm T, de Vos WM:
Probiotic and other functional microbes: from markets to
mechanisms. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2005, 16:204-211.
3. Ouwehand AC, Bianchi Salvadori B, Fonde n R, Mogensen G,
Salminen S, Sellars R: Health effects of probiotics and culture-
containing dairy products in humans. Int Dairy Fed Bull 2003,
380:4-19.
4. Mattila-Sandholm T, Myllarinen P, Crittenden R, Mogensen G,
Fonden R, Saarela M: Technological challenges for future
probiotic foods. Int Dairy J 2002, 12:173-182.
5.