Next Article in Journal
Motivating Military Trainee Healthy Eating: Insight from Two Sites
Next Article in Special Issue
Fabrication of Spray-Dried Microcapsules Containing Noni Juice Using Blends of Maltodextrin and Gum Acacia: Physicochemical Properties of Powders and Bioaccessibility of Bioactives during In Vitro Digestion
Previous Article in Journal
Proteomic Strategies to Evaluate the Impact of Farming Conditions on Food Quality and Safety in Aquaculture Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microencapsulation of Rambutan Peel Extract by Spray Drying
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/foods9081051
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microencapsulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae into Alginate Beads: A Focus on Functional Properties of Released Cells

by
Antonio Bevilacqua
,
Daniela Campaniello
,
Barbara Speranza
,
Angela Racioppo
,
Clelia Altieri
,
Milena Sinigaglia
and
Maria Rosaria Corbo
*
Department of the Science of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Foggia, Via Napoli 25, 71122 Foggia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(8), 1051; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081051
Submission received: 11 July 2020 / Revised: 30 July 2020 / Accepted: 31 July 2020 / Published: 4 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Study of the Microencapsulation Process of Bioactive Ingredients in Food Matrices)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Five yeast strains (four wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains and a collection strain-S. cerevisiae var. boulardii) were encapsulated in alginate beads. Encapsulation yield was at least 60% (100% for some strains) and yeasts survived in beads for 30 days at 4 °C, although the viability was strongly affected during storage at 25 °C (3 log reduction after 7 days). The kinetic of cell release was studied under static and dynamic conditions, but the results suggest that, after 48 h, beads contained a high number of yeasts. Thus, their use is advisable as re-usable carriers of starter cultures or as a vehicle of probiotics into the gut. Finally, some functional properties (biofilm formation, hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, survival during the transit into the gut) were evaluated on yeasts released by beads to assess if microencapsulation could negatively affect these traits. The results showed that yeasts’ entrapment in beads did not affect probiotic properties.

1. Introduction

Microencapsulation is a successful microtechnology for food science and biotechnology to design immobilization systems, which protect active compounds (lipids, proteins, vitamins, enzymes, bacteria) that are otherwise subjected to rapid inactivation and/or degradation [1]. Many researchers use the terms immobilization and encapsulation as synonymous, despite their different meaning. Encapsulation means entrapment of an active ingredient in a shell by forming a continuous coating; on the other hand, immobilization is the process through the ingredient is linked to a matrix (also on the surface) [2].
In particular, “microencapsulation” was defined as “the technology of packaging solid, liquid and gaseous active ingredients in small capsules that release their content at controlled rates over prolonged periods of time” [2,3].
Microencapsulation systems find application in different sectors, from the pharmaceutical to the agri-food sector. In food biotechnology, they can be used to protect lactic acid bacteria in foods or in the gastrointestinal tract and may contribute to the development of new functional foods [4]. Microorganisms, in fact, could experience a strong viability loss as a result of harsh conditions (stomach, intestine, acidic environments in fermented foods, variations of temperatures, humidity, oxygen, and mechanical forces) [5]. Therefore, a barrier could protect them from the stresses encountered during food preparation processes and storage, as well as in the gut [6]. Microencapsulation, in fact, protects cells from mild heat treatments, adverse conditions characteristic of the gastrointestinal tract or, during storage, refrigeration [7,8,9].
Probiotics could be loaded in capsules through coacervation, emulsion, extrusion, spray-drying, and gel-particle technologies (including spray-chilling) [4]. One of the most common technique is the extrusion in a gel matrix of alginate. Alginate is widely used because it is a low-cost compound, it is biocompatible, non-toxic, and extracted from natural sources [6].
Alginate beads can entrap probiotics and starter bacteria [10,11,12,13]. However, few papers are available on yeasts, despite the fact that yeast entrapment and release over time could be very useful for different purposes, e.g., in mixed fermentations for a better control of microbial interactions, for a delayed release in the gut to extend bioactivity over time and promote the synthesis of useful compounds [14,15,16,17]. In a recent study, Saccharomyces boulardii was microencapsulated in alginate beads by emulsion and internal gelation, and yeast viability under in vitro and in vivo conditions was evaluated. The results showed that microencapsulation protected the yeast in adverse conditions [14]. Gallo et al. [15] carried out the microencapsulation of S. boulardii in sodium alginate microcapsules, and studied encapsulation yield (EY), cell viability throughout storage, and cell release kinetics. The results confirmed that microencapsulation assured yeast survival as well as its controlled release.
In another study, the encapsulation of S. boulardii was used to design new functional food like cheeses and yogurts [16] like a functional freeze-dried yogurt [17]. The microencapsulation increased the viability of yeast and extended the full benefits of the product compared to product supplemented with free or non-encapsulated yeast.
Few data are available on the effect of microencapsulation on the functional properties of bacteria [18] and to the best of our knowledge this topic is unexplored for yeasts.
Therefore, the main aim of this paper was to study an alginate-encapsulation system for foodborne yeasts to address the following topic: (a) the yield of the system; (b) the release kinetic of yeasts from beads; (c) the ability of beads to protect yeasts throughout gastrointestinal tract; (d) to study the effect of microencapsulation on some functional properties linked to surface properties of yeasts and related to their ability to adhere to gut mucosa (hydrophobicity, biofilm formation, auto-aggregation).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microorganisms

Five microorganisms were used in this research: (i) S. cerevisiae var. boulardii ATCC MYA-796 purchased from American Type Culture Collection; (ii) S. cerevisiae W13, isolated from Uva di Troia, a grape variety of Southern Italy and able to remove ochratoxin A [19]; (iii) and three S. cerevisiae strains (2-4-17), isolated from Altamura sourdough, studied for their probiotic and technological properties [20]. The strains were stored at 4 °C on YPG agar (Bacteriological Peptone, 20 g/L; Glucose, 20 g/L; Yeast Extract, 10 g/L; Agar Technical, 12 g/L), and grown in YPG broth at 30 °C for 24 h.

2.2. Microencapsulation into Alginate Beads

The strains were inoculated in 500 mL-YPG broth and incubated at 30 °C for 48 h. Broth (20 mL) was centrifuged (8000 rpm for 15 min) to harvest cells and suspend them in 20 mL sterile water (cell suspension). A quantity of 0.4 g of Na-alginate (2%) (Fluka, Milan, Italy) was added to this suspension and mixed for 2 min, until a gel was formed. Gel drops were dipped through a sterile 10-mL-syringe in a sterile 0.5% CaCl2 solution (J.T. Baker, Milan, Italy). Beads were produced under sterile conditions.
Encapsulation yield was evaluated as reported by Corbo et al. [21], and Chavarri et al. [22]. Five grams of beads were diluted with 45 mL of sodium citrate (0.1 M) and homogenized through a laboratory blender. Homogenates and cell suspension before alginate addition were serially diluted in a saline solution (0.9% NaCl) and plated on YPG agar, incubated at 30 °C for 48 h. The analyses were performed on two independent batches (that is two different productions of beads on two different times); for each batch, the experiments were performed in duplicate over two different samples. The encapsulation yield (EY) was evaluated as follows:
EY = (Nbead/Nsuspension)∗100
where Nbead (cfu/g) and Nsuspension (cfu/g) are the viable counts in the beads after the immobilization and in cell suspension before the addition of alginate, respectively.

2.3. Yeast Viability During Storage

Beads were produced as reported above, and stored at 25 °C for 7 days or at 4 °C for 40 days. Yeast viable count was evaluated as reported above.

2.4. Release of Yeasts from Beads

The kinetic of cell release from alginate beads was evaluated immediately after bead production and on the beads stored under refrigerated conditions for 40 days. A quantity of 5 g of capsules was put in saline solution (50 mL). For each strain two experiments were performed: static or dynamic conditions (orbital shaker at 110 rpm). The samples were stored at room temperature and the conditioning medium was analyzed after 6, 24 and 48 h by plating. After 48 h, the number of cells not released by beads was analyzed as described above.

2.5. Hydrophobicity

The hydrophobicity was evaluated as reported by Bautista-Gallego et al. [23] on yeasts released by beads and on free cells. The strains were centrifuged (4000 rpm for 10 min), twice in PBS (Phosphate Buffer saline, Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy), and finally diluted in 10 mL of 0.1 M KNO3 (C. Erba, Milan, Italy); the absorbance of this last suspension at 600 nm was coded as A0.
Three ml of xylene were added; after 10 min at room temperature (static conditions) the samples were mixed and left again at room temperature for 3 h to read the absorbance of the aqueous phase after 20 min, 1 h, 2 h, and 3 h (A1). Hydrophobicity (H%) was evaluated as follows:
H = [1−(A1/A0)]∗100

2.6. Auto-Aggregation

This assay was performed on yeasts released by beads and on free cells. Yeasts released in the conditioning solution were harvested by centrifugation, washed twice with PBS (phosphate saline buffer, 9 g/L di NaCl e 0.30 g/L Na2HPO4·2 H2O, Sigma-Aldrich). The resulting solution (5 mL) was left at room temperature (25 °C) to evaluate the absorbance at 600 nm of the upper suspension every hour. The experiments were performed at least in duplicate. The formula for auto-aggregation reads as follows [23]:
A = [1−(At/A0)]∗100
where At and A0 are the absorbance at the time t and the initial value, respectively.

2.7. Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions

Tolerance to simulated gastrointestinal conditions was evaluated using the method reported by Petruzzi et al. [19]. Three solutions were prepared and sterilized through filtration as follows:
Salivary conditions (SS): solution at pH 6.5, supplemented with 0.22 g/L CaCl2 (C. Erba, Milan, Italy), 6.5 g/L NaCl (C. Erba), 2.2 g/L KCl (J.T. Baker, Milan, Italy), 1.2 g/L NaHCO3 (Sigma-Aldrich), 100 mg/L lysozyme (Sigma-Aldrich) [24].
Gastric conditions (SGJ): saline solution (0.9% NaCl, pH 2.0) with 3 g/L pepsin (porcine gastric mucosal, Sigma-Aldrich) [24].
Intestinal conditions (SIF): 1 g/l pancreatin (porcine pancreas, Sigma-Aldrich), 3 g/L of bile extract (bile extract porcine, Sigma-Aldrich), 6.5 g/L NaCl, 0.835 g/L KCl, 0.22 g/L CaCl2, 1.386 g/L NaHCO3, pH 8 [24].
The assay was performed as follows:
  • Nine different sterile tubes, containing 45 mL of SS and 5 g of beads, were prepared and incubated at 37 °C for 5 min. Then, viable count was evaluated on beads and in SS from 3 tubes.
  • The beads were recovered from the remaining 6 tubes, suspended in SGJ (45 mL) and incubated at 37 °C for 120 min under agitation (200 rpm) [25,26]. Then, viable count was evaluated on beads and in SGJ from 3 tubes.
  • Beads were recovered from the remaining 3 tubes, suspended in SIF (45 mL) and incubated at 37 °C for 240 min, under agitation (200 rpm) [25,26]. Viable count was evaluated on beads and in SIF.
A second test was also performed, by suspending beads only in SS (salivary), SGJ (gastric) or SIF (intestinal).
The same test was also carried out on free cells. After each step, cells were harvested by centrifugation (4000 rpm-10 min). Analyses were performed on two different batches. Viable count was determined before and after each phase.

2.8. Biofilm Formation

The experiment was performed on both free cells and cells released from beads. Glass slides (25.4 mm × 76.2 mm) were used as surfaces. Before each experiment, slides were treated with acetone, 3.5% sodium hypochlorite (v/v) at 75 °C for 5 min, and 7.0 g/L phosphoric acid solution for 5 min. Then, the slides were rinsed in distilled water, air dried and autoclaved at 121 °C for 15 min [27].
A glass slide was put in a tube containing 40 mL of YPG; the broth was inoculated to 5 log cfu/mL with cells released from beads. Samples inoculated with free cells were used as positive controls.
A second experiment was performed by putting in the same sample beads and glass slide. For this second experiment, S. cerevisiae var. boulardii ATCC MYA-796 was used as a model organism.
The samples were prepared as follows:
  • 40 mL YPG broth+ beads (5 g)
  • 40 mL saline solution + beads (5 g)
  • 40 mL YPG broth + free cells (5 log cfu/mL)
  • 40 mL saline solution + free cells (5 log cfu/mL)
The samples were incubated at 25 °C for 14 days. The populations in planktonic and sessile states were periodically determined by a standard plate count on YPG Agar. Slides were removed from the medium, gently washed with sterile distilled water to remove the unattached cells and placed into a test-tube containing 45 mL of sterile saline solution and sonicated at 20% power “Vibra Cell” for 3 min [27].

2.9. Statistic

The experiments were performed on two or three independent batches; the results were analyzed through a t-student’s test (paired comparison, p < 0.05) or one-way ANOVA using the Tukey’s test as the post-hoc test (multiple comparison). Statistic was made through the software Statistica for Windows ver. 12.0 (Stasoft, Tulsa, OK, USA). All data in figures and tables are shown as mean values ± standard deviation.

3. Results and Discussion

The first parameter assayed in this research was EY (encapsulation yield), that is the percentage of cells entrapped into alginate, as reported elsewhere [15,21,28] (Table 1). EY was between 87.70 and 108% for the strains 4, 17 and SB (S. cerevisiae var. boulardii), while the strains 2 and W13 showed values of 54.07 and 62.78%, respectively. Some preliminary findings suggest that this lower EY was probably due to a reversible stress on cells, generally known as “crowding” and found for these strains when they are at high levels. A first experiment performed on entrapped yeasts suggest the idea that some yeasts could experience a transient viable but not culturable cells, probably responsible for a lower EY; however, EY was calculated using the exponential values of the cell counts, i.e., EY > 50% means a difference in cell concentration between the suspension and the beads of 0.5 log cfu/mL or lower.
Table 2 shows the viability of yeasts in beads during storage at 4 °C for 30 days, and 25 °C for 7 days. The initial concentration of yeasts in the beads at 4 °C was 7.07–7.81 log cfu/g and during the storage there were not significant changes. These data confirmed the results of Gallo et al. [15] who reported the survival of S. boulardii into the same kind of beads for 90 days. Moreover, the goodness of the technique was also confirmed by Suvarna et al. [29], who assessed the viability of yeasts at 4 °C for 30 days, testing different kinds of gel matrix for encapsulation (sodium alginate, chitosan coated sodium alginate, sodium alginate-gelatinized starch). On the other hand, the viability of yeasts in beads at 25 °C for 7 days (“stress test”), showed a significant reduction of the viable count.
The viability of encapsulated cells is influenced by the type and the concentration of the surrounding polymer, particle size, initial cell numbers and strains. Some authors proposed alginate as a good polymer for microencapsulation due to some benefits [30,31]: it is a nontoxic, biodegradable and biocompatible polymer [32] and shows a good stability of matrix under mild conditions at ambient temperature [33]. Moreover, microencapsulation can be considered a promising method for the protection of bacteria or yeasts sensitive to high temperature [14,34].
Several studies have shown that microencapsulation in alginate microparticles also improve the survival of probiotic bacteria [21,35,36,37].
The results of this research confirm the suitability of this approach due to the prolonged survival of cells into beads at least at 4 °C. Nowadays, there are several industries focusing on probiotic market with an increasing interest, and microencapsulation can be an efficient method of extending the shelf life of probiotic food products. There are already several foods on the market containing encapsulated probiotic cells, such as chocolate, yogurt and ice cream [4].
The second phase for the optimization of the method was the evaluation of the kinetics of cell release from beads. This is an important parameter if the beads are produced as a carrier to release microorganisms in specific environments. Indeed, an advantage of the microencapsulation system is the controlled release of entrapped cells [38,39,40].
Therefore, the kinetic of yeast release was studied as a function of different variables: agitation of the conditioning medium (static and dynamic conditions) and age of beads (used immediately after gelling or studied after a preliminary refrigerated storage).
Table 3 shows the kinetic of cell release of yeasts in fresh beads. Beads released cells after 6 h (4.26 and 4.17 log cfu/mL for the strains SB and W13, ca. 3 log cfu/mL for the strains 2, 4, and 17); under static conditions, beads with strains 17 and 4 did not show a kinetic of cell release, while the strains SB, W13 and 2 released ca. 3 log cfu/mL, although at different time intervals (after 6 h for the strains SB and W13 and after 24 h the strain 2). The storage at 4 °C for 40 days did not affect this trend (data not shown).
By combining the results of EY and the kinetic of cell release from beads, the effective amount of cells released after 48 h was evaluated; the amount of cells effectively released in the conditioning medium was 4.09–5.49 log cfu/g (for the strains 1 and SB, respectively), that is 1% or less of the total amount of cells. Therefore, after 48 h, beads contained a high number of cells (6.90 log cfu/g for the strain SB and 7.19 log cfu/g for the strain 2) (Figure 1).
For lactic acid bacteria, many authors assumed that initially the capsules released cells contained into the outer layers; then, the cells of the inner layers were released, following their migration to the superficial layers [21,28,41]. This hypothesis was also reported by Gallo et al. [15] for yeasts. However, an analysis of the gel structure should be done to verify these hypotheses.
These results suggest that alginate beads are suitable carriers to release cells in the gut, where alginate is generally disrupted and all cells can be released; on the other hand, the release in some media is lower and this trait suggests the possibility of using beads as re-usable carriers to start a fermentation for 7–10 different batches [15].
Delayed kinetic of cell release could be exploited in alcoholic fermentation processes, since the cell growth in the beads contribute to increase the final ethanol concentration. Moreover, microencapsulated yeasts could be used in a continuous fermentation process due to several advantages such as the ease of cell separation from the medium, a cost reduction due to the reuse of cells in subsequent reaction cycles and a reduced possibility of contamination, as reported by different authors [42,43].
After assessing the optimization of method, the effect of microencapsulation was studied on some selected functional properties of yeasts (hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, biofilm formation, survival). Hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation, and biofilm formation are indirect tools to assess the ability of microorganisms to adhere to gut mucosa [44,45,46,47].
Figure 2 shows the effects of microencapsulation on hydrophobicity, auto-aggregation and biofilm formation for the cells released from beads. These properties were never affected by microencapsulation. Concerning biofilm formation, after 5 days, the strain SB shown the highest level of sessile cells (5.87 log cfu/cm2), followed by strains 2, 4, 17, and W13.
All these experiments were carried on cells released by beads and harvested by centrifugation; a second test was performed to simulate a condition with beads directly in contact with mucosa. Therefore, beads were put in tubes along with glass slides, and biofilm formation was evaluated without a preliminary step of cell harvesting; the experiment was done only with the strains SB and 17, in two media: a laboratory substrate and a minimal medium (Table 4).
Biofilm formation was only found in the lab medium for both SB and strain 17; however, the trend was different for the two yeasts. Biofilm was found after 8 h for both free and entrapped cells for strain 17, without differences in the concentration of sessile cells. On the other hand, free cells of SB produced a biofilm after 5 h (2.45 log cfu/cm2) and then the concentration increased after 8 h to ca. 4 log cfu/cm2. Cells released from beads produced a biofilm after 8 h at 3 log cfu/cm2.
Similar results were found by Bevilacqua et al. [18], for Lacticaseibacillus casei and Bifidobacterium bifidum. They showed that microencapsulation did not modify the hydrophobicity of cells.
The breakpoint for a is 106–107 cfu per g, during the shelf-life [48]. Thus, processors should fulfill this requirement and guarantee the viability of probiotic until the time of consumption; thus, the strain remains viable and reaches the colon where it should proliferate, exerting its beneficial probiotic effects [16,17,49].
In this research, the ability of beads to protect yeasts throughout gastrointestinal tract was evaluated using the method reported by Petruzzi et al. [19]. In the first step, each phase was tested separately (salivary condition, gastric conditions, intestinal condition), and in the second step a sequential protocol was evaluated. Free cells were used as a control. Table 5 shows the viability of free cells, and yeasts in beads in a simulated gastrointestinal tract. As expected, none of the tested control strains showed statistically significant differences between the concentration before and after exposure to each phase (p > 0.05). Similar results were obtained in the sequential protocol. After checking the intrinsic resistance of yeasts to gastrointestinal conditions, we studied the effect of microencapsulation to check whether beads could be able to protect cells. As regards phases tested alone, neither the salivary nor the gastric phase determined a significant reduction of the concentration of microencapsulated cells. However, after exposure to the intestinal phase, strain 2 showed a significant reduction in cell concentration (by 7.40 to 5.76 log cfu/g), thus suggesting a weakening of the microencapsulated strain. Based upon this result, strain 2 was not subjected to the sequential protocol, as it was considered unsuitable.
The other strains showed similar performances as free or entrapped cells when exposed to the sequential protocol. The survival of yeasts after the exposure to gastrointestinal conditions is a strain characteristic and some entrapment systems could improve it. Some authors reported that microencapsulation increased the survival of the probiotic micro-organisms in simulated gastric juice [41,50,51], whilst others did not observe any effect in gastric and bile juice [36] or found a slight effect (0.5 log cfu/mL improvement in Pinpimai et al. [52]).
The data of this research suggest that yeasts loaded in alginate microspheres survived when exposed to simulated gastrointestinal conditions, and confirmed the results reported by Gallo et al. [15]. A similar gastro-resistance was reported by Suvarna et al. [29] and Qi et al. [14]. However, the main finding of this paper is the use of a low amount of alginate (2%) without adverse effect on the viability.
The amount of alginate in beads is linked to cell release from capsules (a higher amount means a reduced release of cells) as well as to strain resistance to some stress conditions (higher amounts confer a higher protection) [53,54], thus the choice of alginate amount is the result of a balance between protection and release. The results of this paper with an enhanced viability also for a low concentration of the polymer suggest that this kind of approach is suitable for yeasts, because it is possible to maximize or enhance their release without affecting their viability into the gut.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study proposes a first structured approach to evaluate the effect of microencapsulation into alginate gels on the functional properties of yeasts. The results suggest that the confinement of yeasts in beads did not affect probiotic properties (hydrophobicity and biofilm formation), and was able to protect the cells into simulating gastrointestinal conditions. Finally, the kinetic of cell release suggest that, after 48 h, beads contain a high number of yeasts. Thus, their use is advisable as re-usable carriers of starter cultures or as vehicle of probiotics into the gut. Further investigations are required because, for one strain, a reduction of viability was found when cells were entrapped; this result needs to be confirmed to assess if some strains could experience a stress when confined in a restricted space.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B., M.R.C. and M.S.; methodology, A.B.; investigation, B.S., A.R., D.C., C.A.; data curation, A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R. and A.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; funding acquisition, M.R.C. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. de Vos, P.; Faas, M.M.; Spasojevic, M.; Sikkema, J. Encapsulation for preservation of functionality and targeted delivery of bioactive food components. Int. Dairy J. 2010, 20, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Champagne, C.P.; Fustier, P. Microencapsulation for the improved delivery of bioactive compounds into foods. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2007, 18, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dubey, R.; Shami, T.C.; Bhasker Rao, K.U. Microencapsulation technology and applications. Def. Sci. J. 2009, 59, 82–95. [Google Scholar]
  4. Nazzaro, F.; Orlando, P.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R. Microencapsulation in food science and biotechnology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yao, M.; Wu, J.; Li, B.; Xiao, H.; McClements, D.J.; Lanjuan, L. Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus salivarious Li01 for enhanced storage viability and targeted delivery to gut microbiota. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 72, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. D’Orazio, G.; Di Gennaro, P.; Boccarusso, M.; Presti, I.; Bizzaro, G.; Giardina, S.; Michelotti, A.; Labra, M.; La Ferla, B. Microencapsulation of new probiotic formulations for gastrointestinal delivery: In vitro study to assess viability and biological properties. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 9779–9789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kailasapathy, K. Microencapsulation of probiotic bacteria: Technology and potential applications. Curr. Issues Int. Microbiol. 2002, 3, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  8. Krasaekoopt, W.; Bhandari, B.; Deeth, H. Evaluation of encapsulation techniques of probiotics for yoghurt. Int. Dairy J. 2003, 13, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gbassi, G.K.; Vandamme, T.; Ennahar, S.; Marchioni, E. Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus plantarum in an alginate matrix coated with whey proteins. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 129, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kavitake, D.; Kandasamya, S.; Bruntha Devi, P.; Shetty, P.H. Recent developments on encapsulation of lactic acid bacteria as potential starter culture in fermented foods–A review. Food Biosci. 2018, 21, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martín, M.J.; Lara-Villoslada, F.; Ruiz, M.A.; Morales, M.E. Microencapsulation of bacteria: A review of different technologies and their impact on the probiotic effects. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 27, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Muzzafar, A.; Sharma, V. Microencapsulation of probiotics for incorporation in cream biscuits. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2018, 12, 2193–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ye, Q.; Georges, N.; Selomulya, C. Microencapsulation of active ingredients in functional foods: From research stage to commercial food products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Qi, W.; Liang, X.; Yun, T.; Guo, W. Growth and survival of microencapsulated probiotics prepared by emulsion and internal gelation. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 1398–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gallo, M.; Bevilacqua, A.; Speranza, B.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Alginate beads and apple pieces as carriers for Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii, as representative of yeast functional starter cultures. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 2092–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zamora-Vega, R.; Montañez-Soto, J.L.; Martínez-Flores, H.E.; Flores-Magallon, R.; Muñoz-Ruiz, C.V.; Venegas-González, J.; Ariza Ortega, T.D.J. Effect of incorporating prebiotics in coating materials for the microencapsulation of Saccharomyces boulardii. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 63, 930–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rodriguez, E.T.; Flores, H.E.M.; Lopez, J.O.R.; Vega, R.Z.; Garciglia, R.S.; Sanchez, R.E.P. Survival rate of Saccharomyces boulardii adapted to a functional freeze-dried yogurt: Experimental study related to processing, storage and digestion by Wistar rats. Funct. Foods Health Dis. 2017, 7, 98–114. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bevilacqua, A.; Speranza, B.; Santillo, A.; Albenzio, M.; Gallo, M.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Alginate-microencapsulation of Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium bifidum: Performances of encapsulated microorganisms and bead-validation in lamb rennet. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 113, 108349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Petruzzi, L.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M.; Bevilacqua, A. Ochratoxin A removal by yeasts after exposure to simulated human gastrointestinal conditions. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, M2756–M2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Perricone, M.; Bevilacqua, A.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M. Technological characterization and probiotic traits of yeasts isolated from Altamura sourdough to select promising microorganisms as functional starter cultures for cereal-based products. Food Microbiol. 2014, 38, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Corbo, M.R.; Bevilacqua, A.; Gallo, M.; Speranza, B.; Sinigaglia, M. Immobilization and microencapsulation of Lactobacillus plantarum: Performances and in vivo applications. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 18, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chávarri, M.; Marañón, I.; Ares, R.; Ibáñez, F.C.; Marzo, F.; Villarán, M. Microencapsulation of a probiotic and prebiotic in alginate-chitosan capsules improves survival in simulated gastro-intestinal conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 142, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bautista-Gallego, J.; Arroyo-López, F.N.; Rantsiou, K.; Jiménez-Díaz, R.; Garrido-Fernández, A.; Cocolin, L. Screening of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented table olives with probiotic potential. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Russo, P.; Fernández de Palencia, P.; Romano, A.; Fernández, M.; Lucas, P.; Spano, G.; López, P. Biogenic amine production by the wine Lactobacillus brevis IOEB 9809 in systems that partially mimic the gastrointestinal tract stress. BMC Microbiol. 2012, 12, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kos, B.; Suskovic, J.; Goreta, J.; Matosic, S. Effect of protectors on the viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus M92 in simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2000, 2, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pizzolitto, R.P.; Armando, M.R.; Combina, M.; Cavaglieri, L.R.; Dalcero, A.M.; Salvano, M.A. Evaluation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains as probiotic agent with aflatoxin B₁ adsorption ability for use in poultry feedstuffs. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2012, 47, 933–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Speranza, B.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M. Effects of nutritional and environmental conditions on Salmonella spp biofilm formation. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, M12–M16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Corbo, M.R.; Bevilacqua, A.; Sinigaglia, M. Shelf life of alginate beads containing lactobacilli and bifidobacteria. Characterization of microspheres containing Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 2212–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Suvarna, S.; Dsouza, J.; Ragavan, M.L.; Das, N. Potential probiotic characterization and effect of encapsulation of probiotic yeast strains on survival in simulated gastrointestinal tract condition. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 27, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koyama, K.; Seki, M. Cultivation of yeast and plant cells entrapped in the low-viscous liquid-core of an alginate membrane capsule prepared using polyethylene glycol. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2004, 97, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Qi, W.T.; Yu, W.T.; Xie, Y.B.; Ma, X.J. Optimization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture in alginatechitosan-alginate microcapsule. Biochem. Eng. J. 2005, 25, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  32. George, M.A. Polyionic hydrocolloids for the intestinal delivery of protein drugs: Alginate and Chitosan—A review. J. Control. Release 2006, 114, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ghorbani, F.; Younesi, H.; Sari, A.B.; Nayafpour, G. Cane molasses fermentation for continuous ethanol production in an immobilized cells reactor by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Renew. Energ. 2011, 36, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ding, W.K.; Shah, N.P. Acid, bile, and heat tolerance of free and microencapsulated probiotic bacteria. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Adhikari, K.; Mustapha, A.; Grun, I.U.; Fernando, L. Viability of microencapsulated Bifidobacteria in set yogurt during refrigerated storage. J. Dairy Sci. 2000, 83, 1946–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sultana, K.; Godward, G.; Reynolds, N.; Arumugaswamy, R.; Peiris, P.; Kailasapathy, K. Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria with alginate-starch and evaluation of survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in yoghurt. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Truelstrup, H.L.; Wojtas, A.P.M.; Jin, Y.L.; Paulson, A.T. Survival of Ca-alginate microencapsulated Bifidobacterium spp. in milk and simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Microbiol. 2002, 19, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dohnal, J.; Štěpánek, F. Inkjet fabrication and characterization of calcium alginate microcapsules. Powder Technol. 2010, 200, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jyothi, N.V.N.; Prasanna, P.M.; Sakarkar, S.N.; Prabha, K.S.; Ramaiah, P.S.; Srawan, G.Y. Microencapsulation techniques, factors influencing encapsulation efficiency. J. Microencapsul. 2010, 27, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wandrey, C.; Bartkowiak, A.; Harding, S.E. Materials for Encapsulation. In Encapsulation Technologies for Active Food Ingredients and Food Processing; Zuidam, N.J., Nedovic, V.K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 31–100. [Google Scholar]
  41. Graff, S.; Hussain, S.; Chaumeil, J.C.; Charrueau, C. Increased intestinal delivery of viable Saccharomyces boulardii by encapsulation in microspheres. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25, 1290–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Iurciuc (Tincu), C.E.; Peptu, C.; Savin, A.; Atanase, L.I.; Souidi, K.; Mackenzie, G.; Martin, P.; Riess, G.; Popa, M. Microencapsulation of baker’s yeast in gellan gum beads used in repeated cycles of glucose fermentation. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2017, 2017, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Duarte, J.C.; Rodrigues, J.A.R.; Moran, P.J.S.; Valenca, G.P.; Nunhez, J.R. Effect of immobilized cells in calcium alginate beads in alcoholic fermentation. AMB Express 2013, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. De Wouters, T.; Jans, C.; Niederberger, T.; Fischer, P.; Rühs, P.A. Adhesion potential of intestinal microbes predicted by physico-chemical characterization methods. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Haddaji, N.; Mahdhi, A.K.; Krifi, B.; Ben Ismail, M.; Bakhrouf, A. Change in cell surface properties of Lactobacillus casei under heat shock treatment. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2015, 362, fnv047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Del Re, B.; Sgorbati, B.; Miglioli, M.; Palenzona, D. Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longum. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 31, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kotzamanidis, C.; Kourelis, A.; Litopoulou-Tzanetaki, E.; Tzanetakis, N.; Yiangou, M. Evaluation of adhesion capacity, cell surface traits and immunomodulatory activity of presumptive probiotic Lactobacillus strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 140, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (WHO/FAO). Probiotics in Food. Health and nutritional properties and guidelines for evaluation. FAO Food Nutr. Pap. 2006, 85. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zamora-Vega, R.; Martínez-Flores, E.; Montañez-Soto, J.L.; Rodiles-Lopez, J.O. Viabilidad de Saccharomyces boullardii en queso fresco bajo condiciones de acidez. Nova Sci. 2015, 15, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chandramouli, V.; Kailasapathy, K.; Peiris, P.; Jones, M. An improved method of microencapsulation and its evaluation to protect Lactobacillus spp. in simulated gastric conditions. J. Microbiol. Meth. 2004, 56, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Corona-Hernandez, R.I.; Alvarez-Parilla, E.; Lizardi-Mendoza, J.; Islas-Rubio, A.R.; De la Rosa, L.A.; Wall-Medrano, A. Structural stability and viability of microencapsulated probiotic bacteria: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pinpimai, K.; Rodkhum, C.; Chansue, N.; Katagiri, T.; Maita, M.; Pirarat, N. The study on the candidate probiotic properties of encapsulated yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae JCM 7255, in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Res. Vet. Sci. 2015, 102, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Gallo, M.; Speranza, B.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M.; Bevilacqua, A. Novel microbial immobilization techniques. In Novel Food Fermentation Technologies, Food Engineering Series; Ojha, K., Tiwari, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  54. Arenales-Sierra, I.M.; Lobato-Calleros, C.; Vernon-Carter, E.J.; Hernández-Rodríguez, L.; Alvarez-Ramirez, J. Calcium alginate beads loaded with Mg(OH)2 improve L. casei viability under simulated gastric condition. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 112, 108220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 09 01051 g001
Figure 1. Cell concentration of yeasts beads, released yeasts, and entrapped in the beads (log cfu/g), after 48 h. SB, W13, 2, 17, 4, strains; SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii. The results correspond to fresh beads (not stored at 4 °C).
Figure 1. Cell concentration of yeasts beads, released yeasts, and entrapped in the beads (log cfu/g), after 48 h. SB, W13, 2, 17, 4, strains; SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii. The results correspond to fresh beads (not stored at 4 °C).
Foods 09 01051 g001
Foods 09 01051 g002aFoods 09 01051 g002b
Figure 2. Effect of microencapsulation on some functional properties of yeasts: hydrophobicity (%); auto-aggregation after 2 h (%); biofilm formation after 5 days (log cfu/cm2). The properties were evaluated on cells released by beads. The letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB, W13, 2, 17, 4, strains; SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Figure 2. Effect of microencapsulation on some functional properties of yeasts: hydrophobicity (%); auto-aggregation after 2 h (%); biofilm formation after 5 days (log cfu/cm2). The properties were evaluated on cells released by beads. The letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB, W13, 2, 17, 4, strains; SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Foods 09 01051 g002aFoods 09 01051 g002b
Table 1. Encapsulation yield of yeasts in beads (%). The letters indicate the significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Table 1. Encapsulation yield of yeasts in beads (%). The letters indicate the significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
StrainsEY (%)
SB93.75 ± 0.36d
W1362.78 ± 0.34b
17108.94 ± 0.32e
254.07 ± 0.14a
487.80 ± 0.61c
Table 2. Viability of yeasts in beads (log cfu/g) during storage at 4 °C for 30 days, and 25 °C for 7 days. For each strain, the letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii: * days.
Table 2. Viability of yeasts in beads (log cfu/g) during storage at 4 °C for 30 days, and 25 °C for 7 days. For each strain, the letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii: * days.
Strains
Days at 4 °C2417W13SB
0 7.54 ± 0.19a7.81 ± 0.19a7.47 ± 0.08a7.36 ± 0.32a7.07 ± 0.11a
157.21 ± 0.19a7.53 ± 0.20a7.07 ± 0.40a7.42 ± 0.08a7.13 ± 0.29a
307.33 ± 0.23a7.24 ± 0.17a7.70 ± 0.16a7.50 ± 0.18a7.02 ± 0.32a
Days at 25 °C
74.35 ± 0.23b4.11 ± 0.35b4.53 ± 0.23b3.99 ± 0.11b4.01 ± 0.22b
Table 3. Kinetic of cells release of yeasts in alginate beads (log cfu/g), under static or dynamic conditions. For each yeast, the letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii. The results correspond to fresh beads (not stored at 4 °C).
Table 3. Kinetic of cells release of yeasts in alginate beads (log cfu/g), under static or dynamic conditions. For each yeast, the letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii. The results correspond to fresh beads (not stored at 4 °C).
Strains
Time (h)SBW132174
Dynamic Conditions
0- *----
64.26 ± 0.68a,b4.17 ± 0.08a2.97 ± 0.06b2.53 ± 0.08c3.17 ± 0.13b
244.49 ± 0.76a4.32 ± 0.05a3.06 ± 0.09b2.62 ± 0.10c3.37 ± 0.29b
483.90 ± 0.18a4.46 ± 0.02b3.09 ± 0.19c3.36 ± 0.72d3.99 ± 0.12a
Static Conditions
0-----
63.30 ± 0.093.06 ± 0.00---
243.28 ± 0.033.04 ± 0.023.18 ± 1.42--
48-3.20 ± 0.043.03 ± 0.23--
* The symbol “_” means “below the detection limit”
Table 4. Biofilm formation (log cfu/cm2) of S. cerevisiae var boulardii and S. cerevisiae 17: beads were put in the same solution of glass slides. Optimal medium (Y) and saline solution (S). B, cells in beads; F, free cells. The letters indicate significant differences in a column (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Table 4. Biofilm formation (log cfu/cm2) of S. cerevisiae var boulardii and S. cerevisiae 17: beads were put in the same solution of glass slides. Optimal medium (Y) and saline solution (S). B, cells in beads; F, free cells. The letters indicate significant differences in a column (one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
SB
Time (h)YFYBSFSB
0-P---
5-2.45 ± 0.12d--
83.24 ± 0.01c4.46 ± 0.21a--
143.17 ± 0.01c4.25 ± 0.02b--
213.06 ± 0.12c4.29 ± 0.02b--
17
0----
5----
83.07 ± 0.05c2.95 ± 0.02c,d--
143.13 ± 0.02c3.21 ± 0.04c--
212.86 ± 0.14c,d3.28 ± 0.01c-
* The symbol “-“ means below the detection limit.
Table 5. Viability of free cells, and yeasts in beads (log cfu/mL) during simulated gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Each phase was tested separately before and after simulated gastrointestinal tract (GIT), and sequentially. F, free cells; B, microencapsulated. SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Table 5. Viability of free cells, and yeasts in beads (log cfu/mL) during simulated gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Each phase was tested separately before and after simulated gastrointestinal tract (GIT), and sequentially. F, free cells; B, microencapsulated. SB: S. cerevisiae var. boulardii.
Separate Phases
StrainsSalivary ConditionsGastric ConditionsIntestinal Conditions
FBFBFB
BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter
27.65 ± 0.217.61 ± 0.257.40 ± 0.117.22 ± 0.177.15 ± 0.627.18 ± 0.617.40 ± 0.116.74 ± 0.187.15 ± 0.626.98 ± 0.447.40 ± 0.115.76 ± 0.22
47.52 ± 0.147.22 ± 0.087.40 ± 0.237.05 ± 0.247.2 ± 0.116.90 ± 0.537.44 ± 0.337.01 ± 0.177.23 ± 0.157.07 ± 0.027.44 ± 0.236.97 ± 0.25
177.35 ± 0.117.11 ± 0.357.40 ± 0.207.68 ± 0.067.35 ± 0.627.38 ± 0.217.20 ± 0.207.78 ± 0.197.25 ± 0.626.97 ± 0.447.20 ± 0.207.20 ± 0.27
W137.65 ± 0.017.60 ± 0.067.40 ± 0.117.40 ± 0.187.27 ± 0.227.29 ± 0.057.40 ± 0.117.42 ± 0.227.4 ± 0.037.30 ± 0.17.40 ± 0.117.22 ± 0.08
SB7.42 ± 0.107.4 ± 0.117.40 ± 0.117.60 ± 0.077.06 ± 0.037.30 ± 0.087.40 ± 0.117.74 ± 0.257.35 ± 0.257.25 ± 0.157.40 ± 0.116.76 ± 0.28
Sequential Protocol
StrainsBeforeSalivary ConditionsGastric ConditionsIntestinal Conditions
FBFBFBFB
47.52 ± 0.157.44 ± 0.307.22 ± 0.207.05 ± 0.247.29 ± 0.247.35 ± 0.097.21 ± 0.136.72 ± 0.60
177.40 ± 0.107.20 ± 0.207.30 ± 0.157.38 ± 0.307.35 ± 0.136.82 ± 0.607.41 ± 0.177.20 ± 0.27
W137.66 ± 0.017.40 ± 0.217.60 ± 0.057.40 ± 0.207.30 ± 0.297.42 ± 0.117.45 ± 0.036.62 ± 0.15
SB7.42 ± 0.107.30 ± 0.197.66 ± 0.067.35 ± 0.337.48 ± 0.257.29 ± 0.237.39 ± 0.147.31 ± 0.28

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bevilacqua, A.; Campaniello, D.; Speranza, B.; Racioppo, A.; Altieri, C.; Sinigaglia, M.; Corbo, M.R. Microencapsulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae into Alginate Beads: A Focus on Functional Properties of Released Cells. Foods 2020, 9, 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081051

AMA Style

Bevilacqua A, Campaniello D, Speranza B, Racioppo A, Altieri C, Sinigaglia M, Corbo MR. Microencapsulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae into Alginate Beads: A Focus on Functional Properties of Released Cells. Foods. 2020; 9(8):1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bevilacqua, Antonio, Daniela Campaniello, Barbara Speranza, Angela Racioppo, Clelia Altieri, Milena Sinigaglia, and Maria Rosaria Corbo. 2020. "Microencapsulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae into Alginate Beads: A Focus on Functional Properties of Released Cells" Foods 9, no. 8: 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081051

APA Style

Bevilacqua, A., Campaniello, D., Speranza, B., Racioppo, A., Altieri, C., Sinigaglia, M., & Corbo, M. R. (2020). Microencapsulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae into Alginate Beads: A Focus on Functional Properties of Released Cells. Foods, 9(8), 1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9081051

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop