Cited by 93Probiotics and Fermented FoodsEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFermentation and Sensory Analysis

Contribution of volatiles to the antifungal effect of Lactobacillus paracasei in defined medium and yogurt

Aunsbjerg, S.D., Honoré, A.H., Marcussen, J., Ebrahimi, P., Vogensen, F.K., Benfeldt, C., Skov, T., Knøchel, S.·2015·International Journal of Food Microbiology

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria with antifungal properties can be used to control spoilage of food and feed. Previously, most of the identified metabolites have been isolated from cell-free fermentate of lactic acid bacteria with methods suboptimal for detecting possible contribution from volatiles to the antifungal activity. The role of volatile compounds in the antifungal activity of Lactobacillus paracasei DGCC 2132 in a chemically defined interaction medium (CDIM) and yogurt was therefore investigated with a sampling technique minimizing volatile loss. Diacetyl was identified as the major volatile produced by L. paracasei DGCC 2132 in CDIM. When the strain was added to a yogurt medium diacetyl as well as other volatiles also increased but the metabolome was more complex. Removal of L. paracasei DGCC 2132 cells from CDIM fermentate resulted in loss of both volatiles, including diacetyl, and the antifungal activity towards two strains of Penicillium spp. When adding diacetyl to CDIM or yogurt without L. paracasei DGCC 2132, marked inhibition was observed. Besides diacetyl, the antifungal properties of acetoin were examined, but no antifungal activity was observed. Overall, the results demonstrate the contribution of diacetyl in the antifungal effect of L. paracasei DGCC 2132 and indicate that the importance of volatiles may have been previously underestimated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.11.007

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aunsbjerg, S. D., Honoré, A. H., Marcussen, J., Ebrahimi, P., Vogensen, F. K., Benfeldt, C., Skov, T., & Knøchel, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • DuPont (Denmark) (DK)
Corresponding author
Knøchel, S.
Venue
International Journal of Food Microbiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
194
Pages
46-53
ISSN
0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094327787
Cited by
93
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Copenhagen (692886, FI 10-084173)
  • Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Fermentation and Sensory Analysis
Keywords
Lactobacillus paracasei, antifungal activity, volatile compounds, diacetyl, acetoin, Penicillium, yogurt, lactic acid bacteria, food spoilage control, metabolomics
MeSH terms
Acetoin, Antifungal Agents, Culture Media, Diacetyl, Food Microbiology, Lactobacillus, Penicillium, Yogurt

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review