Next Article in Journal
Valorization of Taioba Products and By-Products: Focusing on Starch
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Short-Term Lactic Fermentation on Polyphenol Profile and Antioxidant Capacity in White and Red Quinoa Varieties
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/foods13152414
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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fermentation of Rice, Oat, and Wheat Flour by Pure Cultures of Common Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria: Growth Dynamics, Sensory Evaluation, and Functional Properties

by
Konstantin V. Moiseenko
*,
Olga A. Glazunova
and
Tatyana V. Fedorova
A. N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Ave. 33/2, Moscow 119071, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(15), 2414; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13152414
Submission received: 13 June 2024 / Revised: 17 July 2024 / Accepted: 26 July 2024 / Published: 30 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Functional Cereal Products: Current Status, Challenges and Future Opportunities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent consumer demand for non-dairy alternatives has forced many manufacturers to turn their attention to cereal-based non-alcoholic fermented products. In contrast to fermented dairy products, there is no defined and standardized starter culture for manufacturing cereal-based products. Since spontaneous fermentation is rarely suitable for large-scale commercial production, it is not surprising that manufacturers have started to adopt centuries-known dairy starters based on lactic acid bacteria (LABs) for the fermentation of cereals. However, little is known about the fermentation processes of cereals with these starters. In this study, we combined various analytical tools in order to understand how the most common starter cultures of LABs affect the most common types of cereals during fermentation. Specifically, 3% suspensions of rice, oat, and wheat flour were fermented by the pure cultures of 16 LAB strains belonging to five LAB species—Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Lactobacillus helveticus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactococcus lactis. The fermentation process was described in terms of culture growth and changes in the pH, reducing sugars, starch, free proteins, and free phenolic compounds. The organoleptic and rheological features of the obtained fermented products were characterized, and their functional properties, such as their antioxidant capacity and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitory activity, were determined.

1. Introduction

Non-alcoholic fermentation is an ancient food preservation process involving the biochemical transformation of food components under the action of enzymes without the formation of ethanol [1]. Enzymes are usually produced during the growth of particular microorganisms, although cell-free fermentation is possible in rare cases [2,3]. Currently, the number of different fermented foodstuffs known throughout the world is enormous. Without exaggeration, every extinct or existing culture have at least a dozen fermented products based on meat, fish, animal milk, fruits, vegetables, legumes, or cereals in its diet [4,5,6]. Today, many local, indigenous, and traditional non-alcoholic fermented foods have been commercialized and have truly become global culinary treasures [4,5]. Several examples of such foods are yogurt, soy sauce, vinegar, sauerkraut, kombucha, miso, kimchi, and sourdough bread [7,8].
Non-alcoholic fermentation is not only a relatively cheap and energy-effective way to ensure the shelf-life and microbiological safety of a product, it also drastically changes the product’s organoleptic characteristics, nutrient content, and health-related properties. During non-alcoholic fermentation, fermenting microorganisms can enrich the resulting product with vitamins, essential amino acids, polysaccharides, and proteins [3]. Also, fermentation can enhance the bioavailability of micronutrients, improve the digestibility of food fibers, and promote the degradation of anti-nutritional factors; the latter two points are especially important for cereal and plant-based foods, contributing to about 50% of the total dietary fiber intake in Western countries [9] and containing antinutrients such as phytates, tannins, saponins, and lectins [10]. Moreover, many microorganisms used for food fermentation have pronounced probiotic properties and, upon regular consumption, can provide health benefits such as the stimulation of immunity, restoration of the healthy gut microbiota, and even the alleviation of anxiety and depressive-like behaviors [11,12].
Lactic acid bacteria (LABs) are one of the most widespread groups of microorganisms used for food fermentation [13]. Although LABs are best known as major players in animal milk fermentation, they are an integral part of the bacterial consortia in spontaneously fermented fruits, vegetables, and cereals [14,15]. Currently, many pure cultures of LABs are sold commercially for the preparation of yogurt, cheese, butter, sour cream, etc. [16,17,18]. Also, LABs are archetypal probiotics. Since the discovery of the first probiotic microorganism (Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) in 1905 by Stamen Grigorov [19,20], a huge amount of information has been collected and an incredible number of LAB strains with probiotic properties have been reported [21,22,23]. To date, more than 500 probiotic-related patents have been granted approval in the USA and Europe [24].
Besides exerting direct health-promoting effects as probiotics, LABs also produce a number of compounds that can provide health benefits to consumers. One of the most prominent types of such compounds is bioactive peptides [25,26]. By using proteins in the fermented foodstuffs, the proteolytic system of LABs generates a variety of peptides, some of which have valuable biological effects on human health [27]. The most well-known effects of these so-called “bioactive peptides” are antihypertensive, antidiabetic, antioxidant, immunomodulatory, and antimicrobial [28,29,30]. In general, the proteolytic activity of LABs is species- and strain-dependent, since each LAB species contains different types of proteinases, the number and identity of which may vary among strains [31]. Currently, fermentation is the most cost-effective way of producing bioactive peptides. Moreover, fermented food is a natural delivery system for such peptides [30,32,33].
Although fermented dairy products have firmly taken their place in the global market, recently consumer demand for their non-dairy alternatives has been constantly growing [15,34]. In particular, cereal-based non-alcoholic beverages have become increasingly accepted substitutes for their milk-based counterparts. As plant matrices, fermented cereal products are ideal for people on a low-fat diet and indispensable for people with lactose intolerance and casein allergies [35,36,37,38]. The fermentation of cereals can not only enrich them with amino acids and proteins but can also make the final product an excellent vehicle for delivering probiotic microorganisms and functional compounds [15,35,38].
Many previous studies on the fermentation of cereals have used spontaneous fermentation [39,40,41]. Although this method of fermentation mimics the original preparation of the products in rural areas, it is not strictly repeatable and, consequently, cannot directly benefit the food industry. The use of standardized starter cultures would allow quality control of the fermentation process, would facilitate the scale-up of the process, and would provide easy optimization of the variation in fermented raw material [40,42,43,44]. Moreover, it is possible that the use of different strains of LABs will lead to significantly different organoleptic and health-promoting properties of the resulting fermentation products.
Therefore, the objective of this article is to describe the fermentation process of three types of cereals—rice, oat, and wheat—by sixteen strains of LABs belonging to five LAB species, namely Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, Lb. delbrueckii, Lactobacillus helveticus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactococcus lactis. All used LAB species are well-known and widely used starter cultures for fermented dairy products, while rice, oat, and wheat are promising ingredients for the production of cereal-based non-alcoholic beverages. For the description of the fermentation process, parameters such as the viable cell count, pH, content of reducing sugars, content of starch, content of free proteins, and content of free phenolic compounds were measured. The obtained fermented products were characterized in terms of their organoleptic and rheological properties as well as their antioxidant capacity and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitory activity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cereal Flour Used for Fermentation

Commercial rice (Oryza sativa L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) flours were purchased from a local supplier (Vkusvill, Moscow, Russia). The main composition of each flour is presented in Table 1.

2.2. Strains and Cultivation Conditions

The strains of LABs were obtained from the Collection of the All-Russian Research Institute of the Dairy Industry (VNIMI, Moscow, Russia), where they were stored as lyophilized cells at −80 °C. The main characteristics of each strain are presented in Table 2.
To obtain the starting inoculum, the lyophilized culture was added into the appropriate culture medium. The strains of Lb. paracasei, Lb. delbrueckii, and Lb. helveticus were cultivated overnight in MRS broth medium (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) at 37 °C; the strains of Str. thermophilus were cultivated overnight in M17 broth medium (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) at 37 °C; and the strains of Lc. lactis were cultivated overnight in M17 broth medium (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India) at 30 °C.
The starting flour suspensions were prepared as follows: 30 g of each flour (rice, oat, or wheat) was suspended in 970 mL of distilled water; then, the suspension was stirred for 60 min at 90 °C, autoclaved at 121 °C for 30 min, and re-autoclaved after 3 days under the same conditions.
The obtained starting suspensions of flour were inoculated with 1% (v/v) of the appropriate LAB starting inoculum. Fermentation with Lb. paracasei, Lb. delbrueckii, or Lb. helveticus was carried out at 37 °C, and fermentation with Lc. lactis was carried out at 30 °C. During fermentation, the samples were collected after 6, 12, 24, and 48 h. The starting suspensions of flour without fermentation were used as a control.
The pH value of each sample was measured using a pH meter (Mettler Toledo, Griefensee, Switzerland) at room temperature (20 ± 2 °C).
To determine the viable cell count of the studied LABs, the LABs were cultivated on the appropriate solid medium in anaerobic conditions at 37 °C in the Anaero Bag System 24 (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India), as described by Glazunova et al. [45]. The strains of Lb. paracasei, Lb. delbrueckii, and Lb. helveticus were cultivated on MRS agar medium (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India), and the strains of Str. thermophilus and Lc. lactis were cultivated on M17 agar medium (HiMedia Laboratories, Mumbai, India).

2.3. Biochemical Assays

After fermentation, 50 mL of each sample was centrifuged at 4000× g for 20 min at 4 °C (Eppendorf centrifuge 5702 R, Hamburg, Germany), and the supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 µm syringe filter with hydrophilic membrane (Merk Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany).
In the obtained supernatant, the content of reducing sugars was measured using the modified Somogyi–Nelson assay [46]—0.2 mL of the sample was mixed with 0.2 mL of Somogyi reagent and incubated at 100 °C for 1 h; sequentially, 0.2 mL of Nelson reagent, 0.4 mL of acetone, and 1 mL of distilled water were added. Adsorption was measured at 610 nm. The calibration curve was constructed with glucose.
The content of free phenolic compounds was measured with the Folin–Ciocalteu method [47,48]—100 µL of the sample was mixed with 500 µL of Folin–Ciocalteu (10%) and incubated for 8 min at room temperature; sequentially, 400 µL of sodium carbonate (7.5%) was added, and the mixture was incubated at room temperature for 60 min. Absorbance was measured at 765 nm. The calibration curve was constructed with gallic acid.
The degree of proteolysis was measured using the TNBS (2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid) method, as described by Begunova et al. [49]—0.25 mL of the sample and 2 mL of TNBS (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) reagent (0.1% w/v in water) were mixed with 2 mL of sodium phosphate buffer (0.2 M, pH 8.2) and incubated at 50 °C for 60 min; the reaction was stopped with the addition of 4 mL of HCl (0.1 M), and absorbance was measured at 340 nm. The calibration curve was constructed with L-leucine (L-Leu), and the proteolytic activity was reported as L-Leu molar equivalents per g of protein: µmol (LE)·g−1 (Protein).
The antioxidant capacity was determined using the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) assay, as described by Moiseenko et al. [50]—20 µL of the sample and 180 µL of 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate radical cation (ABTS•+)) were mixed and incubated at room temperature for 40 min. The ABTS•+ was prepared by incubating a solution containing 7 mM ABTS (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and 2.45 mM potassium peroxodisulfate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) in the dark at room temperature for 12–18 h. Absorbance was measured at 734 nm. The antioxidant capacity was expressed as the amount of Trolox (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) molar equivalents per g of protein: µmol (TE)·g−1 (Protein).
The angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activity was measured using ACE (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and an o-Aminobenzoyl-Phe-Arg-Lys(dinitrophenyl)-Pro (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) substrate, as described in Kruchinin et al. [51].
The starch content of the flour suspensions before and after fermentation was determined using a Total Starch Assay Kit (K-TSTA-100A, Megazyme International Ireland Ltd., Bray, Ireland) according to either of the following protocols: (a) “The Rapid Total Starch (RTS) Method”, or (b) the “Determination of total starch content of samples containing resistant starch” method, provided by the manufacturer.

2.4. Organoleptic Assessment

All products were stored for 1 day at 5 °C before the sensory evaluation. The sensory evaluation was carried out using 16 panelists familiar with the product. The samples were evaluated for consistency, flavor, taste, color, and overall acceptability, on a five-point hedonic scale: one point—dislike extremely, two points—dislike slightly, three points—neither like nor dislike; four points—like slightly, and five points—like extremely. All panelists received written information about the test and all of the participants provided their informed consent to participate in the study. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal Research Center Fundamentals of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Approval No. 13 from 24 September 2023).

2.5. Rheological Measurements

The dynamic viscosity of the samples was measured using an LVDV-II+Pro rotation viscometer (Brookfield Engineering Laboratories Inc., Middleboro, MA, USA) equipped with a spindle (#61) and a special beaker. The measurements were carried out at room temperature (20 ± 2 °C); the values were recorded while increasing the shear rate from 12.9 to 64.6 s−1. The shear rate is reported in s−1 after multiplying the rpm by a conversion factor of 1.29 s−1, as specified by the manufacturer. All measurements were carried out in triplicate.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All statistical comparisons were firstly performed using a one-way ANOVA omnibus F-test. When a significant (p < 0.05) value of the F-statistic was found, differences between means were evaluated using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Cell Growth, pH, and Concentration of Reducing Sugars

For fermentation, a 3% mixture of rice, oat, or wheat flour in water was inoculated with one of the 16 studied LAB strains. The started inoculum was in the range of 105–107 CFU·mL−1. Before proceeding with a detailed description of the dynamics of the fermentation process, it is necessary to highlight one important feature of the fermentation of cereal flours which was noted in our work and which should be taken into account when comparing our results with others. Flour contains a significant amount of endogenous microflora, to such an extent that it is even used as a starter in a number of traditional fermentations, such as in the fermentation of mahewu (a cornflour-based beverage whose fermentation is initiated by wheat flour) [39,52,53]. Not all bacteria associated with flour can be killed by simple one-step autoclaving, especially spore-forming bacteria. Therefore, a more complex substrate sterilization process—tyndallization-like—is required [54,55,56]. Ignoring this feature, together with neglecting to conduct a periodic microscopic assessment of culture purity, can lead to erroneous results regarding the number of viable LABs in fermented cereal flour. Some researchers even report 1011 CFU·mL−1 [57], a number that is almost impossible to obtain without enormous optimization efforts using nutrient-rich media [58].
The growth curves obtained during the fermentation of different cereals by the studied LABs are presented in Figure 1 (and the relative changes in the number of viable cells are presented in Figure 2A to facilitate comparison with changes in the pH values and amount of reducing sugars). In general, the growth patterns of the studied LABs were species-specific, and strain-specific deviations from the main pattern were rare. For all LABs, an increase of one to two orders of magnitude in the viable cell count was observed during the first 6–12 h of fermentation, followed by an approximately one-order-of-magnitude decrease for the strains of Lb. paracasei, a stationary phase for the strains of Lb. delbrueckii and Lc. lactis, and sharp decreases of three to four orders of magnitude for the strains of Lb. helveticus and Str. thermophilus. Although in some cases the LABs were able to reach the maximum attainable cell count of 108 CFU·mL−1, in most cases, the cell count did not exceed 107 CFU·mL−1. Significant deviation from the growth of other strains of the same species were observed only for Lb. helveticus KF7 in the wheat flour and Str. thermophilus KF8 in the rice flour. Instead of sharply decreasing, the viable cell count of these strains remained at the same level after 6 h of fermentation. Also, Str. thermophilus KF8 demonstrated a one-order-of-magnitude-sharper decrease in the viable cell count after 6 h of its fermentation of oat flour compared to the other strains of Str. thermophilus.
Discussing the growth curves of the studied LABs, it should be noted that LABs are fastidious organisms that lack many metabolic pathways [59]; all LABs require a rich environment that contains compounds such as amino acids, peptides, vitamins, and nucleic acids for their growth [7,60,61]. As a substrate, cereals are characterized by low levels of readily available sugars and proteins [34]. Consequently, LABs cannot actively increase their abundance early in cereal fermentation due to the need to adapt to nutrient-poor substrates. In contrast, during milk fermentation, the same strains of LABs were able to reach 108–109 CFU·mL−1 during the first 12 h of fermentation [45].
During growth, all studied LABs were able to gradually acidify their fermentation medium, and the minimal attainable pH level was reached during the first 12–24 h of fermentation, regardless of the cereal flour used for the medium preparation (Figure 2B). Based on the acidification pattern, all studied cereal-based substrates can be ranked from the most to the least easily acidified as follows: wheat flour ≥ rice flour > oat flour. Since this trend was observed for almost all studied LABs, it probably reflects the different buffer capacities of the used flours. Among all studied LABs, the highest acidification ability was demonstrated by Lb. paracasei and Lb. helveticus; these strains were able to acidify the rice and wheat flour media to 3.9 ± 0.2 pH and the oat flour medium to 4.5 ± 0.2 pH. The lowest acidification ability was demonstrated by the strains of Lb. delbrueckii. These strains were able to acidify rice and oat flour media only to 4.8 ± 0.4 pH; however, for wheat flour, the lowest attainable pH was comparable to that found for the other species of LABs and comprised 4.2 pH. Interestingly, the LAB strains that showed significant deviations from the overall species-specific pH trend with certain substrates were the same strains that showed deviant growth patterns in those substrates (Figure 1). The strains Lb. helveticus KF7 in wheat flour and Str. thermophilus KF8 in rice flour acidified their substrates significantly less compared to other strains of the same species, and Str. thermophilus KF8 was the most acidifying strain for the oat flour.
Acidification of the fermented medium is an important factor influencing the growth of LABs. Since all studied LABs are either obligate homo-fermenters or facultative hetero-fermenters, the main end product of their sugar metabolism is lactic acid [7,62]. During fermentation, the accumulation of lactic acid eventually leads to depletion of the buffer capacity and acidification of the medium. At pH values lower than four, lactic acid mainly takes on an undissociated form that is highly soluble in phospholipid cell membranes and can easily enter cells through passive diffusion [63]. The dissociation of the lactic acid inside cells leads to acidification of the cytosol, osmotic stress, metabolic permutations, and the dissipation of membrane potential [64,65]. In general, the ability to withstand acidic stress is supposed to be a strain-specific feature of LABs [66]; however, in our study, the LABs demonstrated rare strain-specific deviations in their growth patterns (Figure 1). It has previously been suggested that some probiotic-related traits of LABs may be widespread among most strains of the genus rather than being strain-specific [67]. This may also be true for stress-related traits, especially complex traits that involve many interconnected genes, and the ability to tolerate acidic stress is such a multigenic trait [65,68].
To assess the equilibrium between the hydrolysis and consumption of carbohydrates by the studied LABs, the amount of reducing sugars in the fermentation medium was measured (Figure 2C). It should be noted that at the beginning of fermentation, the amount of reducing sugars was significantly (p < 0.05) different in all fermented flours and comprised 5 ± 2, 33 ± 4, and 45 ± 5 mg·L−1 in the rice, oat, and wheat flours, respectively. At the 6 h point of fermentation, the following changes were detected: almost all strains of Lb. paracasei and Str. thermophilus had significantly (p < 0.05) increased the amount of reducing sugars in all fermentation media; almost all strains of Lb. helveticus had significantly (p < 0.05) increased the amount of reducing sugars in the rice and oat flour; and all strains of Lc. lactis had significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the amount of reducing sugars in the oat flour. During further fermentation, the amount of reducing sugars correlated very well with the overall growth patterns (Figure 1 and Figure 2A). The LABs that decreased the number of viable cells also decreased the amount of reducing sugars, and the LABs that did not significantly change the number of viable cells did not significantly change the amount of reducing sugars.
Previous transcriptomic and proteomic studies have highlighted that under certain stress conditions (i.e., acidic, thermal, and osmotic stresses), many LABs increase their levels of glycolytic enzymes [65]. Also, acidic stress leads to more rigid cell membranes, which hinders the secretion of proteins [64,65]. Therefore, it can be assumed that for those LABs that are less resistant to acidic stress, the decrease in reducing sugars can be explained by an increase in the production of glycolytic enzymes. At the same time, the production of glycoside hydrolases stops under acidic stress, possibly due to difficulty in their secretion.

3.2. Content of Starch, Free Proteins, and Free Phenolic Compounds

In contrast to the pH and reducing sugars, the contents of starch, free proteins, and free phenolic compounds did not correlate with the growth patterns of the LABs. For all fermentations, their values significantly (p < 0.05) changed in the first 6 h, after which no changes were detected. Moreover, the magnitude of changes in each substrate was independent of the LAB strain used for fermentation. Therefore, for each substrate, all of the measured values (for all studied LABs at all time-points) were pooled together for graphical presentation (Figure 3) and further discussion. In general, fermentation of the cereal flours by the studied LABs resulted in a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the free phenol content and a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in the starch and free protein contents; the only exception was the fermentation of wheat flour, where the free protein content did not change during fermentation.
As previously mentioned, LABs are fastidious organisms, and in order to obtain amino acids that they are unable to synthesize, LABs must actively digest proteins from their immediate environment [69,70]. The overall decrease in free protein content is likely the result of a higher rate of water-soluble protein consumption by the studied LABs relative to the rate of their release from flour particles. Typically, rice flour contains from 8 to 9% of proteins, of which albumins (i.e. water-soluble proteins according to the Osborn’s classification [71]) comprise 5–11%; oat flour contains approximately 16% of proteins, of which albumins comprise 10–20%; and wheat flour contains from 9 to 14% of proteins, of which albumins comprise 9–15% [72,73,74,75]. However, not all of these proteins can be immediately released into the aqueous environment because they are trapped within the flour particles [76,77]. For the wheat flour, the lack of change in the free protein content during the fermentation was more likely related to a greater degree of loosening in the structure of flour particles due to starch hydrolysis, which leads to the release of albumins into the environment at the same rate as its consumption by the LABs.
Similar to the free protein content, the overall increase in free phenolic content is also the result of a dynamic equilibrium established during fermentation. The major phenolic compounds of cereals are phenolic acids, flavonoids, and tannins [78]. Phenolic acids and flavonoids are relatively small molecules that contains from one to three aromatic rings, respectively. In contrast, tannins are high-molecular-weight polymeric phenolic compounds. It was previously reported that fermentation can have multiple opposing effects on the content of free phenolic compounds [78,79,80,81]. Processes such as the depolymerization of tannins, oxidation of hydrophobic phenolic compounds, breaking of bonds between phenolic compounds and various macromolecules, and loosening of the starch network promote the release of bound phenolic compounds into a free form. On the other hand, processes such as degradation and metabolization by LABs or binding to other components released during fermentation lead to a decrease in the content of free phenolic compounds. The overall increase in free phenolic compounds observed in our study is promising for future use of the studied LAB strains in the food industry, as free phenolic compounds may have multiple health-promoting properties, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and hypocholesterolemic effects [82,83,84].
The changes in the content of starch during the fermentation of cereal flour by the studied LAB strains demand a special discussion. The data on the decrease in starch content reported in Figure 3A are related to the total starch, which includes both resistant and easily hydrolysable starch, since the protocol used for the starch quantification contained a NaOH treatment step (protocol (b)) “Determination of total starch content of samples containing resistant starch (RTS-NaOH Procedure)” with the used K-TSTA-100A “Total starch (α-amylase/amyloglucosidase) assay protocol” Megazyme kit), which increases the solubilization of retrograded amylose and promotes the hydrolysis of the resistant starch [85]. Interestingly, when the starch quantitation procedure was performed without the NaOH treatment step (protocol (a)) “The Rapid Total Starch (RTS) Method” with the K-TSTA-100A “Total starch (α-amylase/amyloglucosidase) assay protocol” Megazyme kit), a false increase in starch content was observed. A similar situation was previously described and meticulously studied by Zhang et al., who demonstrated that the amylose content first decreased then increased during the fermentation of proso millet flour [86]. In short, during fermentation, LABs can hydrolyze amylopectin from the crystalline region of starch granules into short-branch fragments, thereby increasing the content of easily hydrolysable starch. In general, the content of easily hydrolysable starch was increased from 12 ± 1, 5 ± 0.6, and 7± 0.5 g·L−1 in the control rice, oat, and wheat flours to 14 ± 1, 6 ± 0.3, and 11 ± 1 g·L−1, respectively. The wheat flour showing the largest increase in the content of easily hydrolysable starch compared to the other types of tested flour indirectly confirms our assumption of there being a greater degree of loosening of the structure of wheat flour particles during the fermentation process.

3.3. Organoleptic Properties

In terms of general appearance, color, flavor, and texture, all fermented cereal flours had a moderate degree of acceptance. In particular, all flour samples fermented by the strains of Lb. paracasei had an astringent taste with a slight bitterness, and all flour samples fermented by the strains of Lb. helveticus had a pronounced sour taste. The rice and wheat flours fermented by the strains of Lc. lactis had the greatest sweetness among others. Also, cereal flours fermented by the strains of Str. thermophilus possessed a characteristic refreshing fruity/floral aroma, and all flours fermented by the strains of Lb. delbrueckii and Lb. helveticus were noted to have an aroma typical for the crust of black Russian bread.
All fermented cereal flours had a much simpler taste and plain flavor compared to milk fermented by the same LAB strains [45]. This can be explained by the fewer compounds that can be metabolized by LABs into flavor-forming molecules. During milk fermentation, LABs typically produce such flavor-forming molecules as organic acids, aldehydes, ketones, and acetoin through metabolizing lactose, free amino acids, and citric acid [87,88], all of which are rarely found in cereals in quantities comparable to those found in milk [34,89]. In general, the plain flavor, without any particular notes and with moderate tartness, of typical cereal-based products [53] allows manufacturers to supplement them with natural or synthetic flavorings, since the possibility of adverse interactions occurring between the added and already-existing flavors is low.

3.4. Rheological Properties

The data on the dynamic viscosity of the cereal flours fermented for 24 h with the studied LAB strains are presented in Figure 4. In general, all studied samples, both unfermented and fermented, demonstrated typical non-Newtonian behavior characterized by shear thinning—the samples’ viscosity decreased with the increase in shear rate from 12.9 to 64.6 s−1. Only in the case of the wheat flour, there was no change (p > 0.05) in flour viscosity after fermentation. In the case of the rice and oat flours, the strains of Lb. paracasei, Lb. helveticus, and Lc. lactis significantly (p < 0.05) increased flour viscosity by 13–26% after fermentation. At the same time, the fermentation with strains of Lb. delbrueckii significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the viscosity of the rice and oat flours by ~5% and ~40%, respectively. The strains of Str. thermophilus significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the viscosity of the rice flour by ~5% and significantly (p < 0.05) increased the viscosity of the oat flour by ~21%.
It is generally known that for suspensions of cereal flour, the amylose/amylopectin ratio in a sample and its viscosity are negatively correlated. Amylopectin is a main component of starch granules responsible for their swelling and, consequently, for the viscosity of flour suspensions, and amylose tends to bind to amylopectin and reduce its swelling ability [90,91]. Thus, the changes observed in our experiments in the viscosity of the fermented flour samples may indicate a change in the amylose/amylopectin ratio during the hydrolysis of starch granules by LAB enzymes.
Since both increases and decreases in viscosity were observed during fermentation with different LABs, the change in the amylose/amylopectin ratio seemed to depend on the individual set of amylolytic enzymes of each LAB and their substrate specificity. Similar to our findings, Zhang et al. [86] showed that the viscosity of fermented proso millet flour depends on the used LAB species; in their work, Lb. plantarum and Lb. amylovorus significantly decreased flour viscosity, while no changes in flour viscosity were observed after fermentation with Lb. fermentum. In addition, the decrease in the viscosity of oat flour fermented with Lb. delbrueckii may be associated with the hydrolysis of β-glucan, the main non-starch polysaccharide of oat flour that largely determines its rheological parameters [92].

3.5. Degree of Proteolysis and Antioxidant Capacity

In the current study, the degree of proteolysis that roughly indicates the amount of peptides in the fermentation medium was constantly increasing during fermentation (Figure 5A). The initial degrees of proteolysis were 511 ± 6, 337 ± 4, and 557 ± 7 µmol(LE)·g−1 (Protein) for the rice, oat, and wheat flours, respectively. After 48 h of fermentation, the degree of proteolysis increased by 2–3 times on average. Thus, the total consumption of free proteins from the medium was accompanied by an increase in the amount of low-molecular-weight peptides. This situation is a consequence of the peculiarities of the LAB proteolytic system. During their growth, LABs secrete cell envelope proteinases (CEPs), which carry out the extracellular degradation of proteins into low-molecular-weight peptides. After this, a specific transport system delivers the peptides into the cell for further breakdown into amino acids [70,93].
Although some intra-specific variation in the degree of proteolysis was observed, it was relatively small compared to the inter-specific variation. Irrespective of the type of flour, the highest degree of proteolysis was detected for the flour fermented by the strains of Lb. helveticus, while the lowest degree of proteolysis was detected for the flour fermented by the strains of Str. thermophilus.
The antioxidant capacity of the fermented flour was measured as the ability to scavenge free radicals from the environment. As with the degree of proteolysis, the antioxidant capacity was constantly increasing during the fermentation process (Figure 5B). The antioxidant capacities of the unfermented rice, oat, and wheat flour were 47 ± 4, 92 ± 6, and 140 ± 11 µmol (TE)·g−1 (Protein), respectively. After 48 h of fermentation, the antioxidant capacity increased by an average of 1.5–5 times. In the ability of LABs to increase the antioxidant capacity of the fermented flour, species specificity prevailed over strain specificity (Figure 6A). The highest antioxidant capacity was detected for the flour fermented by the strains of Lb. helveticus, while the lowest antioxidant capacity was detected for the flour fermented by the strains of Str. thermophilus. Moreover, antioxidant capacity well correlated (R2 from 0.9 to 0.6, p < 0.05) with the degree of proteolysis (Figure 6B). In contrast, no correlation was observed between antioxidant capacity and the content of free phenolic compounds.
The correlation between the degree of proteolysis and the antioxidant capacity observed for fermented cereal flour has previously been reported for fermented milk [94]. Probably, for both fermentations of milk and cereal flour, these correlations are of the same nature. The antioxidant properties of peptides are relatively sequence-independent; in order to have good antioxidant activity, peptides should be short (up to 20 amino acids) and contain a high proportion of hydrophobic amino acids [26,95,96]. Because of this sequence independence, the higher the degree of proteolysis in a fermented product, the greater the total pool of antioxidant peptides the product will contain, virtually regardless of the nature of the specific proteins being hydrolyzed and the substrate specificity of the proteolytic system of a particular LAB strain.

3.6. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitory Activity

The potential antihypertensive activity of the fermented flours was assessed by their ability to inhibit the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) in vitro. As an indispensable part of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS), the ACE converts angiotensin I into octopeptide angiotensin II, the action of which causes an increase in blood pressure through the narrowing of blood vessels and the stimulation of water reabsorption into the blood [97,98]. Currently, the use of inhibitors of the RAAS is the recommended first-line evidence-based therapy for patients with arterial hypertension [99,100,101].
For all fermented flour, the ACE-inhibitory activity was expressed as the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) measured at 24 h of fermentation (Table 3). As with the antioxidant capacity, a general species-specific trend was observed, and strain-specific outliers were rare. Fermentation with the strains of Lb. paracasei and Lb. delbrueckii significantly (p < 0.05) increased the ACE-inhibitory activity (i.e., decreased the value of IC50) of the oat and wheat flours, while the ACE-inhibitory activity of the rice flour did not change. Fermentation with the strains of Lb. helveticus, Str. thermophilus, and Lc. lactis significantly (p < 0.05) increased the ACE-inhibitory activity of all types of flour; the only exception was Lb. helveticus NK1, which significantly (p < 0.05) increased the ACE-inhibitory activity of oat flour only. The greatest changes in ACE-inhibitory activity, six-fold compared to the control, were observed for oat flour, and for rice and wheat flour, the ACE-inhibitory activity increased no more than three-fold.
In contrast to the antioxidant capacity, a correlation between ACE-inhibitory activity and the degree of proteolysis was absent. The highest ACE-inhibitory activity was demonstrated by the rice flour fermented with the strains of Str. thermophilus, and these fermented flour samples had the lowest degree of proteolysis compared to the others. This can be explained by the fact that the ACE-inhibitory activity of peptides is highly sequence-specific, since they have to perform competitive inhibition at the catalytic sites of the ACE [96]. Consequently, the specificity of the LAB proteolytic system and the nature of hydrolysable proteins are of paramount importance for the production of ACE-inhibitory peptides, and in the produced peptide pool, only a small fraction of peptides, if any, will exhibit ACE-inhibitory activity independently from the degree of hydrolysis.
It is interesting to compare data on the antioxidant capacity and ACE-inhibitory activity of fermented cereal flour and cow’s milk obtained for the same LAB strains [45,94,102,103]. For all LAB strains, the IC50 values of the fermented cereal flours were orders of magnitude lower than those of the fermented cow’s milk (Table 3). This makes fermented cereal-based beverages a promising base for the production of functional foods, the regular consumption of which will alleviate, to some extent, symptoms of primary hypertension.

4. Conclusions

The global market for cereal-based dairy alternatives is constantly growing, and the diversity of existing local foods produced via cereal fermentation provides an important opportunity for the development of new types of commercial cereal-based products. Currently, high standards of food production require the transition from spontaneous fermentation to more controlled starter cultures with certain properties and compositions. Although there is an extensive amount of information on both single- and mixed-strain starters for dairy-based products, little is known about the fermentation processes of cereals. In our experiments, it has been demonstrated that the pure LAB cultures commonly used for dairy production are suitable for cereal fermentation, regardless of the specific strain used. The obtained cereal-based fermented products had desirable concentrations of potentially probiotic LABs (107–108 CFU·mL−1), and the Lb. paracasei–rice flour system was found to be the best for obtaining probiotic-enriched beverages. In terms of organoleptic properties, it is worth noting that the strains of Lc. lactis imparted a sweetish taste to the fermented flour, and the strains of Str. thermophilus produced a fresh fruity aroma. The most pronounced change in viscosity was observed during the fermentation of oat flour—the strains of Lc. lactis significantly increased flour viscosity, and the strains of Lb. delbrueckii decreased it. In terms of functional properties, the most pronounced increase in antioxidant capacity was observed for the Lb. helveticus–rice flour, Lb. helveticus–oat flour, Lc. lactis–oat flour, and Lb. delbrueckii–wheat flour systems. The most pronounced increase in ACE-inhibitory activity was observed for the fermentations with Str. thermophilus, regardless of the flour type. Thus, the data obtained here make it possible to create combined starters for each type of studied flour in order to obtain products with specified organoleptic and functional properties. However, it is worth noting that combined starters require separate study and further optimization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.V.M., O.A.G. and T.V.F.; formal analysis, K.V.M. and O.A.G.; investigation, K.V.M. and T.V.F.; resources, T.V.F.; data curation, K.V.M., O.A.G. and T.V.F.; writing—original draft preparation, K.V.M. and O.A.G.; writing—review and editing, K.V.M., O.A.G. and T.V.F.; visualization, K.V.M. and O.A.G.; supervision, T.V.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant number 22-16-00108.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal Research Center Fundamentals of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Approval No. 13 from 24 September 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dimidi, E.; Cox, S.; Rossi, M.; Whelan, K. Fermented foods: Definitions and characteristics, impact on the gut microbiota and effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Xiang, H.; Sun-Waterhouse, D.; Waterhouse, G.I.N.; Cui, C.; Ruan, Z. Fermentation-enabled wellness foods: A fresh perspective. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 203–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mannaa, M.; Han, G.; Seo, Y.-S.; Park, I. Evolution of food fermentation processes and the use of multi-omics in deciphering the roles of the microbiota. Foods 2021, 10, 2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Paul Ross, R.; Morgan, S.; Hill, C. Preservation and fermentation: Past, present and future. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 79, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Steinkraus, K.H. Classification of fermented foods: Worldwide review of household fermentation techniques. Food Control 1997, 8, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rozhkova, I.V.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Begunova, A.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) domestic fermented milk products. In Food Science and Technology; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 215–234. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gänzle, M.G. Lactic metabolism revisited: Metabolism of lactic acid bacteria in food fermentations and food spoilage. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2015, 2, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gondaliya, S.M.; Sheth, J.; Shah, S. Exploring the culinary and health significance of fermented foods: A comprehensive review. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 21, 2609–2616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nirmala, P.; Joye, I. Dietary Fibre from Whole Grains and Their Benefits on Metabolic Health. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Diez-Ozaeta, I.; Astiazaran, O.J. Fermented foods: An update on evidence-based health benefits and future perspectives. Food Res. Int. 2022, 156, 111133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Soemarie, Y.; Milanda, T.; Barliana, M. Fermented foods as probiotics: A review. J. Adv. Pharm. Technol. Res. 2021, 12, 335. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vinderola, G.; Cotter, P.D.; Freitas, M.; Gueimonde, M.; Holscher, H.D.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Salminen, S.; Swanson, K.S.; Sanders, M.E.; Cifelli, C.J. Fermented foods: A perspective on their role in delivering biotics. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1196239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zheng, J.; Wittouck, S.; Salvetti, E.; Franz, C.M.A.P.; Harris, H.M.B.; Mattarelli, P.; O’Toole, P.W.; Pot, B.; Vandamme, P.; Walter, J.; et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 2782–2858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ashaolu, T.; Reale, A. A holistic review on Euro-Asian lactic acid bacteria fermented cereals and vegetables. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Blandino, A.; Al-Aseeri, M.E.; Pandiella, S.S.; Cantero, D.; Webb, C. Cereal-based fermented foods and beverages. Food Res. Int. 2003, 36, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bintsis, T. Lactic acid bacteria: Their applications in foods. J. Bacteriol. Mycol. Open Access 2018, 6, 1. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, P. Lactic acid bacteria in fermented food. In Advances in Probiotics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 397–416. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zapaśnik, A.; Sokołowska, B.; Bryła, M. Role of lactic acid bacteria in food preservation and safety. Foods 2022, 11, 1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kaufmann, S.H.E. Elie Metchnikoff’s and Paul Ehrlich’s impact on infection biology. Microbes Infect. 2008, 10, 1417–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cavaillon, J.-M.; Legout, S. Centenary of the death of Elie Metchnikoff: A visionary and an outstanding team leader. Microbes Infect. 2016, 18, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zielińska, D.; Kolożyn-Krajewska, D. Food-origin lactic acid bacteria may exhibit probiotic properties: Review. Biomed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 5063185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ayivi, R.D.; Gyawali, R.; Krastanov, A.; Aljaloud, S.O.; Worku, M.; Tahergorabi, R.; da Silva, R.C.; Ibrahim, S.A. Lactic acid bacteria: Food safety and human health applications. Dairy 2020, 1, 202–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Savinova, O.S.; Glazunova, O.A.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Begunova, A.V.; Rozhkova, I.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Exoproteome analysis of antagonistic interactions between the probiotic bacteria Limosilactobacillus reuteri LR1 and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus F and multidrug resistant strain of Klebsiella pneumonia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chavda, V.P.; Meyyappan, A.; Chavda, D.; Soniwala, M. A glance to the patent world of probiotics. In Probiotic Research in Therapeutics; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 329–367. [Google Scholar]
  25. Siltari, A.; Vapaatalo, H.; Korpela, R. Milk and milk-derived peptides combat against hypertension and vascular dysfunction: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 1920–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sarmadi, B.H.; Ismail, A. Antioxidative peptides from food proteins: A review. Peptides 2010, 31, 1949–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Jakubczyk, A.; Karaś, M.; Rybczyńska-Tkaczyk, K.; Zielińska, E.; Zieliński, D. Current Trends of Bioactive Peptides—New Sources and Therapeutic Effect. Foods 2020, 9, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Das, S.; Hati, S. Food derived ACE inhibitory peptides. In Nutrition and Functional Foods in Boosting Digestion, Metabolism and Immune Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sánchez, A.; Vázquez, A. Bioactive peptides: A review. Food Qual. Saf. 2017, 1, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nourmohammadi, E.; Mahoonak, A.S. Health Implications of Bioactive Peptides: A Review. Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 2018, 88, 319–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Korhonen, H.; Pihlanto, A. Bioactive peptides: Production and functionality. Int. Dairy J. 2006, 16, 945–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. El Sohaimy, S. Functional foods and nutraceuticals-modern approach to food science. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 20, 691–708. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hernández-Ledesma, B.; García-Nebot, M.J.; Fernández-Tomé, S.; Amigo, L.; Recio, I. Dairy protein hydrolysates: Peptides for health benefits. Int. Dairy J. 2014, 38, 82–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tsafrakidou, P.; Michaelidou, A.-M.G.; Biliaderis, C. Fermented cereal-based products: Nutritional aspects, possible impact on gut microbiota and health implications. Foods 2020, 9, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Garrido-Galand, S.; Asensio-Grau, A.; Calvo-Lerma, J.; Heredia, A.; Andrés, A. The potential of fermentation on nutritional and technological improvement of cereal and legume flours: A review. Food Res. Int. 2021, 145, 110398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ignat, M.V.; Salanţă, L.C.; Pop, O.L.; Pop, C.R.; Tofană, M.; Mudura, E.; Coldea, T.E.; Borşa, A.; Pasqualone, A. Current functionality and potential improvements of non-alcoholic fermented cereal beverages. Foods 2020, 9, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Harper, A.R.; Dobson, R.C.J.; Morris, V.K.; Moggré, G. Fermentation of plant-based dairy alternatives by lactic acid bacteria. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 1404–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Vogel, R.F.; Knorr, R.; Müller, M.R.; Steudel, U.; Gänzle, M.G.; Ehrmann, M.A. Non-dairy lactic fermentations: The cereal world. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1999, 76, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Holzapfel, W.; Leonie Taljaard, J. Industrialization of Mageu Fermentation in South Africa. In Food Science and Technology; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  40. Holzapfel, W.H. Appropriate starter culture technologies for small-scale fermentation in developing countries. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 75, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Meena, K.K.; Taneja, N.K.; Jain, D.; Ojha, A.; Saravanan, C.; Bunkar, D.S. Spontaneously fermented cereal based products: An ancient health promoting formulae for consumption of probiotic lactic acid bacteria. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2023, 13, 465–491. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bintsis, T. Lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 665–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. MARSHALL, V.M. Starter cultures for milk fermentation and their characteristics. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 1993, 46, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kandasamy, S.; Kavitake, D.; Shetty, P.H. Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeasts as Starter Cultures for Fermented Foods and Their Role in Commercialization of Fermented Foods. In Innovations in Technologies for Fermented Food and Beverage Industries; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 25–52. [Google Scholar]
  45. Glazunova, O.A.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Savinova, O.S.; Fedorova, T.V. In vitro and in vivo antihypertensive effect of milk fermented with different strains of common starter lactic acid bacteria. Nutrients 2022, 14, 5357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hatanaka, C.; Kobara, Y. Determination of glucose by a modification of Somogyi-Nelson method. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1980, 44, 2943–2949. [Google Scholar]
  47. Obanda, M.; Owuor, P.O.; Taylor, S.J. Flavanol composition and caffeine content of green leaf as quality potential indicators of Kenyan black teas. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1997, 74, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pérez, M.; Dominguez-López, I.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. The chemistry behind the Folin–Ciocalteu method for the estimation of (poly)phenol content in food: Total phenolic intake in a mediterranean dietary pattern. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 17543–17553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Begunova, A.V.; Rozhkova, I.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Savinova, O.S.; Fedorova, T.V. Fermentation profile and probiotic-related characteristics of Bifidobacterium longum MC-42. Fermentation 2021, 7, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moiseenko, K.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Savinova, O.S.; Shabaev, A.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Changes in composition of some bioactive molecules upon inclusion of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei probiotic strains into a standard yogurt starter culture. Foods 2023, 12, 4238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kruchinin, A.G.; Savinova, O.S.; Glazunova, O.A.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Agarkova, E.Y.; Fedorova, T.V. Hypotensive and hepatoprotective properties of the polysaccharide-stabilized foaming composition containing hydrolysate of whey proteins. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Odunfa, S.A.; Oyewole, O.B. African fermented foods. In Microbiology of Fermented Foods; Wood, B.J.B., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  53. Moiseenko, K.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Savinova, O.S.; Ajibade, B.O.; Ijabadeniyi, O.A.; Fedorova, T.V. Analytical characterization of the widely consumed commercialized fermented beverages from Russia (Kefir and Ryazhenka) and South Africa (Amasi and Mahewu): Potential functional properties and profiles of volatile organic compounds. Foods 2021, 10, 3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wells-Bennik, M.H.J.; Eijlander, R.T.; den Besten, H.M.W.; Berendsen, E.M.; Warda, A.K.; Krawczyk, A.O.; Nierop Groot, M.N.; Xiao, Y.; Zwietering, M.H.; Kuipers, O.P.; et al. Bacterial spores in food: Survival, emergence, and outgrowth. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 7, 457–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gould, G.W. History of science—Spores. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 101, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gallo, M.; Nigro, F.; Passannanti, F.; Salameh, D.; Schiattarella, P.; Budelli, A.; Nigro, R. Lactic fermentation of cereal flour: Feasibility tests on rice, oat and wheat. Appl. Food Biotechnol. 2019, 6, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
  57. Śliżewska, K.; Chlebicz-Wójcik, A. Growth kinetics of probiotic Lactobacillus strains in the alternative, cost-efficient semi-solid fermentation medium. Biology 2020, 9, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kumar, V.; Naik, B.; Kumar, A.; Khanduri, N.; Rustagi, S.; Kumar, S. Probiotics media: Significance, challenges, and future perspective—A mini review. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2022, 4, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stefanovic, E.; Fitzgerald, G.; McAuliffe, O. Advances in the genomics and metabolomics of dairy lactobacilli: A review. Food Microbiol. 2017, 61, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Kowalczyk, M.; Mayo, B.; Fernández, M.; Aleksandrzak-Piekarczyk, T. Updates on Metabolism in Lactic Acid Bacteria in Light of “Omic” Technologies. In Biotechnology of Lactic Acid Bacteria; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2015; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wen, R.; Chen, Q.; Kong, B. Role of lactic acid bacteria in flavor development in traditional Chinese fermented foods: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 2741–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zheng, J.; Ruan, L.; Sun, M.; Gänzle, M. A genomic view of Lactobacilli and Pediococci demonstrates that phylogeny matches ecology and physiology. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 7233–7243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Carpenter, C.E.; Broadbent, J.R. External concentration of organic acid anions and pH: Key independent variables for studying how organic acids inhibit growth of bacteria in mildly acidic foods. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, R12–R15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hirshfield, I.N.; Terzulli, S.; O’Byrne, C. Weak organic acids: A panoply of effects on bacteria. Sci. Prog. 2003, 86, 245–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Papadimitriou, K.; Alegría, Á.; Bron, P.A.; de Angelis, M.; Gobbetti, M.; Kleerebezem, M.; Lemos, J.A.; Linares, D.M.; Ross, P.; Stanton, C.; et al. Stress physiology of lactic acid bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2016, 80, 837–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Klaenhammer, T. Selection and design of probiotics. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1999, 50, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Sanders, M.E.; Benson, A.; Lebeer, S.; Merenstein, D.J.; Klaenhammer, T.R. Shared mechanisms among probiotic taxa: Implications for general probiotic claims. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 49, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guan, N.; Liu, L. Microbial response to acid stress: Mechanisms and applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ji, D.; Ma, J.; Xu, M.; Agyei, D. Cell-envelope proteinases from lactic acid bacteria: Biochemical features and biotechnological applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Liu, M.; Bayjanov, J.R.; Renckens, B.; Nauta, A.; Siezen, R.J. The proteolytic system of lactic acid bacteria revisited: A genomic comparison. BMC Genomics 2010, 11, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Schwenke, K.D. Proteins: Some principles of classification and structure. In Studies in Interface Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  72. Coţovanu, I.; Mironeasa, S. Effects of molecular characteristics and microstructure of amaranth particle sizes on dough rheology and wheat bread characteristics. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Gorinstein, S.; Jaramillo, N.O.; Medina, O.J.; Rogriques, W.A.; Tosello, G.A.; Paredes-Lopez, O. Evaluation of Some Cereals, Plants and Tubers Through Protein Composition. J. Protein Chem. 1999, 18, 687–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Eliasson, A.-C.; Larsson, K. Cereals in Breadmaking; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781315139005. [Google Scholar]
  75. Alais, C.; Guy, L. Food Biochemistry; Ellis Horwood Series in Food Science and Technology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vishwanathan, K.H.; Singh, V.; Subramanian, R. Influence of particle size on protein extractability from soybean and okara. J. Food Eng. 2011, 102, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Russin, T.A.; Arcand, Y.; Boye, J.I. Particle size effect on soy protein isolate extraction. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2007, 31, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Adebo, O.A.; Gabriela Medina-Meza, I. Impact of fermentation on the phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of whole cereal grains: A mini review. Molecules 2020, 25, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Verni, M.; Verardo, V.; Rizzello, C. How fermentation affects the antioxidant properties of cereals and legumes. Foods 2019, 8, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Verni, M.; Rizzello, C.G.; Coda, R. Fermentation biotechnology applied to cereal industry by-products: Nutritional and functional insights. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rollán, G.C.; Gerez, C.L.; LeBlanc, J.G. Lactic fermentation as a strategy to improve the nutritional and functional values of pseudocereals. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rahman, M.M.; Rahaman, M.S.; Islam, M.R.; Rahman, F.; Mithi, F.M.; Alqahtani, T.; Almikhlafi, M.A.; Alghamdi, S.Q.; Alruwaili, A.S.; Hossain, M.S.; et al. Role of phenolic compounds in human disease: Current knowledge and future prospects. Molecules 2021, 27, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Matsumura, Y.; Kitabatake, M.; Kayano, S.; Ito, T. Dietary phenolic compounds: Their health benefits and association with the gut microbiota. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Vuong, Q. Phenolic compounds potential health benefits and toxicity. In Utilisation of Bioactive Compounds from Agricultural and Food Production Waste; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  85. Tsuge, H.; Hishida, M.; Iwasaki, H.; Watanabe, S.; Goshima, G. Enzymatic evaluation for the degree of starch retrogradation in foods and foodstuffs. Starch Stärke 1990, 42, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, T.; Hong, S.; Zhang, J.-R.; Liu, P.-H.; Li, S.; Wen, Z.; Xiao, J.; Zhang, G.; Habimana, O.; Shah, N.P.; et al. The effect of lactic acid bacteria fermentation on physicochemical properties of starch from fermented proso millet flour. Food Chem. 2024, 437, 137764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cheng, H. Volatile Flavor Compounds in Yogurt: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 938–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. McAuliffe, O.; Kilcawley, K.; Stefanovic, E. Symposium review: Genomic investigations of flavor formation by dairy microbiota. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Roy, D.; Ye, A.; Moughan, P.J.; Singh, H. Composition, structure, and digestive dynamics of milk from different species—A review. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 577759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Zeng, M.; Morris, C.F.; Batey, I.L.; Wrigley, C.W. Sources of variation for starch gelatinization, pasting, and gelation properties in wheat. Cereal Chem. 1997, 74, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Collado, L.S.; Mabesa, R.C.; Corke, H. Genetic variation in the physical properties of sweet potato starch. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 4195–4201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Malafronte, L.; Yilmaz-Turan, S.; Dahl, L.; Vilaplana, F.; Lopez-Sanchez, P. Shear and extensional rheological properties of whole grain rye and oat aqueous suspensions. Food Hydrocoll. 2023, 137, 108319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Savijoki, K.; Ingmer, H.; Varmanen, P. Proteolytic systems of lactic acid bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 71, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Begunova, A.V.; Savinova, O.S.; Glazunova, O.A.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Rozhkova, I.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Development of antioxidant and antihypertensive properties during growth of Lactobacillus helveticus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus reuteri on cow’s milk: Fermentation and peptidomics study. Foods 2021, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pihlanto, A. Antioxidative peptides derived from milk proteins. Int. Dairy J. 2006, 16, 1306–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Udenigwe, C.C.; Aluko, R.E. Food Protein-Derived Bioactive Peptides: Production, Processing, and Potential Health Benefits. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, R11–R24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Steckelings, U.M.; Rompe, F.; Kaschina, E.; Unger, T. The evolving story of the RAAS in hypertension, diabetes and CV disease—Moving from macrovascular to microvascular targets. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009, 23, 693–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. te Riet, L.; van Esch, J.H.M.; Roks, A.J.M.; van den Meiracker, A.H.; Danser, A.H.J. Hypertension. Circ. Res. 2015, 116, 960–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Riccio, E.; Capuano, I.; Buonanno, P.; Andreucci, M.; Provenzano, M.; Amicone, M.; Rizzo, M.; Pisani, A. RAAS Inhibitor Prescription and Hyperkalemia Event in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 824095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ferrari, R. RAAS inhibition and mortality in hypertension. Glob. Cardiol. Sci. Pract. 2013, 2013, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ghazi, L.; Drawz, P. Advances in understanding the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in blood pressure control and recent pivotal trials of RAAS blockade in heart failure and diabetic nephropathy. F1000Research 2017, 6, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Moiseenko, K.V.; Begunova, A.V.; Savinova, O.S.; Glazunova, O.A.; Rozhkova, I.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Biochemical and genomic characterization of two new strains of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei isolated from the traditional corn-based beverage of South Africa, mahewu, and their comparison with strains isolated from kefir grains. Foods 2023, 12, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Begunova, A.V.; Savinova, O.S.; Moiseenko, K.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Rozhkova, I.V.; Fedorova, T.V. Characterization and Functional Properties of Lactobacilli Isolated from Kefir Grains. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2021, 57, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 13 02414 g001
Figure 1. Growth curves of the studied LAB strains during the fermentation of cereals.
Figure 1. Growth curves of the studied LAB strains during the fermentation of cereals.
Foods 13 02414 g001
Foods 13 02414 g002
Figure 2. Changes in the relative viable cell count (A), pH (B), and concentration of reducing sugars (C) during the fermentation of cereals with the studied LAB strains.
Figure 2. Changes in the relative viable cell count (A), pH (B), and concentration of reducing sugars (C) during the fermentation of cereals with the studied LAB strains.
Foods 13 02414 g002
Foods 13 02414 g003
Figure 3. Changes in starch (A), free protein (B), and free phenolic compound (C) contents induced by the fermentation of cereal flours with the studied LAB strains. All measured values (for all studied LABs at all time points) are pooled together. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by dashed lines with a dot at the end.
Figure 3. Changes in starch (A), free protein (B), and free phenolic compound (C) contents induced by the fermentation of cereal flours with the studied LAB strains. All measured values (for all studied LABs at all time points) are pooled together. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by dashed lines with a dot at the end.
Foods 13 02414 g003
Foods 13 02414 g004
Figure 4. Changes in the dynamic viscosity of cereal flours after 24 h of fermentation with the studied LAB strains. The measured values for all strains of the same LAB species are pooled together. Data are presented as the mean ± SD. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by lines.
Figure 4. Changes in the dynamic viscosity of cereal flours after 24 h of fermentation with the studied LAB strains. The measured values for all strains of the same LAB species are pooled together. Data are presented as the mean ± SD. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by lines.
Foods 13 02414 g004
Foods 13 02414 g005
Figure 5. Changes in degree of proteolysis (A) and antioxidant capacity (B) during the fermentation of cereals with the studied LAB strains.
Figure 5. Changes in degree of proteolysis (A) and antioxidant capacity (B) during the fermentation of cereals with the studied LAB strains.
Foods 13 02414 g005
Foods 13 02414 g006
Figure 6. (A) Changes in antioxidant capacity induced by the fermentation of cereal flour with the studied LAB strains. The measured values for all strains of the same LAB species are pooled together. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by dashed lines with a dot at the end. (B) Correlation between the degree of proteolysis and the antioxidant capacity of the flour fermented by the studied LAB strains.
Figure 6. (A) Changes in antioxidant capacity induced by the fermentation of cereal flour with the studied LAB strains. The measured values for all strains of the same LAB species are pooled together. Values measured for the unfermented flour are represented by dashed lines with a dot at the end. (B) Correlation between the degree of proteolysis and the antioxidant capacity of the flour fermented by the studied LAB strains.
Foods 13 02414 g006
Table 1. The main composition of the flours according to the supplier specifications.
Table 1. The main composition of the flours according to the supplier specifications.
NutrientContent, wt%
Rice FlourOat FlourWheat Flour
Protein5.512.011.7
Fat0.86.01.83
Carbohydrates81.266.059.6
Dietary fibers2.54.55.3
Starch and dextrins79.063.5nd
Free sugar (mono- and disaccharides)0.11.0nd
nd—no data.
Table 2. Strains of lactic acid bacteria that were used in this study.
Table 2. Strains of lactic acid bacteria that were used in this study.
StrainIsolation SourceBioProject No.
Lb. paracasei KF1Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lb. paracasei MA2MahewuPRJNA736961
Lb. paracasei MA3MahewuPRJNA824719
Lb. delbrueckii Lb100YogurtPRJNA736961
Lb. delbrueckii Lb200Sour milkPRJNA824719
Lb. helveticus KF4Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lb. helveticus KF5Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lb. helveticus KF6Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lb. helveticus KF7Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lb. helveticus NK1Infant fecesPRJNA736961
Str. thermophilus 16tSour milkPRJNA824719
Str. thermophilus 159Orange leavesPRJNA736961
Str. thermophilus KF8Kefir grainsPRJNA824719
Lc. lactis AM1AmasiPRJNA824719
Lc. lactis MA1MahewuPRJNA824719
Lc. lactis dlASour creamPRJNA736961
Table 3. Angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitory activity (expressed as half-maximal inhibitory concentration, IC50) of the cereal flour fermented for 24 h by different strains of lactic acid bacteria.
Table 3. Angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitory activity (expressed as half-maximal inhibitory concentration, IC50) of the cereal flour fermented for 24 h by different strains of lactic acid bacteria.
IC50, mg (Protein)·mL−1
Rice Flour (3%)Oat Flour (3%)Wheat Flour (3%)Milk 1
Unfermented control0.18 ± 0.020.61 ± 0.030.23 ± 0.02
Range from min to max0.16–0.210.57–0.650.19–0.267.1–9.0
Strains of Lb. paracasei
KF10.16 ± 0.010.36 ± 0.040.28 ± 0.03
MA20.22 ± 0.030.40 ± 0.050.23 ± 0.01
MA30.25 ± 0.020.34 ± 0.020.28 ± 0.03
Range from min to max0.14–0.280.29–0.420.20–0.312.1–2.5
Strains of Lb. delbrueckii
Lb1000.22 ± 0.020.40 ± 0.070.14 ± 0.02
Lb2000.26 ± 0.060.33 ± 0.030.17 ± 0.01
Range from min to max0.19–0.350.28–0.500.10–0.191.0–2.2
Strains of Lb. helveticus
KF40.11 ± 0.010.12 ± 0.020.08 ± 0.01
KF50.12 ± 0.020.23 ± 0.030.12 ± 0.02
KF60.12 ± 0.010.22 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.02
KF70.10 ± 0.030.21 ± 0.020.10 ± 0.03
NK10.17 ± 0.030.17 ± 0.010.30 ± 0.05
Range from min to max0.06–0.220.15–0.280.06–0.360.6–2.0
Strains of Str. thermophilus
16t0.05 ± 0.020.14 ± 0.020.14 ± 0.02
1590.06 ± 0.010.15 ± 0.030.05 ± 0.01
KF80.05 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.010.14 ± 0.03
Range from min to max0.03–0.080.09–0.210.04–0.191.0–1.6
Strains of Lc. lactis
AM10.19 ± 0.030.10 ± 0.020.13 ± 0.01
MA10.09 ± 0.020.23 ± 0.020.14 ± 0.03
dlA0.07 ± 0.010.20 ± 0.050.10 ± 0.04
Range from min to max0.05–0.230.07–0.270.06–0.201.7–3.5
1 Data were taken from the previous publications on the strains used in this study [45,94,102,103].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moiseenko, K.V.; Glazunova, O.A.; Fedorova, T.V. Fermentation of Rice, Oat, and Wheat Flour by Pure Cultures of Common Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria: Growth Dynamics, Sensory Evaluation, and Functional Properties. Foods 2024, 13, 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13152414

AMA Style

Moiseenko KV, Glazunova OA, Fedorova TV. Fermentation of Rice, Oat, and Wheat Flour by Pure Cultures of Common Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria: Growth Dynamics, Sensory Evaluation, and Functional Properties. Foods. 2024; 13(15):2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13152414

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moiseenko, Konstantin V., Olga A. Glazunova, and Tatyana V. Fedorova. 2024. "Fermentation of Rice, Oat, and Wheat Flour by Pure Cultures of Common Starter Lactic Acid Bacteria: Growth Dynamics, Sensory Evaluation, and Functional Properties" Foods 13, no. 15: 2414. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13152414

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