Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40424401›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Encapsulation improves viability and stability of spray-dried Lactococcus lactis A12 for inclusion in fish feed.

Marcelo Fernando Valle Vargas, Ruth Yolanda Ruiz Pardo, Luisa Villamil-Díaz, Jader Alean, Patricio Román Santagapita, María Ximena Quintanilla-Carvajal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marcelo Fernando Valle VargasGrupo de Investigación en Procesos Agroindustriales (GIPA), Doctorado en Biociencias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de La Sabana. Campus del Puente del Común, Km. 7, Autopista Norte de Bogotá, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia.
Ruth Yolanda Ruiz PardoGrupo de Investigación en Procesos Agroindustriales (GIPA), Doctorado en Biociencias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de La Sabana. Campus del Puente del Común, Km. 7, Autopista Norte de Bogotá, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia.
Luisa Villamil-DíazGrupo de Investigación en Procesos Agroindustriales (GIPA), Doctorado en Biociencias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de La Sabana. Campus del Puente del Común, Km. 7, Autopista Norte de Bogotá, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2188-5453
Jader AleanUniversidad de La Guajira, Facultad de Ingeniería, Riohacha, La Guajira, Colombia.
Patricio Román SantagapitaUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Departamento de Química Orgánica, & Centro de Investigación en Hidratos de Carbono (CIHIDECAR, UBA-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María Ximena Quintanilla-CarvajalGrupo de Investigación en Procesos Agroindustriales (GIPA), Doctorado en Biociencias, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de La Sabana. Campus del Puente del Común, Km. 7, Autopista Norte de Bogotá, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8219-7246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During probiotics manufacturing, drying is a crucial process for stabilization of probiotics after fermentation, since drying condition could affect viability and functionality as well as physical properties such as moisture content and water activity, which play key role in stability of dried probiotics during storage. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of spray-drying parameters on the survival of Lactococcus lactis A12 after drying and exposure to gastrointestinal conditions. A combined mixture-process design was carried out by evaluating three factors: whey (10-30% w/v), maltodextrin (10-30% w/v), and atomization pressure (1.0-1.5 bar). As the main results, a high concentration of whey (30% w/v), low concentration of maltodextrin (10% w/v), and high atomization pressure (1.4 bar) improved survival of spray-dried L. lactis A12 after drying and exposure to pH 3.00 or bile salts with survival rates ranged within 69.25 to 86.24%, 65.89-98.93%, and 89.09-100%, respectively. Under optimal conditions, spray-dried probiotic powder with wall materials (encapsulated) exhibited higher glass transition temperature (64.44 vs 12.65 °C), and lower hygroscopicity (12.65 vs 64.44%) than spray-dried probiotic without wall materials (non-encapsulated). Moreover, SD probiotic powder exhibited the highest survival rate (85.88%) at 4 °C during 60 days of storage in comparison to 25 °C and 37 °C which did not survive. Finally, spray-dried L. lactis A12 was included in fish feed and exhibited a survival rate of 80.83% when it was stored at 4 °C after 60 days. It can be concluded that the use of encapsulating materials, particularly whey and maltodextrin, improved the physical and thermal stability of L. lactis A12 powder during drying and storage. Also, the results from the stability of supplemented fish feed suggested that L. lactis A12 could be included in fish feed.

Indexed as

Animal FeedLactococcus lactisProbioticsAnimalsDesiccationFishesHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationMicrobial ViabilityPolysaccharidesPowdersSpray DryingWheymaltodextrinPolysaccharidesPowders

Identifiers

PMID40424401
PMCPMC12112376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.