| Literature DB >> 35983334 |
Frédéric Borges1, Romain Briandet2, Cécile Callon3, Marie-Christine Champomier-Vergès2, Souad Christieans4, Sarah Chuzeville5, Catherine Denis6, Nathalie Desmasures7, Marie-Hélène Desmonts8, Carole Feurer9, Françoise Leroi10, Sabine Leroy11, Jérôme Mounier12, Delphine Passerini10, Marie-France Pilet13, Margot Schlusselhuber7, Valérie Stahl8, Caroline Strub14, Régine Talon11, Monique Zagorec13.
Abstract
Biopreservation is a sustainable approach to improve food safety and maintain or extend food shelf life by using beneficial microorganisms or their metabolites. Over the past 20 years, omics techniques have revolutionised food microbiology including biopreservation. A range of methods including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics and meta-omics derivatives have highlighted the potential of biopreservation to improve the microbial safety of various foods. This review shows how these approaches have contributed to the selection of biopreservation agents, to a better understanding of the mechanisms of action and of their efficiency and impact within the food ecosystem. It also presents the potential of combining omics with complementary approaches to take into account better the complexity of food microbiomes at multiple scales, from the cell to the community levels, and their spatial, physicochemical and microbiological heterogeneity. The latest advances in biopreservation through omics have emphasised the importance of considering food as a complex and dynamic microbiome that requires integrated engineering strategies to increase the rate of innovation production in order to meet the safety, environmental and economic challenges of the agri-food sector.Entities:
Keywords: biopreservation; fermentation; food; microbiome; pathogen; safety; shelf life; spoilage
Year: 2022 PMID: 35983334 PMCID: PMC9379315 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.951182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Main characteristics of biopreservation in food and mechanisms involved.
| Protective mode of action | Resulting effect | Effect at cellular and/or molecular levels | Mode of use | References |
| Nutritional competition | - Jameson effect | - Early entry into stationary phase of targeted microorganisms, and protective cultures | Live microorganisms added to the food | |
| Production of organic acids | - Extracellular pH drop | - Cytoplasmic pH decrease |
| |
| Production of hydrogen peroxide | - Oxidation of cellular components | - Peroxidation and disruption of membrane layers |
| |
| Respiration | Change in atmosphere composition (O2 decrease) leading to microaerophilic conditions | - Inhibition of strict aerobic bacteria | Live microorganisms added to the food |
|
| Production of bacteriocins | Bactericidal or bacteriostatic activity against species taxonomically related to the producing strain | - Pore formation in the cytoplasmic membrane | Live microorganisms added to the food |
|
| Bacteriocins purified from cultivated producer strains |
|
FIGURE 1Major advances in the field of biopreservation thanks to omics approaches. The objective of biopreservation is to induce growth cessation or decay of pathogens and spoilers. Omics approaches have shown that in response to biopreservation, target microorganisms modulate the expression of genes involved in cell metabolism, stress tolerance and virulence. In addition, omics revealed that biopreservation can decrease the diversity of food microbiota. Conversely, depending on its structure, the food microbiota can either improve or reduce the effectiveness of biopreservation agents. Food microbiota can also have intrinsic protective properties and thus inhibit unwanted microorganisms.
Overview of omics approaches used to assess the impact of biopreservation on food ecosystems and main findings.
| Omics approach | Methodological details | Food | Main finding | References |
| PCR-Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis/Temporal temperature gradient electrophoresis associated or not with band sequencing | V3 region of 16S rDNA | Cooked and peeled shrimp |
| |
| V3 region of 16S rDNA | Vacuum-packaged beef meat | Bands associated with spoilage bacteria ( |
| |
| V3 region of 16S rDNA | Vacuum-packed cooked ham | Predominant spoilage LAB were not detected when the bioprotective |
| |
| V6–V8 region of 16S rDNA | Beef cuts packaged in nisin-coated plastic bags | Similar diversity in control and nisin-treated samples although differences were observed with plate counts for |
| |
| DNA sequencing | Pyrosequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rDNA | Cold-smoked salmon | Different OTU ratios were observed between control and samples inoculated with |
|
| Illumina sequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rDNA | Raw/peeled shrimp |
| ||
| Illumina sequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rDNA | St Nectaire-type cheese | Implantation of an inhibitory consortium whose inhibitory activity toward |
| |
| Illumina sequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rDNA and of an internal 280 bp fragment of the | Diced cooked ham | Bioprotective activity and implantation of a nisin-producing strain of |
| |
| Illumina sequencing of V4 region of 16S rDNA | Fresh filled pasta | Cultures of |
| |
| 16S rRNA sequencing | Sequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rRNA from cDNA | Fermented sausage | Large domination of |
|
| Sequencing of V3–V4 region of 16S rRNA from cDNA | Beef burgers in nisin-activated packaging | Lower abundance of some taxa in samples with nisin-activated packaging |
| |
| Volatilome analysis | Headspace SPME/GC-MS | Cooked and peeled tropical shrimp | Inhibition of |
|
| Headspace SPME/GC-MS | Salmon gravlax | 6 protective strains exhibited their own volatilome profiles. Quality improvement was not correlated with implantation of protective culture |
| |
| Headspace SPME/GC-MS | Fresh filled pasta |
| ||
| NMR spectroscopy |
| Kinetic analysis of 11 major metabolites involved in the metabolism of |
| |
| FTICR-MS | Red wines | No effect on the volatile compounds of a |
|