Fermented alcoholic beverages and their by-products, including beer and breweries' bio-wastes like spent yeasts, grain, and hops, contain a plethora of natural bioactive compounds that have recently gained attention for their valorization as functional ingredients in several novel foods and nutraceuticals, as well as in drugs and cosmetics applications. Within this article, the natural bio-functional compounds of fermented beer product and breweries' by-products with anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, and anti-oxidant bioactivities are thoroughly reviewed. The important roles of yeasts involved for such bioactives to be present in the fermented product and in the brewery bio-wastes are also outlined. The health promoting benefits of beer moderate consumption resulting from these bioactives, as part of a balanced diet, against inflammation-related chronic disorders is also discussed, along with the detrimental effects of beer consumption abuse and the potential benefits of alternative non-alcoholic beers. The mechanisms of action and synergism of the natural bioactives present in the fermented beer product and in breweries' by-products, with anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and antioxidant properties are also presented. Current research and future perspectives on valorizing bioactives of fermented beer and brewery by-products, such as spent yeasts, grain and hops in health-promoting functional foods, supplements, nutraceuticals cosmetics, cosmeceuticals, and pharmaceuticals are also thoroughly evaluated, while the limitations of their use are also discussed.
Citation: Alexandros Tsoupras, Eirini A. Panagopoulou, George Z. Kyzas. Anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic and anti-oxidant bioactives of beer and brewery by-products, as ingredients of bio-functional foods, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, cosmeceuticals and pharmaceuticals with health promoting properties[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(2): 568-606. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024032
| [1] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, David Pot, Pierre Marraccini, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz . Flavor precursors and sensory attributes of coffee submitted to different post-harvest processing. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 700-714. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.700 |
| [2] | Ioannis K. Karabagias, Chara Papastephanou, Vassilios K. Karabagias . Geographical differentiation of Cypriot multifloral honeys through specific volatile compounds and the use of DFA. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 149-162. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.149 |
| [3] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, João Batista Gonçalves Dias da Silva, Marta de Toledo Benassi, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira . Free choice profiling sensory analysis to discriminate coffees. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(4): 455-469. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.4.455 |
| [4] | Sapta Raharja, Yogi Purna Rahardjo, Samsudin, Khaswar Syamsu . Aroma precursor enhancing in dried cocoa beans fermentation using enzyme and heat addition. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(2): 674-686. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023037 |
| [5] | Dody Dwi Handoko, Anisa Maharani Kaseh, Laras Cempaka, Wahyudi David, Bram Kusbiantoro, Afifah Zahra Agista, Yusuke Ohsaki, Hitoshi Shirakawa, Ardiansyah . Effects of household-scale cooking on volatile compounds, sensory profile, and hypotensive effect of Kenikir (Cosmos caudatus). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 198-213. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023011 |
| [6] | Ardiansyah, Fauziyyah Ariffa, Rizki Maryam Astuti, Wahyudi David, Dody Dwi Handoko, Slamet Budijanto, Hitoshi Shirakawa . Non-volatile compounds and blood pressure-lowering activity of Inpari 30 and Cempo Ireng fermented and non-fermented rice bran. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 337-359. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021021 |
| [7] | Siska Septiana, Nancy Dewi Yuliana, Boy Muchlis Bachtiar, Christofora Hanny Wijaya . Aroma-active compounds of Melaleuca cajuputi essential oil, a potent flavor on Cajuputs Candy. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 292-306. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.292 |
| [8] | Esteban Largo-Avila, Carlos Hernán Suarez-Rodríguez, Jorge Latorre Montero, Madison Strong, Osorio-Arias Juan . The influence of hot-air mechanical drying on the sensory quality of specialty Colombian coffee. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 789-803. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023042 |
| [9] | Eleni C. Pappa, Efthymia Kondyli, Anna-Maria Vlachou, Athanasia Kakouri, Evdokia Malamou, John Samelis . Semi industrial production of Tsalafouti dairy product. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(2): 444-460. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022028 |
| [10] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira, João Batista Gonçalves Dias da Silva, Marta de Toledo Benassi . Profile of the diterpenes, lipid and protein content of different coffee cultivars of three consecutive harvests. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 254-264. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.254 |
Fermented alcoholic beverages and their by-products, including beer and breweries' bio-wastes like spent yeasts, grain, and hops, contain a plethora of natural bioactive compounds that have recently gained attention for their valorization as functional ingredients in several novel foods and nutraceuticals, as well as in drugs and cosmetics applications. Within this article, the natural bio-functional compounds of fermented beer product and breweries' by-products with anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, and anti-oxidant bioactivities are thoroughly reviewed. The important roles of yeasts involved for such bioactives to be present in the fermented product and in the brewery bio-wastes are also outlined. The health promoting benefits of beer moderate consumption resulting from these bioactives, as part of a balanced diet, against inflammation-related chronic disorders is also discussed, along with the detrimental effects of beer consumption abuse and the potential benefits of alternative non-alcoholic beers. The mechanisms of action and synergism of the natural bioactives present in the fermented beer product and in breweries' by-products, with anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and antioxidant properties are also presented. Current research and future perspectives on valorizing bioactives of fermented beer and brewery by-products, such as spent yeasts, grain and hops in health-promoting functional foods, supplements, nutraceuticals cosmetics, cosmeceuticals, and pharmaceuticals are also thoroughly evaluated, while the limitations of their use are also discussed.
Abbreviations: LAB: lactic acid bacteria; bac +: bacteriocinogenic; PGI: Protected Geographical Indication; S2BLAF: Lb. plantarum ST153Ch fresh; S2BLA: Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized; S2BC non-inoculated; S2BLAF + LM: Lb. plantarum ST153Ch fresh plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes; S2BLA + LM: Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes; S2BC + LM: cocktail of L. monocytogenes
"Alheira" is a traditional fermented smoked meat sausage, typical of the North of Portugal, which production dates back to the late fifteenth century. Nowadays, "Alheira" is a well-known Portuguese product with some varieties with Protected Geographical indication (PGI) status. "Alheiras" vary considerably in their final compositions and production processes. The relevant common elements in the production process are the boiling of various meats in lightly salted and spiced water; soaking the thinly sliced bread in some of the broth, formed during the boiling of the meats, until it is soft enough; adding meat in small pieces, spices and olive oil and/or fat drippings to the bread/broth mixture; there is no addition of starter cultures; stuffing the paste into pork intestinal or cellulose-based casings when everything is completely mixed and the salt and spices adjusted to the desirable taste (variable). Traditionally, "Alheiras" are smoked at low but uncontrolled temperature (generally < 37 ℃) and uncontrolled humidity [1], but industrially smoking is performed at higher temperatures, in ovens, and cooled rapidly in cooling chambers. Several authors observed that LAB constitute the predominant microbiota of "Alheira", with particular incidence of Lactobacillus spp. and Enterococcus spp. [1,2] from the early stages of fermentation process (during the smoking). However, pathogenic organisms, such as L. monocytogenes, Salmonella spp. and St. aureus have already been detected [2,3] which could affect the safe consumption of this food. "Alheira" have a pH ~5.1, 1.1% NaCl, ± 0.95 of water activity, 52.3% of moisture, 13% of lipids, 14% total protein and 13% of carbohydrates. These physicochemical parameters and composition, indicated that, and according to the accepted limits for these parameters, pH, salt content and moisture per se, do not assure the microbiological safety of this product. Furthermore, this is a product that is consumed cooked, but some studies suggested that internal temperatures may often not be sufficient to kill all of the pathogens originally present [4], which could justify the use of bioprotective cultures or other natural antimicrobial components.
One of the main challenges in the production of traditional fermented meat products is to improve competitiveness by identifying innovations, which comply with safety policies and regulations, and guarantee food safety, while at the same time meeting consumer demands and expectations [5]. There is an increasing interest in the use of LAB as natural preservatives, due to the potential production of antimicrobial metabolites such as bacteriocins [6,7,8]. So, LAB cultures and/or their bacteriocins are very important for bioprotective strategies to control spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms such as L. monocytogenes [6,7,8,9]. It is recommended to use strains that are well adapted to specific environment characteristics of the food matrices in which they are going to be used, preferably isolates recovered from these or from similar foods, for optimal performance and bacteriocin production [9,10,11].
Lactobacillus plantarum ST153Ch originally identified as Lb. sakei but subsequently re-identified as Lb. plantarum, is an autochthonous strain isolated from "Salpicão", a traditional Portuguese salami-like product [12]. Vaz-Velho et al. [13] showed the possibility of using this strain as a protective culture to improve the safety of fermented meat sausages with respect to L. monocytogenes. Todorov et al. [12] showed that this strain produces an anti-listerial bacteriocin (ST153Ch) that is heat resistant and stable at low temperatures, stable between pH 2.0 and 10.0 and produced at higher levels during the stationary phase of fermentation in the presence of 2% (w/v) D-Glucose [12].
Food safety challenges are constantly changing and require new approaches and tools. Omics methodologies are rapidly transforming our approaches to the detection, prevention, and removal of foodborne pathogens [14], but also to monitor changes in microbiota composition of these products, the interactions between new bio-control agents and microbiota, which is directly correlated to its taste, aspect, safety and functional characteristics [15,16]. This could be a very interesting approach for industrial application.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a fresh and a lyophilized bioprotective Lb. plantarum ST153Ch culture, at an industrial scale, on the microbiological characteristics of "Alheira de Vitela", during the 90 days of storage at 4 ℃. Simultaneously the antilisterial activity of Lb. plantarum ST153Ch was also evaluated. Changes in microbiota were also investigated by 16s rRNA gene analysis in "Alheira de Vitela" produced with and without the bacteriocinogenic culture.
Lactobacillus plantarum ST153Ch (formerly Lc. sakei [12] and reclassified following 16 sRNA sequencing) was grown in de Man, Rogosa Sharpe (MRS) broth (Lab M, Bury, UK) at 30 ℃ for 48 h.
Listeria monocytogenes Scott A [17] and L. monocytogenes 3701 (isolated from a fermented meat sausage (ESB-UCP) were grown in Tryptone Soy Broth (TSB; Biokar) supplemented with 0.6% (w/v) of yeast extract (LabM; TSBYE) at 37 ℃ for 18–22 h.
All bacterial strains were sub-cultured twice under appropriate conditions before use in experiments. All strains were stored at −20 ℃ in the presence of 30% (v/v) glycerol.
One liter of MRS broth was inoculated (1% v/v) with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch and after 24 h at 30 ℃, cells were centrifuged at 17200x g, for 10 minutes, at 4 ℃. Cells were resuspended in 100 mL of sterilized deionized water, in order to have 109 CFU/mL. For fresh culture, cells were kept at 4 ℃ until the inoculation procedure (fresh culture was prepared on the same day of inoculation).
For preparation of lyophilized culture, the method used was adapted from Barbosa et al. [18]: cells were initially frozen at −80 ℃ overnight, and then desiccated under vacuum (2 ATM) for 4 days in a freeze-drier (SB4 Armfield, UK) at room temperature; and the condenser was cooled at −48 ℃. Before lyophilization process, Lb. plantarum ST153Ch reached ~1010 CFU/mL and after the concentration was ~109 CFU/mL.
"Alheira" samples were manufactured in a meat plant according to traditional recipes and techniques. The ingredients used were as follows: Veal meat (35%), wheat bread (wheat flour, baking powder and salt), pork meat, rooster, cooking broth, spices, onion, olive oil and salt. The sausage mixture, before stuffing in natural casing, was divided into three similar portions, each one with 45 kg: one was inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch fresh (S2BLAF), another with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized (S2BLA) and the other one was non-inoculated (S2BC), to act as a control. Lactobacillus plantarum ST153Ch, fresh or lyophilized (prepared as indicated in section 2.2) was added before stuffing, in order to reach ~108 CFU/g in the final product. Lyophilized culture was suspended in 3 L of water and sucrose (6%w/v) and then added to the fresh sausage mixture. Fresh culture was directly added to the sausage mixture. Sausages were smoked in ovens, with a slight smoke of holm-wood, in controlled humidity, for some hours. Then, "Alheiras" were packed (in packages composed with materials of polyolefin and polyamide), under modified atmosphere (20% CO2 and 80% N2) and stored for 90 days at 4 ℃. Three independent batches were produced.
Microbiological analyses of all the samples were performed before smoking (−1 day), immediately after smoking (0 day) and during storage at times 3, 7, 15, 21, 28, 60 and 90 days.
Listeria monocytogenes strains were sub-cultured twice (24 h at 37℃) in TSB broth using a 1% v/v inoculum. Each culture was centrifuged and mixed in Ringer's solution. An aliquot (300 µL) of the cocktail of L. monocytogenes suspension (107 CFU/mL for each strain of L. monocytogenes) was inoculated with a sterilized syringe in 300 g of each sample of "Alheira". This procedure was done after smoking, in the microbiology laboratory, in order to reach 105 CFU/g of sample of "Alheira": one batch was inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch fresh plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes (S2BLAF + LM), another batch with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes (S2BLA + LM) and the other one only with cocktail of L. monocytogenes (S2BC + LM), to act as a control.
Twenty-five gram samples were added to 225 mL of sterile buffered peptone water (Biokar Diagnostics, Beauvais, France), and homogenized in a stomacher for 2 min. Appropriate decimal dilutions were prepared in Ringer's solution for microbial enumeration according to ISO Standards: LAB on de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe Agar (MRS, Biokar Diagnostics; [19]) incubated at 30 ℃ for 72 h; Enterobacteriaceae on RAPID' Enterobacteriaceae medium (Bio-Rad, CA, USA; [20]) and St. aureus on Baird Parker Agar (BPA, Bio-Rad; [21]), with rabbit plasma fibrinogen confirmation [22], both incubated at 37 ℃ for 48 h; Escherichia coli on Tryptone Bile X-glucuronide Agar [23] incubated at 44 ℃ for 24 h; Bacillus cereus on Mannitol Egg York Polymyxin Agar Base (VWR International, Pennsylvania, USA; ISO 7932:2004/Amd 1 [24]), and yeasts and molds on Rose-Bengal Chloramphenicol Agar (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK; NP 3277-1:1987 [25]) incubated at 25 ℃ for 5 days. Also the detection of some agents was performed using the ISO methodologies: detection and enumeration of L. monocytogenes [26,27], detection of Salmonella spp. [28], sulfite- reducing Clostridium spores [29] and detection of Yersinia [30]. Every analysis was performed in duplicate.
Ten grams of "Alheira" samples were homogenized individually in a stomacher for 2 min. From this, 1 g was used for DNA extraction. The DNA was extracted according to the instructions of "The GRS Genomic DNA Kit–Tissue–for Stool" (GRISP, Porto, Portugal).
The samples used were: "Alheira" inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized (S2BLA): before smoking (S2BLA (−1 day)), after smoking (S2BLA (0 day)) and after 60 days of storage (S2BLA (60 days)); and the control non-inoculated (S2BC): before smoking (S2BC (−1 day)), after smoking (S2BC (0 day)) and after 2 months storage (S2BC (60 days)).
Samples were prepared for Illumina Sequencing by 16S rRNA gene amplification of the bacterial community. The DNA was amplified for the hypervariable V3-V4 region with specific primers and further reamplified in a limited-cycle PCR reaction to add sequencing adapters and dual indexes. First PCR reactions were performed for each sample using KAPA HiFi HotStart PCR Kit according to the manufacturer's suggestions, 0.3 μM of each PCR primer: forward primer Bakt_341F 5'-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3' and reverse primer Bakt_805R 5'-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3' [31,32] and 12.5 ng of template DNA in a total volume of 25 μL. The PCR conditions involved a 3 min denaturation at 95 ℃, followed by 25 cycles of 98 ℃ for 20 s, 55 ℃ for 30 s and 72 ℃ for 30 s and a final extension at 72 ℃ for 5 min. Second PCR reactions added indexes and sequencing adapters to both ends of the amplified target region according to manufacturer's recommendations [33]. Negative PCR controls were included for all amplification procedures. PCR products were then one-step purified and normalized using SequalPrep 96-well plate kit (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, USA) [34], pooled and pair-end sequenced in the Illumina MiSeq® sequencer with the V3 chemistry, according to the manufacturer's instructions [33] at Genoinseq (Cantanhede, Portugal).
All 16S rRNA data were analyzed with Kraken v1 [35] using the pre-built MiniKraken 8Gb database (https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/kraken/) with default parameters. At each taxonomic rank, classification falling below a threshold of 0.1% of all data were excluded from the subsequent analysis (i.e. classification represented by less than ~100 reads).
The comparison of the growth of L. monocytogenes without and with the bacteriocinogenic culture (fresh or lyophilized) through the storage time was carried out by one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The LSD-Tukey test was used to determine the significant differences (p < 0.05) among group means. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 24.0.0.0 software for Windows.
Since food safety has become an increasingly important international concern, the application of antimicrobial peptides from LAB, that target foodborne pathogens without toxic or other adverse effects, has received great attention. LAB that produce bacteriocins with antilisterial activity have been used in fermented meat sausages as bioprotective cultures since the beginning of the 90's [6,7,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Our work follows this trendline, and expects to validate the effect of this bioprotective culture at industrial scale and over long storage times.
The behaviour of L. monocytogenes and LAB in "Alheira" samples (control and inoculated with bacteriocinogenic culture) is presented in Figure 1 and Table 1, respectively. No differences were observed when L. monocytogenes strains were tested alone or combined in a cocktail (data not shown), showing that they don't interfere between them. In the first three days of storage, it was observed a slight increase in L. monocytogenes counts. In parallel, a more pronounced growth was registered for LAB achieving ca. 9–10 log CFU/g. Also, and as observed in Table 1, the decrease in pH occurs at the same time as the number of lactic acid bacteria increases. After this period and until day 15, counts of the pathogen remained at the same level in control samples and decreased ca. 0.5 and 1.0 log CFU/g in samples inoculated with lyophilized and fresh bacteriocinogenic cultures, respectively, while counts of LAB increased ca. 1 log cycle in all the samples. From day 15 until the end of storage, counts of LAB remained stable (varied less than < 1 log cycle) while counts of L. monocytogenes decreased in all the samples. Although there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the reduction of the pathogen between samples with and without bacteriocinogenic culture, there was a clear trend for a higher reduction of L. monocytogenes in the presence of the protective culture. It is important to highlight that results represent the mean of three independent batches produced at industrial level and consequently several factors, e.g. the composition of the indigenous microbiota of the raw materials and final products, were neither constant nor controlled. Most of the results published in previous articles were performed at laboratory or pilot scale [7,36,37,38,39,40,41]. The work published by Vaz Velho et al. [13] was developed at smaller industrial scale, with only fresh culture and only at 7 days of storage. Also, these authors showed a reduction of L. monocytogenes less than 1 log. This current work was performed at industrial scale, with all the variability resulting therefrom. Moreover, this work used two different forms of the starter culture: lyophilized and fresh and analyses were performed during 90 days of storage. This well demonstrates the importance of validating studies at the industrial level and the importance of following the entire processes, until the end of storage time. For the industry it is crucial to follow product alterations until the end of storage, especially if we keep in mind that consumers are increasingly looking for safe products with long shelf-life.
) S2BLAF + LM; (□) S2BLA + LM. For each time, columns with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
| "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum | "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes | |||||||||||
| Samples | S2BC (non-inoculated) | S2BLAF (fresh) | S2BLA (lyophilized) | S2BC + LM (only inoculated with L. monocytogenes) | S2BLAF + LM (Fresh) | S2BLA + LM (lyophilized) | ||||||
| Time (days) | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH |
| −1* | 4.0 ± 0.12 | 5.45 ± 0.04 | 8.3 ± 0.55 | 5.65 ± 0.03 | 7.8 ± 1.5 | 5.56 ± 0.06 | nd | nd | nd | |||
| 0 | 7.6 ± 1.10 | 4.72 ± 0.06 | 9.1 ± 1.46 | 4.75 ± 0.05 | 7.8 ± 1.9 | 4.65 ± 0.06 | 7.3 ± 0.95 | 4.70 ± 0.02 | 8.0 ± 1.66 | 4.73 ± 0.03 | 8.53 ± 1.48 | 4.80 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | 9.0 ± 0.06 | 4.62 ± 0.03 | 9.3 ± 0.59 | 4.59 ± 0.03 | 9.8 ± 0.6 | 4.60 ± 0.02 | 9.3 ± 0.81 | 4.62 ± 0.01 | 9.8 ± 0.40 | 4.65 ± 0, 03 | 9.87 ± 0.06 | 4, 65 ± 0, 04 |
| 7 | 9.7 ± 0.55 | 4.54 ± 0.09 | 9.5 ± 0.96 | 4.53 ± 0.04 | 9.2 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.07 | 10.3 ± 0.40 | 4.55 ± 0.05 | 9.4 ± 1.30 | 4.64 ± 0.05 | 10.07 ± 0.71 | 4.60 ± 0.03 |
| 15 | 10.0 ± 0.41 | 4.39 ± 0.05 | 10.2 ± 0.46 | 4.42 ± 0.07 | 10.5 ± 0.5 | 4.40 ± 0.03 | 10.4 ± 0.31 | 4.44 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.42 | 4.57 ± 0.02 | 10.53 ± 0.55 | 4.50 ± 0.07 |
| 21 | 11.0 ± 0.00 | 4.25 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.29 | 4.30 ± 0.08 | 11.1 ± 0.0 | 4.31 ± 0.10 | 10.8 ± 0.12 | 4.43 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.46 | 4.45 ± 0.06 | 11.07 ± 0.06 | 4.50 ± 0.04 |
| 28 | 10.7 ± 0.67 | 4.11 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.69 | 4.14 ± 0.04 | 10.9 ± 0.2 | 4.14 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.87 | 4.13 ± 0.02 | 11.0 ± 0.20 | 4.25 ± 0.04 | 11.03 ± 0.06 | 4.20 ± 0.06 |
| 60 | 10.9 ± 0.06 | 3.60 ± 0.04 | 10.8 ± 0.85 | 3.67 ± 0.02 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 3.70 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.29 | 3.70 ± 0.02 | 10.7 ± 0.44 | 3.90 ± 0.07 | 10.97 ± 0.12 | 4.00 ± 0.07 |
| 90 | 10.5 ± 0.15 | 3.58 ± 0.09 | 10.4 ± 0.44 | 3.52 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.4 | 3.54 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.17 | 3.57 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.40 | 3.65 ± 0.05 | 10.60 ± 0.44 | 3.70 ± 0.05 |
| * before smoking. | ||||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The pathogenic organisms investigated, (Salmonella, S. aureus, Yersinia, sulphite reducing Clostridium spores and E. coli) were not detected in any sample. Also, counts of Enterobacteriaceae and B. cereus were below the detection limit of the enumeration technique for 0, 3, 7, 15, 21, 28, 60 and 90 days of storage (Table 2).
| Enumeration (log CFU/g) | Presence in 25g | |||||||||
| "Alheira" | Bacillus cereus | Yeasts | Moulds | Enterobacteriaceae | E.coli | Coagulase positive staphylococci | Listeria spp. | Listeria monocytogenes | Salmonella spp. | SRC sporesa |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| Legend: aSRC spores; sulphite reducing clostridial spores, presence (+) or absence (−) in 1, 0.1 or 0.01 g sample. | ||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Overall, for 16S rRNA metagenomic analysis almost all reads generated (~99%) were classified into a taxonomic rank for all the "Alheira de Vitela" samples, for the different stages of fermentation and with and without the lyophilized bacteriocinogenic culture, with more than 95% of them being classified at the family and genus level (Table 3). Regarding family analysis, Leuconostocaceae and Lactobacillaceae predominated in all the samples (Figure 2A). Lactobacillaceae was the predominant family in samples with addition of bacteriocinogenic culture and Leuconostocaceae was prevalent in control samples. At the genus level, the microbiome distribution was similar to the family classification, with the main genus being Lactobacillus, Weissella and Leuconostoc (Figure 2B). At both taxonomic levels, higher microbial diversity could be observed before and after smoking, as compared to 60 days after storage where samples presented two main families or genus. Of note, "Alheiras" sampled after 60 days of storage (60 days) with the addition of bacteriocinogenic culture were mostly populated by Lactobacillus, whereas without this addition, "Alheiras" were equally populated by Leuconostoc and a higher portion of Weisella.
| Sample | Total # of paired reads generated | Percentage of classified reads (%) | |||
| Total | Up to family | Up to genus | Up to species | ||
| S2BLA (−1 day) | 88285 | 99.93 | 94.94 (0.15) | 94.71 (0.35) | 30.03 (1.08) |
| S2BLA (0 day) | 77182 | 98.71 | 98.59 (0.67) | 98.02 (0.86) | 50.32 (1.71) |
| S2BLA (60 days) | 83671 | 99.77 | 97.53 (1.07) | 96.87 (1.19) | 81.41 (1.74) |
| S2BC (−1 day) | 91240 | 99.91 | 98.17 (0.23) | 98.07 (0.21) | 55.04 (0.8) |
| S2BC (0 day) | 62382 | 99.08 | 98.72 (0.69) | 98.52 (0.72) | 84.29 (1.18) |
| S2BC (60 days) | 76074 | 99.64 | 97.39 (0.14) | 96.98 (0.34) | 68.14 (0.73) |
| Percentages are relative to the total number of classified reads. Values in parenthesis refer to the percentage of reads excluded at each taxonomic rank. "Alheira de Vitela" non-inoculated as a control (S2BC) and inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized (S2BLA): before smoking (−1 day), after smoking (0 day) and 60 days of storage (60 days). | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
At the species level, it was possible to observe lower microbial diversity in the samples before smoking (labeled as −1 day), with the sample without culture presenting higher diversity than the sample with culture (Figure 2C). After smoking, the microbial diversity of the inoculated sample increased, especially when compared to the control, with a more pronounced trend after 60 days of storage, when microbial diversity was greater. Through time, in both tested conditions, a decrease in Leuconostoc and Weisella species could be observed, although this was more accentuated in samples with bacteriocinogenic culture, as only traces of Weisella species were observed and Leuconostoc species were only present below 7%. After 60 days of storage, the most predominant specie identified was Lb. sakei that, as mentioned above, was the previous classification of inoculated Lb. plantarum strain, which is likely due to the characteristics of the database used. Also, it is interesting to observe the change in microbiome of samples before and after fermentation, showing the role of LAB in this process. Although there are differences in the microbiota, these are slight, which makes it impossible to draw final conclusions. So, we believed that further studies are still needed to explain the observed differences.
Studying the changes in microbial populations can provide useful information to follow natural fermentation dynamics, particularly when using bioprotective cultures. Many different researches have been carried out unravelling the structure of the microbial consortia in dairy [42,43], meat [44] and vegetable foods [45].
Lactobacillus plantarum ST153Ch showed a slight antilisterial activity in situ, with a reduction of ~0.5–1 log until 15 days of storage of "Alheira de Vitela". However, until the end of storage, counts of L. monocytogenes decreased in all the samples, while counts of LAB remained stable. Additionally, no significant differences were found between application methodologies (fresh or lyophilized LABs), therefore industry might be able to choose the most appropriate technique according to their manufacturing process. From the analysis of the microbial communities it was confirmed the absence of the pathogens investigated by culture dependent methods and it was demonstrated that the addition of the bioprotective culture altered the microbiota of "Alheira". At different stages of fermentation with and without the bac + culture, Leuconostocaceae and Lactobacillaceae predominated in all samples and, as expected, Lactobacillus was the genus more prevalent in "Alheiras" sampled after 60 days of storage with the addition of the bacteriocinogenic culture.
Nevertheless, the few differences observed, there was a reduction in the L. monocytogenes counts in the early storage days, which could justify the use of these cultures. For the industry it is very important to control the development of a pathogen at the beginning of storage time when products are already available to consumers.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
This work was supported by funding from the National Funds from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through project UID/Multi/50016/2013, by the project "Biological tools for adding and defending value in key agro-food chains (bio-n2-value)", nº NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000030, funded by Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER), under Programa Operacional Regional do Norte-Norte2020" and a post-doctoral fellowship SFRH/BPD/113303/2015 (author J. Barbosa), and by DEM@BIOFUMADOS-Demonstrador do Biofumados Tradição vs Qualidade-Produção de Enchidos e Fumados Tradicionais Portugueses (NORTE-01-0247- FEDER-017634), co-funded by Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER), under Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (PO Norte).
We would like to thank Dr. João Paulo Gomes and Dr. Vitor Borges from the Bioinformatics Unit at Department of Infectious Diseases of the Portuguese National Institute of Health for their support in the bioinformatics analysis of this study.
| [1] |
Fahey D (2009) Old-time breweries: Academic and breweriana historians. Ohio Hist 116: 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1353/ohh.0.0062 doi: 10.1353/ohh.0.0062
|
| [2] |
de Gaetano G, Costanzo S, Di Castelnuovo A, et al. (2016) Effects of moderate beer consumption on health and disease: A consensus document. Nutr, Metab Cardiovasc Dis 26: 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2016.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2016.03.007
|
| [3] |
Humia BV, Santos KS, Barbosa AM, et al. (2019) Beer molecules and its sensory and biological properties: A review. Molecules 24: 1568. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24081568 doi: 10.3390/molecules24081568
|
| [4] | Tsoupras A, Gkika DA, Voorhout A, et al. (2024) Beneficial effects of beer, brewery by-products, and their bioactives: Potential applications in novel health-promoting products in natural products in beverages. Reference Series in Phytochemistry. |
| [5] | World Health Organization (2013) Health topics: Cardiovascular diseases. Available from: http://www who int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/. |
| [6] |
Tsoupras AB, Iatrou C, Frangia C, et al. (2009) The implication of platelet activating factor in cancer growth and metastasis: Potent beneficial role of PAF-inhibitors and antioxidants. Infect Disord: Drug Targets 9: 390–399. https://doi.org/10.2174/187152609788922555 doi: 10.2174/187152609788922555
|
| [7] |
Tsoupras A, Lordan R, Zabetakis I (2018) Inflammation, not cholesterol, is a cause of chronic disease. Nutrients 10: 604. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10050604 doi: 10.3390/nu10050604
|
| [8] | Tsoupras A, Moran D, Lordan R (2023) Chapter 12—Functional properties of the fermented alcoholic beverages: Apple cider and beer. 319–339. In: Zabetakis I, Lordan R, Tsoupras A (Eds.), Functional Foods and Their Implications for Health Promotion, Academic Press, 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823811-0.00013-4 |
| [9] |
Ambra R, Pastore G, Lucchetti S (2021) The role of bioactive phenolic compounds on the impact of beer on health. Molecules 26: 486. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26020486 doi: 10.3390/molecules26020486
|
| [10] |
Tsoupras A, Ni VLJ, O'Mahony É, et al. (2023) Wine-making: "with one stone two birds"? A holistic review of the bio-functional compounds, applications and health benefits of wine and wineries' by-products. Fermentation 9: 838. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1034.v1 doi: 10.20944/preprints202306.1034.v1
|
| [11] |
Tsoupras A, Lordan R, O'Keefe E, et al. (2020) Structural elucidation of Irish ale bioactive polar lipids with antithrombotic properties. Biomolecules 10: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10071075 doi: 10.3390/biom10071075
|
| [12] |
Salanță LC, Coldea TE, Ignat MV, et al. (2020) Functionality of special beer processes and potential health benefits. Processes 8: 1613. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8121613 doi: 10.3390/pr8121613
|
| [13] |
Tomita J, Mochizuki S, Fujimoto S, et al. (2017) Acute improvement of endothelial functions after oral ingestion of isohumulones, bitter components of beer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 484: 740–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.01.133 doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.01.133
|
| [14] |
Arranz S, Chiva-Blanch G, Valderas-Martínez P, et al. (2012) Wine, beer, alcohol and polyphenols on cardiovascular disease and cancer. Nutrients 4: 759–781. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu4070759 doi: 10.3390/nu4070759
|
| [15] |
Chen X, Li Z, Hong H, et al. (2021) Xanthohumol suppresses inflammation in chondrocytes and ameliorates osteoarthritis in mice. Biomed Pharmacother 137: 111238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111238 doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111238
|
| [16] |
Fukizawa S, Yamashita M, Wakabayashi K, et al. (2020) Anti-obesity effect of a hop-derived prenylflavonoid isoxanthohumol in a high-fat diet-induced obese mouse model. Biosci Microbiota, Food Health 39: 175–182. https://doi.org/10.12938/bmfh.2019-040 doi: 10.12938/bmfh.2019-040
|
| [17] |
Yao J, Zhang B, Ge C, et al. (2015) Xanthohumol, a polyphenol chalcone present in hops, activating Nrf2 enzymes to confer protection against oxidative damage in PC12 cells. J Agric Food Chem 63: 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf505075n doi: 10.1021/jf505075n
|
| [18] |
Yen TL, Hsu CK, Lu WJ, et al. (2012) Neuroprotective effects of xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from hops (Humulus lupulus), in ischemic stroke of rats. J Agric Food Chem 60: 1937–1944. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf204909p doi: 10.1021/jf204909p
|
| [19] |
Lordan R, O'Keeffe E, Tsoupras A, et al. (2019) Total, neutral, and polar lipids of brewing ingredients, by-products and beer: Evaluation of antithrombotic activities. Foods 8: 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8050171 doi: 10.3390/foods8050171
|
| [20] |
Schutte R, Papageorgiou M, Najlah M, et al. (2020) Drink types unmask the health risks associated with alcohol intake—prospective evidence from the general population. Clin Nutr 39: 3168–3174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.009
|
| [21] |
Schutte R, Smith L, Wannamethee G (2022) Alcohol—The myth of cardiovascular protection. Clin Nutr 41: 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2021.12.009 doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.12.009
|
| [22] |
Fărcaş AC, Socaci SA, Mudura E, et al. (2017) Exploitation of brewing industry wastes to produce functional ingredients. Brew Technol 137–156. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69231 doi: 10.5772/intechopen.69231
|
| [23] |
Rachwał K, Waśko A, Gustaw K, et al. (2020) Utilization of brewery wastes in food industry. PeerJ 8: e9427. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9427 doi: 10.7717/peerj.9427
|
| [24] |
Boronat A, Soldevila-Domenech N, Rodríguez-Morató J, et al. (2020) Beer phenolic composition of simple phenols, prenylated flavonoids and alkylresorcinols. Molecules 25: 2582. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25112582 doi: 10.3390/molecules25112582
|
| [25] |
Bamforth C (2017) Progress in brewing science and beer production. Annu Rev Chem Biomol Eng 8: 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101450 doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101450
|
| [26] |
Ano Y, Dohata A, Taniguchi Y, et al. (2017) Iso-α-acids, bitter components of beer, prevent inflammation and cognitive decline induced in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Biol Chem 292: 3720–3728. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M116.763813 doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.763813
|
| [27] |
Karabín M, Hudcová T, Jelínek L, et al. (2016) Biologically active compounds from hops and prospects for their use. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 15: 542–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12201 doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12201
|
| [28] |
Steenackers B, De Cooman L, De Vos D (2015) Chemical transformations of characteristic hop secondary metabolites in relation to beer properties and the brewing process: A review. Food Chem 172: 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.139 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.139
|
| [29] |
Roldán-López D, Muñiz-Calvo S, Daroqui N, et al. (2022) The potential role of yeasts in the mitigation of health issues related to beer consumption. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 64: 3059–3074. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2129584 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2129584
|
| [30] |
Merten D, Erman L, Marabelli GP, et al. (2022) Potential health effects of brewers' spent grain as a functional food ingredient assessed by markers of oxidative stress and inflammation following gastro-intestinal digestion and in a cell model of the small intestine. Food Funct 13: 5327–5342. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1FO03090F doi: 10.1039/D1FO03090F
|
| [31] |
Wang J, Li M, Zheng F, et al. (2018) Cell wall polysaccharides: Before and after autolysis of brewer's yeast. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 34: 137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-018-2508-6 doi: 10.1007/s11274-018-2508-6
|
| [32] |
Lynch KM, Steffen EJ, Arendt EK (2016) Brewers' spent grain: A review with an emphasis on food and health. J Inst Brew 122: 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.363 doi: 10.1002/jib.363
|
| [33] |
Mussatto SI, Dragone G, Roberto IC (2007) Ferulic and p-coumaric acids extraction by alkaline hydrolysis of brewer's spent grain. Ind Crops Prod 25: 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.11.001
|
| [34] |
Aliyu S, Bala M (2011) Brewer's spent grain: A review of its potentials and applications. Afr J Biotechnol 10: 324–331. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBx10.006 doi: 10.5897/AJBx10.006
|
| [35] |
Tarragon E, Moreno JJ (2020) Polyphenols and taste 2 receptors. Physiological, pathophysiological and pharmacological implications. Biochem Pharmacol 178: 114086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.114086 doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.114086
|
| [36] |
Claudia Salanță L, Corina Fărcaş A, Borșa A, et al. (2023) Current strategies for the management of valuable compounds from hops waste for a circular economy. Food Chem: X 19: 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100876 doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100876
|
| [37] |
Carvalheira M, Amorim CL, Oliveira AC, et al. (2022) Valorization of brewery waste through polyhydroxyalkanoates production supported by a metabolic specialized microbiome. Life 12: 1347. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12091347 doi: 10.3390/life12091347
|
| [38] | Rakowska R, Sadowska A, Dybkowska E, et al. (2017) Spent yeast as natural source of functional food additives. Roczniki Państwowego Zakładu Higieny 68: 115–121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28646828/ |
| [39] |
Magalhães PJ, Carvalho DO, Cruz JM, et al. (2009) Fundamentals and health benefits of xanthohumol, a natural product derived from hops and beer. Nat Prod Commun 4: 591–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X0900400501 doi: 10.1177/1934578X0900400501
|
| [40] |
Fukuda T, Obara K, Saito J, et al. (2019) Effects of hop bitter acids, bitter components in beer, on cognition in healthy adults: A randomized controlled trial. J Agric Food Chem 68: 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b06660 doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b06660
|
| [41] |
Morimoto-Kobayashi Y, Ohara K, Ashigai H, et al. (2015) Matured hop extract reduces body fat in healthy overweight humans: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study. Nutr J 15: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-016-0144-2 doi: 10.1186/s12937-016-0144-2
|
| [42] |
Nardini M (2023) An overview of bioactive phenolic molecules and antioxidant properties of beer: Emerging trends. Molecules 28: 3221. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28073221 doi: 10.3390/molecules28073221
|
| [43] |
Nicacio K de J, Ferreira MS, Katchborian‐Neto A, et al. (2022) Anti‐inflammatory markers of hops cultivars (Humulus lupulus L.) evaluated by untargeted metabolomics strategy. Chem Biodiversity 19: e202100966. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.202100966 doi: 10.1002/cbdv.202100966
|
| [44] |
Shafreen RMB, Lakshmi SA, Pandian SK, et al. (2020) Unraveling the antioxidant, binding and health-protecting properties of phenolic compounds of beers with main human serum proteins: In vitro and in silico approaches. Molecules 25: 4962. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25214962 doi: 10.3390/molecules25214962
|
| [45] |
Vazquez-Cervantes GI, Ortega DR, Blanco Ayala T, et al. (2021) Redox and anti-inflammatory properties from hop components in beer-related to neuroprotection. Nutrients 13: 2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13062000 doi: 10.3390/nu13062000
|
| [46] |
Neumann HF, Frank J, Venturelli S, et al. (2022) Bioavailability and cardiometabolic effects of xanthohumol: Evidence from animal and human studies. Mol Nutr Food Res 66: 2100831. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.202100831 doi: 10.1002/mnfr.202100831
|
| [47] |
Vesaghhamedani S, Ebrahimzadeh F, Najafi E, et al. (2022) Xanthohumol: An underestimated, while potent and promising chemotherapeutic agent in cancer treatment. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 172: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2022.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2022.04.002
|
| [48] |
Hsieh M, Hsieh M, Lo Y, et al. (2022) Xanthohumol targets the JNK1/2 signaling pathway in apoptosis of human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells. Environ Toxicol 37: 1509–1520. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.23502 doi: 10.1002/tox.23502
|
| [49] |
Samuels JS, Shashidharamurthy R, Rayalam S (2018) Novel anti-obesity effects of beer hops compound xanthohumol: Role of AMPK signaling pathway. Nutr Metabol 15: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-018-0277-8 doi: 10.1186/s12986-018-0277-8
|
| [50] |
Trius-Soler M, Tresserra-Rimbau A, Moreno JJ, et al. (2022) Effect of moderate beer consumption (with and without ethanol) on osteoporosis in early postmenopausal women: Results of a pilot parallel clinical trial. Front Nutr 9: 1014140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1014140 doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1014140
|
| [51] |
Oliveira Neto JR, De Oliveira TS, Ghedini PC, et al. (2017) Antioxidant and vasodilatory activity of commercial beers. J Funct Foods 34: 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.04.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2017.04.019
|
| [52] |
Ambrož M, Lněničková K, Matoušková P, et al. (2019) Antiproliferative effects of hop-derived prenylflavonoids and their influence on the efficacy of oxaliplatine, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan in human colorectalC cells. Nutrients 11: 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040879 doi: 10.3390/nu11040879
|
| [53] |
Yamashita M, Fukizawa S, Nonaka Y (2020) Hop-derived prenylflavonoid isoxanthohumol suppresses insulin resistance by changing the intestinal microbiota and suppressing chronic inflammation in high fat diet-fed mice. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 24: 1537–1547. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202002_20212 doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202002_20212
|
| [54] |
Mahli A, Seitz T, Freese K, et al. (2019) Therapeutic application of micellar solubilized xanthohumol in a western-type diet-induced mouse model of obesity, diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Cells 8: 359. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8040359 doi: 10.3390/cells8040359
|
| [55] |
Dorn C, Massinger S, Wuzik A, et al. (2013) Xanthohumol suppresses inflammatory response to warm ischemia–reperfusion induced liver injury. Exp Mol Pathol 94: 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexmp.2012.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2012.05.003
|
| [56] |
Pinto C, Duque AL, Rodríguez-Galdón B, et al. (2012) Xanthohumol prevents carbon tetrachloride-induced acute liver injury in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 50: 3405–3412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.035
|
| [57] |
Saito K, Matsuo Y, Imafuji H, et al. (2018) Xanthohumol inhibits angiogenesis by suppressing nuclear factor‐κB activation in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Sci 109: 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13441 doi: 10.1111/cas.13441
|
| [58] |
Soldevila-Domenech N, Boronat A, Mateus J, et al. (2019) Generation of the antioxidant hydroxytyrosol from tyrosol present in beer and red wine in a randomized clinical trial. Nutrients 11: 2241. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092241 doi: 10.3390/nu11092241
|
| [59] |
Silva S, Oliveira AI, Cruz A, et al. (2022) Physicochemical properties and antioxidant activity of Portuguese craft beers and raw materials. Molecules 27: 8007. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27228007 doi: 10.3390/molecules27228007
|
| [60] |
McCarthy AL, O'Callaghan YC, Piggott CO, et al. (2013) Brewers' spent grain; bioactivity of phenolic component, its role in animal nutrition and potential for incorporation in functional foods: A review. Proc Nutr Soc 72: 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002820 doi: 10.1017/S0029665112002820
|
| [61] |
Olas B, Bryś M (2020) Beer components and their beneficial effect on the hemostasis and cardiovascular diseases—Truth or falsehood. Food Chem Toxicol 146: 111782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111782 doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2020.111782
|
| [62] |
Vlachogianni IC, Fragopoulou E, Stamatakis GM, et al. (2015) Platelet Activating Factor (PAF) biosynthesis is inhibited by phenolic compounds in U-937 cells under inflammatory conditions. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediators 121: 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostaglandins.2015.09.001 doi: 10.1016/j.prostaglandins.2015.09.001
|
| [63] |
Tsoupras AB, Fragopoulou E, Nomikos T, et al. (2007) Characterization of the de novo biosynthetic enzyme of platelet activating factor, DDT-insensitive cholinephosphotransferase, of human mesangial cells. Mediators Inflammation 2007: 027683. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/27683 doi: 10.1155/2007/27683
|
| [64] |
Moreira MM, Morais S, Carvalho DO, et al. (2013) Brewer's spent grain from different types of malt: Evaluation of the antioxidant activity and identification of the major phenolic compounds. Food Res Int 54: 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.07.023 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.07.023
|
| [65] |
Ikram S, Huang L, Zhang H, et al. (2017) Composition and nutrient value proposition of brewers spent grain. J Food Sci 82: 2232–2242. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13794 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13794
|
| [66] |
Birsan RI, Wilde P, Waldron KW, et al. (2021) Anticholinesterase activities of different solvent extracts of brewer's spent grain. Foods 10: 930. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10050930 doi: 10.3390/foods10050930
|
| [67] |
Hsu Y-Y, Kao T-H (2019) Evaluation of prenylflavonoids and hop bitter acids in surplus yeast. J Food Sci Technol 56: 1939–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-019-03660-6 doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03660-6
|
| [68] |
Vieira EF, Carvalho J, Pinto E, et al. (2016) Nutritive value, antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds profile of brewer's spent yeast extract. J Food Compos Anal 52: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2016.07.006
|
| [69] | Kao TH (2018) Health potential for beer brewing byproducts. In: Shiomi N (Ed.), Current Topics Superfoods. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76126 |
| [70] |
Bonatto D (2022) The multiple roles of lipid metabolism in yeast physiology during beer fermentation. Genet Mol Biol 45: e20210325. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2021-0325 doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2021-0325
|
| [71] |
Gordon R, Power A, Chapman J, et al. (2018) A review on the source of lipids and their interactions during beer fermentation that affect beer quality. Fermentation 4: 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation4040089 doi: 10.3390/fermentation4040089
|
| [72] |
Lordan R, O'Keeffe E, Dowling D, et al. (2019) The in vitro antithrombotic properties of ale, lager, and stout beers. Food Biosci 28: 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2019.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2019.01.012
|
| [73] |
Antonopoulou S, Demopoulos CA (2023) Protective effect of olive oil microconstituents in atherosclerosis: Emphasis on PAF implicated atherosclerosis theory. Biomolecules 13: 700. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13040700 doi: 10.3390/biom13040700
|
| [74] |
Simopoulos AP (2008) The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp Biol Med 233: 674–688. https://doi.org/10.3181/0711-MR-311 doi: 10.3181/0711-MR-311
|
| [75] |
Tsoupras A, Moran D, Pleskach H, et al. (2021) Beneficial anti-platelet and anti-inflammatory properties of Irish apple juice and cider bioactives. Foods 10: 412. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020412 doi: 10.3390/foods10020412
|
| [76] |
Tsoupras A, Moran D, Byrne T, et al. (2021) Anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties of lipid bioactives from apple cider by-products. Molecules 26: 2869. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26102869 doi: 10.3390/molecules26102869
|
| [77] | Fragopoulou E, Antonopoulou S, Tsoupras A, et al. (2004) Antiatherogenic properties of red/white wine, musts, grape-skins, and yeast. Chem Phys Lipids 130: 66. |
| [78] |
Moran D, Fleming M, Daly E, et al. (2021) Anti-platelet properties of apple must/skin yeasts and of their fermented apple cider products. Beverages 7: 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages7030054 doi: 10.3390/beverages7030054
|
| [79] |
Papadimitriou N, Bouras E, Van den Brandt PA, et al. (2022) A prospective diet-wide association study for risk of colorectal cancer in EPIC. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 20: 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.028 doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.028
|
| [80] |
Nogueira LC, do Rio RF, Lollo PC, et al. (2017) Moderate alcoholic beer consumption: The effects on the lipid profile and insulin sensitivity of adult men. J Food Sci 82: 1720–1725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13746 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13746
|
| [81] |
Hans S, Harishkumar R, Shiels K, et al. (2024) Bioactive lipids derived from red wine, beers, and their dealcoholized variants inhibit platelet-activating factor (PAF) induced platelet activation in vitro. Food Biosci 104053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104053 doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104053
|
| [82] |
Panagiotakos DB, Kouli G-M, Magriplis E, et al. (2019) Beer, wine consumption, and 10-year CVD incidence: The ATTICA study. Eur J Clin Nutr 73: 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0296-6 doi: 10.1038/s41430-018-0296-6
|
| [83] |
Dorans KS, Mostofsky E, Levitan EB, et al. (2015) Alcohol and incident heart failure among middle-aged and elderly men: Cohort of Swedish men. Circ: Heart Failure 8: 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001787 doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001787
|
| [84] |
Vilahur G, Casani L, Guerra JM, et al. (2012) Intake of fermented beverages protect against acute myocardial injury: Target organ cardiac effects and vasculoprotective effects. Basic Res Cardiol 107: 291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00395-012-0291-3 doi: 10.1007/s00395-012-0291-3
|
| [85] |
Gémes K, Janszky I, Ahnve S, et al. (2016) Light-to-moderate drinking and incident heart failure—The Norwegian HUNT study. Int J Cardiol 203: 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.179 doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.179
|
| [86] |
Chiva-Blanch G, Condines X, Magraner E, et al. (2014) The non-alcoholic fraction of beer increases stromal cell derived factor 1 and the number of circulating endothelial progenitor cells in high cardiovascular risk subjects: A randomized clinical trial. Atherosclerosis 233: 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.12.048 doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.12.048
|
| [87] |
Chiva-Blanch G, Magraner E, Condines X, et al. (2015) Effects of alcohol and polyphenols from beer on atherosclerotic biomarkers in high cardiovascular risk men: A randomized feeding trial. Nutr, Metab Cardiovasc Dis 25: 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2014.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2014.07.008
|
| [88] |
Joosten MM, Witkamp RF, Hendriks HF (2011) Alterations in total and high—molecular-weight adiponectin after 3 weeks of moderate alcohol consumption in premenopausal women. Metabolism 60: 1058–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2011.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2011.01.001
|
| [89] |
Nova E, San Mauro-Martín I, Díaz-Prieto LE, et al. (2019) Wine and beer within a moderate alcohol intake is associated with higher levels of HDL-c and adiponectin. Nutr Res 63: 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2018.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2018.12.007
|
| [90] |
Trius‐Soler M, Martínez‐Carrasco P, Tresserra‐Rimbau A, et al. (2023) Effect of moderate beer consumption (with and without ethanol) on cardiovascular health in postmenopausal women. J Sci Food Agric 103: 7506–7516. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12826 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.12826
|
| [91] |
Padro T, Muñoz-García N, Vilahur G, et al. (2018) Moderate beer intake and cardiovascular health in overweight individuals. Nutrients 10: 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10091237 doi: 10.3390/nu10091237
|
| [92] |
Krnic M, Modun D, Budimir D, et al. (2011) Comparison of acute effects of red wine, beer and vodka against hyperoxia-induced oxidative stress and increase in arterial stiffness in healthy humans. Atherosclerosis 218: 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2011.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2011.07.004
|
| [93] |
Nishiwaki M, Kora N, Matsumoto N (2017) Ingesting a small amount of beer reduces arterial stiffness in healthy humans. Physiol Rep 5: e13381. https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.13381 doi: 10.14814/phy2.13381
|
| [94] |
Karatzi K, Rontoyanni VG, Protogerou AD, et al. (2013) Acute effects of beer on endothelial function and hemodynamics: a single-blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Nutrition 29: 1122–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2013.02.016 doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2013.02.016
|
| [95] |
Schrieks IC, Joosten MM, Klöpping-Ketelaars W, et al. (2016) Moderate alcohol consumption after a mental stressor attenuates the endocrine stress response. Alcohol 57: 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2016.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2016.10.006
|
| [96] |
Laguzzi F, Risérus U, Marklund M, et al. (2018) Circulating fatty acids in relation to alcohol consumption: Cross-sectional results from a cohort of 60-year-old men and women. Clin Nutr 37: 2001–2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.09.007
|
| [97] |
Russell FD, Bürgin-Maunder CS (2012) Distinguishing health benefits of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids. Mar Drugs 10: 2535–2559. https://doi.org/10.3390/md10112535 doi: 10.3390/md10112535
|
| [98] |
Kok EH, Karppinen TT, Luoto T, et al. (2016) Beer drinking associates with lower burden of amyloid beta aggregation in the brain: H elsinki sudden death series. Alcohol: Clin Exp Res 40: 1473–1478. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13102 doi: 10.1111/acer.13102
|
| [99] |
Liu R, Guo X, Park Y, et al. (2013) Alcohol consumption, types of alcohol, and Parkinson's disease. PLoS One 8: e66452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066452 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066452
|
| [100] |
Alonso-Andrés P, Martín M, Albasanz JL (2019) Modulation of adenosine receptors and antioxidative effect of beer extracts in in vitro models. Nutrients 11: 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061258 doi: 10.3390/nu11061258
|
| [101] |
Hernández-Quiroz F, Nirmalkar K, Villalobos-Flores LE, et al. (2020) Influence of moderate beer consumption on human gut microbiota and its impact on fasting glucose and β-cell function. Alcohol 85: 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2019.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2019.05.006
|
| [102] |
Martínez-Montoro JI, Quesada-Molina M, Gutiérrez-Repiso C, et al. (2022) Effect of moderate consumption of different phenolic-content beers on the human gut microbiota composition: A randomized crossover trial. Antioxidants 11: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11040696 doi: 10.3390/antiox11040696
|
| [103] |
Zugravu C-A, Medar C, Manolescu LSC, et al. (2023) Beer and microbiota: Pathways for a Positive and Healthy Interaction. Nutrients 15: 844. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15040844 doi: 10.3390/nu15040844
|
| [104] |
Kesse-Guyot E, Andreeva VA, Jeandel C, et al. (2012) Alcohol consumption in midlife and cognitive performance assessed 13 years later in the SU. VI. MAX 2 cohort. PLoS One 7: e52311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052311 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052311
|
| [105] |
Heymann D, Stern Y, Cosentino S, et al. (2016) The association between alcohol use and the progression of Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 13: 1356–1362. https://doi.org/10.2174/1567205013666160603005035 doi: 10.2174/1567205013666160603005035
|
| [106] |
Ano Y, Yoshikawa M, Takaichi Y, et al. (2019) Iso-α-acids, bitter components in beer, suppress inflammatory responses and attenuate neural hyperactivation in the hippocampus. Front Pharmacol 10: 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00081 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00081
|
| [107] |
Niemelä O, Aalto M, Bloigu A, et al. (2022) Alcohol drinking patterns and laboratory indices of health: Does type of alcohol preferred make a difference? Nutrients 14: 4529. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214529 doi: 10.3390/nu14214529
|
| [108] |
Demoury C, Karakiewicz P, Parent M-E (2016) Association between lifetime alcohol consumption and prostate cancer risk: A case-control study in Montreal, Canada. Cancer Epidemiol 45: 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2016.09.004
|
| [109] |
Hay JL, Kiviniemi MT, Orom H, et al. (2023) Moving beyond the "Health Halo" of alcohol: What will it take to achieve population awareness of the cancer risks of alcohol? Cancer Epidemiol, Biomarkers Prev 32: 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1102 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-22-1102
|
| [110] |
Bazsefidpar N, Yazdi APG, Karimi A, et al. (2024) Brewers spent grain protein hydrolysate as a functional ingredient for muffins: Antioxidant, antidiabetic, and sensory evaluation. Food Chem 435: 137565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137565 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137565
|
| [111] |
Ktenioudaki A, Chaurin V, Reis SF, et al. (2012) Brewer's spent grain as a functional ingredient for breadsticks. Int J Food Sci Technol 47: 1765–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03032.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03032.x
|
| [112] |
Baiano A, la Gatta B, Rutigliano M, et al. (2023) Functional bread produced in a circular economy perspective: The use of brewers' spent grain. Foods 12: 834. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040834 doi: 10.3390/foods12040834
|
| [113] |
Cappa C, Alamprese C (2017) Brewer's spent grain valorization in fiber-enriched fresh egg pasta production: Modelling and optimization study. LWT-Food Sci Technol 82: 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.068 doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.068
|
| [114] |
Lomuscio E, Bianchi F, Cervini M, et al. (2022) Durum wheat fresh pasta fortification with trub, a beer industry by-product. Foods 11: 2496. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162496 doi: 10.3390/foods11162496
|
| [115] |
Avramia I, Amariei S (2021) Spent brewer's yeast as a source of insoluble β-glucans. Int J Mol Sci 22: 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22020825 doi: 10.3390/ijms22020825
|
| [116] |
Helkar PB, Sahoo AK, Patil N (2016) Review: Food industry by-products used as a functional food ingredients. Int J Waste Resour 6: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2252-5211.1000248 doi: 10.4172/2252-5211.1000248
|
| [117] |
Amorim M, Pereira JO, Gomes D, et al. (2016) Nutritional ingredients from spent brewer's yeast obtained by hydrolysis and selective membrane filtration integrated in a pilot process. J Food Eng 185: 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.03.032 doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.03.032
|
| [118] |
Verouti SN, Tsoupras AB, Alevizopoulou F, et al. (2013) Paricalcitol effects on activities and metabolism of platelet activating factor and on inflammatory cytokines in hemodialysis patients. Int J Artif Organs 36: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.5301/ijao.5000187 doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000187
|
| [119] |
Almendinger M, Rohn S, Pleissner D (2020) Malt and beer-related by-products as potential antioxidant skin-lightening agents for cosmetics. Sustainable Chem Pharm 17: 100282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scp.2020.100282 doi: 10.1016/j.scp.2020.100282
|
| [120] |
Bucci PL, Santos MV, Montanari J, et al. (2020) Nanoferulic: From a by‐product of the beer industry toward the regeneration of the skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 19: 2958–2964. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.13407 doi: 10.1111/jocd.13407
|
| [121] |
Di Domenico M, Feola A, Ambrosio P, et al. (2020) Antioxidant effect of beer polyphenols and their bioavailability in dental-derived stem cells (D-dSCs) and human intestinal epithelial lines (Caco-2) cells. Stem Cells Int 2020: 8835813. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8835813 doi: 10.1155/2020/8835813
|
| [122] |
Bonifácio-Lopes T, Teixeira JA, Pintado M (2020) Current extraction techniques towards bioactive compounds from brewer's spent grain–A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60: 2730–2741. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1655632 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1655632
|
| [123] |
Ameer K, Shahbaz HM, Kwon J (2017) Green extraction methods for polyphenols from plant matrices and their byproducts: A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 16: 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12253 doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12253
|
| [124] |
Guido LF, Moreira MM (2017) Techniques for extraction of brewer's spent grain polyphenols: A review. Food Bioprocess Technol 10: 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-017-1913-4 doi: 10.1007/s11947-017-1913-4
|
| [125] |
Verni M, Pontonio E, Krona A, et al. (2020) Bioprocessing of brewers' spent grain enhances its antioxidant activity: Characterization of phenolic compounds and bioactive peptides. Front Microbiol 11: 1831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01831 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01831
|
| [126] |
Shon YJ, Kim WC, Lee S-H, et al. (2023) Antimelanogenic potential of brewer's spent grain extract through modulation of the MAPK/MITF axis. Sustainable Mater Technol 38: e00721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00721 doi: 10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00721
|
| [127] |
Ribeiro-Oliveira R, Martins ZE, Faria MÂ, et al. (2022) Protein hydrolysates from brewing by-products as natural alternatives to ACE-inhibitory drugs for hypertension management. Life 12: 1554. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12101554 doi: 10.3390/life12101554
|
| [128] |
Cian RE, Hernández‐Chirlaque C, Gámez‐Belmonte R, et al. (2020) Molecular action mechanism of anti‐inflammatory hydrolysates obtained from brewers' spent grain. J Sci Food Agric 100: 2880–2888. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10313 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.10313
|
| [129] |
Oliveira AS, Ferreira C, Pereira JO, et al. (2022) Spent brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a potential source of bioactive peptides: An overview. Int J Biol Macromol 208: 1116–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.03.094 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.03.094
|
| [130] |
Costa EM, Oliveira AS, Silva S, et al. (2023) Spent yeast waste streams as a sustainable source of bioactive peptides for skin applications. Int J Mol Sci 24: 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032253 doi: 10.3390/ijms24032253
|
| [131] |
García-Curiel L, Pérez-Flores JG, Contreras-López E, et al. (2023) Evaluating the application of an arabinoxylan-rich fraction from brewers' spent grain as a release modifier of drugs. Nat Prod Res 38: 1759–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2023.2214841 doi: 10.1080/14786419.2023.2214841
|
| [132] |
Sousa P, Tavares-Valente D, Pereira CF, et al. (2024) Circular economyeast: Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a sustainable source of glucans and its safety for skincare application. Int J Biol Macromol 265: 130933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130933 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130933
|
| [133] |
Zheng Y, Wang Z, Huang Y, et al. (2024) Extraction and preparation of cellulose nanocrystal from Brewer's spent grain and application in pickering emulsions. Bioact Carbohydr Diet Fibre 31: 100418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2024.100418 doi: 10.1016/j.bcdf.2024.100418
|
| [134] |
Leeyaphan C, Varothai S, Trakanwittayarak S, et al. (2022) A randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of adsorbent lotion containing tapioca starch, spent grain wax, Butyrospermum parkii extract, argania spinosa kernel oil, aloe barbadensis, rosehip oil, and allantoin with a low‐potency topical corticosteroid in the treatment of intertrigo. J Cosmet Dermatol 21: 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14125 doi: 10.1111/jocd.14125
|
| [135] |
Pereira OR, Santos G, Sousa MJ (2022) Hop by-products: Pharmacological activities and potential application as cosmetics. Cosmetics 9: 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/cosmetics9060139 doi: 10.3390/cosmetics9060139
|
| [136] |
Weber N, Biehler K, Schwabe K, et al. (2019) Hop extract acts as an antioxidant with antimicrobial effects against Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules 24: 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24020223 doi: 10.3390/molecules24020223
|
| [137] |
Venturelli S, Burkard M, Biendl M, et al. (2016) Prenylated chalcones and flavonoids for the prevention and treatment of cancer. Nutrition 32: 1171–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2016.03.020 doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2016.03.020
|
| [138] |
Zanoli P, Zavatti M (2008) Pharmacognostic and pharmacological profile of Humulus lupulus L. J Ethnopharmacol 116: 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2008.01.011
|
| [139] |
Das P, Dutta T, Manna S, et al. (2022) Facile green synthesis of non-genotoxic, non-hemolytic organometallic silver nanoparticles using extract of crushed, wasted, and spent Humulus lupulus (hops): Characterization, anti-bacterial, and anti-cancer studies. Environ Res 204: 111962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111962 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111962
|
| [140] |
Onder FC, Kalin S, Sahin N, et al. (2023) Major bioactive prenylated flavonoids from Humulus lupulus L., their applications in human diseases and Structure-Activity Relationships (SAR)—A review. Pharm Sci 30: 1–20. http://doi.org/10.34172/ps.2023.18 doi: 10.34172/ps.2023.18
|
| [141] |
Michalkova R, Mirossay L, Kello M, et al. (2023) Anticancer potential of natural chalcones: In vitro and in vivo evidence. Int J Mol Sci 24: 10354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210354 doi: 10.3390/ijms241210354
|
| [142] |
Liu Z, Jiang S, Hao B, et al. (2024) A proteomic landscape of pharmacologic perturbations for functional relevance. J Pharm Anal 14: 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2023.08.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2023.08.021
|
| [143] |
Lu X, Liu M, Dong H, et al. (2022) Dietary prenylated flavonoid xanthohumol alleviates oxidative damage and accelerates diabetic wound healing via Nrf2 activation. Food Chem Toxicol 160: 112813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.112813 doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2022.112813
|
| [144] |
Liu M, Hansen PE, Wang G, et al. (2015) Pharmacological profile of xanthohumol, a prenylated flavonoid from hops (Humulus lupulus). Molecules 20: 754–779. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20010754 doi: 10.3390/molecules20010754
|
| [145] |
Svolacchia F, Brongo S, Catalano A, et al. (2023) Natural products for the prevention, treatment and progression of breast cancer. Cancers 15: 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112981 doi: 10.3390/cancers15112981
|
| [146] |
Buckett L, Sus N, Spindler V, et al. (2023) The pharmacokinetics of individual conjugated xanthohumol metabolites show efficient glucuronidation and higher bioavailability of micellar than native xanthohumol in a randomized, double‐blind, crossover trial in healthy humans. Molecular Nutr Food Res 67: 2200684. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.202200684 doi: 10.1002/mnfr.202200684
|
| [147] |
Nurzynska A, Klimek K, Michalak A, et al. (2023) Do curdlan hydrogels improved with bioactive compounds from hop exhibit beneficial properties for skin wound healing? Int J Mol Sci 24: 10295. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241210295 doi: 10.3390/ijms241210295
|
Figures(3) / Tables(2)
Alexandros Tsoupras, Eirini A. Panagopoulou, George Z. Kyzas. Anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic and anti-oxidant bioactives of beer and brewery by-products, as ingredients of bio-functional foods, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, cosmeceuticals and pharmaceuticals with health promoting properties[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(2): 568-606. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024032
| "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum | "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes | |||||||||||
| Samples | S2BC (non-inoculated) | S2BLAF (fresh) | S2BLA (lyophilized) | S2BC + LM (only inoculated with L. monocytogenes) | S2BLAF + LM (Fresh) | S2BLA + LM (lyophilized) | ||||||
| Time (days) | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH |
| −1* | 4.0 ± 0.12 | 5.45 ± 0.04 | 8.3 ± 0.55 | 5.65 ± 0.03 | 7.8 ± 1.5 | 5.56 ± 0.06 | nd | nd | nd | |||
| 0 | 7.6 ± 1.10 | 4.72 ± 0.06 | 9.1 ± 1.46 | 4.75 ± 0.05 | 7.8 ± 1.9 | 4.65 ± 0.06 | 7.3 ± 0.95 | 4.70 ± 0.02 | 8.0 ± 1.66 | 4.73 ± 0.03 | 8.53 ± 1.48 | 4.80 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | 9.0 ± 0.06 | 4.62 ± 0.03 | 9.3 ± 0.59 | 4.59 ± 0.03 | 9.8 ± 0.6 | 4.60 ± 0.02 | 9.3 ± 0.81 | 4.62 ± 0.01 | 9.8 ± 0.40 | 4.65 ± 0, 03 | 9.87 ± 0.06 | 4, 65 ± 0, 04 |
| 7 | 9.7 ± 0.55 | 4.54 ± 0.09 | 9.5 ± 0.96 | 4.53 ± 0.04 | 9.2 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.07 | 10.3 ± 0.40 | 4.55 ± 0.05 | 9.4 ± 1.30 | 4.64 ± 0.05 | 10.07 ± 0.71 | 4.60 ± 0.03 |
| 15 | 10.0 ± 0.41 | 4.39 ± 0.05 | 10.2 ± 0.46 | 4.42 ± 0.07 | 10.5 ± 0.5 | 4.40 ± 0.03 | 10.4 ± 0.31 | 4.44 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.42 | 4.57 ± 0.02 | 10.53 ± 0.55 | 4.50 ± 0.07 |
| 21 | 11.0 ± 0.00 | 4.25 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.29 | 4.30 ± 0.08 | 11.1 ± 0.0 | 4.31 ± 0.10 | 10.8 ± 0.12 | 4.43 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.46 | 4.45 ± 0.06 | 11.07 ± 0.06 | 4.50 ± 0.04 |
| 28 | 10.7 ± 0.67 | 4.11 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.69 | 4.14 ± 0.04 | 10.9 ± 0.2 | 4.14 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.87 | 4.13 ± 0.02 | 11.0 ± 0.20 | 4.25 ± 0.04 | 11.03 ± 0.06 | 4.20 ± 0.06 |
| 60 | 10.9 ± 0.06 | 3.60 ± 0.04 | 10.8 ± 0.85 | 3.67 ± 0.02 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 3.70 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.29 | 3.70 ± 0.02 | 10.7 ± 0.44 | 3.90 ± 0.07 | 10.97 ± 0.12 | 4.00 ± 0.07 |
| 90 | 10.5 ± 0.15 | 3.58 ± 0.09 | 10.4 ± 0.44 | 3.52 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.4 | 3.54 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.17 | 3.57 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.40 | 3.65 ± 0.05 | 10.60 ± 0.44 | 3.70 ± 0.05 |
| * before smoking. | ||||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Enumeration (log CFU/g) | Presence in 25g | |||||||||
| "Alheira" | Bacillus cereus | Yeasts | Moulds | Enterobacteriaceae | E.coli | Coagulase positive staphylococci | Listeria spp. | Listeria monocytogenes | Salmonella spp. | SRC sporesa |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| Legend: aSRC spores; sulphite reducing clostridial spores, presence (+) or absence (−) in 1, 0.1 or 0.01 g sample. | ||||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Sample | Total # of paired reads generated | Percentage of classified reads (%) | |||
| Total | Up to family | Up to genus | Up to species | ||
| S2BLA (−1 day) | 88285 | 99.93 | 94.94 (0.15) | 94.71 (0.35) | 30.03 (1.08) |
| S2BLA (0 day) | 77182 | 98.71 | 98.59 (0.67) | 98.02 (0.86) | 50.32 (1.71) |
| S2BLA (60 days) | 83671 | 99.77 | 97.53 (1.07) | 96.87 (1.19) | 81.41 (1.74) |
| S2BC (−1 day) | 91240 | 99.91 | 98.17 (0.23) | 98.07 (0.21) | 55.04 (0.8) |
| S2BC (0 day) | 62382 | 99.08 | 98.72 (0.69) | 98.52 (0.72) | 84.29 (1.18) |
| S2BC (60 days) | 76074 | 99.64 | 97.39 (0.14) | 96.98 (0.34) | 68.14 (0.73) |
| Percentages are relative to the total number of classified reads. Values in parenthesis refer to the percentage of reads excluded at each taxonomic rank. "Alheira de Vitela" non-inoculated as a control (S2BC) and inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized (S2BLA): before smoking (−1 day), after smoking (0 day) and 60 days of storage (60 days). | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum | "Alheira" with Lb. plantarum plus cocktail of L. monocytogenes | |||||||||||
| Samples | S2BC (non-inoculated) | S2BLAF (fresh) | S2BLA (lyophilized) | S2BC + LM (only inoculated with L. monocytogenes) | S2BLAF + LM (Fresh) | S2BLA + LM (lyophilized) | ||||||
| Time (days) | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH | Log (CFU/g) | pH |
| −1* | 4.0 ± 0.12 | 5.45 ± 0.04 | 8.3 ± 0.55 | 5.65 ± 0.03 | 7.8 ± 1.5 | 5.56 ± 0.06 | nd | nd | nd | |||
| 0 | 7.6 ± 1.10 | 4.72 ± 0.06 | 9.1 ± 1.46 | 4.75 ± 0.05 | 7.8 ± 1.9 | 4.65 ± 0.06 | 7.3 ± 0.95 | 4.70 ± 0.02 | 8.0 ± 1.66 | 4.73 ± 0.03 | 8.53 ± 1.48 | 4.80 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | 9.0 ± 0.06 | 4.62 ± 0.03 | 9.3 ± 0.59 | 4.59 ± 0.03 | 9.8 ± 0.6 | 4.60 ± 0.02 | 9.3 ± 0.81 | 4.62 ± 0.01 | 9.8 ± 0.40 | 4.65 ± 0, 03 | 9.87 ± 0.06 | 4, 65 ± 0, 04 |
| 7 | 9.7 ± 0.55 | 4.54 ± 0.09 | 9.5 ± 0.96 | 4.53 ± 0.04 | 9.2 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 0.07 | 10.3 ± 0.40 | 4.55 ± 0.05 | 9.4 ± 1.30 | 4.64 ± 0.05 | 10.07 ± 0.71 | 4.60 ± 0.03 |
| 15 | 10.0 ± 0.41 | 4.39 ± 0.05 | 10.2 ± 0.46 | 4.42 ± 0.07 | 10.5 ± 0.5 | 4.40 ± 0.03 | 10.4 ± 0.31 | 4.44 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.42 | 4.57 ± 0.02 | 10.53 ± 0.55 | 4.50 ± 0.07 |
| 21 | 11.0 ± 0.00 | 4.25 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.29 | 4.30 ± 0.08 | 11.1 ± 0.0 | 4.31 ± 0.10 | 10.8 ± 0.12 | 4.43 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.46 | 4.45 ± 0.06 | 11.07 ± 0.06 | 4.50 ± 0.04 |
| 28 | 10.7 ± 0.67 | 4.11 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.69 | 4.14 ± 0.04 | 10.9 ± 0.2 | 4.14 ± 0.06 | 10.6 ± 0.87 | 4.13 ± 0.02 | 11.0 ± 0.20 | 4.25 ± 0.04 | 11.03 ± 0.06 | 4.20 ± 0.06 |
| 60 | 10.9 ± 0.06 | 3.60 ± 0.04 | 10.8 ± 0.85 | 3.67 ± 0.02 | 10.6 ± 0.6 | 3.70 ± 0.08 | 10.7 ± 0.29 | 3.70 ± 0.02 | 10.7 ± 0.44 | 3.90 ± 0.07 | 10.97 ± 0.12 | 4.00 ± 0.07 |
| 90 | 10.5 ± 0.15 | 3.58 ± 0.09 | 10.4 ± 0.44 | 3.52 ± 0.06 | 10.4 ± 0.4 | 3.54 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.17 | 3.57 ± 0.04 | 10.4 ± 0.40 | 3.65 ± 0.05 | 10.60 ± 0.44 | 3.70 ± 0.05 |
| * before smoking. | ||||||||||||
| Enumeration (log CFU/g) | Presence in 25g | |||||||||
| "Alheira" | Bacillus cereus | Yeasts | Moulds | Enterobacteriaceae | E.coli | Coagulase positive staphylococci | Listeria spp. | Listeria monocytogenes | Salmonella spp. | SRC sporesa |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BC | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLAF + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| S2BLA + LM | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | < 1.0 | − | − | − | − |
| Legend: aSRC spores; sulphite reducing clostridial spores, presence (+) or absence (−) in 1, 0.1 or 0.01 g sample. | ||||||||||
| Sample | Total # of paired reads generated | Percentage of classified reads (%) | |||
| Total | Up to family | Up to genus | Up to species | ||
| S2BLA (−1 day) | 88285 | 99.93 | 94.94 (0.15) | 94.71 (0.35) | 30.03 (1.08) |
| S2BLA (0 day) | 77182 | 98.71 | 98.59 (0.67) | 98.02 (0.86) | 50.32 (1.71) |
| S2BLA (60 days) | 83671 | 99.77 | 97.53 (1.07) | 96.87 (1.19) | 81.41 (1.74) |
| S2BC (−1 day) | 91240 | 99.91 | 98.17 (0.23) | 98.07 (0.21) | 55.04 (0.8) |
| S2BC (0 day) | 62382 | 99.08 | 98.72 (0.69) | 98.52 (0.72) | 84.29 (1.18) |
| S2BC (60 days) | 76074 | 99.64 | 97.39 (0.14) | 96.98 (0.34) | 68.14 (0.73) |
| Percentages are relative to the total number of classified reads. Values in parenthesis refer to the percentage of reads excluded at each taxonomic rank. "Alheira de Vitela" non-inoculated as a control (S2BC) and inoculated with Lb. plantarum ST153Ch lyophilized (S2BLA): before smoking (−1 day), after smoking (0 day) and 60 days of storage (60 days). | |||||
