European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 246, Issue 3, pp 461–469 | Cite as

Effect of exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis on the processing properties of wheat doughs

  • Michael Seitter
  • Markus Fleig
  • Herbert Schmidt
  • Christian HertelEmail author
Original Paper


The effect of crude exopolysaccharides (EPS) of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis strains on processing properties of wheat doughs was investigated and compared to the commercial available hydrocolloids guar gum and xanthan using straight dough method. In addition, the effect of swelling process occurring during fermentation and of in situ formation of levan on dough and bread properties was determined. The doughs supplemented with levan showed higher water absorption and lower stickiness than those supplemented with guar gum and xanthan. However, F(max) and l(max) resulting from extensibility measurements as well as peak viscosity during gelatinization were less affected. The use of chemically acidified sponge doughs resulted in increased stickiness and changes in the extension properties of the wheat doughs with decreasing pH. These negative effects were compensated by the addition of crude levan extracts. Addition of sourdoughs markedly decreased their stickiness but not their F(max) and l(max) resulting from extensibility measurements, as compared with chemically acidified sponge doughs. Enhanced in situ production of levan increased dough stickiness as well as increased resistance and decreased extensibility. This effect could be traced back to an enrichment of sugar or metabolites due to an altered metabolism of the bacteria. Breads produced from straight doughs supplemented with levan showed higher volumes as compared to commercial hydrocolloids.


Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis Exopolysaccharide Sourdough dough Processing property 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Panagiotis Chanos for statistical support. This project was supported by the FEI (Forschungskreis der Ernährungsindustrie e. V., Bonn, Germany), the AiF (Arbeitskreis industrieller Forschung) and the Ministry of Economics and Technology. Project No. AiF-FV 14037 N.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. 1.
    Huault L, Vésinet M, Brogly M, Giampaoli P, Bistac S, Bosc V (2019) Adhesion of bread dough to solid surfaces under controlled heating: balance between the rheological and interfacial properties of dough. J Food Sci 84:499–506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brandt MJ, Münscher I, Hammes WP (2003) Effect of lactobacilli from sour dough on wheat dough properties. Getreide Mehl Brot 57:15–17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dobraszczyk BJ (1997) The rheological basis of dough stickiness. J Texture Stud 28:139–162Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammed AM, Ozsisli B, Jae-Bom O, Simsek S (2015) Relationship between solvent retention capacity and protein molecular weight distribution, quality characteristics, and breadmaking functionality of hard red spring wheat flour. Cereal Chem 92:466–474Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin DJ, Stewart BG (1991) Contrasting dough surface properties of selected wheats. Cereal Foods World 36:502–504Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Correa MJ, Añón MC, Pérez GT, Ferrero C (2010) Effect of modified celluloses on dough rheology and microstructure. Food Res Int 43:780–787Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maleki G, Milani JM (2013) Effect of guar gum, xanthan gum, CMC and HPMC on dough rheology and physical properties of Barbari bread. Food Sci Technol Res 19:353–358Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rojas JA, Rosell CM, Benedito de Barber C (1999) Pasting properties of different wheat flour-hydrocolloid systems. Food Hydrocoll 13:27–33Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zannini E, Waters DM, Arendt EK (2014) The application of dextran compared to other hydrocolloids as a novel food ingredient to compensate for low protein in biscuit and wholemeal wheat flour. Eur Food Res Technol 238:763–771Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hammed AM, Ozsisli B, Simsek S (2016) Utilization of microvisco-amylograph to study flour, dough, and bread qualities of hydrocolloid/flour blends. Int J Food Prop 19:591–604Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosell CM, Rojas JA, Benedito de Barber C (2001) Influence of hydrocolloids on dough rheology and bread quality. Food Hydrocoll 15:75–81Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bárcenas ME, Rosell CM (2005) Effect of HPMC addition on the microstructure, quality and aging of wheat bread. Food Hydrocoll 19:1037–1043Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christianson DD, Hodge JE, Osborne D, Detroy RW (1981) Gelatinization of wheat starch as modified by xanthan gum, guar gum, and cellulose gum. Cereal Chem 58:513–517Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davidou S, Le Meste M, Debever E, Bekaert D (1996) A contribution to the study of staling of white bread: effect of water and hydrocolloid. Food Hydrocoll 10:375–383Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferrero C (2017) Hydrocolloids in wheat breadmaking: a concise review. Food Hydrocoll 68:15–22Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freitas F, Alves VD, Reis MAM (2011) Advances in bacterial exopolysaccharides: from production to biotechnological applications. Trends Biotechnol 29:388–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hossein H, Kianoush K-D (2017) Effective variables on production and structure of xanthan gum and its food applications: a review. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 10:130–140Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Mônaco Lopes B, Lopes Lessa V, Moré Silva B, Da Silva Carvalho Filho MA, Schnitzler E, Lacerda LG (2015) Xanthan gum: properties, production conditions, quality and economic perspective. J Food Nutr Res 54:185–194Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Capelle S, Guylaine L, Gänzle M, Gobbetti M (2013) History and social aspects of sourdough. In: Gobbetti M, Gänzle MG (eds) Handbook of sourdough biotechnology. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tieking M, Gänzle MG (2005) Exopolysaccharides from cereal-associated lactobacilli. Trends Food Sci Technol 16:79–84Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tieking M, Korakli M, Ehrmann MA, Gänzle MG, Vogel RF (2003) In situ production of exopolysaccharides during sourdough fermentation by cereal and intestinal isolates of lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(2):945–952PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vogel RF, Pavlovic M, Ehrmann MA, Wiezer A, Liesegang H, Offschanka S, Voget S, Angelov A, Böcker G, Liebl W (2011) Genomic analysis reveals Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis as stable element in traditional sourdoughs. Microb Cell Fact 10(Suppl 1):S6PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dertli E, Mercan E, Arici M, Yilmaz MT, Sağdıç O (2016) Characterisation of lactic acid bacteria from Turkish sourdough and determination of their exopolysaccharide (EPS) production characteristics. LWT Food Sci Technol 71:116–124Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galle S, Schwab C, Dal Bello F, Coffey A, Gänzle M, Arendt E (2012) Comparison of the impact of dextran and reuteran on the quality of wheat sourdough bread. J Cereal Sci 56:531–537Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korakli M, Rossmann A, Gänzle MG, Vogel RF (2001) Sucrose metabolism and exopolysaccharide production in wheat and rye sourdoughs by Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis. J Agric Food Chem 49(11):5194–5200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Decock P, Cappelle S (2005) Bread technology and sourdough technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 16:113–120Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lacaze G, Wick M, Cappelle S (2007) Emerging fermentation technologies: development of novel sourdoughs. Food Microbiol 24:155–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Y, Guo L, Li D, Jin Z, Xu X (2019) Roles of dextran, weak acidification and their combination in the quality of wheat bread. Food Chem 286:197–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y, Guo L, Xu D, Li D, Yang N, Chen F, Jin Z, Xu X (2018) Effects of dextran with different molecular weights on the quality of wheat sourdough breads. Food Chem 256:373–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sekwati-Monang B, Valcheva R, Gänzle MG (2012) Microbial ecology of sorghum sourdoughs: effect of substrate supply and phenolic compounds on composition of fermentation microbiota. Int J Food Microbiol 159:240–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Korakli M, Gänzle MG, Vogel RF (2002) Metabolism by bifidobacteria and lactic acid bacteria of polysaccharides from wheat and rye, and exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis. J Appl Microbiol 92:958–965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    ICC (1996) ICC Standard No. 110/1. Approved method. International Association for Cereal Science and Technology. ICC, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ICC (1996) ICC Standard No. 106/2. Approved method. International Association for Cereal Science and Technology. ICC, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ICC (1996) ICC Standard No. 105/2. Approved method. International Association for Cereal Science and Technology. ICC, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    ICC (1996) ICC Standard No. 104/1. Approved method. International Association for Cereal Science and Technology. ICC, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meroth CB, Walter J, Hertel C, Brandt MJ, Hammes WP (2003) Monitoring the bacterial population dynamics in sourdough fermentation processes by using PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(1):475–482PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stolz P (1995) Untersuchungen des Maltosemetabolismus von Laktobazillen aus Sauerteig. In: Dissertation. Universität Hohenheim. Fakultät für Allgemeine und Angewandte NaturwissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen WZ, Hoseney RC (1995) Development of an objective method for dough stickiness. LWT Food Sci Technol 28:467–473Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kieffer R, Garnreiter F, Belitz HD (1981) Evaluation of dough properties by extension tests on a microscale. Beurteilung von Teigeigenschaften durch Zugversuche im Mikromassstab 172:193–194Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    AACC (2000) AACC Method 76-21. Approved methods of the AACC, 10th edn. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    AACC (2000) AACC method 10-05. Approved methods of the AACC, 10th edn. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kaditzky S, Seitter M, Hertel C, Vogel RF (2008) Performance of Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis TMW 1.392 and its levansucrase deletion mutant in wheat dough and comparison of their impact on bread quality. Eur Food Res Technol 227:433–442Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Korakli M, Pavlovic M, Gänzle MG, Vogel RF (2003) Exopolysaccharide and kestose production by Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis LTH2590. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(4):2073–2079PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ketabi A, Soleimanian-Zad S, Kadivar M, Sheikh-Zeinoddin M (2008) Production of microbial exopolysaccharides in the sourdough and its effects on the rheological properties of dough. Food Res Int 41:948–951Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Azizi MH, Rao GV (2004) Effect of surfactant gel and gum combinations on dough rheological characteristics and quality of bread. J Food Qual 27:320–336Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nour V, Tutulescu F, Ionica ME, Corbu AR (2017) Dough rheology and properties of gluten-free rice breads as affected by addition of hydrocolloids and emulsifiers. Carpathian J Food Sci Technol 9:158–166Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jasim A, Thomas L (2015) Effect of Î2-glucan concentrate on the water uptake, rheological and textural properties of wheat flour dough. Int J Food Prop 18:1801–1816Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen WZ, Hoseney RC (1995) Wheat flour compound that produces sticky dough: isolation and identification. J Food Sci 60(3):434–437Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ua-Arak T, Jakob F, Vogel RF (2017) Influence of levan-producing acetic acid bacteria on buckwheat-sourdough breads. Food Microbiol 65:95–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tamani RJ, Goh KKT, Brennan CS (2013) Physico-chemical properties of sourdough bread production using selected Lactobacilli starter cultures. J Food Qual 36:245–252Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Clarke CI, Schober TJ, Angst E, Arendt EK (2003) Use of response surface methodology to investigate the effects of processing conditions on sourdough wheat bread quality. Eur Food Res Technol 217:23–33Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Galal AM, Varriano-Marston E, Johnson JA (1978) Rheological dough properties as affected by organic acids and salt. Cereal Chem 55:683–691Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gänzle MG (2014) Enzymatic and bacterial conversions during sourdough fermentation. Food Microbiol 37:2–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gänzle MG, Loponen J, Gobbetti M (2008) Proteolysis in sourdough fermentations: mechanisms and potential for improved bread quality. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:513–521Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wieser H (2007) Chemistry of gluten proteins. Food Microbiol 24:115–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Loponen J, Sontag-Strohm T, Venäläinen J, Salovaara H (2007) Prolamin hydrolysis in wheat sourdoughs with differing proteolytic activities. J Agric Food Chem 55:978–984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thiele C, Grassl S, Gänzle M (2004) Gluten hydrolysis and depolymerization during sourdough fermentation. J Agric Food Chem 52:1307–1314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Oleksy M, Klewicka E (2018) Exopolysaccharides produced by Lactobacillus sp.: biosynthesis and applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58:450–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Tieking M, Kaditzky S, Valcheva R, Korakli M, Vogel RF, Gänzle MG (2005) Extracellular homopolysaccharides and oligosaccharides from intestinal lactobacilli. J Appl Microbiol 99:692–702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dal Bello F, Walter J, Hertel C, Hammes WP (2001) In vitro study of prebiotic properties of levan-type exopolysaccharides from Lactobacilli and non-digestible carbohydrates using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Syst Appl Microbiol 24:232–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Korakli M, Schwarz E, Wolf G, Hammes WP (2000) Production of mannitol by Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis. Adv Food Sci 22(1/2):1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Seitter
    • 1
  • Markus Fleig
    • 1
  • Herbert Schmidt
    • 1
  • Christian Hertel
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Food Microbiology and Hygiene, Institute of Food Science and BiotechnologyUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.German Institute of Food TechnologiesQuakenbrückGermany

Personalised recommendations