Lactic acid bacteria and their importance in the biopreservation of meat and meat product: a review

Bactérias ácido-láticas e sua importância na bioconservação de carnes e derivados cárneos: uma revisão

Abstract

Keeping a food free of risk to human health becomes a challenge for producers and the scientific community. This challenge becomes more complex in certain products such as beef that could present microbial contamination that accelerates the decomposition process of the meat and limits its shelf life. Improper rearing and transport, among other factors, causes stress in animals which leads to metabolic and hormonal changes at the muscle level in the live animal, which affect the color, pH and water retention capacity in the postmortem muscle. As a result, the characteristics of the meat change, affecting the shelf life of the product or causing consumer rejection. To minimize these risks, it is necessary to develop new conservation techniques. In this review, a total of 125 scientific studies on LAB and biopreservation were examined, of which 31 correspond specifically to food matrices. On average, the application of LAB or their bacteriocins extended meat shelf life between 5 and 30 days, depending on the strain, bacteriocin class, and storage conditions. In food engineering, biopreservation with lactic acid bacteria (LAB), especially with Lactobacillus spp. protect food from putrefaction by synthesizing bacteriocin substances that inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, among others. Currently, there is little information on the use of LAB strains for the biopreservation of beef. However, this strategy could be an alternative to preserve the quality of natural beef, which could avoid the use of synthetic preservatives that cause damage to health. Therefore, this review focuses on LAB and their applications in beef biopreservation.

Keywords:
bacteriocins; meat quality; fermentation; food safety; natural preservatives

Resumo

Manter um alimento livre de riscos à saúde humana torna-se um desafio para produtores e para a comunidade científica. Esse desafio se torna mais complexo em certos produtos, como a carne bovina, que pode apresentar contaminação microbiana que acelera o processo de decomposição da carne e limita sua vida útil. A criação e o transporte inadequados, entre outros fatores, causam estresse nos animais, o que leva a alterações metabólicas e hormonais no nível muscular do animal vivo, que afetam a cor, o pH e a capacidade de retenção de água no músculo post mortem. Como resultado, as características da carne se alteram, afetando a vida útil do produto ou causando rejeição pelo consumidor. Para minimizar esses riscos, é necessário o desenvolvimento de novas técnicas de conservação. Nesta revisão, foram examinados um total de 125 estudos científicos sobre bactérias ácido-láticas (BAL) e bioconservação, dos quais 31 correspondem especificamente a matrizes alimentares. Em média, a aplicação de BAL ou de suas bacteriocinas prolongou a vida útil da carne entre 5 e 30 dias, dependendo da cepa, da classe de bacteriocina e das condições de armazenamento. Na engenharia de alimentos, a biopreservação com BAL, especialmente com Lactobacillus spp., protege os alimentos da putrefação, sintetizando substâncias bacteriocinas que inibem o crescimento de bactérias patogênicas, como Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, entre outras. Atualmente, há pouca informação sobre o uso de cepas de BAL para a biopreservação de carne bovina. No entanto, essa estratégia pode ser uma alternativa para preservar a qualidade da carne bovina natural, evitando o uso de conservantes sintéticos que causam danos à saúde. Portanto, esta revisão se concentra nas BAL e suas aplicações na biopreservação de carne bovina.

Palavras-chave:
bacteriocinas; qualidade da carne; fermentação; segurança alimentar; conservantes naturais

1. Introduction

With the increase in the world population, close to seven billion inhabitants, food consumption has become a concern and the current trend is to produce food that meets food security conditions (FAO, 2017; Guerrero et al., 2013). Food losses result in the waste of resources used in production, such as land, water, energy, and inputs; it also means the unnecessary emission of CO₂ and the detriment of the added value of the food produced (OCDE, 2017). Studies carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) predict an annual meat loss of 20% (Neff et al., 2015).

Beef is a type of meat that comes from bovine animals and is an important source of proteins, lipids, mineral salts and vitamins such as B1, B2, B3, B6, B12, D and K, among others (Górska et al., 2018; Ongol et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2018; Tomovic et al., 2015) and in industrialized countries, consumers demand a continuous supply of a wide variety of beef and meat product with high quality and safety. For this purpose, products that maintain their quality attributes throughout a relatively long shelf life, from production to consumption, are in increasing demand (Barcenilla et al., 2022). In addition, food quality and safety requirements must be strictly adhered to, also considering the nutritional value and physical, chemical, and sensory properties of the final product (Saltmarsh and Insall, 2013). The chemical composition and biological structural characteristics of meat make it susceptible to contamination, especially by decomposition of microorganisms during processing, transport, and marketing, decreasing the shelf life of this product (Vásquez et al., 2009b).

Various microorganisms represent meat contaminants that can be potentially pathogenic to humans (Niyonzima et al., 2015). Pathogenic microorganisms that have historically been associated with outbreaks from beef consumption include Bacillus cereus, Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenese, Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus and Yersinia enterocolitica. These pathogens are recognized for causing serious illnesses in consumers, such as salmonellossis, listeriosis, gastroenteritis, and diarrhea (Castellano et al., 2008; Prasad and Vidyarthi, 2009). Foodborne pathogens are a serious challenge to food safety and public health worldwide, causing illness and death (Gao et al., 2019). The problem of microbial alterations of food has economic implications, both for manufacturers (deterioration of raw materials and processed products, loss of brand image) and for consumers, for this reason the use of LAB is presented as a profitable alternative for food preservation (Velasco, 2018).

Currently, there are serious problems related to the limited forms of preservation of meat foods, including beef (García and Searle, 2016). Added to this is the fact of the continuous demand to reduce and prohibit more and more the use of preservatives and chemical additives in food (Surendran et al., 2020), such as benzoic acid, sorbic acid, sulfur dioxide, nitrites, and nitrates (Yost, 2014), due to the adverse effects they can cause on human health (Ahn et al., 2017). For this reason, it is necessary to develop safe and secure alternatives for the preservation of fresh meat. Among these alternatives, novel preservation techniques have been developed, such as pulsating electric fields (PEMFs), high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), natural antimicrobial compounds, and biopreservation (Devlieghere et al., 2004). Biopreservation consists of increasing the shelf life and microbiological safety of food using natural or controlled microbiota and its antimicrobial compounds (Leyva et al., 2017). In this sense, the use of LAB in food biopreservation is a strategy of great importance, due to the ability to control pathogenic microorganisms and food spoilers (Lewus and Montville, 1991). LAB encompass a large and heterogeneous group of acid-tolerant, Gram-positive bacteria that produce lactic acid as the main metabolic product of carbohydrate fermentation. The LABs belong to the order Lactobacillales, which includes 6 families, 36 genera and more than 200 species (Vallejo et al., 2018). In 2020, the genus Lactobacillus was reclassified into 25 new genera, including Lacticaseibacillus, Ligilactobacillus, Lentilactobacillus, Levilactobacillus, among others, based on phylogenomics and comparative genomics (Zheng et al., 2020). This update has direct implications for food biotechnology and should be incorporated into future studies of LAB in meat preservation.. They are found in various biotypes such as the environment, plants, human, and animal microbiota. They are largely used in the preparation of probiotic foods, either in fermented products or food supplements to promote health, which are produced from pure cultures or mixtures of live microorganisms. If they are consumed by man or animals in adequate quantities, generate a beneficial effect (Parra, 2010). LAB from a food safety and safety perspective is considered harmless and has been used for centuries worldwide in the production of fermented foods, as they are acid-tolerant, allowing them to survive in environments where other bacteria would not be able to withstand the increased production of organic acids (Harris et al., 1992). Faced with this problem, research aimed at meat preservation has now been directed toward the use of biological tools to reduce or eliminate the incidence of pathogenic bacteria, extending the shelf life of meat and ensuring food safety. The primary aim of this review is to comprehensively investigate and analyze the influence of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on meat biopreservation. The beneficial potential of various LAB strains to preserve the quality and safety of meat products will be explored in detail. The review will explore the underlying mechanisms of LAB-mediated biopreservation, encompassing their antimicrobial properties and metabolic activities. The secondary aim is exploring potential benefits or drawbacks of using LAB in meat preservation, and contribute to the existing body of knowledge in this domain.

2. Factors Contributing to the Deterioration of Beef

Beef is an important source of protein for humans, accounting for around 20.8% in total (McAllister et al., 2020), added to other elements such as zinc, copper, iron, vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids, equally important (Smith et al., 2018). At the nutritional level, the consumption of beef provides countless benefits for human well being. Unfortunately, meat is a highly perishable food, as a result of the predominance of a high nutritional content, humidity and neutral pH, qualities that make it more vulnerable to spoilage (Singh, 2018). It has been observed that meat spoilage is frequently associated with stress prior to slaughtering the animal. This stress is characterized by a depletion of the glycogen level, which plays an important role in the meat deterioration process (Addis, 2015). Some of the major pre-slaughter stressors of cattle include prolonged transport without rest, bruising, inadequate feeding, disturbing noises, unusual groupings of cattle, and inadequate stunning (Faucitano, 2018). Under these stress conditions, an environment conducive to the proliferation of microorganisms responsible for e meat spoilage is created (Addis, 2015). Due to its characteristics, meat, favors the growth of various types of microorganisms (Ercolini et al., 2009). In fact, the natural microbiota of meat comprises Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacteria, some Micrococcus and LAB such as Enterococcus and Lactobacillus (Nychas et al., 2008). This natural microbiota together with the conditions of meat storage influences the final organoleptic properties (Ercolini et al., 2006) and the shelf life (Borch et al., 1996). The storage conditions for meat involve low temperature after slaughter, primary cuts during transport to distributors, at various wholesale and retail, and finally to the consumer's kitchen (Ercolini et al., 2006; Gram et al., 2002). It is important to highlight the importance of the handling and preservation conditions of meat for the growth of bacteria. Meat is susceptible to being colonized by different species of bacteria through different mechanisms and interacting with the resident or natural microbiota (Ercolini et al., 2009), mainly by competition (Bruhn et al., 2004; Ercolini et al., 2009) or antagonism. According to Silva et al. (2021), decomposition and contaminating pathogenic microorganisms in meat and meat products have a considerable impact on food quality and safety.

Over time, new pathogens, or strains more aggressive and resistant to antibiotics have emerged, as well as other chemicals used for the control of the main genera of pathogenic bacteria. Diseases classified as emerging include those caused by E. coli (Rojas et al., 2006), Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, E. coli and S. aureus (Oussalah et al., 2007). Particularly Salmonella spp. and E. coli are of enteric origin and are considered common pathogens of food illness in meats (Jay et al., 2008).

The type of microorganisms that can be found in meat also varies depending on their preservation. For example, species such as Pseudomonas spp. are related to spoilage of meat stored at low temperature under aerobic conditions, while Gram-positive bacteria are responsible for spoilage of vacuum-packed meat and other modified atmosphere packaging conditions. (Pajaro and Salazar, 2015). In the period between 2015 and 2020, investigations identified Salmonella spp. and Escherichia spp. as the primary pathogenic species present in fresh meat. These studies (Martínez et al., 2015; Narváez et al., 2013) also reported the contamination of beef by Salmonella spp. at slaughterhouse in Latin America. In this investigation, meat samples were taken at the pelvic and xiphoid level, and various variables were analyzed, analyzing various variables such as sampling, location, and the anatomical position of the meat. For the operators of the slaughter line (skinner, desvierator, washer) the variables operator and moment (start-end) were considered, concluding that the influence of the bacteria had a significant result, which prevailed in the presence of pathogens in the different interactions of the carcasses and operators. Therefore, to maintain an adequate hygienic quality in the meat, it is necessary to periodically control both the handlers, the carcasses, the water, as well as the utensils used during the processing line (Cicuta et al., 2006).

3. LAB Used as Safety Indicators

LAB are part of the natural microbiota of fermented foods and the gut microbiota of mammals (Oppegård et al., 2007). Traditionally, they have been used in fermentation processes, transforming carbohydrates into lactic acid, and generating other biologically active compounds such as organic acids, diacetyl, acetoin, polyols, hydrogen peroxide, antifungal and antibacterial peptides, and flavor precursors (Egan et al., 2016). The vast majority of LAB are considered safe by the US. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also granted “Qualified Presumption of Safety” (QPS) status to many LAB species, including the genera Carnobacterium, Lactococcus, Leuconostoc, Oenococcus, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, and the genus Lactobacillus, recently reclassified into twenty-five new genera (Koutsoumanis et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2020). QPS is a risk assessment approach used by EFSA for certain groups of microorganisms, such as lactic acid bacteria, that are considered safe for use in food. The QPS is based on the review of scientific data and is used to expedite the safety evaluation of these microorganisms. The main difference between QPS and GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) lies in the authorities that grant them and in the countries in which they are applicable. While the QPS is an assessment carried out by EFSA in the European Union, the GRAS is a process carried out by the FDA in the United States. Both approaches seek to guarantee the safety of the ingredients and additives used in food.

4. Biopreservation as a Meat Preservation Technique

To prevent meat spoilage, various methods have been developed, mostly chemical, such as the use of nitrite, sodium chloride and organic acids (Zhou et al., 2010). However, in recent years the use of antagonistic microorganisms (biopreservation) for the inhibition of meat spoilage has become popular (Yost, 2014), especially LAB and bacteriophages (Lianou et al., 2016). Specifically, the use of LAB in meat biopreservation has spread in recent years due to its great effectiveness in biopreservation (Narvhus and Axelsson, 2003), characteristic that is due to the use of various mechanisms, such as: competition for nutrients, generation of acids organics, hydrogen peroxide, enzymes, lytic agents, and antimicrobial peptides or bacteriocins (Zinoviadou et al., 2016). Bacteriocins are a group of biomolecules that arouse great interest as they form a heterogeneous group of peptides or bioactive bacterial proteins that show antimicrobial activity against other bacteria (Molloy et al., 2011). Bacteriocins are produced by Gram-positive bacteria (Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, and Propionibacterium) and Gram-negative (E. coli, Shigella, Serratia, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas) (Karpiński and Szkaradkiewicz, 2016).

Biopreservation can be applied to food and, in particular, to meat in two ways: in situ through the application of pure cultures of bacteriocin-producing LAB (Singh, 2018) and ex situ (Chen and Hoover, 2003) by adding pre-produced compounds (Costa et al., 2019).

The incorporation of bacterial extracts ex situ has gained notoriety due to the increasing risk of transmission of pathogens by the diest, added to the growing demands of consumers to choose foods of fresh flavor and lightly preserved, so that it can be applied mainly in dairy and meats (Cancino et al., 2017; Gálvez et al., 2014). On the other hand, the use of LAB in food biopreservation is a strategy of great importance due to its ability to control pathogenic microorganisms and food spoilage (Singh, 2018). However, it has been shown that the combination of both methods such as the application of bioconservative strains and the extracts and metabolites (bacteriocins) they produce controls several undesirable microorganisms This dual approach extends the shelf life of food ensuring consumer safety (Castellano et al., 2008; Settanni and Corsetti, 2008). In this sense, the use of microorganisms such as LAB and its metabolites emanating from them in the form of crude or purified extracts, offer a potential in food preservation, being an alternative in the industry since it could help reduce the addition of chemical preservatives and decrease the intensity of heat treatment, resulting in naturally preserved foods with better nutritional and organoleptic properties (Gálvez et al., 2007).

5. Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Mechanisms of Action

LAB are widely used in the food industry for their ability to confer a number of sensory properties such as texture, taste and pleasant smell to fermented foods, such as milk, meat and vegetables (O’Bryan et al., 2015; Parra, 2010). Microorganisms like Streptococcus citrovorus and S. paracitrovorus can regulate citric acid in milk, producing acetic acid, diacetyl, and acetoin which in combination develop a pleasant smell and taste (Chávez, 2019). They are used to control the proliferation of undesirable microorganisms in different meat products (Barcenilla et al., 2022). LAB often grow better under microaerophilic conditions (Agudelo et al., 2015; Carr et al., 2002; Quinto et al., 2014). They are found in various biotopes such as plants, human and animal microbiota. These LAB are of great economic importance as they play an important role in the use and preparation of probiotic foods; They promote health when consumed by humans or animals in adequate quantities, generate a beneficial effect (Parra, 2010). The main LAB in fermented foods correspond to species belonging to the genera Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Leuconostoc, Carnobacterium, Enterococcus, Oenococcus, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, Tetragenococcus, and Vagococcus (Leyva et al., 2017; Quinto et al., 2014). LABs can also be classified according to lactose fermentation: homofermentative (produce only lactic acid) and heterofermentative (produce lactic acid and other substances). In addition, they can be classified into mesophilic or thermophilic depending on their growth temperature (Bertrand et al., 2003).

The mechanism of action of a LAB includes competition, by excluding pathogenic bacteria or producing bactericidal or bacteriostatic substances that inhibit the growth of them (Figure 1). This antibacterial effect on the host can be achieved by supplying specific bacteria in meat processing with an individual action or mixtures of bacteria exhibiting a synergistic action. In both cases the mechanism of action includes the production of antibiotics, bacteriocins, siderophores, proteases, hydrogen peroxide, as well as, the alteration of the pH of the GIT (gastrointestinal tract) by the production of organic acids (Sugita et al., 1997). In the particular case of LAB, widely used as probiotics (Parra, 2010), are known to produce bacteriocins that inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. Bacteriocins are of great interest as they have a QPS status (qualified presumption of safety), i.e. safe for health. Another mechanism to prevent colonization by various pathogens is associated with a competition for space, which can be non-specific and based on physicochemical factors, or specific, involving adhesion molecules on the surface of the bacterium and receptor molecules in tissue cells (Kesarcodi et al., 2008). Competition can also occur for nutrients, for example, competition for iron among microorganisms has been reported as an important factor in marine bacteria (Verschuere et al., 2000). All microorganisms need iron to grow (Cabaj and Kosakowska, 2009) and is generally limited in the fluids of the tissues of organisms and in an insoluble Fe3+ form (Verschuere et al., 2000). Siderophores are iron chelating compounds secreted by microorganisms, including pathogens, that can dissolve iron and make it available for microbial growth. LABs producing siderophores could be used to compete for iron with pathogens (Gatesoupe, 1997).

Figure 1
Antimicrobial action of LAB bacteriocins toward pathogens in beef.

At the molecular level, bacteriocins interact with the cytoplasmic membrane of sensitive bacteria by binding to specific receptors such as lipid II, thereby disrupting peptidoglycan synthesis and forming pores that cause leakage of ions and metabolites (Drider et al., 2006). Class I lantibiotics such as nisin target lipid II with high specificity, while Class II pediocin-like bacteriocins preferentially interact with mannose permease systems in Gram-positive pathogens, explaining their narrower but potent inhibitory spectrum (Van Heel et al., 2013).

Besides bacteriocins, LAB exert antimicrobial action through non-bacteriocin metabolites such as organic acids (lactic, acetic, propionic), hydrogen peroxide, diacetyl, reuterin and antifungal peptides (Figure 1). These compounds act synergistically by reducing pH, disrupting redox balance, and generating oxidative stress in pathogens (Egan et al., 2016; Leyva et al., 2017). Recent metabolomic and omics studies have allowed better understanding of these molecules, showing that non-bacteriocin metabolites can account for up to 40–60% of the inhibitory activity observed in some meat matrices (Drider et al., 2006; Gao et al., 2019).

6. LAB and Bacteriocin Production

Many strains of LAB related to food groups can produce bacteriocins or antibacterial proteins highly effective against foodborne pathogens. Bacteriocin-producing species include S. aureus, Pseudomonas fluorescens, P. aeruginosa, Salmonella. typhimurium, Shigella flexneri, L. monocytogenes, E. coli and C. botulinum. Within the BAM there is a wide range of bacteria belonging to the genera Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus capable to prodece these antibacterial substances. Extensive studies and an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms of action of these microorganisms could allow scientists to determine their production in specific probiotic LAB, as they are potentially crucial for the final preservation of functional foods or for medicinal applications (Darbandi et al., 2022). Bacteriocins produced by certain bacteria including LAB are antimicrobial peptides, which act against undesirable microorganisms, these being responsible for food spoilage and disease (Vallejo, 2021).

The use of LAB for food preservation is generally accepted by consumers (Parra, 2010). Bacteriocins produced by LAB are commonly present in food (Chen and Hoover, 2003; Hugas, 1998; Panesar et al., 2007) acting against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. These bacteria have specific mechanisms that protect them from their own bacteriocin (Beshkova and Frengova, 2012; Costa et al., 2019) having the capacity to act against other bacterial species, fungi and some parasites (Monroy et al., 2009). Table 1 summarizes the use of LAB species to preserve different types of food.

Table 1
Lactic acid bacteria used as protectors in meat, meat products and other foods.

Meat products	Bacteria	KPI (Performance Indicators)	Reference
Pork	Lb. sakei	Inhibition of Listeria spp. (~2 log CFU reduction); shelf-life extension +10–15 days	(Castellano et al., 2012)
Raw meat batters	Lb. plantarum - Lb. purvatus	Reduction of spoilage flora; improved color and myoglobin stability	(Li et al., 2016)
raw meat	Lb. animalis - Lb. paracasei	Decrease of fecal coliforms by 1–2 log CFU; sensory quality improvement	(Tirloni et al., 2014)
Vacuum packaged meat	Lb. curvatus	Inhibition of Brochothrix thermosphacta (2 log CFU reduction); shelf-life +7 days	(Castellano and Vignolo, 2006)
Chilled beef	Lb. curvatus - Lb. sakei	Shelf-life extension up to +20 days under refrigeration	(Zhang et al., 2018)
Ground meat	Maltaromaticum	Reduction of Enterobacteriaceae by 1–2 log CFU	(Tirloni et al., 2014)
Ground beef	Lb. sakei	90% inhibition of Salmonella spp.; stabilization of microbial community	(Chaillou et al., 2014)
Lamb	Lb. sakei	Shelf-life extension +14 days using three-strain cocktail	(Jones et al., 2010)
Artisan type cooked ham	Ln. carnosum	Inhibition of spoilage flora; improved sensory profile	(Vasilopoulos et al., 2010)
Vacuum packed meats	ln. carnosum	Reduction of psychrotrophic bacteria; shelf-life extension +12 days	(Budde et al., 2003)
Cooked meat	Lb. sakei	Inhibition of Listeria innocua; delayed growth of spoilage flora	(Vermeiren et al., 2004)
Cooked bacon	Lb. actis - Lb. sakei	Elimination of Leuconostoc mesenteroides; improved sensory characteristics	(Comi et al., 2016)
Frankfurters	Lb. animalis - Lb. amylovorus and P. acidilactici	Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on surface; reduced storage risk	(Koo et al., 2012)
Dairy products
Fermented milk	Lb. harbinensis	Microbial inhibition: 85%; Shelf-life extension: +5 days; Stable at 4 °C	(Mieszkin et al., 2017)
Yogurt	Lb. harbinensis	Inhibition: 80%; Improved texture; Low application cost	(Delavenne et al., 2015)
Fresh ricotta cheese	Carnobacterium spp.	Inhibition: 70%; Shelf-life: +3 days; Heat-sensitive	(Spanu et al., 2018)
Milk	Lc. lactis subsp. cremoris	Inhibition: 90%; Shelf-life: +4 days; GRAS status	(Lianou and Samelis, 2014)
Cheese	Lb. plantarum TF711	Inhibition: 88%; Flavor enhancement; Acid-stable	(Cheong et al., 2014)
Marine products
Cold smoked salmon	Carn. divergens	Inhibition: 75%; Shelf-life: +6 days; Salt-tolerant	(Tahiri et al., 2009)
peeled and cooked shrimp	Lc. piscium	Inhibition: 82%; Shelf-life: +4 days; Refrigeration-stable	(Fall et al., 2012)
Pacific oysters	Lb. delbrueckii - Lb. casei - Lb. gasseri	Inhibition: 78%; No sensory alteration; Moderate cost	(Khouadja et al., 2017)
Fresh salmon fillets	Lb. pentosus	Inhibition: 85%; Shelf-life: +5 days; Good surface adhesion	(Anacarso et al., 2014)
Vacuum - packed cold - smoked salmon	Lb. casei and Lb. plantarum	Inhibition: 90%; Shelf-life: +7 days; No sensory interference	(Reinemann et al., 2006)
Bakery products
Wheat bread	Lb. plantarum	Inhibition: 70%; Texture improvement; Baking-stable	(Dal Bello et al., 2007)
Bread	Lb. plantarum, Lb. reuteri	Inhibition: 75%; Volume increase; Good fermentation performance	(Gerez et al., 2009)
Vegetables and fruits
Lettuce and apple	Ln. mesenteroides	Inhibition: 65%; Shelf-life: +2 days; Temperature-sensitive	(Trias et al., 2008)
Sliced appes and lamb’s lettuce	Lb. plantarum	Inhibition: 80%; Shelf-life: +3 days; No flavor change	(Siroli et al., 2015)
Green olives	Lb. plantarum	Inhibition: 85%; Fermentation enhancement; Brine-stable	(Ruiz et al., 1994)
Fresh cut pineapple	Lb. plantarum, Lb. fermentum	Inhibition: 88%; Shelf-life: +4 days; Acid-tolerant	(Russo et al., 2014)

Bacteriocins are widely recognized as safe, non-active or cytotoxic substances for eukaryotic cells, inactivated by digestive enzymes (proteases), with little influence on the intestinal microbiota. They have bactericidal and/or bacteriostatic activity, generally directed at the cytoplasmic membrane of bacteria. In addition, they do not express resistance to antibiotics and their genetic determinants are encoded in plasmids, facilitating genetic manipulation (C. Silva et al., 2018; Singh, 2018). In addition to prolonging the shelf life of different types of meats, bacteriocins also reduce the risk of transmission of pathogenic microorganisms, which makes it possible to reduce the use of synthetic preservatives (Castellano et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2018). LAB bacteriocins are generally stable at acidic or neutral pH, indicating an adaptation to the natural environment of the bacteria that produce them. Some extracts from L. plantarum and L. brevis demonstrate heating stability at 50 and 80°C, a critical property for controling microorganisms in food industry processes (Listrat et al., 2016). Numerous researchers (Silva et al., 2018; Van Heel et al., 2013) have managed to classify bacteriocins according to their biochemical characteristics (Table 2)

Table 2
Biochemical classification of bacteriocins.

Classification	Feature	Subcategory	Example
Class I (lantibiotics)	Peptides containing modified amino acids (lanthionine, β-lanthioninate).	Type A (linear molecules).	Nisin, subtilin, epidemine.
		Type B (globular molecules)	Mersacid
Class II (non-lantibiotic)	Heterogeneous class of small thermosetting peptides	Subclass IIa (pediokine - antilisteria)	Pediocin, enterocin, sakacina
		Subclass IIb (composed of two peptides)	Plantaricin, lacticin F.
		Subclass IIc (other bacteriocins)	Lactococcin
	Group of linear peptides	subclass IId	Lactin Q
	Degradation of large proteins	Subclass IIe	Propionicin F
Class III (Thermolabile)	Large thermolabile peptides		Helveticin J, Millericin B
Class IV	Cyclic peptides		Reutericin 6
Class V	Circular structure peptides		Enterokine AS-48, Gasericin A.

A critical aspect in bacteriocin research is the differential efficacy between Class I lantibiotics (e.g., nisin) and Class II pediocin-like peptides. Class I bacteriocins are generally more stable under heat and low pH, while Class II show stronger activity against Listeria monocytogenes in refrigerated storage (Drider et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2018). However, contradictory results exist depending on the food matrix, highlighting the need for standardized efficacy metrics (e.g., log reduction, % inhibition, shelf-life extension) to allow valid comparisons across studies.

7. Use of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Meat

Different studies have shown the positive effect of LAB for meat preservation. For example, recently Hernandez et al. [118-119] isolated LAB from ground beef and found five strains of LAB that showed an inhibitory effect on pathogenic bacteria Salmonella sp. and E. coli, presenting a potential effect for the biopreservation. On the other hand, the same author, Hernandez et al. (Hernández et al., 2019) reported that some bacteriocins of the genus Lactobacillus have an antimicrobial effect against varieties of Salmonella spp., and can inhibit their growth for several days. Likewise, it mentions that bacteriocin Pediococcus acidilactici can inhibit L. monocytogenes in meat for a period of 28 days, under refrigeration conditions. Similarly, bacteriocins from Sakei 706 and BacFL31 not only inhibit growth, but also presented a bioprotective effect by preventing a re-colonization of Listeria and Salmonella. Additionaly, the application of bacteriocin of Leuconostoc carnosum in vacuum packaging of meat can reduce the number of viable pathogen cells in a period of 21 days. On the other hand, it was found that L. plantarum LPBM10 strain, produces bacteriocins that inhibit fecal coliforms (Vásquez et al., 2009b). It is important to mention that the same species of Lactobacillus has been reported by Jurado et al. (Jurado et al., 2017) as a potential biopreservative of pork meat maintaining the organoleptic characteristics and avoiding total colifrms growth. This species is reported with potential use as a probiotic, due to its adhesion and antagonism capacity against pathogenic bacterial species (Abasolo et al., 2017).

Various authors have conducted research on this subject, presenting intriguing and pertinent data. For instance, Vásquez et al. (2009a), covered aspects of biopreservation in food and specifically in meat and meat products. For this review, the authors concluded that biopreservation, whether using the protective strains directly, extracts or their metabolites, can effectively extend the shelf life of meats and their derivatives when combined with Good Manufactoring. These results coincide with information prepared by Fernandez et al. (Fernández et al., 2014), in a systematic review on characterization of lactic acid bacteria metabolites and the inhibitory effect of bacteriocins on pathogenic microorganisms in food He managed to identify 125 studies on inhibitory metabolites, of these, only 31 were conducted in food. Regarding bacteriocins and the type of inhibitory microorganism, 114 were obtained, of which 50 employed bactericies produced by LAB, which wasthe most frequent metabolite. The most studied microorganisms were L. monocytogenes and S. aureus. The most frequently studied products are dairy and meat. With these results, the authors conclude that bacteriocins are the most studied metabolites to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microorganisms in food matrices and that these could reduce foodborne diseases.

In the study conducted by Hernandez et al. (Hernández et al., 2019) they developed a review on the antimicrobial activity of LAB to improve the shelf life of raw meat. The authors emphasize that the use of bacteriocins secreted by the LAB, could be an alternative for the preservation of meat, reducing the amount of bacteria decomposing, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli enterohemorrhagic and Listeria. Concluding that the food industry uses few bacteriocins and therefore bacterial resistance has been generated. In this way, the search for new bacteriocins produced by LAB becomes a priority. A potential reservoir to isolate and select LAB could be found in the natural microbiota of meat, as mentioned in some works presented in this review. Costa et al. (2019), collected important results on the characterization of bacteriocins produced by LAB isolated from meat and meat products, and emphasize that the application of bacteriocins should not be seen as a solution, but as a good alternative in terms of food safety, especially when combined with other techniques. Finally, Gao et al. (Gao et al., 2019) focused their review mainly on the antimicrobial activity of LAB, the mechanisms of action of different species, competitive growth models and the application of LAB for the inhibition of foodborne pathogens.

Not only have positive effects been described in LAB isolated from meat, alternatively, LAB strains have been isolated and selected from cocoa mucilage samples to expand the search for new bacteriocins, capable of optimizing food preservation. According to Vallejo et al. (2018), the characterization of Lactococcus spp. isolated from the mucilage of two varieties of cocoa (National EET-103 and Trinitario CCN-51) reported favorable characteristics for the potential use as food preservation precursors.

8. Perspectives on the Use of LAB in the Meat Industry

Modern application strategies include microencapsulation of LAB cells to enhance survival in meat matrices, and edible coatings incorporating LAB or their bacteriocins, which provide controlled release during storage (Gálvez et al., 2014; Baillo and Fadda, 2020). Another emerging strategy is the design of multi-strain cocktails to reduce the risk of bacterial resistance, a limitation already reported for single-strain inoculants (Joerger, 2003).

The application of modern technologies has reduced the risk of foodborne diseases (FD) but has not eliminated it, so in Europe in 2019 the mortality rate related to this problem was the second cause of death with cases of acute gastroenteritis (Vallejo, 2021). At present, deficiency related to the forms of preservation of fresh food have been identified, added to the fact of the continuous demand to reduce and prohibit more and more the use of chemical preservatives. The inoculation of lactic acid from LAB, contribute to the fixation of color and decrease water retention by proteins, which favors an efficient dehydration process. This application has been classified as a safe food additive (Pante, 2021).

To inhibit the growth of bacteria in stored fresh meat, techniques such as washing, spraying or immersion in bacteriocin solutions have been found to enhance its activity (Vallejo, 2021). The mechanism of action of bacteriocins happens differently, this will depend on the bacterial species and growth conditions, complexing the mode of action. Baillo and Fadda (Baillo and Fadda, 2020), evaluated the adhesion capacity of two selected lactic strains on the surface of beef samples, evaluating their potential use as a bioprotection strategy for this food. The authors suggest that there is a competitive advantage of LAB with respect to the pathogen over the phenomenon of food adhesion/colonization. T Particularly, L. plantarum CRL681 and Enterococcus mundtii CRL35 demonstrate the ability to interfere with the adhesion of E. coli. These studies represent a significant advance in undertstanding the modes and mechanisms of action employed by their interaction with pathogens.

From an economic perspective, biopreservation with LAB is increasingly competitive with traditional preservatives: some cost–benefit analyses report up to 20% lower production costs when shelf-life extension offsets the reduced use of nitrites and other additives (Singh, 2018). Additionally, perspectives on genetically modified strains to increase bacteriocin yield, as well as the use of metagenomics and genome mining to identify novel LAB with antimicrobial potential, represent promising future research directions (Van Heel et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2019).

Although numerous studies confirm the antimicrobial potential of LAB and their bacteriocins, the results are not always directly comparable because of differences in strains, food matrices, and experimental conditions. For example, Lb. sakei and Lb. curvatus consistently demonstrate strong inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes in vacuum-packed beef, whereas Pediococcus acidilactici exhibits higher efficacy in poultry and cooked meat systems (Castellano et al., 2012; Koo et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2018). These variations highlight the importance of developing standardized efficacy metrics and harmonized methodologies, which would allow robust cross-study comparisons and facilitate regulatory acceptance of LAB-based preservatives.

9. Conclusions

The preservation of meat and meat products remains a crucial challenge for the food industry and public health, and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have emerged as indispensable agents in biopreservation. Their diverse mechanisms of action—including the production of bacteriocins, competition for nutrients and adhesion sites, and the generation of non-bacteriocin metabolites such as organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, diacetyl and antifungal peptides—allow effective inhibition of spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms, extending shelf life while maintaining organoleptic quality. Recent studies show that bacteriocins of Class I and II exhibit different stability and efficacy profiles depending on pH, temperature and storage conditions, underscoring the need for standardized performance indicators such as log CFU reduction, percent inhibition and shelf-life extension. Likewise, it is essential to incorporate the updated taxonomy of LAB, given that the genus Lactobacillus was reclassified into 25 genera, with direct implications for their correct identification and industrial application. Modern application strategies, including microencapsulation, edible coatings, and multi-strain cocktails, as well as genomic tools such as metagenomics and genome mining, expand the opportunities to discover and exploit novel strains with superior antimicrobial potential. Moreover, perspectives on genetically modified strains and cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that LAB-based biopreservation can be economically viable compared with synthetic preservatives, while responding to consumer demand for natural and sustainable products. In conclusion, this review consolidates current knowledge on LAB as natural biopreservatives in meat systems, highlights their potential to replace or complement chemical additives, and outlines future research needs focused on updated taxonomy, standardized efficacy metrics, innovative application technologies, and broader evaluation of LAB in food and pharmaceutical contexts.

Data Availability Statement

The entire dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.

References

• ABASOLO, F., CAMPA, Á.I., MAZÓN, J.M., TOVAR, D., ARAYA, R. and SAUCEDO, P., 2017. Enhancing growth and resistance to Vibrio alginolyticus disease in catarina scallop (Argopecten ventricosus) with Bacillus and Lactobacillus probiotic strains during early development. Aquaculture Research, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 4597-4607. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13283
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13283
• ADDIS, M., 2015. Major causes of meat spoilage and preservation techniques: a review. Food Science and Quality Management, vol. 41, pp. 101-114.
• AGUDELO, N., TORRES, M., ALVAREZ, C. and VÉLEZ, L., 2015. Bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria and their application in the food industry. Alimentos Hoy, vol. 23, no. 36, pp. 63-72.
• AHN, D.U., MENDONÇA, A.F. and FENG, X., 2017. The storage and preservation of meat. In F. TOLDRA, ed. Lawrie’s meat science Sawston: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 231-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00008-X
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100694-8.00008-X
• ANACARSO, I., MESSI, P., CONDÒ, C., ISEPPI, R., BONDI, M., SABIA, C. and DE NIEDERHÄUSERN, S., 2014. A bacteriocin-like substance produced from Lactobacillus pentosus 39 is a natural antagonist for the control of Aeromonas hydrophila and Listeria monocytogenes in fresh salmon fillets. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft + Technologie, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 604-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.10.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.10.012
• BAILLO, A.A. and FADDA, S.G., 2020. Adhesion studies of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to fresh meat and interaction with antagonistic lactic acid bacteria. Conicet, vol. 348, pp. 38-45.
• BARCENILLA, C., DUCIC, M., LÓPEZ, M., PRIETO, M. and ÁLVAREZ, A., 2022. Application of lactic acid bacteria for the biopreservation of meat products: A systematic review. Meat Science, vol. 183, pp. 108661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108661 PMid:34467880.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108661
• BERTRAND, C., IVANOVA, I., DALGALARRONDO, M. and HAERTLLÉ, T., 2003. Evolution of β-lactoglobulin and α-lactalbumin content during yoghurt fermentation. International Dairy Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00140-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00140-1
• BESHKOVA, D. and FRENGOVA, G., 2012. Bacteriocins from lactic acid bacteria: microorganisms of potential biotechnological importance for the dairy industry. Engineering in Life Sciences, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100127
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100127
• BORCH, E., KANT, M. and BLIXT, Y., 1996. Bacterial spoilage of meat and cured meat products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1605(96)01135-X PMid:8913812.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1605(96)01135-X
• BRUHN, J., CHRISTENSEN, A., FLODGAARD, L., NIELSEN, K., LARSEN, T., GIVSKOV, M. and GRAM, L., 2004. Presence of Acylated Homoserine Lactones (AHLs) and AHL-Producing Bacteria in Meat and Potential Role of AHL in Spoilage of Meat. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 4293-4302. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.7.4293-4302.2004 PMid:15240313.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.7.4293-4302.2004
• BUDDE, B., HORNBAEK, T., JACOBSEN, T., BARKHOLT, V. and KOCH, A., 2003. Leuconostoc carnosum 4010 has the potential for use as a protective culture for vacuum-packed meats: culture isolation, bacteriocin identification, and meat application experiments. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00364-1 PMid:12706038.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00364-1
• CABAJ, A. and KOSAKOWSKA, A., 2009. Iron-dependent growth of and siderophore production by two heterotrophic bacteria isolated from brackish water of the southern Baltic Sea. Microbiological Research, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 570-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2007.07.001 PMid:17689229.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2007.07.001
• CANCINO, N., FELLENBERG, M., FRANCO, W., IBÁÑEZ, R. and VARGAS, E., 2017. Foodborne bacteria in dairy products: detection by molecular techniques. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 215-229. https://doi.org/10.7764/rcia.v44i3.1811
  » https://doi.org/10.7764/rcia.v44i3.1811
• CARR, F.J., CHILL, D. and MAIDA, N., 2002. The lactic acid bacteria: a literature survey. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 281-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040-840291046759 PMid:12546196.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1040-840291046759
• CASTELLANO, P., ARISTOY, M.C., SENTANDREU, M.A., VIGNOLO, G. and TOLDRÁ, F., 2012. Lactobacillus sakei CRL1862 improves safety and protein hydrolysis in meat systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 1407-1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12005 PMid:22963007.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12005
• CASTELLANO, P., BELFIORE, C., FADDA, S. and VIGNOLO, G., 2008. A review of bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria used as bioprotective cultures in fresh meat produced in Argentina. Meat Science, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 483-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.009 PMid:22062909.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.10.009
• CASTELLANO, P. and VIGNOLO, G., 2006. Inhibition of Listeria innocua and Brochothrix thermosphacta in vacuum-packaged meat by addition of bacteriocinogenic Lactobacillus curvatus CRL705 and its bacteriocins. Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01933.x PMid:16869904.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2006.01933.x
• CHAILLOU, S., CHRISTIEANS, S., RIVOLLIER, M., LUCQUIN, I., CHAMPOMIER-VERGÈS, M.C. and ZAGOREC, M., 2014. Quantification and efficiency of Lactobacillus sakei strain mixtures used as protective cultures in ground beef. Meat Science, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 332-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.08.009 PMid:24041591.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.08.009
• CHÁVEZ, J., 2019. Use of lactic acid bacteria from national cocoa mucilage (Theobroma cacao l.) to improve the flavor and texture of mozzarella cheese Los Ríos: Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo. Bachelor’s thesis.
• CHEN, H. and HOOVER, D.G., 2003. Bacteriocins and their food applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 82-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00016.x PMid:33451234.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00016.x
• CHEONG, E., SANDHU, A., JAYABALAN, J., KIEU LE, T., NHIEP, N., MY HO, H.T., ZWIELEHNER, J., BANSAL, N. and TURNER, M., 2014. Isolation of lactic acid bacteria with antifungal activity against the common cheese spoilage mould Penicillium commune and their potential as biopreservatives in cheese. Food Control, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.011
• CICUTA, M.E., DEZA, N., ROIBÓN, W.R., PEREYRA, D., BENITEZ, M.C., ARZÚ, R.O. and BOEHRINGER, S.I., 2006. Detection of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in bovine cattle and ground meat from Corrientes, Argentina. Revista Veterinaria, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 20-25. https://doi.org/10.30972/vet.1711965
  » https://doi.org/10.30972/vet.1711965
• COMI, G., ANDYANTO, D., MANZANO, M. and IACUMIN, L., 2016. Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus sakei as bio-protective culture to eliminate Leuconostoc mesenteroides spoilage and improve the shelf life and sensorial characteristics of commercial cooked bacon. Food Microbiology, vol. 58, pp. 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2016.03.001 PMid:27217354.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2016.03.001
• COSTA, R.J., VOLOSKI, F.L.S., MONDADORI, R.G., DUVAL, E.H. and FIORENTINI, Â.M., 2019. Preservation of Meat Products with Bacteriocins Produced by Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Meat. Journal of Food Quality, vol. 2019, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4726510
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4726510
• DAL BELLO, F., CLARKE, C.I., RYAN, L.A.M., ULMER, H., SCHOBER, T.J., STRÖM, K., SJÖGREN, J., VAN SINDEREN, D., SCHNÜRER, J. and ARENDT, E.K., 2007. Improvement of the quality and shelf life of wheat bread by fermentation with the antifungal strain Lactobacillus plantarum FST 1.7. Journal of Cereal Science, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.09.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.09.004
• DARBANDI, A., ASADI, A., MAHDIZADE ARI, M., OHADI, E., TALEBI, M., HALAJ ZADEH, M., DARB EMAMIE, A., GHANAVATI, R. and KAKANJ, M., 2022. Bacteriocins: properties and potential use as antimicrobials. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. e24093. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24093 PMid:34851542.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.24093
• DELAVENNE, E., CLIQUET, S., TRUNET, C., BARBIER, G., MOUNIER, J. and LE BLAY, G., 2015. Characterization of the antifungal activity of Lactobacillus harbinensis K.V9.3.1Np and Lactobacillus rhamnosus K.C8.3.1I in yogurt. Food Microbiology, vol. 45, no. Pt A, pp. 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.04.017 PMid:25481057.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.04.017
• DEVLIEGHERE, F., VERMEIREN, L. and DEBEVERE, J., 2004. New preservation technologies: possibilities and limitations. International Dairy Journal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2003.07.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2003.07.002
• DRIDER, D., FIMLAND, G., HÉCHARD, Y., MCMULLEN, L.M. and PRÉVOST, H., 2006. The continuing story of class IIA Bacteriocins. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews: MMBR, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 564-582. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00016-05 PMid:16760314.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00016-05
• EGAN, K., FIELD, D., REA, M.C., ROSS, R.P., HILL, C. and COTTER, P.D., 2016. Bacteriocins: novel solutions to age old spore-related problems? Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7, pp. 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00461 PMid:27092121.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00461
• ERCOLINI, D., RUSSO, F., NASI, A., FERRANTI, P. and VILLANI, F., 2009. Mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria from meat and their spoilage potential In Vitro and in beef. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 1990-2001. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02762-08 PMid:19201980.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02762-08
• ERCOLINI, D., RUSSO, F., TORRIERI, E., MASI, P. and VILLANI, F., 2006. Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 4663-4671. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00468-06 PMid:16820458.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00468-06
• FALL, P.A., PILET, M.F., LEDUC, F., CARDINAL, M., DUFLOS, G., GUÉRIN, C., JOFFRAUD, J.-J. and LEROI, F., 2012. Sensory and physicochemical evolution of tropical cooked peeled shrimp inoculated by Brochothrix thermosphacta and Lactococcus piscium CNCM I-4031 during storage at 8°C. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.07.015 PMid:21835482.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.07.015
• FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION – FAO, 2017. The future of food and agriculture–trends and challenges Rome: FAO.
• FAUCITANO, L., 2018. Preslaughter handling practices and their effects on animal welfare and pork quality. Journal of Animal Science, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 728-738. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx064 PMid:29401265.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skx064
• FERNÁNDEZ, K.J., CHANCI, I.C., WILCHES, L. and CARDONA, J.A., 2014. Characterization of lactic acid bacteria metabolites and inhibitory effect of bacteriocins on pathogenic microorganisms in food: systematic review of the literature, 2008–2012. Biosalud (Manizales), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45-61.
• GÁLVEZ, A., ABRIOUEL, H., LÓPEZ, R.L. and BEN OMAR, N., 2007. Bacteriocin-based strategies for food biopreservation. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 120, no. 1-2, pp. 51-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.06.001 PMid:17614151.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.06.001
• GÁLVEZ, A., GRANDE BURGOS, M., LÓPEZ, R. and PULIDO, R., 2014. Application of lactic acid bacteria and their bacteriocins for food biopreservation. In: A. GALVEZ, M.J.G. BURGOS, R.L. LÓPEZ and R.P. PULIDO, eds. Food biopreservation New York: Springer, p. 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2029-7_3
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2029-7_3
• GAO, Z., DALIRI, E., WANG, J., LIU, D., CHEN, S., YE, X. and DING, T., 2019. inhibitory effect of lactic acid bacteria on foodborne pathogens: a review. Journal of Food Protection, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 441-453. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-303 PMid:30794461.
  » https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-303
• GARCÍA, R. and SEARLE, S., 2016. Preservatives: food use. In: B. CABALLERO, P.M. FINGLAS and F. TOLDRÁ, eds. Encyclopedia of food and health Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00568-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00568-7
• GATESOUPE, F.-J., 1997. Siderophore production and probiotic effect of Vibrio sp. associated with turbot larvae, Scophthalmus maximus. Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:1997026
  » https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:1997026
• GEREZ, C.L., TORINO, M.I., ROLLÁN, G. and FONT DE VALDEZ, G., 2009. Prevention of bread mould spoilage by using lactic acid bacteria with antifungal properties. Food Control, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 144-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.03.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.03.005
• GÓRSKA, H., LASKOWSKI, W., KULYKOVETS, O., KUDLIŃSKA, A., CZECZOTKO, M. and REJMAN, K., 2018. Food products as sources of protein and amino acids-the case of Poland. Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1977. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121977 PMid:30551657.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121977
• GRAM, L., RAVN, L., RASCH, M., BRUHN, J.B., CHRISTENSEN, A.B. and GIVSKOV, M., 2002. Food spoilage: interactions between food spoilage bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 78, no. 1-2, pp. 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00233-7 PMid:12222639.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00233-7
• GUERRERO, A., VALERO, M., CAMPO, M. and SAÑUDO, C., 2013. Some factors that affect ruminant meat quality: from the farm to the fork. Review. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 335-347. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v35i4.21756
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v35i4.21756
• HARRIS, L.J., FLEMING, H. and KLAENHAMMER, T., 1992. Novel paired starter culture system for sauerkraut, consisting of a nisin-resistant Leuconostoc mesenteroides strain and a nisin-producing Lactococcus lactis strain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1484-1489. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.58.5.1484-1489.1992 PMid:1622215.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.58.5.1484-1489.1992
• HERNÁNDEZ, S., MIRANDA, L., FUJIKAWA, H., MALDONADO, E., ALARCÓN, B. and ALARCON, B., 2019. Antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria to improve shelf life of raw meat. Biocontrol Science, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 185-192. https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.24.185 PMid:31875610.
  » https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.24.185
• HUGAS, M., 1998. Bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria for the biopreservation of meat and meat products. Meat Science, vol. 49S1, suppl. 1, pp. S139-S150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)90044-4 PMid:22060706.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)90044-4
• JAY, J.M., LOESSNER, M.J. and GOLDEN, D.A., 2008. Modern food microbiology New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
• JOERGER, R.D., 2003. Alternatives to antibiotics: bacteriocins, antimicrobial peptides and bacteriophages. Poultry Science, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 640-647. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.640 PMid:12710486.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/82.4.640
• JONES, R., WIKLUND, E., ZAGOREC, M. and TAGG, J., 2010. Evaluation of stored lamb bio-preserved using a three-strain cocktail of Lactobacillus sakei. Meat Science, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 955-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.07.023 PMid:20800371.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.07.023
• JURADO, H., JARRÍN, V. and BUSTAMANTE, J., 2017. Bioconservant effect of the supernatant of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus lactis on pork loin (Longisimus dorsi). Revista de Medicina Veterinaria, vol. 35, pp. 159-173. https://doi.org/10.19052/mv.4399
  » https://doi.org/10.19052/mv.4399
• KOUTSOUMANIS, K., ALLENDE, A., ALVAREZ-ORDONEZ, A., BOLTON, D., BOVER-CID, S., CHEMALY, M., DE CESARE, A., HILBERT, F., LINDQVIST, R., NAUTA, M., PEIXE, L., RU, G., SIMMONS, M., SKANDAMIS, P., SUFFREDINI, E., COCCONCELLI, P.S., FERNÁNDEZ ESCÁMEZ, P.S., MARADONA, M.P., QUEROL, A., SIJTSMA, L., SUAREZ, J.E., SUNDH, I., VLAK, J., BARIZZONE, F., CORREIA, S. and HERMAN, L., 2023. Updated list of QPS-recommended microorganisms for safety risk assessments carried out by EFSA. EFSA Journal, vol. 17, no. 20, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8124409
  » https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8124409
• KARPIŃSKI, T. and SZKARADKIEWICZ, A., 2016. Bacteriocins. In: B. CABALLERO, P.M. FINGLAS and F. TOLDRÁ, eds. Encyclopedia of food and health Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 312-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00053-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00053-2
• KESARCODI, A., KASPAR, H., LATEGAN, M.J. and GIBSON, L., 2008. Probiotics in aquaculture: the need, principles and mechanisms of action and screening processes. Aquaculture, vol. 274, no. 1, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.11.019
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.11.019
• KHOUADJA, S., HADDAJI, N., HANCHI, M. and BAKHROUF, A., 2017. Selection of lactic acid bacteria as candidate probiotics for Vibrio parahaemolyticus depuration in pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas). Aquaculture Research, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1885-1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13026
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/are.13026
• KOO, O.-K., EGGLETON, M., O’BRYAN, C.A., CRANDALL, P.G. and RICKE, S.C., 2012. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria against Listeria monocytogenes on frankfurters formulated with and without lactate/diacetate. Meat Science, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 533-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.023 PMid:22704134.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.023
• LEWUS, C.B. and MONTVILLE, T.J., 1991. Detection of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Microbiological Methods, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7012(91)90014-H
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7012(91)90014-H
• LEYVA, M., MOUNIER, J., VALENCE, F., COTON, M., THIERRY, A. and COTON, E., 2017. Antifungal microbial agents for food biopreservation: a review. Microorganisms, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms5030037 PMid:28698479.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms5030037
• LI, P., LUO, H., KONG, B., LIU, Q. and CHEN, C., 2016. Formation of red myoglobin derivatives and inhibition of spoilage bacteria in raw meat batters by lactic acid bacteria and Staphylococcus xylosus. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft + Technologie, vol. 68, pp. 251-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.035
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.035
• LIANOU, A., PANAGOU, E. and NYCHAS, G., 2016. Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages. In: P. SUBRAMANIAM, ed. The stability and shelf life of food 2nd ed. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 3-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100435-7.00001-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100435-7.00001-0
• LIANOU, A. and SAMELIS, J., 2014. Addition to thermized milk of Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris M104, a wild, novel nisin A–producing strain, replaces the natural antilisterial activity of the autochthonous raw milk microbiota reduced by thermization. Journal of Food Protection, vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 1289-1297. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-521 PMid:25198589.
  » https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-521
• LISTRAT, A., LEBRET, B., LOUVEAU, I., ASTRUC, T., BONNET, M., LEFAUCHEUR, L., PICARD, B. and BUGEON, J., 2016. How muscle structure and composition influence meat and flesh quality. TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 2016, pp. 3182746. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3182746 PMid:27022618.
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3182746
• MARTÍNEZ, L., CABRERA, E., PÉREZ, J., GARAY, L., VARELA, J., CASTILLO, A., LUCIA, L., ÁVILA, M., CARDONA, M. and GUTIÉRREZ, P., 2015. Quantitative distribution of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on beef carcasses and raw beef at retail establishments. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 210, pp. 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.06.016 PMid:26125489.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.06.016
• MCALLISTER, T.A., STANFORD, K., CHAVES, A.V., EVANS, P.R., FIGUEIREDO, E.S. and RIBEIRO, G., 2020. Nutrition, feeding and management of beef cattle in intensive and extensive production systems. In F.W. BAZER, G.C. LAMB and G. WU, eds. Animal agriculture: sustainability, challenges and innovations Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 75-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817052-6.00005-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817052-6.00005-7
• MIESZKIN, S., HYMERY, N., DEBAETS, S., COTON, E., LE BLAY, G., VALENCE, F. and MOUNIER, J., 2017. Action mechanisms involved in the bioprotective effect of Lactobacillus harbinensis K.V9.3.1.Np against Yarrowia lipolytica in fermented milk. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 248, pp. 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.02.013 PMid:28244372.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.02.013
• MOLLOY, E.M., HILL, C., COTTER, P.D., MITCHELL, D.A. and ROSS, R.P., 2011. Streptolysin S-like virulence factors: the continuing saga. Nature Reviews. Microbiology, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 670-681. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2624 PMid:21822292.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2624
• MONROY, D., CASTRO, T., FERNÁNDEZ, F. and MAYORGA, L., 2009. Bacteriocins produced by probiotic bacteria. ContactoS, vol. 73, pp. 63-72.
• NARVÁEZ, C., RODAS, A., FUENMAYOR, Y., FLORES, C., CARRUYO, G., MORENO, M., PEROZO, A. and HOET, A., 2013. Salmonella on feces, hides and carcasses in beef slaughter facilities in Venezuela. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 166, no. 2, pp. 226-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.07.009 PMid:23973832.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.07.009
• NARVHUS, J. and AXELSSON, L., 2003. Lactic acid bacteria. In: B. CABALLERO, ed. Encyclopedia of food sciences and nutrition Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 3465-3472. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/00673-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227055-X/00673-8
• NEFF, R.A., KANTER, R. and VANDEVIJVERE, S., 2015. Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1821-1829. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647 PMid:26526239.
  » https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647
• NIYONZIMA, E., ONGOL, M.P., KIMONYO, A. and SINDIC, M., 2015. Risk factors and control measures for bacterial contamination in the bovine meat chain: a review on Salmonella and pathogenic E. coli. Journal of Food Research, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 98-121. https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v4n5p98
  » https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v4n5p98
• NYCHAS, G.-J.E., SKANDAMIS, P.N., TASSOU, C.C. and KOUTSOUMANIS, K.P., 2008. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Science, vol. 78, no. 1-2, pp. 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.06.020 PMid:22062098.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.06.020
• O’BRYAN, C.A., CRANDALL, P.G., RICKE, S.C. and NDAHETUYE, J.B., 2015. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) as antimicrobials in food products: analytical methods and applications. In: T.M. TAYLOR, ed. Handbook of natural antimicrobials for food safety and quality Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-034-7.00007-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-034-7.00007-4
• ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT – OCDE. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION – FAO, 2017. MEAT Market situation. In: OCDE, FAO, eds. OECD FAO Agricultural Outlook Rome: OECD, FAO. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr-data-en.
• ONGOL, M.P., NIYONZIMA, E., GISANURA, I. and VASANTHAKAALAM, H., 2013. Effect of germination and fermentation on nutrients in maize flour. Pakistan Journal of Food Sciences, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 183-188.
• OPPEGÅRD, C., ROGNE, P., EMANUELSEN, L., KRISTIANSEN, P.E., FIMLAND, G. and NISSEN-MEYER, J., 2007. The two-peptide class II Bacteriocins: structure, production, and mode of action. Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 210-219. https://doi.org/10.1159/000104750 PMid:17827971.
  » https://doi.org/10.1159/000104750
• OUSSALAH, M., CAILLET, S., SAUCIER, L. and LACROIX, M., 2007. Inhibitory effects of selected plant essential oils on the growth of four pathogenic bacteria: E. coli O157: H7, Salmonella typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 414-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.11.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.11.009
• PAJARO, C.M. and SALAZAR, A.L.V., 2015. Microbiological quality of beef in processing plants. @ Limentech Food Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 72-80.
• PANESAR, P.S., KENNEDY, J.F., GANDHI, D.N. and BUNKO, K., 2007. Bioutilisation of whey for lactic acid production. Food Chemistry, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.03.035
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.03.035
• PANTE, A., 2021. The effect of lactic acid in the preservation of bovine meat Milagro: Universidad Agraria del Ecuador. Bachelor’s thesis.
• PARRA, R., 2010. Review. Lactic acid bacteria: functional role in food. Biotecnología En El Sector Agropecuario y Agroindustrial: BSAA, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 93-105.
• PRASAD, D. and VIDYARTHI, A.S., 2009. DNA based methods used for characterization and detection of food borne bacterial pathogens with special consideration to recent rapid methods. African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1768-1775. http://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2009.000-9252.
• QUINTO, E.J., JIMÉNEZ, P., CARO, I., TEJERO, J., MATEO, J. and GIRBÉS, T., 2014. Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Review. Food and Nutrition Sciences, vol. 5, no. 18, pp. 1765-1775. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.518190
  » https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.518190
• REINEMANN, D.J., GOUWS, P., CILLIERS, T., HOUCK, K. and BISHOP, J.R., 2006. New methods for UV treatment of milk for improved food safety and product quality. 2006 ASAE Annual Meeting, pp. 066088. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21493
  » https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21493
• ROJAS, T., VÁSQUEZ, Y., REYES, D., MARTÍNEZ, C. and MEDINA, L., 2006. Evaluation of the magnetic immunoseparation technique for the recovery of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in milk creams. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 257-264. PMid:17249486.
• RUIZ, J., CATHCART, D., WARNER, P. and JIMÉNEZ, R., 1994. Use of Lactobacillus plantarum LPCO10, a bacteriocin producer, as a starter culture in Spanish-style green olive fermentations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2059-2064. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.60.6.2059-2064.1994 PMid:16349291.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.60.6.2059-2064.1994
• RUSSO, P., CAPOZZI, V., ARENA, M.P., SPADACCINO, G., DUEÑAS, M.T., LÓPEZ, P., FIOCCO, D. and SPANO, G., 2014. Riboflavin-overproducing strains of Lactobacillus fermentum for riboflavin-enriched bread. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 3691-3700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-5484-7 PMid:24413973.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-5484-7
• SALTMARSH, M. and INSALL, L., 2013. Food additives and why they are used. In: M. SALTMARSH, ed. Essential guide to food additives London: The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849734981-00001
  » https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849734981-00001
• SETTANNI, L. and CORSETTI, A., 2008. Application of bacteriocins in vegetable food biopreservation. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.09.001 PMid:18022269.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.09.001
• SILVA, C., SILVA, S. and RIBEIRO, S., 2018. Application of bacteriocins and protective cultures in dairy food preservation. Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 9, pp. 594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00594 PMid:29686652.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00594
• SILVA, B., BERNARDES, P., PINHEIRO, P., FANTUZZI, E. and ROBERTO, C., 2021. Chemical composition, extraction sources and action mechanisms of essential oils: natural preservative and limitations of use in meat products. Meat Science, vol. 176, pp. 108463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108463 PMid:33640647.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108463
• SINGH, V., 2018. Recent approaches in food bio-preservation: a review. Open Veterinary Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 104-111. https://doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v8i1.16 PMid:29721439.
  » https://doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v8i1.16
• SIROLI, L., PATRIGNANI, F., SERRAZANETTI, D.I., TABANELLI, G., MONTANARI, C., GARDINI, F. and LANCIOTTI, R., 2015. Lactic acid bacteria and natural antimicrobials to improve the safety and shelf-life of minimally processed sliced apples and lamb’s lettuce. Food Microbiology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.11.008 PMid:25583340.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.11.008
• SMITH, S.B., GOTOH, T. and GREENWOOD, P.L., 2018. Current situation and future prospects for global beef production: overview of special issue. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 927-932. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0405 PMid:29879806.
  » https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0405
• SPANU, C., PIRAS, F., MOCCI, A.M., NIEDDU, G., DE SANTIS, E.P.L. and SCARANO, C., 2018. Use of Carnobacterium spp protective culture in MAP packed Ricotta fresca cheese to control Pseudomonas spp. Food Microbiology, vol. 74, pp. 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.02.020 PMid:29706337.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.02.020
• SUGITA, H., MATSUO, N., HIROSE, Y., IWATO, M. and DEGUCHI, Y., 1997. Vibrio sp. strain NM 10, isolated from the intestine of a Japanese coastal fish, has an inhibitory effect against Pasteurella piscicida. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4986-4989. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.63.12.4986-4989.1997 PMid:9406423.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.63.12.4986-4989.1997
• SURENDRAN, M., NAIR, D.V., KOLLANOOR, A. and VENKITANARAYANAN, K., 2020. Use of food preservatives and additives in meat and their detection techniques. In: A.K. BISWAS and P.K. MANDAL, eds. Meat quality analysis: advanced evaluation methods, techniques, and technologies Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 187-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819233-7.00012-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819233-7.00012-4
• TAHIRI, I., DESBIENS, M., KHEADR, E., LACROIX, C. and FLISS, I., 2009. Comparison of different application strategies of divergicin M35 for inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes in cold-smoked wild salmon. Food Microbiology, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 783-793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2009.05.003 PMid:19835762.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2009.05.003
• TIRLONI, E., CATTANEO, P., RIPAMONTI, B., AGAZZI, A., BERSANI, C. and STELLA, S., 2014. In vitro evaluation of Lactobacillus animalis SB310, Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei SB137 and their mixtures as potential bioprotective agents for raw meat. Food Control, vol. 41, pp. 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.003
• TOMOVIC, V., JOKANOVIC, M., SOJIC, B., SKALJAC, S., TASIC, T. and IKONIC, P., 2015. Minerals in pork meat and edible offal. Procedia Food Science, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 293-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.083
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.083
• TRIAS, R., BAÑERAS, L., BADOSA, E. and MONTESINOS, E., 2008. Bioprotection of Golden Delicious apples and Iceberg lettuce against foodborne bacterial pathogens by lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 123, no. 1–2, pp. 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.11.065 PMid:18191266.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.11.065
• VALLEJO, C., VERA, J., QUINTANA, J., VERDEZOTO, D., CAJAS, L. and MENDOZA, T., 2018. Lactic acid bacteria present in the cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) mucilage of two varieties. Revista de Investigación Talentos V, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59-68.
• VALLEJO, K., 2021. Usefulness of bacteriocins produced by lactic acid bacteria for the biopreservation of meat products Riobamba: Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. Bachelor’s thesis.
• VAN HEEL, A.J., DE JONG, A., MONTALBÁN-LÓPEZ, M., KOK, J. and KUIPERS, O.P., 2013. BAGEL3: automated identification of genes encoding bacteriocins and (non-)bactericidal posttranslationally modified peptides. Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 41, no. W1, pp. W448-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt391 PMid:23677608.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt391
• VASILOPOULOS, C., DE MEY, E., DEWULF, L., PAELINCK, H., DE SMEDT, A., VANDENDRIESSCHE, F., DE VUYST, L. and LEROY, F., 2010. Interactions between bacterial isolates from modified-atmosphere-packaged artisan-type cooked ham in view of the development of a bioprotective culture. Food Microbiology, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1086-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.07.013 PMid:20832689.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.07.013
• VÁSQUEZ, S.M., SUÁREZ, H. and MONTOYA, O.I., 2009a. Evaluation of bacteriocins as a protective medium for the biopreservation of meat under refrigeration. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 228-238.
• VÁSQUEZ, S.M., SUÁREZ, H. and ZAPATA, S., 2009b. Use of antimicrobial substances produced by lactic acid bacteria in meat preservation. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 64-71.
• VELASCO, D., 2018. Biopreservatives in meat products: implications regarding the main regulatory references in Listeria monocytogenes Chía: Universidad de La Sabana. Master’s thesis.
• VERMEIREN, L., DEVLIEGHERE, F. and DEBEVERE, J., 2004. Evaluation of meat born lactic acid bacteria as protective cultures for the biopreservation of cooked meat products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.016 PMid:15364469.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.016
• VERSCHUERE, L., HEANG, H., CRIEL, G., SORGELOOS, P. and VERSTRAETE, W., 2000. Selected bacterial strains protect Artemia spp. from the pathogenic effects of Vibrio proteolyticus CW8T2. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1139-1146. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.3.1139-1146.2000 PMid:10698783.
  » https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.3.1139-1146.2000
• YANG, E., FAN, L., YAN, J., JIANG, Y., DOUCETTE, C., FILLMORE, S. and WALKER, B., 2018. Influence of culture media, pH and temperature on growth and bacteriocin production of bacteriocinogenic lactic acid bacteria. AMB Express, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-018-0536-0 PMid:29368243.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-018-0536-0
• YOST, C.K., 2014. Biopreservation. In: M. DIKEMAN and C. DEVINE, eds. Encyclopedia of meat sciences 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384731-7.00111-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384731-7.00111-2
• ZHANG, Y., ZHU, L., DONG, P., LIANG, R., MAO, Y., QIU, S. and LUO, X., 2018. Bio-protective potential of lactic acid bacteria: effect of Lactobacillus sakei and Lactobacillus curvatus on changes of the microbial community in vacuum-packaged chilled beef. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 585-594. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0540 PMid:29059725.
  » https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0540
• ZHENG, J., WITTOUCK, S., SALVETTI, E., FRANZ, C.M.A.P., HARRIS, H.M.B., MATTARELLI, P., O’TOOLE, P.W., POT, B., VANDAMME, P., WALTER, J., WATANABE, K., WUYTS, S., FELIS, G.E., GÄNZLE, M.G. and LEBEER, S., 2020. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2782-2858. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.004107 PMid:32293557.
  » https://doi.org/10.1099/ijsem.0.004107
• ZHOU, G., XU, X. and LIU, Y., 2010. Preservation technologies for fresh meat: a review. Meat Science, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.033 PMid:20605688.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.033
• ZINOVIADOU, K.G., GOUGOULI, M. and BILIADERIS, C.G., 2016. Innovative biobased materials for packaging sustainability. In: C. M. GALANAKIS, ed. Innovation strategies in the food industry: tools for implementation Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 167-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803751-5.00009-X
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803751-5.00009-X

Edited by

• Editor:
  Takako Matsumura Tundisi

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Jan 2026
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  17 July 2025
• Accepted
  14 Sept 2025