Effect of Fermentation on Enhancing the Nutraceutical Properties of Arthrospira Platensis (Spirulina)

Home , Arthrospira, Lactobacillus plantarum, Spirulina (genus)

fermentation

Article Effect of Fermentation on Enhancing the Nutraceutical Properties of Arthrospira platensis (Spirulina)

Elena de Marco Castro , Emer Shannon and Nissreen Abu-Ghannam * School of Food Science and Environmental Health, Technological University Dublin—City Campus, Dublin D01 HV58, Ireland; [email protected] (E.d.M.C.); [email protected] (E.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +353-1402-7570

Received: 20 February 2019; Accepted: 12 March 2019; Published: 19 March 2019

Abstract: Arthrospira platensis (spirulina), a filamentous fresh-water planktonic cyanobacterium, possesses diverse biological activities and a unique nutritional profile, due to its high content of valuable nutrients. This study aimed to further improve the bioactive profile of spirulina, by fermenting it with the lactic acid bacterium Lactobacillus plantarum. In vitro comparison of the total phenolic content (TPC), C-phycocyanin, free methionine, DPPH radical scavenging capacity, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) and protein fragmentation via SDS-PAGE in untreated versus 12 to 72 h fermented spirulina is reported here. After 36 h fermentation, TPC was enhanced by 112%, FRAP by 85% and ORAC by 36%. After 24 h, the DPPH radical scavenging capacity increased 60%, while the free methionine content increased by 94%, after 72 h. Past 36 h of fermentation, the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) diminished, possibly due to deterioration of the heat-sensitive antioxidants. However, protein fragmentation and free methionine content increased, linearly, with the fermentation time. Cyanobacterial peptides and other bioactive compounds trapped within the spirulina cell wall are released during fermentation and have a significant potential as a functional ingredient in nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals, in addition to their nutritive value.

Keywords: spirulina; lactic acid fermentation; cyanobacteria; antioxidant capacity; protein; nutraceutical compound

1. Introduction Cyanobacteria, the most archaic group of oxygenic phototrophs, were first named in the 8th edition of Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology in 1974. Prior to that, cyanobacteria were termed blue-green algae, as they are found in water and contain the photosynthetic pigments—chlorophyll (green) and phycocyanin (blue) [1]. Although cyanobacteria have been consumed as a food for centuries, their commercial production began only in recent years in Japan, later spreading to America, Australia, and certain European and Asian countries [2]. The Arthrospira species falls under the prokaryotic cyanobacteria category. Arthrospira platensis, hereafter referred to as spirulina, is a planktonic filamentous cyanobacterium of the Phormidiaceae family and is part of the phytoplankton biomass found in alkaline water [3]. Approximately 3000 tones (dw) are produced per year by commercial brands, for the purpose of dietary supplements, cosmetics, food dyes, and aquaculture. The utilisation of cyanobacteria in the healthy food industry is fast growing, as they are a relatively easy-to-produce, cost-effective source of valuable biomolecules [4]. In particular, spirulina has an enhanced nutritional profile with high bioavailability of essential amino acids (64 to 74% protein content), biliproteins, and other pigments, such as allophycocyanin, C-phycocyanin, a-chlorophyll, B and E vitamins, mineral substances and trace elements, glycolipids, sulpholipids, and essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, including γ-linoleic acid [5,6]. They are readily absorbed in the body and

Fermentation 2019, 5, 28; doi:10.3390/fermentation5010028 www.mdpi.com/journal/fermentation Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 2 of 16

help to bring the nutrient status up to normal levels [7]. They also provide therapeutic properties in the treatment and prevention of a variety of disorders, including hypercholesterolaemia [8], diabetes [9], various types of cancer [10], and atherosclerosis [11]. Recently, spirulina has been studied for the prevention and treatment of diabetes, malnutrition, as an antiviral agent, immune-stimulator, anti-inflammatory and anticancer supplementation, improved digestive capacity, as well as the growth of Lactobacilli in the gut [12–14]. Spirulina is extensively grown for nutraceutical compounds, functional food development and other purposes, including food additives, such as natural pigments, thickening and gelling agents, animal feed, and medicinal bioassays. Spirulina is indicated as a nontoxic supplement and has been declared to be a Humanitarian Instrument in fighting severe malnutrition, by the WHO [15]. Spirulina has significantly enhanced biomarkers of mammalian health in vivo, when incorporated as 0.1–1.0% of daily feed. Reported enhancements include probiotic, antioxidant, analgesic, anti-allergic, growth, antiviral, antidiuretic, hypocholesterolaemic, anti-carcinogenic, and cardiovascular protective effects [16,17]. Fermentation is widely used as a food preservation method. However, the use of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) to improve the nutraceutical profile of food (Figure1) is a novel area of study. LAB have the ability to degrade plant and cyanobacterial cell walls, via hydrolysis, resulting in the conversion of complex organic compounds, such as polysaccharides, lipids and proteins, within the cell, into smaller molecules with enhanced antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory activity [18–21]. Among LAB, L. plantarum has been studied as a suitable strain for the fermentation of food, due to its endogenous enzymes, which are capable of producing antioxidants such as, hydroxytyrosol and pyrogallol, or approved flavouring agents, like 4-vinyl phenol [22]. Furthermore, via peptide bond hydrolysis of inactive parent proteins, LAB proteases yield bioactive peptides with multiple health benefits, such as ACE-inhibition, modulation of the immune system and antioxidant activity [23]. Fermented foods are a new trend in the nutrition-health sector for the increasing number of consumers seekingFermentation natural 2019 sources, 5, x FOR PEER of bioavailable REVIEW nutraceuticals, in nutrient-dense foods, while enjoying3 of 16 new flavours, textures and aromas with no, or reduced, requirement for synthetic additives [24,25].

LAB fermentation

Increase in Degradation of Release of bioactive nutrient anti-nutritional compounds from density factors conjugated phytochemicals

Reduction of Including Probiotic load Synthesis of: sugar content phytates, Derivatives of saponins, glucosinate tannins, (anticancer cyanogens and properties) Exopolysaccharides trypsin (prebiotic effect) inhibitors Bioactive peptides (immuno and Secondary cardiovascular metabolites: short protection and anti- chain fatty acids inflammatory and vitamins activity) (Cardiovascular and diabetic health effects) Hydrolysis of phenolic compounds: more free assimilable phenolic acids

73 Figure 1. Enhancements of the nutritional quality of foods during lactic acid fermentation. 74 Figure 1. Enhancements of the nutritional quality of foods during lactic acid fermentation.

75 This study aimed to quantify and compare the total antioxidant activity, total phenolic, 76 C-phycocyanin and the free methionine content of LAB fermented spirulina to untreated spirulina; 77 to analyse the protein fragmentation pattern of spirulina before and after fermentation using 78 SDS-PAGE; and overall, to determine the optimum fermentation time for maximum enhancement of 79 nutraceutical properties in spirulina. 80 Cyanobacterial peptides and other bioactive compounds trapped within the spirulina cell wall 81 were released during fermentation, as shown by the increased antioxidant capacity and protein 82 fragmentation of the fermented samples. Thus, fermented spirulina is a promising functional 83 ingredient in nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals.

84 2. Materials and Methods

85 2.1. Preparation of the Lactobacillus plantarum Stock

86 L. plantarum ATCC 8014 was purchased as a lyophilised powder from Microbiologics®, USA, in 87 the form of a KWIK-STIK™. Stock cultures were prepared by growing the strain aerobically on de 88 Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) agar (72 h at 37 °C), after which ~2 colonies of L. plantarum were 89 transferred into a 2 mL Eppendorf, containing 1 mL of sterile 20% glycerol.

90 2.2. Spirulina Fermentation 91 Spirulina fermentation with L. plantarum was conducted as per Gupta et al. [26], with one 92 modification; autoclaved ddH2O was used in place of the MRS broth. Five grams of untreated wet 93 biomass and 1 mL of L. plantarum stock (log 6 to 7 CFU/mL) were added to a 500 mL Erlenmeyer 94 flask containing 24 mL of ddH2O. This mixture was fermented in a shaker incubator (37 °C) and

Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 3 of 16

This study aimed to quantify and compare the total antioxidant activity, total phenolic, C-phycocyanin and the free methionine content of LAB fermented spirulina to untreated spirulina; to analyse the protein fragmentation pattern of spirulina before and after fermentation using SDS-PAGE; and overall, to determine the optimum fermentation time for maximum enhancement of nutraceutical properties in spirulina. Cyanobacterial peptides and other bioactive compounds trapped within the spirulina cell wall were released during fermentation, as shown by the increased antioxidant capacity and protein fragmentation of the fermented samples. Thus, fermented spirulina is a promising functional ingredient in nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of the Lactobacillus plantarum Stock L. plantarum ATCC 8014 was purchased as a lyophilised powder from Microbiologics®, St Cloud, MN, USA, in the form of a KWIK-STIK™. Stock cultures were prepared by growing the strain aerobically on de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) agar (72 h at 37 ◦C), after which ~2 colonies of L. plantarum were transferred into a 2 mL Eppendorf, containing 1 mL of sterile 20% glycerol.

2.2. Spirulina Fermentation Spirulina fermentation with L. plantarum was conducted as per Gupta et al. [26], with one modiﬁcation; autoclaved ddH2O was used in place of the MRS broth. Five grams of untreated wet biomass and 1 mL of L. plantarum stock (log 6 to 7 CFU/mL) were added to a 500 mL Erlenmeyer ◦ ﬂask containing 24 mL of ddH2O. This mixture was fermented in a shaker incubator (37 C) and samples were taken every 12 h, for 72 h. The pH was measured at each time point. Samples were frozen, lyophilised for 72 h, subjected to mortar and pestle treatment, and stored at −80 ◦C. At the time of analysis, samples were diluted in ddH2O or MeOH (according to the solubility of the nutraceutical compounds of interest) and centrifuged (5 min, 13,000× g). The supernatant was used for testing the spirulina properties as a fermented nutraceutical product.

2.3. Total Phenolic Content (TPC) Determination Spirulina’s TPC was determined as per Jaiswal et al. [27]. Briefly, 100 µL of the sample was poured into individual test tubes and the blank was prepared with 100 µL of ddH2O. Then, 2 mL of 2% sodium carbonate was added to each tube and left in darkness, at 25 ◦C. After 2 min, 100 µL of 50% Folin Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent was added to each tube and incubated in darkness, at 25 ◦C, for 30 min, where the reaction mixture changed from yellow to blue. A total of 200 µL from each test tube was transferred to a 96-well microplate and the absorbance was read at 720 nm, using a UV-Vis spectrophotometric microplate reader. The results were compared to the calibration curve of gallic acid (0 to 500 µg/mL) and expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents, per gram (dw) of spirulina (mg GAE/g).

2.4. C-phycocyanin Determination Total C-phycocyanin content (PC) was determined, according to the method by Bennett and Bogorad [28], by measuring the absorbance of 200 µL of spirulina sample in a 96-well microplate, using a UV-Vis spectrophotometric microplate reader at 615 and 652 nm (Equation (1)). The equation for calculating PC content was derived by combining the extinction coefﬁcients with three simultaneous equations that considered the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorbance of this pigment [28]. Results were compared to a standard curve of pure C-phycocyanin (50 to 1000 µg/mL) and expressed as µg of C-phycocyanin per mg (dw).

(Abs − 0.474 × Abs ) PC = 615nm 652nm (1) 5.34 Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 4 of 16

2.5. DPPH Assay The measurement of the DPPH radical scavenging activity was performed according to the method described by Jaiswal and Abu-Ghannam [29]. In brief, 100 µL of sample was added to six wells of a 96-well microplate. 100 µL of freshly prepared DPPH radical solution (165 µM, in methanol) was added to the experimental-wells. In the blank-wells, 100 µL of ddH2O was added instead. As a control, ◦ 100 µL of ddH2O was used, in place of spirulina sample. The reaction mixture was incubated at 25 C, for 30 min, in the dark, before reading the absorbance at 517 nm, in a UV-Vis spectrophotometric microplate reader. Results were obtained as a percentage decrease, with respect to the control values, using Equation (2) and compared to an ascorbic acid standard curve (1 to 12.5 µg/mL) and expressed as mg ascorbic acid equivalents, per gram (dw) of spirulina (mg AAE/g).

Abs − Abs % inhibition = control test × 100 (2) Abscontrol

2.6. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay The FRAP assay was performed according to Benzie and Strain [30]. Concisely, the FRAP reagent was freshly prepared by mixing in a 10:1:1 (v/v/v) ratio: 300 mM sodium acetate buffer, pH 3.6 ◦ with 20 mM FeCl3•6H2O, and with 10 mM TPTZ in 40 mM HCl and incubated at 37 C, until use. The reaction was performed in a 96-well microplate, where 100 µL of the preheated FRAP reagent was dispensed into each well, already containing 50 µL of the spirulina sample. The reagent blank wells contained 50 µL of ddH2O in place of the sample. The absorbance was read at 593 nm in a UV-Vis spectrophotometric microplate reader, after 10 min of incubation in darkness, at 25 ◦C. Results were compared to a Trolox standard curve (0.75 to 12.5 µg/mL) and expressed as micrograms of the Trolox equivalents per gram (dw) of spirulina (µg TE/g).

2.7. Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) Assay The ORAC assay was carried out, as per Huang et al. [31]. A total of 75 mM phosphate buffered saline pH 7.4 was prepared, using potassium phosphate monobasic and dibasic. Fluorescein sodium salt was used to prepare sodium fluorescein stock solution, which was diluted to a concentration of 4 × 10−3 mM. 2,20-Azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride (AAPH) (153 mM) was prepared and diluted to a final concentration of 4 × 10−6 mM. Both fluorescein and AAPH were prepared and diluted, using 75 mM phosphate buffered saline (PBS). The outer wells of a 96-well microplate were filled with 200 µL of ddH2O. The reaction mixture in the interior wells was prepared by adding 25 µL of each sample to the 150 µL of fluorescein. The blank wells received 25 µL of PBS in place of the spirulina sample. The microplate was inserted into the preheated UV-Vis spectrophotometric microplate reader and incubated at 37 ◦C, for 30 min. Then, 25 µL of diluted AAPH was added to every well and the fluorescence was monitored, kinetically, for 90 min. Two fluorescence readings were carried out—an excitation wavelength (485 nm) and an emission wavelength (528 nm). Results were obtained, as indicated in Equation (3) and expressed as the µM Trolox per gram (dw) of spirulina, equivalent to ORAC units, using the Trolox calibration curve (1.25 to 60 µM/mL). Each ORAC unit equalled the net protection produced by 1 µM of Trolox [32].

ORAC = Abs485nm − Abs528nm (3)

2.8. Protein Fragmentation Using SDS-PAGE Following the Bio-Rad Electrophoresis (2015) protocol, an 8% SDS-PAGE solution was prepared and each 12 h interval-fermented sample was loaded against a protein ladder, control (untreated + L. plantarum), and an untreated sample. Running buffer was made by diluting 100 mL of the 10× running buffer stock into ddH2O (900 mL). The electrophoresis cell was assembled and ﬁlled with a running buffer, prior to the sample loading. Samples were mixed with the sample buffer, Laemmli 2× Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 5 of 16

Concentrate (1:1 ratio) in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes, then denatured by incubation in a boiling water bath, for 5 min. A total of 10 µL of each sample and control were loaded into different wells, and the gel was run for 65 min at 140 V. A Bradford protein assay was run prior to sample preparation, to ensure an equal protein concentration loading (20 µg of protein). Later, the gel was stained by submerging it into the staining solution of ddH2O, methanol and glacial acetic acid 50/40/10 (v/v/v), and 2 g of the Coomassie Blue (40 min at 55 rpm), followed by distaining, using a solution of ddH2O, methanol and glacial acetic acid 50/40/10 (v/v/v) (24 h at 55× g). An UV chamber was used for the gel visualisation and the protein fragmentation was determined through a comparison with the molecular weight protein marker ladder.

2.9. Free Methionine Content Determination Reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) analysis of spirulina was carried out, according to the method developed by Varzaru et al. [33], with the following modifications—a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min and detection at 220 nm, were used. In brief, the solvents used were disodium phosphate (3.85 g/L, pH 7.8) (A) and water, acetonitrile, and methanol (20:20:60 v/v/v) (B). The HPLC programme was set as follows—3 injections per sample, 20 µL volume injection, 0.8 mg/mL flow rate, 45 ◦C column temperature, 20 min/sample run time and detection at 220 nm. DL-Methionine (0.75, 1.0 and 1.75 mg/mL) was used as a standard (elution time 3.3 min). The solvent gradient programme was set as follows. Solvent A: 2 min at 100%, 23 min transition to 25%, 1 min transition to 0% and hold for 3 min, 1 min transition to 100% and hold for 5 min. Solvent B: 2 min at 0%, 23 min transition to 75%, 1 min transition to 100% and hold for 3 min, 1 min transition to 0% and hold for 5 min.

FermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentation 2019 2019 20192019, 2019 5 20192019, ,x ,5, FOR5,,5 ,,5x, , 5 x,5 x FOR, x, FOR xFOR xPEERFOR FORFOR PEER PEERPEER PEER PEERREVIEWPEER REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW 6 of66 616 6of 6of 6of of of16 of16 16 16 16 16 2.10. Statistical Analyses 182182182182 182182182 AllAll AllAlldataAllAllAll data data data data Alldatadatawere were were datawere were were werecollected collected werecollected collected collected collectedcollected collectedfrom from from from from fromfromseven seven fromseven seven seven sevenseven independent seven independent independent independent independent independentindependent independent assays assays assays assays assays assaysassays performed assays performed performed performed performed performedperformed performed in in triplicatesin in in in intriplicates triplicates triplicates triplicates triplicatestriplicates in triplicates (n ( =( n( n( n(3)n (= nn= = = 3) and==3) 3) (3) n3) 3)and and and =and andand 3) and 183183183183 183183183 replicated, replicated,replicated,replicated,replicated,replicated,replicated,replicated, at leastat at atat atleast at leastleast least leasttwice.least at twice. twice. leasttwice.twice. twice.twice. Results twice.Results Results ResultsResults ResultsResults were Results were were werewere were wereexpressed expressed wereexpressed expressedexpressed expressedexpressed expressed as as the as asas astheas the themeanthe thethe asmean mean meanmean themeanmean ± standard mean± ±± ± standard ±standard±standard standard standardstandard± standarddeviation deviation deviation deviationdeviation deviationdeviation deviation (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)(SD) (SD)of(SD) of the of of (SD)of ofthe of the thethreethe thethe three of three threethree three thethree three 184184184184 184184184 measurements. measurements.measurements.measurements.measurements.measurements.measurements.measurements. Statistically Statistically Statistically Statistically Statistically StatisticallyStatistically Statistically signific signific signific signific signific significsignificant significantant antantdifferencesantantant differences differences differences differences differencesdifferences differences were were were were were were wereobtained were obtained obtained obtained obtained obtainedobtained obtained using using using using using usingusing STATGRAPHICS using STATGRAPHICS STATGRAPHICS STATGRAPHICS STATGRAPHICS STATGRAPHICSSTATGRAPHICSSTATGRAPHICS Centurion Centurion Centurion Centurion Centurion CenturionCenturion XV 185185185185 185185185 XV XV XVXVsoftware.XVXVXV software. software. software. software. software.software. Statistical Statistical Statistical Statistical StatisticalStatisticalStatistical comparisons comparisons comparisons comparisons comparisons comparisonscomparisons were were werewere were were were wereperformed performedperformed performed performed performed performedperformed via via via via via analysisvia via analysisvia analysis analysis analysis analysis analysisanalysis of of of varianceof of of of ofvariance variance variance variance variancevariance andand and and Fisher’sand and Fisher’sandand Fisher’s Fisher’s Fisher’s Fisher’s Fisher’sFisher’s least least least least significantleast least leastleast 186186186186 186186186 significant significantsignificantsignificantsignificantsignificantsignificantdifference. difference. difference. difference. difference. difference. difference.difference. Differences Differences Differences Differences Differences Differences DifferencesDifferences at atP ≤ atP at at at ≤0.05at Pat P P0.05 P≤ P ≤P≤ ≤ 0.05 were≤0.05≤ 0.05 0.05 were0.050.05 were were wereconsidered were were wereconsidered considered considered considered considered consideredconsidered significant. significant. significant. significant. significant. significant. significant.significant. Correlations Correlations Correlations Correlations Correlations Correlations CorrelationsCorrelations between between between between between between betweenbetween the the evaluated the the the the thethe 187187187187 187187187 evaluated evaluatedevaluatedevaluatedevaluatedevaluatedevaluatedparameters parameters parameters parameters parameters parameters parametersparameters were were were were were obtainedwere were wereobtained obtained obtained obtained obtained obtainedobtained using usin usin usin usin using usin Pearson’susin Pearson’sggg g Pearson’s gPearson’sg Pearson’s Pearson’s Pearson’sPearson’s correlation correlation correlation correlation correlation correlation correlationcorrelation coefficientcoefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficientcoefficient ((rr).). ( (r (Means r ).(r ).(r).( r).r Means). ).Means Means Means MeansMeans within within within within within within withinwithin each each each each each each eacheach column 188188188188 188188188 column columncolumncolumncolumncolumncolumn denoteddenoted denoted denoteddenoted denoted denoteddenoted with with with withwith with withdifferentwith different different differentdifferent different differentdifferent letters letters letters lettersletters letters lettersletters differed differed differed differeddiffered differed differeddiffered significantly significantly significantly significantlysignificantly significantly significantlysignificantly ( (PP ( ≤≤ (P( P( P0.05). (P≤( 0.05).P ≤P≤ ≤0.05). ≤0.05).≤0.05). 0.05). 0.05). 0.05).

189189189189 189189189 3. Results3.3.3.3. Results3. 3. ResultsResults Results ResultsResults3. Results

190190190190 190190190 3.1. 3.1.3.1. 3.1.pH3.1.3.1.3.1. pH pHandpH pH pH3.1.pH and and and Colourand andand pH Colour ColourColour Colour Colour andColour Variation ColourVariation VariationVariation Variation VariationVariation Variationduring during duringduring during duringduring Fermentation duringFermentation FermentationFermentation Fermentation FermentationFermentation Fermentation 191191191191 191191191 UntreatedUntreatedUntreatedUntreatedUntreatedUntreatedUntreatedUntreated spirulina spirulina spirulinaspirulina spirulina spirulinaspirulina spirulinawas was waswas was found waswas found foundfound found found wasfound to tohave to foundtoto tohave to havehave have havehavethe tothe thethe highestthe thethe havehighest highesthighest highest highesthighest thepH pH pH pH highestvaluepH pHpH value valuevalue value valuevalue (6.0 pH(6.0 (6.0 (6.0±(6.0 (6.0(6.0 0), value± ±± ±0), with±0),±0), 0), 0), 0),with withwith (6.0with withawith 63.5% a a±a a63.5% a63.5%a63.5% 63.5%0), 63.5%63.5% drop with drop dropdrop drop dropdropafter a after after 63.5%afterafter afteraafter a aa a a dropa 192192192192 192192192 36 36h363636 36fermentation36 h h h hfermentation h fermentationh fermentationafter fermentation fermentationfermentation a 36 (pH h fermentation (pH (pH (pH (pH 3.8),(pH(pH 3.8), 3.8), 3.8), 3.8), increasing3.8),3.8), increasing increasing increasing increasing increasingincreasing (pH to 3.8), toa to to topH to increasing ato a a apH apH a pH4.6, pH pHpH 4.6, 4.6, 4.6,by 4.6, 4.6,4.6, by theby toby by by by the a the theend the pHthethe end end end endof 4.6,endend ofthe of of ofby of theof the thefermentation the thethe fermentation fermentation fermentation fermentation endfermentationfermentation of the treatment fermentation treatment treatment treatment treatment treatmenttreatment (72 (72 (72 (72h). (72 (72(72treatment h). h). h). h). h). h). 193193193193 193193193 Table TableTableTableTableTableTable 1 illustrates 1 (72 11 1illustrates 1illustrates1illustrates illustrates h).illustratesillustrates Table the the 1 thethe colour the illustrates thethe colour colourcolour colour colourcolour change change changechange change the changechange during colour during duringduring during duringduring changefermenta fermenta fermentafermenta fermenta fermentafermenta duringtion.tion.tion.tion.tion. tion.Thistion. fermentation. This ThisThis This ThiswasThis was waswas was significant waswas significant significantsignificant significant significantsignificant This wassince since sincesince since signiﬁcant since sincecolour colour colourcolour colour colourcolour is highlyis since isis is highly is ishighlyhighly highly highlyhighly colour is 194194194194 194194194 variable variablevariablevariablevariablevariablevariable highlywithin within within within withinwithinwithin variablebiological biological biological biological biologicalbiologicalbiological within samples, samples, samples, biologicalsamples, samples,samples,samples, especially especially especially especiallysamples, especiallyespeciallyespecially foods, especially foods, foods, foods, foods,foods,foods, possibly possibly possibly possibly possiblypossibly foods,possibly interfering possibly interfering interfering interfering interferinginterferinginterfering interferingwith with with with with withwiththe the the the the withabsorbancethethe absorbance absorbance absorbance absorbanceabsorbance theabsorbance absorbance 195195195195 195195195 reading readingreadingreadingreadingreadingreading [34].reading [34]. [34].[34]. [34]. [34].[34]. [ 34 ].

Table 1. Diluted spirulina samples (2 mg/mL) in ddH O. 196196196196 196196196 TableTableTableTableTableTableTable 1. Diluted1. 1.1. 1. Diluted 1. Diluted1.Diluted Diluted DilutedDiluted spirulina spirulina spirulinaspirulina spirulina spirulinaspirulina samp samp sampsamp samp lessampsamp les(2leslesles les mg/mL)les(2 (2(2 (2 mg/mL) (2 (2 mg/mL)mg/mL) mg/mL) mg/mL)mg/mL) in ddHin inin in ddHin in ddHddH 2ddH O.ddHddH2 O.22O.2O.O.2 2O.O. 2

Lyophilised Lyophilised LyophilisedLyophilised Lyophilised Lyophilised Lyophilised spirulina Spirulinaspirulina spirulinaspirulina spirulina spirulinaspirulina (2 (2mg/mL)(2 (2(2 (2 mg/mL) (2mg/mL) (2 mg/mL)mg/mL) mg/mL) mg/mL)mg/mL) FermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentation treatment treatment treatment treatment FermentationFermentationFermentation treatment treatment treatment none 12 h 24 h 36 h 48 h 60 h 72 h treatment nonenonenonenonenonenone none 12 12h1212 12 1212h hh h hh 24 24h2424 24 2424h hh h hh 36 36h3636 36 3636h hh h hh 48 48h4848 48 4848h hh h hh 60 60h6060 60 6060h hh h hh 72 72h7272 72 7272h hh h hh Supernatant SupernatantSupernatantSupernatantSupernatantSupernatant colour colour colour colour colour SupernatantSupernatantcolour colour colour

197197197197 197197197 3.2. 3.2.3.2. 3.2.Total3.2.3.2.3.2. Total TotalTotal Total TotalTotalPhenolic Phenolic PhenolicPhenolic Phenolic PhenolicPhenolic Content Content ContentContent Content ContentContent (TPC) (TPC) (TPC)(TPC) (TPC) (TPC)(TPC) 198198198198 198198198 SpirulinaSpirulinaSpirulinaSpirulinaSpirulinaSpirulinaSpirulina fermented fermented fermentedfermented fermented fermentedfermented for for for36for for forfor 36 h 3636 36 was 3636h hh h was h washwas was determined waswas determined determineddetermined determined determineddetermined to haveto toto to tohave to havehave have havehavethe the thethehighest the thethe highest highesthighest highest highesthighest TPC TPC TPCTPC TPC TPC(17.87TPC (17.87 (17.87(17.87 (17.87 (17.87(17.87 ± 0.77); ± ±± 0.77);± 0.77);±0.77);± 0.77); 0.77);0.77); followed followed followedfollowed followed followedfollowed by by byby by by by 199199199199 199199199 those thosethosethosethosethosethose treated treated treatedtreated treated treatedtreated for for for48for for forfor 48 h 4848 48 (15.00 4848h hh h (15.00 h (15.00h(15.00 (15.00 (15.00(15.00 ± 0.86), ± ±± 0.86),± 0.86),±0.86),± 0.86), 0.86), 0.86),24 24 h 2424 24 (14.95 2424h hh h (14.95 h (14.95h(14.95 (14.95 (14.95(14.95 ± 0.87), ± ±± 0.87),± 0.87),±0.87),± 0.87), 0.87), 0.87),60 60 h 6060 60 (14.91 6060h hh h (14.91 h (14.91h(14.91 (14.91 (14.91(14.91 ± 0.40), ± ±± 0.40),± 0.40),±0.40),± 0.40), 0.40),0.40), 72 72 h 7272 72 (13.65 7272h hh h (13.65 h (13.65h(13.65 (13.65 (13.65(13.65 ± 0.40), ± ±± 0.40),± 0.40),±0.40),± 0.40), 0.40), 0.40),12 12 h 1212 12 (8.60 1212h hh h (8.60 h (8.60h(8.60 (8.60 (8.60(8.60 200200200200 200200200 ± 0.36)±±± ±0.36) ±0.36)±0.36) 0.36) 0.36)and0.36) and andand and the andand the thethe untreatedthe thethe untreated untreateduntreated untreated untreateduntreated sample sample samplesample sample samplesample (8.44 (8.44 (8.44(8.44 (8.44 (8.44(8.44± 0.39); ± ±± ±0.39); ±0.39);±0.39); 0.39); 0.39); 0.39);TPC TPC TPCTPC TPC TPCvaluesTPC values valuesvalues values valuesvalues are are areare inare areare mgin inin in inmg in mgmg GAE/gmg mgmg GAE/g GAE/gGAE/g GAE/g GAE/gGAE/g (dw) (dw) (dw)(dw) (dw) (dw)(dw)(Figure (Figure (Figure(Figure (Figure (Figure(Figure 2). 2). 2).2). 2). 2). 2).

20 202020202020 d dddddd cc c c cc c c ccc ccc c cccccc 15 151515151515 b bbbbbb

10 101010101010 a aaaaaa a aaaaaa mg GAE/g (dw) mg GAE/g (dw) mg GAE/g (dw) mg GAE/g (dw) mg GAE/g (dw) mg GAE/g (dw) 5mg GAE/g (dw) 555555

0 000000 untreated122436486072untreated122436486072untreated122436486072untreated122436486072untreated122436486072untreated122436486072untreated122436486072

FermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentationFermentation time time timetime time(h) timetime (h) (h)(h) (h) (h) (h) 201201201201 201201201 202202202202 202202202 FigureFigureFigureFigureFigureFigureFigure 2. Comparative2. 2.2. 2. Comparative2.2. ComparativeComparative Comparative ComparativeComparative total total totaltotal total totalphenolictotal phenolic phenolicphenolic phenolic phenolicphenolic cont cont contcont content contcontent ententofententent offermented ofof of offermented of fermentedfermented fermented fermentedfermented spirulina. spirulina. spirulina.spirulina. spirulina. spirulina.spirulina.

203203203203 203203203 3.3. 3.3.3.3. 3.3.C-phycocyanin3.3.3.3.3.3. C-phycocyanin C-phycocyaninC-phycocyanin C-phycocyanin C-phycocyaninC-phycocyanin Content Content ContentContent Content ContentContent 204204204204 204204204 TheTheTheThe TheC-phycocyaninTheThe C-phycocyanin C-phycocyanin C-phycocyaninC-phycocyanin C-phycocyaninC-phycocyanin content content content contentcontent contentcontent was was was was was highest waswas highest highest highesthighest highesthighest in in the in inin inthe in the the36the thethe -h-fermented36 36 3636 -h-fermented3636-h-fermented-h-fermented-h-fermented-h-fermented-h-fermented samples samples samples samplessamples samplessamples (187.0 (187.0 (187.0 (187.0(187.0 (187.0(187.0 ± 3.79), ± ± ±± 3.79), ±3.79),± 3.79),3.79), 3.79),3.79), followed followed followed followedfollowed followedfollowed 205205205205 205205205 by bythebybybyby bythe thethesamples the thethe samples samplessamples samples samplessamples fermented fermented fermentedfermented fermented fermentedfermented for for for48for for forfor 48 h 4848 48 (177.17 4848h hh h (177.17 h(177.17h(177.17 (177.17 (177.17(177.17 ± 6.60), ± ±± 6.60),± ±6.60),6.60),± 6.60), 6.60), 6.60),12 12 h 1212 12 (148.07 1212h hh h (148.07 h(148.07h(148.07 (148.07 (148.07(148.07 ± 3.04), ± ±± 3.04),± 3.04),±3.04),± 3.04), 3.04), 3.04),24 24 h 2424 24 (143.83 2424h hh h (143.83 h(143.83h(143.83 (143.83 (143.83(143.83 ± 4.07), ± ±± 4.07),± 4.07),±4.07),± 4.07), 4.07),4.07), 60 60 h 6060 60 (138.01 6060h hh h (138.01 h(138.01h(138.01 (138.01 (138.01(138.01 206206206206 206206206 ± 4.82),±±± ±4.82), ±4.82),± 4.82),4.82), 4.82),4.82), the the the theuntreatedthe thethe untreated untreated untreateduntreated untreateduntreated (133.57 (133.57 (133.57 (133.57(133.57 (133.57(133.57 ± 2.64) ± ± ±± 2.64) ±2.64)± 2.64)2.64) 2.64)2.64)and and and and and 72 andand 72 h 72 7272 72(120.6172h h h h (120.61 h (120.61h (120.61(120.61 (120.61(120.61 ± 0.86); ± ± ±± 0.86); ±0.86);± 0.86);0.86); 0.86);0.86); values values values valuesvalues valuesvalues are are are areinare areare in µg in inin inµg in µgof µgµg µg µgof C-phycocyanin/mg of ofof ofC-phycocyanin/mg of C-phycocyanin/mg C-phycocyanin/mgC-phycocyanin/mg C-phycocyanin/mgC-phycocyanin/mg 207207207207 207207207 (Figure (Figure(Figure(Figure(Figure(Figure(Figure 3). 3). 3).3). 3). 3). 3).

Fermentation 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

182 All data were collected from seven independent assays performed in triplicates (n = 3) and 183 replicated, at least twice. Results were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the three 184 measurements. Statistically significant differences were obtained using STATGRAPHICS Centurion 185 XV software. Statistical comparisons were performed via analysis of variance and Fisher’s least 186 significant difference. Differences at P ≤ 0.05 were considered significant. Correlations between the 187 evaluated parameters were obtained using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). Means within each 188 column denoted with different letters differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05).

189 3. Results

190 3.1. pH and Colour Variation during Fermentation 191 Untreated spirulina was found to have the highest pH value (6.0 ± 0), with a 63.5% drop after a 192 36 h fermentation (pH 3.8), increasing to a pH 4.6, by the end of the fermentation treatment (72 h). 193 Table 1 illustrates the colour change during fermentation. This was significant since colour is highly 194 variable within biological samples, especially foods, possibly interfering with the absorbance 195 reading [34].

196 Table 1. Diluted spirulina samples (2 mg/mL) in ddH2O.

Lyophilised spirulina (2 mg/mL) Fermentation treatment none 12 h 24 h 36 h 48 h 60 h 72 h

FermentationSupernatant2019, 5, 28 colour 6 of 16

3.2. Total Phenolic Content (TPC) 197 3.2. Total Phenolic Content (TPC) Spirulina fermented for 36 h was determined to have the highest TPC (17.87 ± 0.77); followed by 198 Spirulina fermented for 36 h was determined to have the highest TPC (17.87 ± 0.77); followed by those treated for 48 h (15.00 ± 0.86), 24 h (14.95 ± 0.87), 60 h (14.91 ± 0.40), 72 h (13.65 ± 0.40), 12 h 199 those treated for 48 h (15.00 ± 0.86), 24 h (14.95 ± 0.87), 60 h (14.91 ± 0.40), 72 h (13.65 ± 0.40), 12 h (8.60 (8.60 ± 0.36) and the untreated sample (8.44 ± 0.39); TPC values are in mg GAE/g (dw) (Figure2). 200 ± 0.36) and the untreated sample (8.44 ± 0.39); TPC values are in mg GAE/g (dw) (Figure 2).

20 d

c c c 15 b

10 a a

mg GAE/g (dw) 5

0 untreated122436486072

Fermentation time (h) 201 Figure 2. Comparative total phenolic content of fermented spirulina. 202 Figure 2. Comparative total phenolic content of fermented spirulina. 3.3. C-phycocyanin Content 203 3.3. C-phycocyanin Content The C-phycocyanin content was highest in the 36-h-fermented samples (187.0 ± 3.79), followed 204 by theThe samples C-phycocyanin fermented content for 48 h was (177.17 highest± 6.60), in the 12 h36 (148.07-h-fermented± 3.04), samples 24 h (143.83 (187.0± 4.07),± 3.79), 60 followed h (138.01 205 by the samples fermented for 48 h (177.17 ± 6.60), 12 h (148.07 ± 3.04), 24 h (143.83 ± 4.07), 60 h (138.01 ±Fermentation4.82), the 2019 untreated, 5, x FOR (133.57PEER REVIEW± 2.64) and 72 h (120.61 ± 0.86); values are in µg of C-phycocyanin/mg7 of 16 206 (Figure± 4.82),3 the). untreated (133.57 ± 2.64) and 72 h (120.61 ± 0.86); values are in µg of C-phycocyanin/mg 207 (Figure 3). 250 d d 200 c b a bc 150 a

100

0 µg of C-phycocyanin/mg (dw) Fermentation times (h)

ddH2OddH2O dilution dilution MeOH dilution Figure 3. Comparative C-phycocyanin content of the fermented spirulina.

208 3.4. DPPH Radical Scavenging Capacity 209 DPPH radicalFigure scavenging 3. Comparative capacity C-phycocyanin was greatest in content 24 h fermented of the fermented spirulina spirulina. at 21.00 ± 0.8, followed by that fermented for 36 h (20.12 ± 0.2), 12 h (15.58 ± 1.5), 48 h (13.32 ± 0.9), the untreated (12.58 ± 210 3.4. DPPH Radical Scavenging Capacity 1.2), 60 h (6.36 ± 0.3) and 72 h (4.73 ± 0.4); values are in mg AAE/g (dw) (Figure4). 211 DPPH radical scavenging capacity was greatest in 24 h fermented spirulina at 21.00 ± 0.8, 212 followed by that fermented for 36 h (20.12 ± 0.2), 12 h (15.58 ± 1.5), 48 h (13.32 ± 0.9), the untreated 213 (12.58 ± 1.2), 60 h (6.36 ± 0.3) and 72 h (4.73 ± 0.4); values are in mg AAE/g (dw) (Figure 4). 25 f f 20 e d 15 c b 10 a 5 mg AAE/g (dw) 0

Fermentation time (h)

MeOH diltuion ddH2OddH2O dilution dilution

214 215 Figure 4. Comparative DPPH values of fermented spirulina.

216 3.5. FRAP Values 217 Comparative FRAP values are presented in Figure 5. The 36-h-fermented samples 218 demonstrated the highest ferric reducing antioxidant power of 482.00 ± 6.02, followed by 24 h (421.76 219 ± 6.96), 48 h (347.47 ± 15.94), 12 h (339.44 ± 12.54), 72 h (309.32 ± 9.20), 60 h (305.30 ± 15.94) and the 220 untreated (261.12 ± 6.95); values are in µg TE/g (dw).

Fermentation 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

250 d d 200 c b a bc 150 a

100

0 µg of C-phycocyanin/mg (dw) Fermentation times (h)

ddH2OddH2O dilution dilution MeOH dilution

208 209 Figure 3. Comparative C-phycocyanin content of the fermented spirulina.

210 3.4. DPPH Radical Scavenging Capacity 211 DPPH radical scavenging capacity was greatest in 24 h fermented spirulina at 21.00 ± 0.8, 212 Fermentationfollowed by2019 that, 5, 28 fermented for 36 h (20.12 ± 0.2), 12 h (15.58 ± 1.5), 48 h (13.32 ± 0.9), the untreated7 of 16 213 (12.58 ± 1.2), 60 h (6.36 ± 0.3) and 72 h (4.73 ± 0.4); values are in mg AAE/g (dw) (Figure 4). 25 f f 20 e d 15 c b 10 a 5 mg AAE/g (dw) 0

Fermentation time (h)

MeOH diltuion ddH2OddH2O dilution dilution Figure 4. Comparative DPPH values of fermented spirulina. 214 215 3.5. FRAP Values Figure 4. Comparative DPPH values of fermented spirulina. Comparative FRAP values are presented in Figure5. The 36-h-fermented samples demonstrated 216 3.5. FRAP Values the highest ferric reducing antioxidant power of 482.00 ± 6.02, followed by 24 h (421.76 ± 6.96), 48 h 217 (347.47FermentationComparative± 15.94), 2019, 5, x 12 FORFRAP h (339.44PEER REVIEWvalues± 12.54), are 72presented h (309.32 ±in9.20), Figure 60 h (305.305. The ±36-h-fermented15.94) and the untreatedsamples8 of 16 218 (261.12demonstrated± 6.95); the values highest are ferric in µg reducing TE/g (dw). antioxidant power of 482.00 ± 6.02, followed by 24 h (421.76 219 ± 6.96), 48 h (347.47 ± 15.94), 12 h (339.44 ± 12.54), 72 h (309.32 ± 9.20), 60 h (305.30 ± 15.94) and the 220 untreated (261.12 ± 6.95);600 values are in µg TE/g (dw). 500 e d 400 c c b 300 a

200

µg TE/g (dw) 100

Fermentation time (h) Figure 5. Comparative ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) values of the fermented spirulina. 221 3.6. ORAC 222 FigureThe 5. greatestComparative oxygen ferric radical reducing antioxidant antioxidant capacity powe wasr (FRAP) observed values in the of 36-h-fermentedthe fermented spirulina. samples, with a value of 66.14 ± 1.09, followed by those fermented for 48 h (61.06 ± 0.69), 24 h (60.85 ± 0.50), 223 603.6. h ORAC (59.17 ± 1.27), 72 h (58.33 ± 0.63), 12 h (56.20 ± 1.88), and the untreated (48.61 ± 0.29); values are in µmol Trolox/g (dw) (Figure6). 224 The greatest oxygen radical antioxidant capacity was observed in the 36-h-fermented samples, 225 with a value of 66.14 ± 1.09, followed by those fermented for 48 h (61.06 ± 0.69), 24 h (60.85 ± 0.50), 60 226 h (59.17 ± 1.27), 72 h (58.33 ± 0.63), 12 h (56.20 ± 1.88), and the untreated (48.61 ± 0.29); values are in 227 µmol Trolox/g (dw) (Figure 6). 80 70 f de e cd 60 b c a 50 40 30 20 10 µmol Trolox/g (dw) µmol 0 untreated122436486072

Fermentation time (h) 228 229 Figure 6. Comparative oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) values of fermented spirulina.

230 3.7. Protein Fragmentation 231 SDS-PAGE analysis of the spirulina protein content is shown in Figure 7. The main band at ~50 232 kDa visible in lanes 1 to 5 (untreated to 36 h) is no longer present in lanes 6, 7 and 8 (48–72 h). This 233 suggests protein fragmentation via lactic acid bacterial hydrolysis of the peptide bonds, during the 234 fermentation process. The strong band at 16–17 kDa, just below the 18.4 kDa marker, are the 235 C-phycocyanin alpha and beta subunits, and remain un-fragmented.

Fermentation 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

600

500 e d 400 c c b 300 a

200

µg TE/g (dw) 100

Fermentation time (h)

221

222 Figure 5. Comparative ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) values of the fermented spirulina.

223 3.6. ORAC 224 The greatest oxygen radical antioxidant capacity was observed in the 36-h-fermented samples, 225 with a value of 66.14 ± 1.09, followed by those fermented for 48 h (61.06 ± 0.69), 24 h (60.85 ± 0.50), 60 226 Fermentationh (59.17 ± 20191.27),, 5, 2872 h (58.33 ± 0.63), 12 h (56.20 ± 1.88), and the untreated (48.61 ± 0.29); values are8 of 16in 227 µmol Trolox/g (dw) (Figure 6). 80 70 f de e cd 60 b c a 50 40 30 20 10 µmol Trolox/g (dw) µmol 0 untreated122436486072

Fermentation time (h) 228 229 FigureFigure 6. Comparative 6. Comparative oxygen oxygen radical radical absorbance absorbance capacitycapacity (ORAC) (ORAC) values values of fermented of fermented spirulina. spirulina. 3.7. Protein Fragmentation 230 3.7. Protein Fragmentation SDS-PAGE analysis of the spirulina protein content is shown in Figure7. The main band at 231 ~50 kDaSDS-PAGE visible inanalysis lanes 1 of to the 5 (untreated spirulina protein to 36 h) content is no longer is shown present in Figure in lanes 7. The 6, 7 main and 8band (48–72 at ~50 h). 232 ThiskDa suggestsvisible in protein lanes 1 fragmentationto 5 (untreated via to lactic36 h) acidis no bacterial longer present hydrolysis in lanes of the 6, peptide7 and 8 bonds,(48–72 h). during This 233 thesuggests fermentation protein fragmentation process. The strong via lactic band acid at bact 16–17erial kDa, hydrolysis just below of the the peptide 18.4 kDa bonds, marker, during are thethe 234 FermentationC-phycocyaninfermentation 2019 , 5process.,alpha x FOR PEER and The betaREVIEW strong subunits, band and at remain16–17 kDa, un-fragmented. just below the 18.4 kDa marker, are9 of the16 235 C-phycocyanin alpha and beta subunits, and remain un-fragmented.

Peptide degradation

alpha and beta subunits of C-PC

236 237 FigureFigure 7. SDS-PAGE 7. SDS-PAGE analysis analysis of of the total proteinprotein in in spirulina. spirulina.

3.8. Free Methionine Content 238 3.8. Free Methionine Content Figure8 shows the free methionine content of the spirulina samples, before and after fermentation, 239 Figure 8 shows the free methionine content of the spirulina samples, before and after as quantiﬁed by RP-HPLC. A linear correlation was observed between the fermentation time and the 240 fermentation, as quantified by RP-HPLC. A linear correlation was observed between the free methionine content. Untreated spirulina had a free methionine content of 0.225 ± 0.001, followed 241 fermentation time and the free methionine content. Untreated spirulina had a free methionine by 12 h (0.245 ± 0.001), 24 h (0.320 ± 0.019), 36 h (0.340 ± 0.006), 48 h (0.357 ± 0.007), 60 h (0.394 ± 242 content of 0.225 ± 0.001, followed by 12 h (0.245 ± 0.001), 24 h (0.320 ± 0.019), 36 h (0.340 ± 0.006), 48 h 0.003) and 72 h (0.437 ± 0.012); values are in mg-free methionine/g (dw). 243 (0.357 ± 0.007), 60 h (0.394 ± 0.003) and 72 h (0.437 ± 0.012); values are in mg-free methionine/g (dw). 0.50 e 0.45 e 0.40 d d 0.35 c 0.30 b 0.25 a 0.20 0.15 0.10

mg free methionine/g (dw) 0.05 0.00 untreated122436486072 Fermentation time (h) 244 245 Figure 8. Free methionine content of the untreated and the fermented spirulina.

246 4. Discussion

247 4.1. Effect of Fermentation on Spirulina 248 This study shows that fermentation enhances the nutraceutical profile of spirulina. It is 249 important to note that the observed variability of results in the literature might be due to the 250 botanical source, genetic background, environmental effects during growth, processing techniques, 251 and storage conditions of each species [34]. 252 When examining the spirulina’s nutraceutical composition, the total phenolic compound 253 concentration present in the samples was the first parameter assessed. Phenolic compounds serve as 254 essential antioxidants because of their ability to stabilise radicals, by donating a hydrogen atom or an 255 electron. TPC values increased by 111.73%, during the first 36 h of fermentation, due to the release of 256 the phenolic compounds, upon bacterial enzymatic hydrolysis of the spirulina cell walls. The modest

Fermentation 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

Peptide degradation

alpha and beta subunits of C-PC

236 237 Figure 7. SDS-PAGE analysis of the total protein in spirulina.

238 3.8. Free Methionine Content 239 Figure 8 shows the free methionine content of the spirulina samples, before and after 240 fermentation, as quantified by RP-HPLC. A linear correlation was observed between the 241 fermentation time and the free methionine content. Untreated spirulina had a free methionine 242 contentFermentation of 20190.225, 5 ,± 28 0.001, followed by 12 h (0.245 ± 0.001), 24 h (0.320 ± 0.019), 36 h (0.340 ± 0.006),9 48 of 16h 243 (0.357 ± 0.007), 60 h (0.394 ± 0.003) and 72 h (0.437 ± 0.012); values are in mg-free methionine/g (dw). 0.50 e 0.45 e 0.40 d d 0.35 c 0.30 b 0.25 a 0.20 0.15 0.10

mg free methionine/g (dw) 0.05 0.00 untreated122436486072 Fermentation time (h) 244 Figure 8. Free methionine content of the untreated and the fermented spirulina. 245 Figure 8. Free methionine content of the untreated and the fermented spirulina. 4. Discussion 246 4. Discussion 4.1. Effect of Fermentation on Spirulina 247 4.1. EffectThis of study Fermen showstation that on fermentationSpirulina enhances the nutraceutical profile of spirulina. It is important 248 to noteThis that study the shows observed that variability fermentation of resultsenhances in thethe literaturenutraceutical might profile be due of tospirulina. the botanical It is 249 importantsource, genetic to note background, that the environmentalobserved variability effects duringof results growth, in the processing literature techniques, might be anddue storageto the 250 botanicalconditions source, of each genetic species background, [34]. environmental effects during growth, processing techniques, 251 and storageWhen conditions examining of the each spirulina’s species [34]. nutraceutical composition, the total phenolic compound 252 concentrationWhen examining present in the the spirulina’s samples was nutraceutical the first parameter composition, assessed. the Phenolic total phenolic compounds compound serve as 253 concentrationessential antioxidants present becausein the samples of their was ability the tofirst stabilise parameter radicals, assessed. by donating Phenolic a hydrogencompounds atom serve or anas 254 essentialelectron. antioxidants TPC values increasedbecause of by their 111.73%, ability during to stabilise the first radicals, 36 h of by fermentation, donating a hydrogen due to the atom release or an of 255 electron.the phenolic TPC compounds, values increased upon by bacterial 111.73%, enzymatic during th hydrolysise first 36 h of of the fermentation, spirulina cell due walls. to the The release modest of 256 theTPC phenolic decrease, compounds, after the initial upon fermentation bacterial enzymatic period, hydrolysis might be dueof the to spirulina the temperature cell walls. damage The modest of the unstable phenolic substances [35]. TPC values in-line with those determined in the present study have been reported for Arthrospira [36–38] and other similar aquatic microorganisms, such as microalgae [39]. In all cases, the TPC was higher than those found in terrestrial plant species [40]. Different studies suggest that TPC is a major contributor to the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) [41–43], whereas others contradict this claim [44,45]. Due to the highly oxidising nature of the Folin Ciocalteu reagent and the sample–colour interference, the results vary between studies [34,37,46,47]. In the present study, TPC showed a high correlation with the ORAC results (r = 0.90), suggesting that phenolic compounds did contribute significantly to spirulina’s TAC. There is no overall consensus on the role that TPC plays in TAC, and further research is necessary. Phycobiliproteins characterisation and cultivation enhancement has been explored for nutraceutical and cosmeceutical applications. The C-phycocyanin (C-PC) content in fermented spirulina increased by 32.64%. In this context, an increase in C-phycocyanin does not refer to the net C-PC content in spirulina, which remains constant. Instead, it reflects a release of this protein-bound pigment, through the fermentation process, via enzyme hydrolysis. It is distinguishable from Table1 that C-PC was released since the fermented samples appeared to be bluer than the untreated sample. However, C-PC is a temperature-sensitive pigment [48], which, under the fermentation conditions set for this project (37 ◦C), might have been degraded after 36 h. Moreover, Boussiba and Richmond [49] suggested that a decrease in the C-phycocyanin content is evident during nitrogen starvation conditions, which parallels the increased pH during the second half of the fermentation period, due to L. plantarum digestion of the available nitrogen. The results obtained in the present study are in-line with those from the literature; slightly below average for the untreated samples, and above average for the fermented samples [50,51]. The variability in results could be due to the Fermentation 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

257 TPC decrease, after the initial fermentation period, might be due to the temperature damage of the 258 unstable phenolic substances [35]. TPC values in-line with those determined in the present study 259 have been reported for Arthrospira [36–38] and other similar aquatic microorganisms, such as 260 microalgae [39]. In all cases, the TPC was higher than those found in terrestrial plant species [40]. 261 Different studies suggest that TPC is a major contributor to the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) [41– 262 43], whereas others contradict this claim [44,45]. Due to the highly oxidising nature of the Folin 263 Ciocalteu reagent and the sample–colour interference, the results vary between studies [34,37,46,47]. 264 In the present study, TPC showed a high correlation with the ORAC results (r = 0.90), suggesting 265 that phenolic compounds did contribute significantly to spirulina’s TAC. There is no overall 266 consensus on the role that TPC plays in TAC, and further research is necessary. 267 Phycobiliproteins characterisation and cultivation enhancement has been explored for 268 nutraceutical and cosmeceutical applications. The C-phycocyanin (C-PC) content in fermented 269 spirulina increased by 32.64%. In this context, an increase in C-phycocyanin does not refer to the net 270 C-PC content in spirulina, which remains constant. Instead, it reflects a release of this protein-bound 271 pigment, through the fermentation process, via enzyme hydrolysis. It is distinguishable from Table 1 272 that C-PC was released since the fermented samples appeared to be bluer than the untreated sample. 273 However, C-PC is a temperature-sensitive pigment [48], which, under the fermentation conditions 274 set for this project (37 °C), might have been degraded after 36 h. Moreover, Boussiba and Richmond 275 [49] suggested that a decrease in the C-phycocyanin content is evident during nitrogen starvation 276 conditions, which parallels the increased pH during the second half of the fermentation period, due 277 to L. plantarum digestion of the available nitrogen. The results obtained in the present study are 278 in-lineFermentation with2019 those, 5, 28 from the literature; slightly below average for the untreated samples, and above10 of 16 279 average for the fermented samples [50,51]. The variability in results could be due to the factors laid 280 out previously, highlighting the cultivation conditions, since environmental stress, together with factors laid out previously, highlighting the cultivation conditions, since environmental stress, together 281 selection of the growth medium, are key variables for the concentration of photo-pigments like C-PC with selection of the growth medium, are key variables for the concentration of photo-pigments like 282 [52]. C-PC [52]. 283 As for spirulina’s in vitro bioactivity, the DPPH radical scavenging capacities reported in the As for spirulina’s in vitro bioactivity, the DPPH radical scavenging capacities reported in the 284 present study fall within previously described ranges for spirulina and increase significantly (by present study fall within previously described ranges for spirulina and increase significantly (by 285 66.93%) with fermentation treatment [37,53,54]. To obtain an overall perspective, synthetic 66.93%) with fermentation treatment [37,53,54]. To obtain an overall perspective, synthetic antioxidant 286 antioxidant thiobarbituric acid (TBA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) can inhibit DPPH thiobarbituric acid (TBA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) can inhibit DPPH radicals, by up to 287 radicals, by up to 93.0% and 95.6% respectively; while α-tocopherol inhibits it by 91.5% [37]. The 93.0% and 95.6% respectively; while α-tocopherol inhibits it by 91.5% [37]. The maximum percentage 288 maximum percentage inhibition achieved by spirulina in the present study was 56.0%, after 24 h inhibition achieved by spirulina in the present study was 56.0%, after 24 h fermentation, which 289 fermentation, which is more than half that of the synthetic antioxidants. This is significant, is more than half that of the synthetic antioxidants. This is significant, considering spirulina is a 290 considering spirulina is a natural source, and has an enhanced nutrient profile, in addition to the natural source, and has an enhanced nutrient profile, in addition to the increased antioxidant capacity. 291 increased antioxidant capacity. The ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) increased by 84.59% The ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) increased by 84.59% during the fermentation process, 292 during the fermentation process, reaching a maximum at 36 h and diminishing afterwards, possibly reaching a maximum at 36 h and diminishing afterwards, possibly due to the temperature damage 293 due to the temperature damage of thermo-sensitive antioxidant compounds. The FRAP results of thermo-sensitive antioxidant compounds. The FRAP results reported for this study fall within the 294 reported for this study fall within the average values of the literature [38]. It has been suggested that average values of the literature [38]. It has been suggested that C-PC and carotene are key contributors 295 C-PC and carotene are key contributors to FRAP [55,56]. Figure 9 illustrates the published ORAC to FRAP [55,56]. Figure9 illustrates the published ORAC values for the edible portion of various fruits 296 values for the edible portion of various fruits and vegetables, in order to facilitate the understanding and vegetables, in order to facilitate the understanding of where spirulina TAC as per ORAC stands, 297 of where spirulina TAC as per ORAC stands, compared to other foods. Increased consumption of compared to other foods. Increased consumption of plant-based foods rated with a high ORAC value 298 plant-based foods rated with a high ORAC value can enhance plasma antioxidant capacity in can enhance plasma antioxidant capacity in humans [57]. 299 humans [57].

Kale, Beets, plums, Garlic, pink Potato, sweet blackberries, red peppers & grapefruit, potato, yellow strawberries, brussels onions, tomato, squash, <20 OU >100 OU

spinach, sprouts 20-60 OU string beans, cucumber, blueberries, 60-100 OU lettuce & corn apple, celery, cranberries &  36 h bananas & raspberries fermented pears Spirulina 300 Figure 9. ORAC values (in ORAC Units (OU)) for the dry weight of various foods [58–61]. Regarding the protein fragmentation patterns, visible bands represent subunits of C-PC, one of the main contributors to spirulina’s bioactivity. As shown in Figure7, the bundle of monomers at ~50 kDa is only present for the first 36 h of the fermentation treatment. Afterwards, the band vanishes, suggesting a peptide bond cleavage by the action of LAB. According to Boussiba and Richmond [5], C-PC has a molecular weight of 44 kDa. However, lower molecular weight trimers of this peptide-bond pigment have been identified in previous research, to be between 14.4 and 30 kDa [47], which explains the appearance of a broad band at ~16–17 kDa, just below the 18.4 kDa marker. These have been identified in previous studies as alpha and beta subunits of C-PC, with molecular masses of 16 and 17 kDa [51,62]. The present study cannot claim bioactivity of specific peptides, since protein purification and identification was not performed. However, SDS-PAGE, together with RP-HPLC for free methionine quantification, show protein fragmentation, which demonstrates that smaller peptides were released from the parent proteins, during the fermentation process. Gibbs et al. [63] observed a similar fragmentation of proteins, due to the lactic acid bacterial protease activity in fermented soy samples. The nutritional value of spirulina is well-recognised, due to its unusually high protein content (60–70% of its dry weight, greater w/w than red meat), which can be hydrolysed into bioactive peptides (BPs) with potent in vitro and ex vivo bioactivity [64]. Recent studies have provided evidence that BPs derived from marine microorganisms, which share great similarities with cyanobacteria, such as spirulina, play an important role in human health and nutrition and, therefore, have a high potential as active ingredients for preparation of functional foods and nutraceutical products [65–67]. So far, the Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 11 of 16 efficacy of these BPs have been studied in vitro, in animal models and in human digestive simulation systems. Therefore, detailed human studies are needed in order to confirm the bioactivity of these peptides [68,69]. The findings of the present study, via the RP-HPLC revealed a 94.22% increase of free methionine content, from baseline to the end of the fermentation period. However, further fermentation periods are recommended to understand to what extent free methionine content increases in spirulina upon peptide hydrolysis. Published data for free methionine content in thirty-seven varieties of spirulina reported by Al-Dhabi and Valan Arasu [36] ranges from 0.0035 to 0.0098 mg/g (fresh/wet weight). After taking into consideration that spirulina biomass is ~95% water [70], this is in accordance with the values reported in the present study. The variation in the literature could be due to the Arthrospira species selected, and the extent of native protein cleaved by fermentation.

4.2. Correlation between pH as an Indicator of Fermentation Status and Results Trend A decrease in pH during fermentation is a result of the bacterial production of organic acids, primarily lactic acid. In this study, untreated spirulina showed the highest, most basic pH value of 6.0, with a continuous decrease during the ﬁrst half of the fermentation treatment (pH 3.8 at 36 h), followed by a less accentuated increase to pH 4.6, after 72 h fermentation. Once the substrate concentration for bacterial fermentation is too low, L. plantarum can no longer survive. Therefore, the breakdown of spirulina compounds and release of lactic acid slows down, reaching its maximum at 36 h and coinciding with the minimum pH and highest TAC. The increase in pH during the last 36 h of the fermentation process might be due to the release of basic ammonia, cleaved-off from the high amino acid content found in spirulina. L. plantarum has a greater demand for carbon than for nitrogen, leading to a net release of ammonia in the medium, which attracts protons to form ammonium in aqueous solution, thus, increasing the pH [71].

4.3. Beneﬁts of the ORAC Assay Versus other Traditional TAC Assays Since DPPH, FRAP, TPC, Bradford and C-phycocyanin content assays rely on a colorimetric-based assessment, the powerful green/blue hue of the spirulina has the potential to interfere with the absorbance readings, leading to inconsistent results. The DPPH and FRAP assays are technically simple and quick to perform; however, it has been argued that they are not a chemically sound method for assaying TAC [72,73]. Both assays undergo a Hydrogen Atom Transfer (HAT)-based mechanism, when reacting with the substrate(s) present in the sample, which bears little resemblance to the reaction in vivo. Additionally, DPPH as a radical is highly stable, compared to other reactive radical species present in most food matrices [73], and the reversibility between DPPH and ortho-methoxyphenol compounds reaction, together with its low tolerance for pH changes, could lead to false low-absorbance readings. Furthermore, the FRAP assay enhances an unnatural redox propagation [46], releases Fe(II), and fails to detect thiol- or carotenoid-containing antioxidants [74]. ORAC has multiple advantages over other TAC methods [31,32,34,61,75], and it was the preferred assay for this study, offering the highest correlation with pH change, during fermentation (r = 0.95).

4.4. Potential Application of Spirulina Fermentation Cyanobacteria are the oldest form of autotrophic life on Earth and compose the main part of the biomass of the planet. It is believed that the key to their success lies in their unique metabolism and cytoplasmic composition, which also makes them excellent nutraceutical candidates for the highly demanding modern food industry constantly seeking to create healthier, cheaper, more convenient novel foods [76]. In addition, health-pursuing consumers of this century are trending towards functional foods and nutraceutical products [77]. Spirulina protein’s quality is highly superior to that of almost any other ’green’ source, since it offers all essential amino acids (AA), with no limiting factor for assimilation [78], which is rare for non-animal foods. In fact, non-essential AA represent almost half of the protein content in spirulina [16]. Moreover, in terms of its digestibility, its biological value and net protein utilisation are in the same Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 12 of 16 range as most common standard protein sources. When evaluating spirulina protein by an animal feeding test, its protein efficiency ratio scored much higher than most plant proteins [79]. Therefore, spirulina could be used as a supplement to increase the content of the limited AA in certain foods, such as cereals [80]. Further, AA production is a multi-billion-dollar, multi-national industry. Glutamic acid, lysine and methionine account for the majority, by weight, of AAs sold. AAs are consumed in a variety of markets, the largest by volume being the food-flavouring industry, followed by the animal feed industry [81]. Methionine is an essential AA for humans and livestock. Its production is achieved via enzymatic synthesis (bioconversion of precursors), or by submerged fermentation, using microorganisms. The lack of knowledge regarding feedback regulation of methionine biosynthesis is a major impediment for methionine extraction, via fermentation [82]. Therefore, most commercially pure L-methionine products are synthesised chemically, from aspartate [81]. Plant proteins are normally deficient in methionine, consequently, plant-based diets might need methionine supplementation to avoid dietary deficiency. Therefore, methionine, together with other essential AAs, is of significant interest and its demand has increased greatly, over the last few decades [82]. A limited number of studies have examined the properties of fermented spirulina. Spirulina has been confirmed to be a suitable substrate for L. plantarum, thus, holding a potential for the production of probiotic-based products [83]. Additionally, spirulina fermentation with L. plantarum increased digestibility by 4.4%, and the antioxidant activity and total phenolic content by 79% and 320%, respectively [83]. Fermentation with L. plantarum and Bacillus subtilis improved deodorisation of off-flavour and protein hydrolysis, also yielding an improved ratio of essential-to-total AAs, compared to the unfermented spirulina and consequently enhancing the sensory and antioxidant capacity, during product development [84]. Further, LAB-fermented spirulina was examined for its antioxidant effects and UVB protective activity in skin-care models. Results showed higher levels of free polyphenols and phycocyanobilin in fermented versus untreated spirulina [85]. Lastly, Choi et al. [86], likewise, demonstrated an enhanced TAC and beta-carotene profile, upon L. plantarum fermentation and ultrasonic extraction of Arthrospira maxima, which was thought to contribute to the apparent higher brain-derived neuroprotective factor of fermented Arthrospira maxima, compared to its untreated control. All of these data agree with the previously laid-out ‘cell wall biodegradation’ hypothesis upon LAB fermentation of the Arthrospira species.

5. Conclusions Fermentation increased the nutraceutical value of spirulina, significantly (P ≤ 0.05), for all evaluated parameters. The 36-h-fermented spirulina had the highest TPC, C-phycocyanin content, FRAP and ORAC values of all fermentation treatment periods, except for the DPPH scavenging activity, which peaked at 24 h. Additionally, ORAC, the only fluorescence-based method, had the highest correlation with pH drop, during fermentation (r = 0.95), and is recommended as a sole measure of antioxidant capacity for coloured-food matrices. Total antioxidant capacity diminished after the first half of the fermentation treatment, probably due to the damage of air-, and heat-sensitive antioxidants, while free methionine content and protein fragmentation were reported to be highest in the 72-h-fermented spirulina samples. Thus, while total antioxidant capacity diminished after 36 h (expected for thermolabile antioxidants), the thermostable proteins and bioactive peptides increased in a linear manner, as a direct function of fermentation time. Further research is needed to explore the bioactivity of fermented spirulina in vivo.

Author Contributions: E.d.M.C. and E.S. performed the experiments, analysed the data and drafted this paper. E.S. and N.A.-G. developed the concept, designed the experiments and revised the manuscript for publication. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Arthrospira platensis F&M-C256 (Fotosintetica & Microbiologica) biomass was provided by Archimede Ricerche S.r.l. (Imperia, Italy). Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 13 of 16

Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References

1. Sapp, J. The prokaryote-eukaryote dichotomy: Meanings and mythology. J. Mol. Biol. 2005, 69, 292–305. [CrossRef][PubMed] 2. Borowitzka, M.A. Commercial production of microalgae: Ponds, tanks, tubes and fermenters. J. Biotechnol. 1999, 70, 313–321. [CrossRef] 3. Miranda, M.; Cintra, R.; Barros, S.; Mancini-Filho, J. Antioxidant activity of the microalga Spirulina maxima. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 1998, 31, 1075–1079. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. Bishop, W.M.; Zubeck, H.M. Evaluation of microalgae for use as nutraceuticals and nutritional supplements. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2012, 2, 147–153. [CrossRef] 5. Boussiba, S.; Richmond, A.E. Isolation and characterization of phycocyanins from the blue-green alga Spirulina platensis. Arch. Microbiol. 1979, 120, 155–159. [CrossRef] 6. Khan, Z.; Bhadouria, P.; Bisen, P. Nutritional and therapeutic potential of Spirulina. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2005, 6, 373–379. [CrossRef] 7. Belay, A.; Ota, Y.; Miyakawa, K.; Shimamatsu, H. Current knowledge on potential health benefits of Spirulina. J. Appl. Phycol. 1993, 5, 235–241. [CrossRef] 8. Ramamoorthy, A.; Premakumari, S. Effect of supplementation of Spirulina on hypercholesterolemic patients. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1996, 33, 124–128. 9. Layam, A.; Reddy, C. Antidiabetic property of spirulina. Diabetol. Croat. 2006, 35, 29–33. 10. Konícková, R.; Vanková, K.; Vaníková, J.; Vánová, K.; Muchová, L.; Subhanová, I.; Zadinová, J.; Zelenka, D.A.; Kolár, M.; Strnad, H.; et al. Anti-cancer effects of blue-green alga Spirulina platensis, a natural source of bilirubin-like tetrapyrrolic compounds. Ann. Hepatol. 2014, 13, 273–283. 11. Cheong, S.; Kim, M.; Sok, D.; Hwang, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, M. Spirulina prevents atherosclerosis by reducing hypercholesterolemia in rabbits fed a high-cholesterol diet. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 2010, 56, 34–40. [CrossRef][PubMed] 12. Nicoletti, M. Microalgae nutraceuticals. Foods 2016, 5, 54. [CrossRef][PubMed] 13. Christaki, E.; Florou-Paneri, P.; Bonos, E. Microalgae: A novel ingredient in nutrition. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 62, 794–799. [CrossRef][PubMed] 14. Batista, A.P.; Bandarra, N.; Raymundo, A.; Gouveia, L. Food Chemistry Research Development, Chapter 2; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 1–36. 15. Intergovernmental Institution for the Use of Micro Algae Spirulina against Malnutrition (IIMSAM). Available online: https://www.who.int/pmnch/about/members/database/iimsam/en/ (accessed on 11 November 2018). 16. Holman, B.; Malau-Aduli, A. Spirulina as a livestock supplement and animal feed. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2012, 97, 615–623. [CrossRef][PubMed] 17. Deng, R.; Chow, T. Hypolipidemic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities of microalgae Spirulina. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2010, 28, 33–45. [CrossRef] 18. Sanjukta, S.; Rai, A. Production of bioactive peptides during soybean fermentation and their potential health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1–10. [CrossRef] 19. Rai, A.K.; Jeyaram, K. Health Benefits of Functional Proteins in Fermented Foods, 1st ed.; Tamang, J.P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 455–474. 20. Limón, R.; Peñas, E.; Torino, M.; Martínez-Villaluenga, C.; Dueñas, M.; Frias, J. Fermentation enhances the content of bioactive compounds in kidney bean extracts. Food Chem. 2015, 172, 343–352. [CrossRef] 21. Hur, S.; Lee, S.; Kim, Y.; Choi, I.; Kim, G. Effect of fermentation on the antioxidant activity in plant-based foods. Food Chem. 2014, 160, 346–356. [CrossRef] 22. Rodríguez, H.; Curiel, J.A.; Landete, J.M.; de las Rivas, B.; de Felipe, F.L.; Gómez- Cordovés, C. Food phenolics and lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 132, 79–90. [CrossRef] 23. Ricci, I.; Artacho, R.; Olalla, M. Milk protein peptides with angiotensin I- converting enzyme inhibitory (ACEI) activity. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 390–402. [CrossRef] Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 14 of 16

24. Septembre-Malaterre, A.; Remize, F.; Poucheret, P. Fruits and vegetables, as a source of nutritional compounds and phytochemicals: Changes in bioactive compounds during lactic fermentation. Food Res. Int. 2017, 51, 128–136. [CrossRef] 25. Crowley, S.; Mahony, J.; Van Sinderen, D. Current perspectives on antifungal lactic acid bacteria as natural bio-preservatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 33, 93–109. [CrossRef] 26. Gupta, S.; Abu-Ghannam, N.; Scannell, A.G. Growth and kinetics of Lactobacillus plantarum in the fermentation of edible Irish brown seaweeds. Food Bioprod. Process. 2011, 89, 346–355. [CrossRef] 27. Jaiswal, A.K.; Rajauria, G.; Abu-Ghannam, N.; Gupta, S. Effect of different solvents on polyphenolic content, antioxidant capacity and antibacterial activity of Irish York cabbage. J. Food Biochem. 2012, 36, 344–358. [CrossRef] 28. Bennett, A.; Bogorad, L. Complimentary chromatic adaptation in a filamentous blue-green alga. J. Cell Biol. 1973, 58, 419. [CrossRef][PubMed] 29. Jaiswal, A.K.; Abu-Ghannam, N. Degradation kinetic modelling of color, texture, polyphenols and antioxidant capacity of York cabbage after microwave processing. Food Res. Int. 2013, 53, 125–133. [CrossRef] 30. Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [CrossRef] 31. Huang, D.; Ou, B.; Hampsch-Woodill, M.; Flanagan, J.; Prior, R. High-throughput assay of oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) using a multichannel liquid handling system coupled with a microplate fluorescence reader in 96-well format. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 4437–4444. [CrossRef] 32. Cao, G.H.; Alessio, H.M.; Cutler, R.G. Oxygen-radical absorbance capacity assay for antioxidants. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1993, 14, 303–311. [CrossRef] 33. Varzaru, I.; Untea, A.E.; Martura, T.; Olteanu, M.O.; Panaite, T.D.; Schitea, M.S.; Van, I. Development and validation of an RP-HPLC method for methionine, cystine and lysine separation and determination in corn samples. Rev. Chim. Buchar. 2013, 64, 673–679. 34. Prior, R.L.; Cao, G. Analysis of botanicals and dietary supplements for antioxidant capacity: A review. AOAC Int. 2000, 83, 950–956. 35. Lawton, W.R. Heat Sensitive Recording Composition Containing a Complexed Phenolics and a Spiropyran or Leuco Lactone. U.S. Patent 4,097,288, 27 June 1978. 36. Al-Dhabi, N.; Valan Arasu, M. Quantification of phytochemicals from commercial Spirulina products and their antioxidant activities. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 58, 1–13. [CrossRef][PubMed] 37. El-Baky, H.H.A.; El Baz, F.K.; El-Baroty, G.S. Characterization of nutraceutical compounds in blue green alga Spirulina maxima. J. Med. Plants Res. 2008, 2, 292–300. 38. Shukla, V.; Vashistha, M.; Singh, S.N. Evaluation of antioxidant profile and activity of amalaki (Emblica officinalis), spirulina and wheat grass. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 2009, 24, 70–75. [CrossRef] 39. Hajimahmoodi, M.; Faramarzi, M.A.; Mohammadi, N.; Soltani, N.; Oveisi, M.R.; Nafissi-Varcheh, N. Evaluation of antioxidant properties and total phenolic contents of some strains of microalgae. J. Phycol. 2010, 22, 43–50. [CrossRef] 40. Tawaha, K.; Alali, F.Q.; Gharaibeh, M.; Mohammad, M.; El-Elimat, T. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of selected Jordanian plant species. Food Chem. 2007, 104, 1372–1378. [CrossRef] 41. Cai, Y.; Luo, Q.; Sun, M.; Corke, H. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds of 112 traditional Chinese medicinal plants associated with anticancer. Life Sci. 2004, 74, 2157–2184. [CrossRef] 42. Jimenez-Escrig, A.; Jimenez-Jimenez, I.; Pulido, R.; Saura-Calixto, F. Antioxidant activity of fresh and processed edible seaweeds. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2001, 81, 530–534. [CrossRef] 43. Zheng, W.; Wang, S.Y. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds in selected herbs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 5165–5170. [CrossRef] 44. Dudonné, S.; Vitrac, X.; Coutière, P.; Woillez, M.; Mérillon, J.M. Comparative study of antioxidant properties and total phenolic content of 30 plant extracts of industrial interest using DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, SOD, and ORAC assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1768–1774. [CrossRef] 45. Li, H.B.; Cheng, K.W.; Wong, C.C.; Fan, K.W.; Chen, F.; Jiang, Y. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity and total phenolic content of different fractions of selected microalgae. Food Chem. 2007, 102, 771–776. [CrossRef] 46. Apak, R.; Özyürek, M.; Güçlü, K.; Çapano˘glu, E. Antioxidant activity/capacity measurement. 1. Classification, physicochemical principles, mechanisms, and electron transfer (ET)-based assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 997–1027. [CrossRef][PubMed] Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 15 of 16

47. Alzahrani, M.A.J.; Perera, C.O.; Hemar, Y. Production of bioactive proteins and peptides from the diatom Nitzschia laevis and comparison of their in vitro antioxidant activities with those from Spirulina platensis and Chlorella vulgaris. Int. J. Food Sci. Techonol. 2017, 29, 128–130. [CrossRef] 48. Sarada, R.M.G.P.; Pillai, M.G.; Ravishankar, G.A. Phycocyanin from Spirulina sp: Influence of processing of biomass on phycocyanin yield, analysis of efficacy of extraction methods and stability studies on phycocyanin. Proc. Biochem. 1999, 34, 795–801. [CrossRef] 49. Boussiba, S.; Richmond, A.E. C-phycocyanin as a storage protein in the blue-green alga Spirulina platensis. Arch. Microbiol. 1980, 125, 143–147. [CrossRef] 50. Carmichael, W.W.; Stukenberg, M. Blue-Green Algae (Cyanobacteria). In Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements, 1st ed.; Informa Healthcare: London, UK, 2006; Volume 1. 51. Patel, A.; Mishra, S.; Pawar, R.; Ghosh, P. Purification and characterization of C-Phycocyanin from cyanobacterial species of marine and freshwater habitat. Protein Express. Purif. 2005, 40, 248–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Tarko, T.; Duda-Chodak, A.; Kobus, M. Influence of growth medium composition on synthesis of bioactive compounds and antioxidant properties of selected strains of Arthrospira cyanobacteria. Czech J. Food Sci. 2012, 30, 258–267. [CrossRef] 53. Zaid, A.; Hammad, D.; Sharaf, E. Antioxidant and anticancer activity of Spirulina platensis water extracts. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 11, 846–851. [CrossRef] 54. Chu, W.; Lim, Y.; Radhakrishnan, A.; Lim, P. Protective effect of aqueous extract from Spirulina platensis against cell death induced by free radicals. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2010, 10, 112–119. [CrossRef] 55. Madhyastha, H.; Vatsala, T.M. Cysteine rich cyanopeptide β2 from Spirulina fussiformis exhibits plasmid DNA pBR322 scission prevention and cellular antioxidant activity. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2010, 48, 486–493. 56. Madhyastha, H.K.; Sivashankari, S.; Vatsala, T.M. C-phycocyanin from Spirulina fussiformis exposed to blue light demonstrates higher efficacy of in vitro antioxidant activity. Biochem. Eng. J. 2009, 43, 221–224. [CrossRef] 57. Cao, G.; Booth, S.L.; Sadowski, J.A.; Prior, R.L. Increases in human plasma antioxidant capacity after consumption of controlled diets high in fruit and vegetables. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998, 68, 1081–1087. [CrossRef][PubMed] 58. Prior, R.L.; Cao, G.; Martin, A.; Sofic, E.; McEwen, J.; O’Brien, C.; Lischner, N.; Ehlenfeldt, M.; Kalt, W.; Krewer, G.; et al. Antioxidant capacity as influenced by total phenolic and anthocyanin content, maturity, and variety of Vaccinium species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 2686–2693. [CrossRef] 59. Cao, G.; Sofic, E.; Prior, R.L. Antioxidant capacity of tea and common vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 3426–3431. [CrossRef] 60. Wang, H.; Cao, G.; Prior, R.L. Total antioxidant capacity of fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996, 44, 701–705. [CrossRef] 61. Prior, R.L.; Hoang, H.A.; Gu, L.; Wu, X.; Bacchiocca, M.; Howard, L.; Hampsch-Woodill, M.; Huang, D.; Ou, B.; Jacob, R. Assays for hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant capacity (oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORACFL)) of plasma and other biological and food samples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 3273–3279. [CrossRef][PubMed] 62. Kumar, D.; Dhar, D.W.; Pabbi, S.; Kumar, N.; Walia, S. Extraction and purification of C-phycocyanin from Spirulina platensis (CCC540). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 19, 184–188. [CrossRef][PubMed] 63. Gibbs, B.F.; Zougman, A.; Masse, R.; Mulligan, C. Production and characterization of bioactive peptides from soy hydrolysate and soy-fermented food. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 123–131. [CrossRef] 64. Vo, T.S.; Ryu, B.; Kim, S.K. Purification of novel anti-inflammatory peptides from enzymatic hydrolysate of the edible microalgal Spirulina maxima. J. Funct. Foods 2013, 5, 1336–1346. [CrossRef] 65. Harnedy, P.A.; FitzGerald, R.J. Bioactive peptides from marine processing waste and shellfish: A review. J. Funct. Foods 2012, 4, 6–24. [CrossRef] 66. Ngo, D.H.; Vo, T.S.; Ngo, D.N.; Wijesekara, I.; Kim, S.K. Biological activities and potential health benefits of bioactive peptides derived from marine organisms. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2012, 51, 378–383. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Aneiros, A.; Garateix, A. Bioactive peptides from marine sources: Pharmacological properties and isolation procedures. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 803, 41–53. [CrossRef][PubMed] Fermentation 2019, 5, 28 16 of 16

68. Kim, S.K.; Wijesekara, I. Development and biological activities of marine-derived bioactive peptides: A review. J. Funct. Foods 2010, 2, 1–9. [CrossRef] 69. Murray, B.A.; FitzGerald, R.J. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitory peptides derived from food proteins: Biochemistry, bioactivity and production. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2007, 13, 773–791. [CrossRef][PubMed] 70. Toku¸soglu,Ö.; Üunal, M.K. Biomass nutrient proﬁles of three microalgae: Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris, and Isochrisis galbana. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 1144–1148. [CrossRef] 71. Hristov, A.N.; Ropp, J.K.; Zaman, S.; Melgar, A. Effects of essential oils on in vitro ruminal fermentation and ammonia release. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 144, 55–64. [CrossRef] 72. Foti, M.C.; Daquino, C.; Geraci, C. Electron-transfer reaction of cinnamic acids and their methyl esters with the DPPH• radical in alcoholic solutions. J. Org. Chem. 2004, 69, 2309–2314. [CrossRef] 73. Bondet, V.; Brand-Williams, W.; Berset, C. Kinetics and mechanisms of antioxidant activity using the DPPH free radical method. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1997, 30, 609–615. [CrossRef] 74. Huang, D.; Ou, B.; Prior, R. The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assays. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2005, 53, 1841–1856. [CrossRef] 75. Wu, X.; Beecher, G.R.; Holden, J.M.; Haytowitz, D.B.; Gebhardt, S.E.; Prior, R.L. Lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidant capacities of common foods in the United States. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 4026–4037. [CrossRef] 76. Radakovits, R.; Jinkerson, R.; Darzins, A.; Posewitz, M. Genetic engineering of algae for enhanced biofuel production. J. Eukaryot Cell 2010, 9, 486–501. [CrossRef][PubMed] 77. Siro, I.; Kápolna, E.; Kápolna, B.; Lugasi, A. Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance—A review. J. Appet. 2008, 51, 456–467. [CrossRef][PubMed] 78. Gutiérrez-Salmeán, G.; Fabila-Castillo, L.; Chamorro-Cevallos, G. Nutritional and toxicological aspects of Spirulina (Arthrospira). Nutr. Hosp. 2015, 32, 34–40. [PubMed] 79. Richmond, A. Microalgal biotechnology. J. Chem. Technol. Biochem. 1988, 47, 181–182. 80. Makkar, H.P.; Tran, G.; Heuzé, V.; Giger-Reverdin, S.; Lessire, M.; Lebas, F.; Ankers, P. Seaweeds for livestock diets: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 212, 1–17. [CrossRef] 81. Ikeda, M. Amino acid production processes. In Microbial Production of L-Amino Acids; Robert, F., Jugen, T., Bathe, V.G., Debabov, S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 1–35. 82. Kumar, D.; Gomes, J. Methionine production by fermentation. Biotechnol. Adv. 2005, 23, 41–47. [CrossRef] 83. Niccolai, A.; Shannon, E.; Abu-Ghannam, N.; Biondi, N.; Rodolﬁ, L.; Tredici, M.R. Lactic acid fermentation of Arthrospira platensis (spirulina) biomass for probiotic-based products. J. Appl. Phycol. 2018, 1–7. [CrossRef] 84. Bao, J.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, J.H.; Ren, D.F.; Lu, J. Mixed fermentation of Spirulina platensis with Lactobacillus plantarum and Bacillus subtilis by random-centroid optimization. Food Chem. 2018, 264, 64–72. [CrossRef] 85. Liu, J.G.; Hou, C.W.; Lee, S.Y.; Chuang, Y.; Lin, C.C. Antioxidant effects and UVB protective activity of Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) products fermented with lactic acid bacteria. Proc. Biochem. 2011, 46, 1405–1410. [CrossRef] 86. Choi, W.; Kang, D.; Heo, S.J.; Lee, H. Enhancement of the neuroprotective effect of fermented Spirulina maxima associated with antioxidant activities by ultrasonic extraction. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2469. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).