YEAST CELL WALL DERIVED FLAVOUR

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for producing a flavour composition comprising providing a slurry of yeast cell walls and contacting the slurry of yeast cell walls with a glucanase and with an endoprotease, followed by separating a liquid fraction by solid/liquid separation to provide the liquid flavour composition.

Claims

1. Method for producing a flavour composition comprising providing a slurry of yeast cell walls and contacting the slurry of yeast cell walls with a glucanase and with an endoprotease, followed by separating a liquid fraction by solid/liquid separation to provide the flavour composition.

2. Method according to claim 1, further comprising contacting the slurry of yeast cell walls with an exopeptidase.

3. Method according to claim 1, wherein the glucanase is a laminaripentaose-producing--1,3-glucanase (LPHase).

4. Method according to claim 1, further comprising contacting the slurry of yeast cell walls with a protease.

5. Method according to claim 1, wherein the endoprotease comprises a proline specific endoprotease.

6. Method according to claim 1, further comprising concentrating the flavour composition to a dry matter content of 5% to 60%.

7. Method according to claim 1, wherein the - contacting the yeast cell walls with a glucanase, endoprotease and/or with an exopeptidase is carried out at a pH within the range of 3-10 and/or a temperature within the range of 40 C. to 70 C.

8. Method according to claim 1, further comprising formulating the flavour composition with a spray dry carrier selected from salt, maltodextrin, yeast extract.

9. Method according to claim 1, further comprising spray drying the flavour composition to a dry matter content of at least 95%.

10. Method according to claim 1, wherein the flavour composition comprises at least one of glucans, mannans, amino acids, proteins, protein fragments and phospholipids.

11. Flavour composition comprising at least one of glucans, mannans, amino acids, proteins, protein fragments and/or phospholipids.

12. Flavour composition according to claim 11, comprising: (i) 10 to 40% (w/w) glucans; (ii) 5 to 30% (w/w) mannans; (iii) 5 to 30% (w/w) free amino acids; (iv) 10 to 40% (w/w) protein; and (v) 5 to 25% (w/w) phospholipids.

13. Flavour composition according to claim 1, wherein the flavour composition is derived from yeast cell walls.

14. Flavour composition according to claim 1, wherein the flavour composition is in spray dried form.

15. A product comprising the flavour composition according to claim 1 for providing flavour modulation of a food product.

16. A product comprising the flavour composition according to claim 1 for providing a fatty, creamy, mouthfeel lingering flavour and/or masking of flavour in a food product.

17. A product comprising the flavour composition according to claim 1 in a food product having a reduced fat content.

Description

[0073] The invention will be further illustrated in the following non limiting examples. In the examples reference is made to the figures showing:

[0074] FIG. 1. Plot of the sensory evaluation of chicken bouillon formulations with 30% sodium reduction (n=7) in absence or presence of flavour composition from Example 1 (Ref 6=regular salt; Formulation 6.1=30% reduced salt; Formulations 6.2=30% reduced salt with flavour composition from Example 1).

[0075] FIG. 2. Results of sensory evaluation Formulation 7.1 compared to reference 7, showing the amount of persons (n=17) indicating the highest intensity of the 4 selected attributes.

[0076] FIG. 3. Plot sensory evaluation fat free beef bouillon (n=6), comparing formulation 8.1 and formulation 8.2 to Reference 8. (Ref 8=fat free beef bouillon; Formulation 8.1=with flavour composition from Example 1; Formulations 8.2=with added Maxarome)

EXAMPLES

Example 1

Solubilisation of Yeast Cell Walls to Produce a Flavour Composition

[0077] Isolated yeast cell wall slurry with dry matter content of 12-15% dry matter, was incubated at a concentration of 1.0% wt % dm for 4 h at 60 C. with Alcalase (Novozymes, Bogsvaerd, Denmark, endoprotease). The pH was controlled at pH 8. At the end of this incubation the pH of the yeast cell wall slurry was adjusted to 5.3.

[0078] Subsequently, the slurry was incubated with Denazyme GEL-L1 (Nagase Biochemicals, Kyoto, Japan, -(1,3) glucanase) at 0.07 wt % dm and the proteases: Flavourzyme (Novozymes, Bogsvaerd, Denmark, endoprotease and exopeptidase) at a dose of 0.5 wt % dm and proline-specific endoprotease (as disclosed in WO02/45524) at a dose of 0.5 wt %. The yeast cell walls were hydrolysed during 16 hours at 55 C.

[0079] After this incubation the enzymes were heat inactivated. The residual insoluble dry matter was removed by centrifugation. The solubilized cell wall material was concentrated by falling fill evaporator to a concentrate with a dry matter content of 30-35% dm. Different carriers were chosen to spray dry the Flavour composition. A high salt (HS) Flavour composition was produced after addition of 40% salt on total dry matter. A low salt (LS) Flavour composition was formulated by addition of 20% maltodextrin on total dry matter. The content of the provided flavour composition is shown in table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 content flavour composition Component % on carrier free dry matter Glucan fragments 27 Mannans 18 Free amino acids 13 Protein/protein fragments 31 Phospholipids 11

Example 2

Increase of Fatty Mouthfeel of Fat Free Chicken Bouillon

[0080] A fat free chicken bouillon was prepared by dry blending all ingredients from Table 2 in tap water of 95 C. and stirred until homogeneity. Products were cooled down until 60 C. before sensorial evaluation.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Formulation Ingredients 1.1 Reference 1 Flavour composition from example 1 0.5 0 Sodium chloride 6.8 7.0 Monosodium glutamate 1.6 1.6 Onion powder 0.25 0.25 Turmeric 0.06 0.06 White pepper 0.04 0.04 Celery leaves dried 0.04 0.04 Disodium Guanosine-5-monophosphate 0.06 0.06 (GMP) Disodium Inosine-5-monophosphate (IMP) 0.06 0.06 Maltodextrin 10.25 10.55 Maxavor Key Chicken YEX 0.3 0.3 Boiled Chicken Flavour 0.04 0.04 Water 1000 1000

[0081] The samples were evaluated by a trained sensory panel for savoury applications (n>10) by means of a paired comparison test (replicate measurement). A basic chicken application (Reference 1) and the basic application with added Flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 1.1) were offered simultaneously to the panellists with the question to identify the sample with the highest fatty mouthfeel character. Between and within the comparisons, the samples were offered randomly to the panellists. Based on the chance level of the test method a proportion of 0.5 is expected if no difference can be detected between two samples.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Sample Correct proportion Formulation 1.1 0.78 Reference 1 0.53

[0082] Table 3 indicates the proportion of panellists that selected the sample with added Flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 1.1) having the most fatty mouthfeel character is 0.78. A significant effect on fatty mouthfeel character was found after addition of 0.05% Flavour composition from Example 1 to the basic chicken application (Reference 1).

Example 3

Mouthfeel Enhancement in Chicken Bouillon

[0083] After dry blending of all ingredients of Reference 2, Formulation 2.1 and Formulation 2.2 (Table 4) to prepare chicken bouillon and chicken bouillon containing flavour composition from Example 1 at two different dose levels, the ingredients were added in tap water of 95 C. and stirred until homogeneity. Products were cooled down until 60 C. before sensorial evaluation.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Formulation Formulation Ingredients 2.1 2.2 Reference 2 Flavour composition from 0.5 1.5 0 example 1 Vegetable fat 5.0 5.0 10.0 Sodium chloride 6.8 6.4 7.0 Maltodextrin 5.25 4.65 0.55 Monosodium glutamate 1.6 1.6 1.6 Onion powder 0.25 0.25 0.25 Turmeric 0.06 0.06 0.06 White pepper 0.04 0.04 0.04 Celery leaves dried 0.04 0.04 0.04 Disodium Guanosine-5- 0.06 0.06 0.06 monophosphate (GMP) Disodium Inosine-5- 0.06 0.06 0.06 monophosphate (IMP) Maxavor Key Chicken 0.3 0.3 0.3 YEX Boiled Chicken Flavour 0.04 0.04 0.04 Water 1000 1000 1000

[0084] The samples were evaluated by a trained sensory panel for savoury applications (n=4). A basic chicken bouillon (Reference 2) and the basic chicken bouillon with added flavour composition from Example 1 at two different dose levels (Formulation 2.1 and Formulation 2.2) were offered in one single set to the expert panellists and the panellists were asked to describe the product character, focussed on attributes relevant for mouthfeel enhancement like fatty, creamy and fat coating.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Descriptive evaluation results of the expert panel comparing Formulation 2.1 and Formulation 2.2 with Reference 2. Sample Descriptive evaluation result Formulation 2.1 A creamy taste. Smooth, creamy, soft, velvet like taste. Small fat particle size. Formulation 2.2 An even more creamy taste than Formulation 2.1. Smooth, creamy, soft, velvet like taste. Small fat particle size. Reference 2 Fatty, peaky flavour profile. Fat coating. Large oil droplets were visible.

[0085] Table 5 discloses that the formulation with added flavour composition according to the invention provides a creamy taste while the amount of vegetable fat is reduced with 50%.

Example 4

Enhancement of Fatty and Creamy Mouthfeel in Semi Skimmed Milk

[0086] In a semi skimmed milk from a commercial supplier, the flavour composition from Example 1 was added (Formulation 3.1) to investigate its mouthfeel enhancing properties. After addition the milk was gently stirred until homogeneity.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Formulation Ingredients 3.1 Reference 3 Flavour composition from 1.0 0 example 1 Semi skimmed milk 1000 1000 (pasteurized)

[0087] The samples (Table 6) were evaluated by a trained sensory panel (n=6). The semi skimmed milk from a commercial supplier (Reference 3) and the semi skimmed milk from a commercial supplier with added flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 3.1) were offered in one single set to the expert panellists and the panellists were asked to describe the product character, focussed on attributes relevant for mouthfeel enhancement like fatty, creamy and fat coating.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Descriptive evaluation results of the expert panel comparing Formulation 3.1 with Reference Sample Descriptive evaluation result Formulation 3.1 More mouthfeel (more creamy and fatty) than the comparative sample Reference 3, somewhat more sweet. Also a slight cooked flavour. Reference 3 Fresh, neutral, milk

[0088] The expert panelist indicated that Formulation 3.1 that contained the flavour composition from Example 1, clearly showed an increased fatty, creamy mouthfeel compared to the commercial semi skimmed milk (Table 7). Thus, the flavour composition of the present invention modulates the sensory impact of the milk by increasing the fatty, creamy mouthfeel.

Example 5

Improve Flavour Balance and Creamy Mouthfeel in Vanilla Custard

[0089] To prepare a vanilla custard, all ingredients were weighted (Table 8). Reference 4.1 was prepared with semi skimmed milk from a commercial supplier, and Reference 4.2 was prepared with full fat milk from a commercial supplier. The flavour composition from Example 1 was added (Formulation 4.1) to investigate its mouthfeel enhancing properties in comparison to the vanilla custard prepared with semi skimmed milk (Reference 4.1) and the vanilla custard prepared with full fat milk (Reference 4.2).

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Reference Reference Ingredients Formulation 4.1 4.1 4.2 Flavour composition from 0.4 0 0 example 1 Semi skimmed milk 749.30 749.30 0 Full fat milk 0 0 749.3 Egg yolk 85.60 85.60 85.60 Sugar 139.1 139.1 139.1 Starch 17.1 17.1 17.1 Vanilla 5.40 5.40 5.40 Carrageenan 2.10 2.10 2.10 Xanthan gum 1.30 1.30 1.30 Colouring 0.016 0.016 0.016

[0090] All ingredients were mixed together and then heated until cooking and kept at cooking conditions for approximately 5 minutes. The formulations were homogenized using a high shear mixer to obtain a smooth structure. All formulations were cooled overnight at refrigerator temperature.

[0091] One hour before sensorial evaluation, the formulations were relocated from the refrigerator to ambient temperature. The samples were evaluated by an expert panel (n=9). The vanilla custard produced with semi skimmed milk (Reference 4.1), the vanilla custard produced with full fat milk (Reference 4.2) and the vanilla custard produced with semi skimmed milk with added flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 4.1) were offered in one single set to the expert panellists and the panellists were asked to describe the product character, focussed on attributes relevant for mouthfeel enhancement like fatty, creamy and fat coating.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Descriptive evaluation results of the expert panel comparing Formulation 4.1 with Reference 4.1 and Reference 4.2. Sample Descriptive evaluation result Formulation The sweetness impact and release is changed. The initial 4.1 sweetness is slightly lower than Reference 4.1 and the whole profile becomes more balanced. The creaminess and fattiness is enhanced. Three panelists indicated that this product showed comparable fattiness to the custard prepared with full fat milk (Reference 4.2). Reference Initial sweet and vanilla impact. Low on creaminess and no 4.1 fattiness. Product not very balanced. Reference Much lower on sweetness and vanilla taste. But the whole 4.2 profile seems balanced and very creamy and fatty.

[0092] The expert panelists indicated that Formulation 4.1 that contained the flavour composition from Example 1, showed an enhanced creaminess and fattiness compared to vanilla custard of Reference 4.1 (Table 9). In addition three panellists indicated that the fattiness of Formulation 4.1 containing the flavour composition from Example 1, was comparable to the fattiness of the vanilla custard produced with full fat milk (Reference 4.2) confirming the mouthfeel enhancement as a result of the addition of the flavour composition from Example 1 as well as showing the capability of the present flavour composition to reduce the fat content in a food product.

Example 6

Bitter Masking in Low Salt Chicken Soup

[0093] A fat free chicken bouillon was prepared by dry blending all ingredients from Table 10 in tap water of 95 C. and stirred until homogeneity. Products were cooled down until 60 C. before sensorial evaluation.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Formulation Ingredients 6.1 Formulation 6.2 Reference 6 Flavour composition 0.5 from example 1 Maltodextrin 10.3 10 10.51 Sodium chloride 4.9 4.7 7.0 Potassium chloride 2.31 2.31 0.0 Monosodium glutamate 1.6 1.6 1.6 Maxavor Key Chicken 0.3 0.3 0.3 YEX Onion powder 0.25 0.25 0.25 Disodium Guanosine-5- 0.06 0.06 0.06 monophosphate (GMP) Disodium Inosine-5- 0.06 0.06 0.06 monophosphate (IMP) Turmeric 0.06 0.06 0.06 White pepper 0.04 0.04 0.04 Celery leaves dried 0.04 0.04 0.04 Chicken Boiled Flavour 0.08 0.08 0.08 Water 1000 1000 1000

[0094] The samples were evaluated by a trained sensory panel for savoury applications (n=7). A basic chicken bouillon (Reference 6) and the basic chicken bouillon reduced in salt by 30% (with added potassium chloride to repair the salty taste) without and with added flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 6.1 and Formulation 6.2) were offered in one single set to the expert panellists, in random order and blindly coded. Before conducting the test, first the panellists were asked to determine the main attributes which they find suitable for this application. And a bouillon with 0% and 4% potassium chloride was tasted to make sure all experts recognize the taste and score it within the off note attribute. For the test the experts had to score the products on a 5 point scale, of which the outcome is presented in FIG. 1.

[0095] The expert panellists indicated that Formulation 6.2 that contained the flavour composition from Example 1, clearly showed a masking effect of the salt reduced formulation using KCl (Formulation 6.1). Addition of the flavour composition from Example 1 restored the balance, and it lowered the off note which was present due to the addition of KCl.

Example 7

Bitter Masking and Improve Mouthfeel in Sugar Free Ice Tea

[0096] Intensive sweeteners are effectively used to replace sugar in beverage systems, however the final product can suffer of a loss in mouthfeel (body), increase of lingering off notes in the aftertaste (which is often perceived as a type of bitterness). The flavour composition from Example 1 was added to a sugar free ice tea from a commercial supplier (Bolero Drinks Ltd) (Formulation 7.1) to investigate its mouthfeel enhancing properties and masking properties. The powdered ice tea was prepared, according to the instructions of the supplier, and the flavour composition from Example 1 was gently stirred in until homogeneity.

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Ingredients Formulation 7.1 Reference 7 Flavour composition from 0.3 0 example 1 Ice Tea Peach 8 8 (Instant peach flavoured drink with black tea extract and sweeteners) Water 1500 1500
The samples (Table 11) were evaluated by a group of people (n=17). The Ice Tea Peach from a commercial supplier (Reference 7) and the Ice Tea Peach from a commercial supplier with added flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 7.1) were offered simultaneously to each person. Each person had to indicate which sample had the highest intensity, on four different attributes.

[0097] FIG. 2 shows the amount of persons that selected either Reference 7 or the sample with added Flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 7.1) having the highest intensity for each attribute.

[0098] The overall result of the sensory group shows that the mouthfeel of the ice tea was increased and the lingering off notes (due to the use of artificial sweeteners) were decreased when the flavour composition from Example 1 was added (Formulation 7.1).

Example 8

Sensory Evaluation Maxarome Versus Flavour Composition from Example 1

[0099] A fat free beef bouillon was prepared by dry blending all ingredients from Table 12 in tap water of 95 C. and stirred until homogeneity. Products were cooled down until 60 C. before sensorial evaluation.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Compositions of formulations; all numbers in weight (gr) Formulation Reference Ingredients 8.1 Formulation 8.2 8 Flavour composition 2.4 0 0.00 from example 1 Maxarome YE (DSM 0 2.4 0 Food specialties BV) Sodium chloride 4.24 4.24 5.20 Maltodextrin 7.40 7.40 8.84 Maxavor Roast Beef YE 2.00 2.00 2.00 (DSM Food specialties BV) Modified starch 1.7 1.7 1.7 Beef extract 0.8 0.8 0.8 Sugar 0.70 0.70 0.70 Onion powder 0.40 0.40 0.40 Caramel powder 0.18 0.18 0.18 Garlic powder 0.06 0.06 0.06 White pepper 0.04 0.04 0.04 Citric acid 0.030 0.030 0.030 Tumeric 0.030 0.030 0.030 Nutmeg 0.02 0.02 0.02 Laurel 0.01 0.01 0.01 Water 1000 1000 1000

[0100] The three samples were evaluated by a trained sensory panel for savoury applications (n=6). A basic beef bouillon (Reference 8), a basic beef bouillon with added Maxarome (Formulation 8.2), and a basic beef bouillon with added flavour composition from Example 1 (Formulation 8.1) were offered in one single set to the expert panellists in random order and blindly coded. For the test the experts had to score the products at the selected attributes on a 5 point scale, of which the outcome is presented in FIG. 3.

[0101] The expert panellists indicated that Formulation 8.1 that contained the flavour composition from Example 1, clearly showed an increase in fatty and creamy notes, compared to the reference. While Formulation 8.2 containing Maxarome, only resulted in a minor increase in fattiness compared to the reference, and primarily enhanced on bouillon, umami and herbs.