4.7 Article

Contrasting microbiomes of raw and ripened Pu-erh tea associated with distinct chemical profiles

Journal

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 124, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109147

Keywords

Camellia sinensis; Fungi; Bacteria; Microbiome; Pu-erh tea

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0400702-3]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [GK201603100]
  3. Foundation of Key Laboratory of Urban Agriculture [UA201702]
  4. Ministry of Agriculture, P.R. China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pu-erh tea has become one of the popular and widely consumed teas because of its health benefits resulted from various bioactive compounds that are microbially produced during Pu-erh tea production. We applied 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and analytical tools to investigate microbiomes and associated chemical profiles of five raw and five ripened Pu-erh teas from different manufacturers. Contrasting bacterial and fungal microbiomes of raw and ripened Pu-erh tea samples associated with distinct chemical profiles were revealed. The ripened Pu-erh teas had a higher bacterial diversity but lower fungal diversity than the raw Pu-erh teas. Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were the dominant phyla in the ripened and raw Pu-erh tea, respectively. Cyanobacteria phylum was found very abundant in the raw but rarely present in the ripened Pu-erh tea. Ascomycota was the dominant fungal phylum in both ripened and raw Pu-erh tea. Tea polysaccharide and gallocatechin gallate were the characteristic chemicals in the ripened Pu-erh tea; while caffeic acid, caffeine, EGC, ECG, EGCG, C, and GA were more representative in the raw Pu-erh tea. These results will assist in further cultivating and characterizing the representative microorganisms in Pu-erh teas of different origins, and improve our understanding of microbial-mediated Pu-erh tea production process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available