4.7 Article

Comparison of bacterial diversity profiles and microbial safety assessment of salami, Chinese dry-cured sausage and Chinese smoked-cured sausage by high-throughput sequencing

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 108-115

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.12.011

关键词

Bacterial diversity; Chinese dry-cured sausage; Chinese smoked-cured sausage; High-throughput sequencing; Salami

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772093]
  2. Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2017JY0087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bacterial communities of salami, Chinese dry-cured sausage and Chinese smoked-cured sausage were compared by high-throughput sequencing technology. The bacterial communities of Chinese dry-cured sausage and Chinese smoked-cured sausage were very different from that of salami, and the bacterial distribution was more abundant than that of salami. The highest number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) was found in salami for the genus Staphylococcus spp., accounting for 97.45%. Accordingly, Staphylococcus spp. and, and Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), including Lactobacillus spp., Weissella spp., Pediococcus spp., and Lactococcus spp. were the main bacteria both in Chinese dry-cured sausage and Chinese smoked-cured sausage. Moreover, the salami has a microbial safety with trace Enterococcus spp. (0.03%) population. In contrast, a larger Enterococcus spp. population with relative abundance of 1.16% and 2.99% was observed in Chinese dry-cured sausage and Chinese smoked-cured sausage, respectively. Apart from Enterococcus spp., several meat spoilage bacteria, namely, Photobacteriwn spp., Brochothrix spp. and Pseudomonas spp, were checked in Chinese-style sausages. The results revealed that the Chinese-style sausages have a poor hygienic quality, probably due to spontaneous fermentation. This study presents that high-throughput sequencing is a useful tool to evaluate bacterial diversity and monitor microbial quality in fermented sausages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据