4.7 Article

Molecular ecology and polyphasic characterization of the microbiota associated with semi-dry processed coffee (Coffea arabica L.)

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 1128-1135

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2010.07.024

关键词

Semi-dry processed coffee; Microbiota; ARDRA; PCR-DGGE; Yeasts; Bacteria; Coffee fermentation

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento de Pesquisas Cientificas (CNPq)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work was aimed at isolating and identifying the microbiota present during the semi-dry method of coffee processing using polyphasic methods and to evaluate microbial diversity with PCR-DGGE. Samples of Coffea arabica L were collected during different processing stages in southern Minas Gerais, Brazil. The bacterial and fungal isolates were phenotypically characterised and grouped according to the ARDRA technique, in which the 16-23S and ITS1-5.85 regions of the rDNA were sequenced for species identification. The bacterial counts varied from 3.7 to 7 log CFU g(-1). The yeast counts ranged from 3.4 to 6.9 log CFU g(-1), and the filamentous fungal population varied from 2 to 3.7 log CFU g. Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter agglomerans, Bacillus cereus and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the predominant bacteria detected during the processing of the coffee, and Pichia anomala, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa were the dominant yeasts. All of the yeast and bacterial species detected by PCR-DGGE were isolated using culture-dependent methods, with the exception of one uncultivable bacterial species. Aspergillus was the most common genus among the filamentous fungal isolates. The use of polyphasic methods allowed a better characterization of the microbiota that is naturally present in semi-dry processed coffee. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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