| Literature DB >> 32244337 |
Zhibin Liu1, Hongwen Guo1, Wen Zhang1, Li Ni1.
Abstract
Tea is the most widely consumed beverages next to water, however little is known about the influence of sustained tea consumption on the oral bacteria of healthy adults. In this study, three oral healthy adults were recruited and instructed to consume 1.0 L of oolong tea infusions (total polyphenol content, 2.83 g/L) daily, for eight weeks. Salivary microbiota pre-, peri-, and post-treatment were fully compared by high-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing and multivariate statistical analysis. It was revealed that oolong tea consumption reduced salivary bacterial diversity and the population of some oral disease related bacteria, such as Streptococcus sp., Prevotella nanceiensis, Fusobacterium periodonticum, Alloprevotella rava, and Prevotella elaninogenica. Moreover, via correlation network and Venn diagram analyses, seven bacterial taxa, including Streptococcus sp. (OTU_1), Ruminococcaceae sp. (OTU_33), Haemophilus sp. (OTU_696), Veillonella spp. (OTU_133 and OTU_23), Actinomyces odontolyticus (OTU_42), and Gemella haemolysans (OTU_6), were significantly altered after oolong tea consumption, and presented robust strong connections (|r| > 0.9 and p < 0.05) with other oral microbiota. These results suggest sustained oolong tea consumption would modulate salivary microbiota and generate potential oral pathogen preventative benefits. Additionally, diverse responses to oolong tea consumption among subjects were also noticed.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; bacterial diversities; correlation network; oolong tea; phenolic profile; salivary microbiota
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32244337 PMCID: PMC7230163 DOI: 10.3390/nu12040966
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
The phenolic profiles of the oolong tea infusion.
| Peak No. a | Tentative Identification | Chemical Formula | [M-H]− (m/z) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured Mass (Da) | Theoretical Exact Mass (Da) | Mass Accuracy (ppm) | ||||
| 1 | 1.05 | Caffeoyl-hexoside | C15H18O9 | 341.0875 | 341.0873 | 0.58 |
| 2 | 1.40 | L-Theanine | C7H14N2O3 | 173.0931 | 173.0927 | 2.53 |
| 3 | 1.97 | Epigallocatechin-glucuronide | C21H22O13 | 481.0991 | 481.0983 | 1.74 |
| 4 | 2.49 | Theasinensin C | C30H26O14 | 609.1235 | 609.1245 | −1.60 |
| 5 | 2.74 | Gallic acid | C7H6O5 | 169.0140 | 169.0137 | 1.52 |
| 6 | 2.92 | Theogallin | C14H16O10 | 343.0665 | 343.0666 | −0.19 |
| 7 | 3.80 | Theobromine b | C7H8N4O2 | 181.0736 | 181.0725 | 6.04 |
| 8 | 3.84 | Gallocatechin | C15H14O7 | 305.0662 | 305.0662 | 0.09 |
| 9 | 4.37 | Theasinensin B | C37H30O18 | 761.1348 | 761.1354 | −0.83 |
| 10 | 4.41 | Digalloyl-hexoside | C20H20O14 | 483.0758 | 483.0775 | −3.57 |
| 11 | 4.54 | O-Methylgallic acid | C8H8O5 | 183.0295 | 183.0294 | 0.58 |
| 12 | 4.81 | Theacitrin A | C37H28O18 | 759.1196 | 759.1198 | −0.24 |
| 13 | 4.91 | Epigallocatechin | C15H14O7 | 305.0689 | 305.0662 | 8.94 |
| 14 | 5.16 | C16H18O8 | 337.0923 | 337.0924 | −0.26 | |
| 15 | 5.36 | Catechin | C15H14O6 | 289.0718 | 289.0713 | 1.87 |
| 16 | 5.60 | Caffeine b | C8H10N4O2 | 195.0888 | 195.0882 | 3.30 |
| 17 | 5.68 | Procyanidin | C30H26O12 | 577.1356 | 577.1346 | 1.65 |
| 18 | 5.79 | Epicatechin-epicatechin | C30H26O12 | 577.1356 | 577.1346 | 1.65 |
| 19 | 6.14 | C16H18O8 | 337.0923 | 337.0924 | −0.26 | |
| 20 | 6.23 | Epicatechin | C15H14O6 | 289.0734 | 289.0713 | 7.41 |
| 21 | 6.34 | Epigallocatechin gallate | C22H18O11 | 457.0777 | 457.0771 | 1.24 |
| 22 | 6.41 | C16H18O8 | 337.0918 | 337.0924 | −1.74 | |
| 23 | 6.68 | Gallocatechin gallate | C22H18O11 | 457.0773 | 457.0771 | 0.37 |
| 24 | 6.92 | Theaflavin | C29H24O12 | 563.1199 | 563.1190 | 1.60 |
| 25 | 7.01 | Myricetin-hexoside | C21H20O13 | 479.0827 | 479.0826 | 0.19 |
| 26 | 7.11 | Myricetin-hexoside | C21H20O13 | 479.0825 | 479.0826 | −0.23 |
| 27 | 7.21 | Quercetin-hexosyl-hexosyl-deoxyhexoside | C33H40O21 | 771.1986 | 771.1984 | 0.22 |
| 28 | 7.36 | Quercetin-hexosyl-hexosyl-deoxyhexoside | C33H40O21 | 771.1982 | 771.1984 | −0.30 |
| 29 | 7.62 | Kaempferol-deoxyhexosyl-deoxyhexoside | C27H30O14 | 577.1555 | 577.1558 | −0.48 |
| 30 | 7.72 | Kaempferol-hexosyl-hexosyl-deoxyhexoside | C33H40O20 | 755.2029 | 755.2035 | −0.81 |
| 31 | 8.00 | Kaempferol-hexosyl-hexosyl-deoxyhexoside | C33H40O20 | 755.2048 | 755.2035 | 1.70 |
| 32 | 8.43 | Kaempferol-hexosyl-hexoside | C27H30O15 | 593.1508 | 593.1507 | 0.18 |
| 33 | 8.78 | Kaempferol-hexoside | C21H20O11 | 447.0927 | 447.0928 | −0.18 |
a Peaks were assigned from the chromatograms in Figure S1; b [M+H]+ mode.
Figure 1Relative abundances of the most abundant phyla and genera in each salivary sample in the (A) phylum level and (B) genus level.
The temporal changes of the salivary microbial community diversity in each subject.
| Baseline | Tea Intervention | Follow-Up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 4 | Week 8 | Week 12 | |
|
| ||||
| Shannon | 5.28 ± 0.41 a | 4.68 ± 0.27 ab | 4.00 ± 0.39 b | 4.17 ± 0.40 b |
| Simpson | 0.94 ± 0.02 a | 0.89 ± 0.03 ab | 0.81 ± 0.04 b | 0.84 ± 0.06 b |
|
| ||||
| Shannon | 4.79 ± 0.58 a | 4.63 ± 0.22 ab | 4.02 ± 0.27 b | 4.37 ± 0.13 ab |
| Simpson | 0.91 ± 0.06 a | 0.88 ± 0.06 a | 0.83 ± 0.05 b | 0.90 ± 0.02 a |
|
| ||||
| Shannon | 3.99 ± 0.57 a | 3.93 ± 0.27 a | 3.90 ± 0.17 a | 4.07 ± 0.65 a |
| Simpson | 0.85 ± 0.10 a | 0.83 ± 0.03 a | 0.80 ± 0.03 b | 0.83 ± 0.09 a |
Values are expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 3). Means with different superscript letters (a, b) within a row suggest significant differences (p < 0.05); means with the same superscript letters (a, b) within a row suggest the differences are not significant (p ≥ 0.05), as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Summary of multiple response permutation procedure (MRPP) and analysis of similarity (Anosim) tests between each subject.
| Compared Data Sets | MRPP | Anosim | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta | R | |||
| Subject 1 vs. Subject 2 | 0.1969 | 0.001 | 0.7105 | 0.001 |
| Subject 1 vs. Subject 3 | 0.1479 | 0.001 | 0.4886 | 0.001 |
| Subject 2 vs. Subject 3 | 0.1919 | 0.001 | 0.7562 | 0.001 |
| Subject 1 vs. Subject 2 vs. Subject 3 | 0.2227 | 0.001 | 0.6482 | 0.001 |
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots based on the relative abundance of all operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of each subject.
Figure 3Correlation networks of the predominant salivary microbiota (A,C,E) and heatmaps of the hub salivary microbiota (B,D,F) in each subject. In correlation networks, each node represents an OTU; the color of nodes indicates the phylum information; the size of nodes represents the number of linkages; lines between nodes represent a strong correlation between these two OTUs (|r| > 0.9 and p < 0.05, Pearson’s correlation); red line represents a positive correlation and blue line represents a negative correlation. The nodes with high strong connection numbers were selected as the “hub microbiota” and their dynamic shifts of relative abundance were further depicted on heatmaps. The color of the data matrix in heatmaps corresponds to the normalized relative abundance of the OTUs; the color bar on the top right indicates the scale.
Figure 4(A) The Venn diagram of the hub salivary microbiota in each subject. (B) PCA score plots based on the relative abundance of the shared hub microbiota across the three subjects.
Figure 5The temporal shifts of the shared hub salivary microbiota during the 12-week experimental period.