| Literature DB >> 32405406 |
Binxing Zhou1, Cunqiang Ma1,2, Xiaoying Ren1,3, Tao Xia4, Chengqin Zheng1, Xiaohui Liu1.
Abstract
Storage environment caused the difference between Jinhua Pu-erh tea (JPT) and General Pu-erh tea. In this study, fungal flora and chemical compositions were analyzed. The results showed that storage environment caused significant (p < .05) differences of theaflavins (TF), theabrownins (TB), tea polyphenols (TP), and water-soluble sugars (WSS), and a highly significant (p < .01) difference of thearubigins (TR). Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus pallidofulvus, Aspergillus sesamicola, Penicillium manginii, and Aspergillus tamarii were isolated from Pu-erh teas and identified based on colony characteristics and ITS, β-tubulin, and calmodulin gene sequences, respectively. A. pallidofulvus, A. sesamicola, and P. manginii were dominant fungi in JPT and generated macroscopic yellow cleistothecia after a long-term storage. Correlation analysis showed that dominant fungi exhibited significantly (p < .05 or p < .01) positive or negative corrections with TF, TB, TP, WSS, TR, and gallic acid. This study revealed dominant fungi including A. pallidofulvus, A. sesamicola, and P. manginii and their effects on given chemical compositions.Entities:
Keywords: filamentous fungi; liquid chromatography; metabolites; storage; tea
Year: 2020 PMID: 32405406 PMCID: PMC7215201 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
FIGURE 1The processing and storage of pu‐erh tea type. Pu‐erh tea used in this paper was made from the same batch of sun‐dried green tea leaves with identical processing. Due to the different storage environments, the Pu‐erh tea used were divided into Jinhua Pu‐erh tea and General Pu‐erh tea according to appearance
Sensory evaluation and score of General pu‐erh tea (control) and Jinhua pu‐erh tea
| Factors | Sensory evaluation | Score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT (control) | JPT | GPT (control) | JPT | |
| Appearance (a) | Normal brick and well‐compressed | Obvious golden flower and well‐compressed | 88 ± 1.73 | 87.3 ± 1.53 |
| Liquor color (b) | Bright brownish red | Bright thick red | 90.3 ± 1.15 | 91.0 ± 2.0 |
| Aroma (c) | Stale pure flavor | Stale and harmonious arohid flavor | 90.3 ± 1.15 | 94.7 ± 1.53 |
| Taste (d) | Stale mellow, pure, and thick | Stale mellow and smooth | 87.0 ± 1.0 | 94.0 ± 1.0 |
| Infused leaves (e) | Fat, thick, and even | Fat, thick, and even | 83.0 ± 1.0 | 83.6 ± 0.58 |
| Total score | – | – | 88.0 ± 0.72 | 91.2 ± 1.53 |
Score was present by mean value ± SD of three replications. Total score was the summation of products of factors and score coefficient. Total score = 25%*(a) + 10%*(b) + 25%*(c) + 30%*(d) + 10%*(e).
Abbreviations: GPT, General pu‐erh tea; JPT, Jinhua pu‐erh tea.
There is significant difference in p < .05 level, and **a highly significant difference in p < .01 level using the independent t test of SPSS 20.0.
A comparisons of the chemical components in General pu‐erh tea (control) and Jinhua pu‐erh tea
| Samples | General pu‐erh tea (control) | Jinhua pu‐erh tea |
|---|---|---|
| Moisture content (%) | 9.59 ± 0.48 | 10.55 ± 0.26 |
| Water extract content (%) | 34.00 ± 1.51 | 36.33 ± 0.86 |
| TF (mg/g) | 3.63 ± 0.208 | 4.37 ± 0.208 |
| TR (mg/g) | 36.43 ± 2.22 | 44.13 ± 1.21 |
| TB (mg/g) | 131.7 ± 7.15 | 107.1 ± 11.13 |
| TP (mg/g) | 85.73 ± 6.95 | 70.73 ± 2.15 |
| C (mg/g) | 4.44 ± 1.14 | 4.14 ± 1.06 |
| EC (mg/g) | 13.7 ± 1.16 | 12.61 ± 0.98 |
| EGC (mg/g) | 14.99 ± 1.32 | 13.67 ± 0.91 |
| ECG (mg/g) | 10.33 ± 2.89 | 6.16 ± 1.11 |
| EGCG (mg/g) | ND | ND |
| Total catechins (mg/g) | 43.46 ± 4.18 | 36.6 ± 3.96 |
| GA (mg/g) | 12.81 ± 1.27 | 15.04 ± 1.36 |
| Caffeine (mg/g) | 38.42 ± 1.09 | 38.93 ± 0.76 |
| WSS (mg/g) | 33.40 ± 2.10 | 40.93 ± 2.17 |
| Free amino acids (mg/g) | 6.43 ± 0.78 | 6.07 ± 1.17 |
The content of total catechins was the summation of C, EC, EGC, ECG, and EGCG. All data were present by mean value ± SD of three replications.
Abbreviations: C, (+)‐catechin; EC, (−)‐epicatechin; ECG, (−)‐epicatechin 3‐O‐gallate; EGC, (−)‐epigallocatechin; EGCG, (−)‐epigallocatechin 3‐O‐gallate; GA, gallic acid; ND, not detected; TB, theabrownins; TF, theaflavins; TP, Tea polyphenols; TR, thearubigins; WSS, water‐soluble sugars.
There is a significant difference at p < .05 levels, and **A highly significant difference at p < .01 levels using the independent t test of SPSS 20.0.
Colony characteristics of filamentous fungi isolated from pu‐erh teas
| Isolate | Shape | Surface | Color | Exudates | Cleistothecia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPTS1 | Circular | Rough | Black | None | None |
| JPTS1 | Circular | Rough | Dark yellow colonies with white edges | Yellow sclerotium | Yellow |
| JPTS2 | Irregular | Rough | Light yellow | Yellow sclerotium | Golden |
| JPTS3 | Circular | Rough | Greyish‐green center with yellow patches | Red pigment | Yellow |
| GPTS2 | Irregular | Rough | Hazel green with gray back | None | None |
FIGURE 2Phylogenetic trees of strains JPTS1 (a), JPTS2 (b), JPTS3 (c), and GTS2 (d) built based on the received sequences, respectively
FIGURE 3Distribution (a) and differences (b) of isolated filamentous fungi in pu‐erh tea type. GPT, General pu‐erh tea. JPT, Jinhua pu‐erh tea. About nine different kinds of fungal strains were isolated from pu‐erh tea samples based on PDA medium, and those colony‐forming units were calculated. Five filamentous fungi were isolated and identified. Aspergillus pallidofulvus, Aspergillus sesamicola, and P. manginii were dominant fungi in count and generated macroscopic golden cleistothecia after a long‐term storage in relative humid environment. Others were insignificant fungal strains in count, which belonged to the genera Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Saccharomyces according to the colony morphological characteristics and conidia structures. * indicates there is a significant difference at p < .05 level, and ** indicates a highly significant difference at p < .01 level using the independent t test of SPSS 20.0
Correlation coefficients of each isolate strain and chemical components
| Indicators |
|
|
|
|
| Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moisture content | 0.544 | 0.830 | 0.686 | 0.840 | 0.230 | −0.417 |
| Water extract content | −0.784 | 0.785 | 0.568 | 0.810 | −0.037 | −0.229 |
| TF | −0.762 | 0.834 | 0.876 | 0.851 | 0.236 | 0.389 |
| TR | −0.931 | 0.851 | 0.804 | 0.806 | −0.079 | 0.416 |
| TB | 0.561 | −0.702 | −0.929 | −0.722 | −0.076 | −0.163 |
| TP | 0.819 | −0.773 | −0.801 | −0.671 | 0.022 | −0.693 |
| C | −0.134 | −0.273 | −0.097 | −0.501 | 0.396 | −0.812 |
| EC | 0.186 | −0.448 | −0.668 | −0.595 | −0.361 | 0.250 |
| EGC | 0.279 | −0.592 | −0.668 | −0.711 | −0.636 | 0.096 |
| ECG | 0.702 | −0.636 | −0.728 | −0.563 | 0.029 | −0.733 |
| Total catechins | 0.563 | −0.519 | −0.781 | −0.446 | 0.173 | −0.703 |
| GA | −0.409 | 0.527 | 0.834 | 0.482 | −0.246 | −0.018 |
| Caffeine | 0.059 | 0.243 | 0.469 | −0.018 | −0.154 | −0.061 |
| WSS | −0.827 | 0.921 | 0.772 | 0.923 | 0.215 | −0.016 |
| Free amino acids | 0.224 | −0.463 | −0.068 | −0.576 | −0.732 | 0.550 |
Abbreviations: C, (+)‐catechin; EC, (−)‐epicatechin; ECG, (−)‐epicatechin 3‐O‐gallate; EGC, (−)‐epigallocatechin; EGCG, (−)‐epigallocatechin 3‐O‐gallate; GA, gallic acid; TB, theabrownins; TF, theaflavins; TP, tea polyphenols; TR, thearubigins; WSS, water‐soluble sugars.
A significant correlation at p < .05 level, **A highly significant correlation at p < .01 level.