| Literature DB >> 35277029 |
Jieping Yang1, Venu Lagishetty1,2, Patrick Kurnia1, Susanne M Henning1, Aaron I Ahdoot1,2, Jonathan P Jacobs1,2,3.
Abstract
Kombucha is an increasingly popular functional beverage that has gained attention for its unique combination of phytochemicals, metabolites, and microbes. Previous chemical and microbial composition analyses of kombucha have mainly focused on understanding their changes during fermentation. Very limited information is available regarding nutrient profiles of final kombucha products in the market. In this study, we compared the major chemicals (tea polyphenols, caffeine), antioxidant properties, microbial and metabolomic profiles of nine commercial kombucha products using shotgun metagenomics, internal transcribed spacer sequencing, untargeted metabolomics, and targeted chemical assays. All of the nine kombucha products showed similar acidity but great differences in chemicals, metabolites, microbes, and antioxidant activities. Most kombucha products are dominated by the probiotic Bacillus coagulans or bacteria capable of fermentation including Lactobacillus nagelii, Gluconacetobacter, Gluconobacter, and Komagataeibacter species. We found that all nine kombuchas also contained varying levels of enteric bacteria including Bacteroides thetaiotamicron, Escherischia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Bacteroides fragilis, Enterobacter cloacae complex, and Akkermansia muciniphila. The fungal composition of kombucha products was characterized by predominance of fermenting yeast including Brettanomyces species and Cyberlindnera jadinii. Kombucha varied widely in chemical content assessed by global untargeted metabolomics, with metabolomic variation being significantly associated with metagenomic profiles. Variation in tea bases, bacteria/yeast starter cultures, and duration of fermentation may all contribute to the observed large differences in the microbial and chemical profiles of final kombucha products.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; bacteria; kombucha; metabolome; metagenome; tea polyphenols; yeast
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35277029 PMCID: PMC8838605 DOI: 10.3390/nu14030670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
List of kombucha products.
| Product | Ingredients Label | Nutrition (per 100 mL) | Expiration |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Calories: 10.6 | 5/6/2021 | |
| A2 | Calories: 12.5 | 4/14/2021 | |
| B | Calories: 12.7 | 8/12/2021 | |
| C1 | Calories: 16.9 | 5/22/2021 | |
| C2 | Calories: 16.9 | 3/9/2021 | |
| D | Calories: 14.8 | 7/21/2021 | |
| E1 | Calories: 9.6 | 8/4/2021 | |
| E2 | Calories: 3.03 | 8/24/2021 | |
| F | Calories: 13.3 | 6/3/2021 |
Products were labelled by manufacturer (e.g., A, B). Numbers indicate distinct products from the same manufacturer (e.g., 1, 2).
Figure 1Kombucha products vary greatly in microbial composition and diversity. (A) Microbial alpha diversity as measured by the Shannon index of richness and evenness is shown for each sample, grouped by kombucha product. Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05. Product C2 had p < 0.05 by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality. (B) Principal coordinates analysis plot visualizing microbial beta diversity by Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. Each symbol represents a sample; kombucha product is indicated by symbol color and shape. Significance of differences across products was assessed by Adonis. (C) Taxa summary plots showing the relative abundances of the 16 most abundant bacterial species across the samples. Each bar represents one sample; samples are grouped by kombucha product. Color indicates species. The bars do not necessarily add to 1 as lower abundance microbes are not shown.
Figure 2Relative abundances of enteric bacteria detected in kombucha. Each dot represents one sample with detectable levels of the indicated enteric bacteria. Significance of differences in two widely detected enteric bacteria, E. coli and B. thetaiotamicron, was determined by ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey. Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05.
Figure 3Fungal diversity and composition vary across kombucha products. (A) Fungal alpha diversity as measured by the Shannon index of richness and evenness is shown for each sample, grouped by kombucha product. Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05. Product D had p < 0.05 by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality. (B) Principal coordinates analysis plot visualizing fungal beta diversity by Bray–Curtis dissimilarity. Each symbol represents a sample; kombucha product is indicated by symbol color and shape. Significance of differences across products was assessed by Adonis. (C) Taxa summary plots showing the relative abundances of the 16 most abundant fungal species across the samples. Each bar represents one sample; samples are grouped by kombucha product. Color indicates species. In some cases, the species was uncharacterized, in which case only the genus name is shown. The bars do not necessarily add to 1 as lower abundance fungi are not shown.
Figure 4Differences in metabolites and microbial gene content across kombucha products. (A,B) Principal coordinates analysis plots representing (A) microbial gene content (“metagenome”) and (B) metabolomics profiles across the kombucha samples, with symbol/color indicating kombucha product. Significance of differences across products was assessed by Adonis. (C) Sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis (sPLS-DA) was used to visualize kombucha products in a supervised manner based upon two derived axes (X-variates 1 and 2) containing 9 and 5 metabolites, respectively. (D) Loadings of the metabolites contributing to X-variates 1 and 2 derived from sPLS-DA. (E) Procrustes analysis superimposing microbial gene abundances and metabolomics profiles. Arrows in the Procrustes plot point from the gene content data (“Metagenome”) to the metabolomics data (“Metabolome”). Significance of correlations between the two data sets was determined by the Mantel test with 100,000 permutations. (F) Heat map depicting partial correlations between MetaCyc pathways and metabolites that were differentially abundant across kombucha products. Correlations were adjusted for kombucha product and are only shown for pathways and metabolites that had at least one partial correlation with FDR <0.1.
Figure 5Variation in ethanol content and pH across kombucha products. pH (A) and ethanol (B) are shown for the kombucha products. Data presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05. Ethanol measurements for Product C1 had p < 0.05 by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality.
Figure 6Tea catechin levels and caffeine content vary across kombucha products. Green tea catechins (A) C, (B) EC, (C) EGCG, (D) ECG, and (E) caffeine were measured in the nine kombucha products. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05. Products A1 (C, caffeine), A2 (EC), B (ECG), D (EC), and F (C, caffeine) had p < 0.05 by the Shapiro–Wilk test of normality for the indicated catechin or caffeine.
Figure 7Antioxidant capacity differs across kombucha products. TEAC (A) and GAE (B) are shown as mean ± SEM (n = 3). Means in a column without a common letter differ; p < 0.05.