| Literature DB >> 35518948 |
Qianzhi Ding1, Wei Zheng1, Bowei Zhang2, Xiaojuan Chen1, Jie Zhang1, Xu Pang1, Yong Zhang3, Dexian Jia3, Surui Pei4, Yuesheng Dong2, Baiping Ma1.
Abstract
Pu-erh tea is produced from the leaves of large-leaf tea species (Camellia sinensis var. assamica) in the Yunnan province of China and divided into ripened pu-erh tea (RIPT, with pile-fermentation) and raw pu-erh tea (RAPT) according to processing methods. RIPT extract showed more potent anti-diabetic effects on two-hour postprandial blood glucose (2h-PBG) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) than RAPT extract. UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS and UHPLC-PDA analyses found that 17 newly formed components and the increased components after fermentation, such as quinic acid, gallic acid, caffeine, puerin I and so on, might be the main contributors to the enhanced activities of RIPT. In addition, the probiotic role of RIPT to some beneficial gut bacteria, such as lactobacillus, Prevotellaceae NK3B31 group, Alloprevotella and Prevotella, was observed in our study. These results might provide a clue to anti-diabetic mechanism and active components of pu-erh tea, and use as a functional beverage worth to be further studied. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35518948 PMCID: PMC9059968 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra09259a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Fig. 1The effects of RIPT and RAPT on diabetic indexes in diabetic rats. The 2h-PBG (A), FBG (B), FINS (C), HbA1c (D), plasma TC (E), and plasma TG (F) of the rats after 6 week administration. All of the results were expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 5). Values sharing a common letter (a, b, c, and d) in each comparison did not show any statistically significant differences accessed by one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
Compounds determined by UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS in the pu-erh tea extracts
| No. | Rt (min) | Formula | [M − H]− experimental | [M − H]− theoretical | Error (mD) | Identification | Source | VIP value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RAPT | RIPT | ||||||||
| 1 | 0.48 | C7H12O6 | 191.0576 | 191.0556 | 2.0 | Quinic acid | + | + | 2.52395 |
| 2 | 0.91 | C14H16O10 | 343.0668 | 343.0665 | 0.3 | Theogallin or its isomers | + | + | NA |
| 3 | 0.95 | C13H16O10 | 331.0689 | 331.0665 | 2.4 | Gallic acid-4- | + | − | 2.703 |
| 4 | 1.21 | C13H16O10 | 331.0667 | 331.0665 | 0.2 | Gallic acid-4- | + | + | 4.92352 |
| 5 | 1.36 | C7H6O5 | 169.0154 | 169.0137 | 1.7 | Gallic acid | + | + | 2.69024 |
| 6 | 1.47 | C13H16O10 | 331.0637 | 331.0665 | −2.8 | Gallic acid-4- | + | − | NA |
| 7 | 1.77 | C14H16O10 | 343.0679 | 343.0665 | 1.4 | Theogallin | + | + | 4.2577 |
| 8 | 2.33 | C14H16O10 | 343.0670 | 343.0665 | 0.5 | Theogallin or its isomers | + | + | 3.26224 |
| 9 | 2.95 | C15H14O7 | 305.0668 | 305.0661 | 0.7 | Gallocatechin | + | + | 3.911 |
| 10 | 3.18 | C7H8N4O2 | 181.0706 | 181.0726 | −2.0 | Theophylline or its isomers | + | + | NA |
| 11 | 4.02 | C16H18O9 | 353.0873 | 353.0873 | 0.0 | Chlorogenic acid | + | + | 2.61641 |
| 12 | 4.28 | C7H8N4O2 | 179.0559 | 179.0569 | −1.0 | Theophylline or its isomers | + | + | NA |
| 13 | 4.54 | C22H24O7 | 399.1442 | 399.1444 | −0.3 | Puerin A or its isomers | − | + | NA |
| 14 | 5.12 | C16H14O9 | 349.0559 | 349.0560 | −0.1 | 6-Carboxyl-(−)-gallocatechin or its isomers | − | + | NA |
| 15 | 5.8 | C15H14O7 | 305.0660 | 305.0661 | −0.1 | Epigallocatechin | + | + | 4.30649 |
| 16 | 6.1 | C15H14O6 | 289.0713 | 289.0712 | 0.1 | Catechin | + | + | 4.13423 |
| 17 | 6.24 | C37H30O18 | 761.1342 | 761.1354 | −1.2 | Theasinensin B | + | − | NA |
| 18 | 6.48 | C16H18O9 | 353.0862 | 353.0873 | −1.1 | 3- | + | + | NA |
| 19 | 6.76 | C20H20O14 | 483.0780 | 483.0775 | 0.5 | 1,6-Di- | + | − | NA |
| 20 | 6.88 | C8H10N4O2 | 195.0895 | 195.0882 | 1.3 | Caffeine | + | + | NA |
| 21 | 7.01 | C20H20O14 | 483.0781 | 483.0775 | 0.6 | 1,6-Di- | + | − | 2.84282 |
| 22 | 7.22 | C16H18O9 | 353.0859 | 353.0873 | −1.4 | 3- | + | + | NA |
| 23 | 7.56 | C30H26O12 | 577.1343 | 577.1346 | −0.3 | Procyanidin B1 | + | − | 4.41889 |
| 24 | 8.04 | C30H26O12 | 577.1352 | 577.1346 | 0.6 | The isomer of procyanidin B1 | + | − | NA |
| 25 | 8.21 | C37H30O17 | 745.1422 | 745.1405 | 1.7 | Epicatechin-(4β-8)-epigallocatechin-3- | + | − | NA |
| 26 | 8.42 | C30H26O12 | 577.1387 | 577.1346 | 4.1 | Procyanidin B2 | + | − | NA |
| 27 | 8.51 | C16H14O9 | 349.0556 | 349.0560 | −0.4 | 6-Carboxyl-(−)-gallocatechin or its isomers | − | + | NA |
| 28 | 9.04 | C37H30O17 | 745.1418 | 745.1405 | 1.3 | Epicatechin-(4β-8)-epigallocatechin-3- | + | + | NA |
| 29 | 9.3 | C21H23NO8 | 416.1342 | 416.1345 | −0.3 | Puerin VII | − | + | NA |
| 30 | 9.3 | C16H14O8 | 333.0603 | 333.0610 | −0.7 | 8-Carboxyl-(+)-catechin or its isomers | — | + | 2.89648 |
| 31 | 9.49 | C15H14O6 | 289.0690 | 289.0712 | −2.2 | Epicatechin | + | + | 4.72175 |
| 32 | 9.86 | C22H18O11 | 457.0789 | 457.0771 | 1.8 | Epigallocatechin gallate | + | + | 3.74396 |
| 33 | 10.76 | C21H23NO8 | 416.1320 | 416.1345 | −2.5 | Puerin V | − | + | NA |
| 34 | 11.62 | C21H23NO8 | 416.1364 | 416.1345 | 1.9 | Puerin VIII | − | + | NA |
| 35 | 11.64 | C37H30O16 | 729.1465 | 729.1456 | 0.9 | Epicatechin-(4β-8)-epicatechin 3-gallate | + | − | NA |
| 36 | 11.71 | C22H18O11 | 457.0784 | 457.0771 | 1.3 | Gallocatechin gallate | + | − | 4.03217 |
| 37 | 12.14 | C27H24O18 | 635.0878 | 635.0884 | −0.6 | 1,4,6-Tri- | + | − | NA |
| 38 | 12.22 | C29H48O | 411.3631 | 411.3627 | 0.4 | α-Spinasterol or its isomers | − | + | NA |
| 39 | 12.31 | C27H30O15 | 593.1515 | 593.1506 | 0.9 | Kaempferol-3- | − | + | NA |
| 40 | 12.42 | C37H30O16 | 729.1478 | 729.1456 | 2.2 | Epicatechin-(4α-8)-epicatechin-3′-gallate | + | − | NA |
| 41 | 12.5 | C14H11NO6 | 288.0509 | 288.0508 | 0.1 |
| − | + | NA |
| 42 | 12.76 | C16H14O8 | 333.0601 | 333.0610 | −0.9 | 8-Carboxyl-(+)-catechin or its isomers | − | + | 2.56147 |
| 43 | 12.98 | C21H23NO8 | 416.1363 | 400.1396 | 1.8 | Puerin VI | − | + | NA |
| 44 | 13.19 | C21H20O13 | 479.0820 | 479.0826 | −0.6 | Myricetin-3- | + | − | NA |
| 45 | 13.49 | C27H24O18 | 635.0880 | 635.0884 | −0.4 | 1,4,6-Tri- | + | — | 3.39172 |
| 46 | 13.59 | C21H22NO7 | 400.1398 | 400.1396 | 0.2 | Puerin I | − | + | NA |
| 47 | 14.07 | C21H22NO7 | 400.1403 | 400.1396 | 0.7 | Puerin II | − | + | 2.57155 |
| 48 | 14.28 | C26H28O14 | 563.1409 | 563.1401 | 0.8 | Apigenin-6-C-α- | + | + | 2.80337 |
| 49 | 14.56 | C22H18O10 | 441.0818 | 441.0822 | −0.4 | Epicatechin gallate | + | + | 4.5466 |
| 50 | 14.84 | C21H22NO7 | 400.1391 | 400.1396 | −0.5 | Puerin III | − | + | 3.78329 |
| 51 | 15.13 | C14H6O8 | 300.9951 | 300.9984 | −3.3 | Ellagic acid | + | + | 4.0874 |
| 52 | 15.36 | C27H30O16 | 609.1477 | 609.1456 | 2.1 | The isomer of rutin | + | + | NA |
| 53 | 15.47 | C22H18O10 | 441.0835 | 441.0822 | 1.3 | Catechin gallate | + | − | 4.36602 |
| 54 | 15.87 | C27H30O16 | 609.1472 | 609.1456 | 1.6 | Rutin | + | − | NA |
| 55 | 15.92 | C21H22NO7 | 400.1387 | 400.1396 | −0.9 | Puerin IV | − | + | 4.23005 |
| 56 | 16.04 | C21H20O12 | 463.0873 | 463.0877 | −0.4 | Quercetin-3- | + | + | NA |
| 57 | 16.5 | C33H40O20 | 755.2036 | 755.2035 | 0.1 | Quercetin-4′- | + | − | NA |
| 58 | 17.05 | C27H30O15 | 593.1529 | 593.1506 | 2.3 | Kaempferol-3- | + | + | NA |
| 59 | 17.42 | C33H40O20 | 755.2067 | 755.2035 | 3.2 | Quercetin-4′- | + | − | NA |
| 60 | 17.44 | C21H20O11 | 447.0927 | 447.0927 | 0.0 | Luteolin-7- | + | − | NA |
| 61 | 17.76 | C22H18O9 | 425.0832 | 425.0873 | −4.1 | Epiafzelechin-3- | + | − | NA |
| 62 | 18.26 | C33H40O19 | 739.2134 | 739.2086 | 4.8 | Kaempferol-3- | − | + | NA |
| 63 | 18.28 | C27H30O15 | 593.1534 | 593.1506 | 2.8 | Kaempferol-3- | + | + | NA |
| 64 | 18.49 | C21H20O11 | 447.0919 | 447.0927 | −0.8 | Kaempferol-3- | + | + | 2.78936 |
| 65 | 22.11 | C15H10O7 | 301.0346 | 301.0348 | −0.2 | Quercetin | + | + | NA |
| 66 | 23.84 | C15H10O6 | 285.0419 | 285.0399 | 2.0 | Kaempferol | + | + | NA |
Detected in the positive mode.
“+” means the compound was detected in that source, while “−” means not.
Fig. 2The BPI chromatograms of the extracts from the negative mode in RAPT (A) and RIPT (B) analyzed by UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS.
Fig. 3PCA (A), VIP (B) plot of the extracts from the negative mode in RIPT and RAPT analyzed by UHPLC-Q-TOF/MS.
Content comparisons of mutual components between RAPT and RIPT by UHPLC-PDAa
| Peak no. | Rt (min) | Peak area | Changes in RIPT |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIPT | RAPT | ||||
| 1 | 0.48 | 5413.78 ± 644.21 | 819.11 ± 162.87 |
| 5.4 × 10−13 |
| 2 | 0.91 | 743.89 ± 402.95 | 1627.22 ± 680.07 | ↓ | 4.0 × 10−3 |
| 4 | 1.21 | 540.11 ± 223.95 | 5509.22 ± 1136.93 | ↓ | 7.5 × 10−10 |
| 5 | 1.36 | 27 794.89 ± 14 100.32 | 20 960.56 ± 4531.10 |
| 1.9 × 10−1 |
| 7 | 1.77 | 1665.11 ± 266.70 | 31 399.89 ± 1296.43 | ↓ | 4.5 × 10−21 |
| 8 | 2.33 | 129.56 ± 113.96 | 3462.00 ± 777.84 | ↓ | 8.8 × 10−10 |
| 9 | 2.95 | 98.11 ± 8.16 | 1196.22 ± 127.16 | ↓ | 1.8 × 10−14 |
| 10 | 3.18 | 10 456.22 ± 248.83 | 5320.44 ± 1293.96 |
| 3.0 × 10−9 |
| 11 | 4.02 | 193.78 ± 79.17 | 2829.00 ± 259.68 | ↓ | 2.7 × 10−15 |
| 12 | 4.28 | 600.33 ± 155.54 | 171.89 ± 45.19 | ↑ | 6.2 × 10−7 |
| 15 | 5.8 | 88.44 ± 2.96 | 1756.33 ± 492.03 | ↓ | 2.2 × 10−8 |
| 16 | 6.1 | 299.33 ± 65.45 | 5488.33 ± 560.78 | ↓ | 6.5 × 10−15 |
| 18 | 6.48 | 128.67 ± 41.45 | 1274.00 ± 200.88 | ↓ | 1.4 × 10−11 |
| 20 | 6.88 | 149 441.78 ± 3758.53 | 98 945.78 ± 8242.66 |
| 1.5 × 10−11 |
| 22 | 7.22 | 191.89 ± 18.11 | 2735.89 ± 203.26 | ↓ | 5.3 × 10−17 |
| 28 | 9.04 | 486.44 ± 103.20 | 1557.89 ± 96.01 | ↓ | 1.3 × 10−13 |
| 31 | 9.49 | 214.78 ± 111.37 | 9497.00 ± 1907.87 | ↓ | 1.2 × 10−10 |
| 32 | 9.86 | 68.11 ± 50.40 | 39 900.56 ± 9011.16 | ↓ | 4.8 × 10−10 |
| 48 | 14.28 | 277.67 ± 42.04 | 186.44 ± 53.65 |
| 1.0 × 10−3 |
| 49 | 14.56 | 188.89 ± 100.50 | 49 858.67 ± 7605.17 | ↓ | 1.3 × 10−12 |
| 51 | 15.13 | 3704.67 ± 817.51 | 2069.56 ± 156.84 |
| 2.3 × 10−5 |
| 52 | 15.36 | 281.78 ± 56.62 | 351.33 ± 58.48 | ↓ | 2.1 × 10−2 |
| 56 | 16.04 | 387.00 ± 175.11 | 1230.89 ± 127.26 | ↓ | 3.0 × 10−9 |
| 58 | 17.05 | 173.78 ± 77.95 | 248.78 ± 58.63 | ↓ | 3.5 × 10−2 |
| 63 | 18.28 | 395.44 ± 217.17 | 1378.11 ± 704.96 | ↓ | 1.0 × 10−3 |
| 64 | 18.49 | 375.56 ± 171.71 | 761.44 ± 353.08 | ↓ | 9.4 × 10−3 |
All of the results were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 3). p value was calculated by two-tailed t test.
Five key increased components were emphasized with bold arrows.
Fig. 4Overall structural changes of the gut microbiota in response to 6 week administration with RIPT. (A) The cluster for every sample with Bray–Curtis distance. (B) Weighted version of UniFrac-based PCoA plot with PC1 and PC2 at the OTU level. (C) Unweighted version of UniFrac-based PCoA plot with PC1 and PC1 at the OTU level. (D) The relative abundance of phylotypes at the phylum level in different samples.
Relative abundance of beneficial genera in NM, DM, Met and IH groups after the 6 week administrationa
| Genus | Relative abundance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NM | DM | Met | IH | |
|
| 0.23 ± 0.14a | 0.75 ± 0.26a | 5.00 ± 4.37a | 19.22 ± 13.17b |
|
| 1.78 ± 0.49 ab | 0.70 ± 0.48a | 5.10 ± 2.51b | 4.96 ± 3.90b |
|
| 5.21 ± 3.31a | 0.56 ± 0.53a | 3.36 ± 5.38a | 2.03 ± 1.97a |
|
| 0.85 ± 0.66a | 0.58 ± 0.83a | 4.36 ± 6.14a | 4.51 ± 3.05a |
All of the results were expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Values sharing a common letter (a and b) in each comparison did not show any statistically significant differences accessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05).