To culture or not to culture: careful assessment of metabarcoding data is necessary when evaluating the microbiota of a modified-atmosphere-packaged vegetarian meat alternative throughout its shelf-life period.
Microbial ecology
Spoilage
Vegetarian charcuterie
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 01 2022
25 01 2022
Historique:
received:
25
06
2021
accepted:
10
01
2022
entrez:
26
1
2022
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
17
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As the increased consumption of ready-to-eat meat alternatives is a fairly recent trend, little is known about the composition and dynamics of the microbiota present on such products. Such information is nonetheless valuable in view of spoilage and food safety prevention. Even though refrigeration and modified-atmosphere-packaging (MAP) can extend the shelf-life period, microbial spoilage can still occur in these products. In the present study, the microbiota of a vegetarian alternative to poultry-based charcuterie was investigated during storage, contrasting the use of a culture-dependent method to a culture-independent metagenetic method. The former revealed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were the most abundant microbial group, specifically at the end of the shelf-life period, whereby Latilactobacillus sakei was the most abundant species. Metabarcoding analysis, in contrast, revealed that DNA of Xanthomonas was most prominently present, which likely was an artifact due to the presence of xanthan gum as an ingredient, followed by Streptococcus and Weissella. Taken together, these results indicated that Lb. sakei was likely the most prominent specific spoilage organisms (SSO) and, additionally, that the use of metagenetic analysis needs to be interpreted with care in this specific type of product. In order to improve the performance of metagenetics in food samples with a high DNA matrix but a low bacterial DNA load, selective depletion techniques for matrix DNA could be explored.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
As the increased consumption of ready-to-eat meat alternatives is a fairly recent trend, little is known about the composition and dynamics of the microbiota present on such products. Such information is nonetheless valuable in view of spoilage and food safety prevention. Even though refrigeration and modified-atmosphere-packaging (MAP) can extend the shelf-life period, microbial spoilage can still occur in these products. In the present study, the microbiota of a vegetarian alternative to poultry-based charcuterie was investigated during storage, contrasting the use of a culture-dependent method to a culture-independent metagenetic method.
RESULTS
The former revealed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were the most abundant microbial group, specifically at the end of the shelf-life period, whereby Latilactobacillus sakei was the most abundant species. Metabarcoding analysis, in contrast, revealed that DNA of Xanthomonas was most prominently present, which likely was an artifact due to the presence of xanthan gum as an ingredient, followed by Streptococcus and Weissella.
CONCLUSIONS
Taken together, these results indicated that Lb. sakei was likely the most prominent specific spoilage organisms (SSO) and, additionally, that the use of metagenetic analysis needs to be interpreted with care in this specific type of product. In order to improve the performance of metagenetics in food samples with a high DNA matrix but a low bacterial DNA load, selective depletion techniques for matrix DNA could be explored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35078415
doi: 10.1186/s12866-022-02446-9
pii: 10.1186/s12866-022-02446-9
pmc: PMC8788083
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Microorganisms. 2021 Jun 04;9(6):
pubmed: 34200022
Front Microbiol. 2020 Feb 14;11:209
pubmed: 32117190
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
J Sci Food Agric. 2017 Jan;97(2):659-668
pubmed: 27144959
Food Chem. 2013 Dec 1;141(3):2418-25
pubmed: 23870976
Int J Food Microbiol. 2012 Jul 2;157(2):130-41
pubmed: 22682877
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Feb;63(2):448-53
pubmed: 9023922
J Food Prot. 1994 Oct;57(10):893-901
pubmed: 31121691
Food Microbiol. 2019 Jun;79:96-115
pubmed: 30621881
Front Microbiol. 2015 Mar 17;6:155
pubmed: 25852652
Poult Sci. 2019 Dec 1;98(12):6931-6941
pubmed: 31420680
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Apr;75(7):1990-2001
pubmed: 19201980
Biocontrol Sci. 2019;24(4):185-192
pubmed: 31875610
J Appl Microbiol. 2008 May;104(5):1341-53
pubmed: 18070037
Meat Sci. 2015 Nov;109:66-74
pubmed: 25972087
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Feb;103(2):1238-1249
pubmed: 31864732
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan 7;41(1):e1
pubmed: 22933715
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010 Apr;50(4):357-61
pubmed: 20132434
J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Jul;41(7):3181-6
pubmed: 12843061
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217
pubmed: 23630581
Meat Sci. 2014 May;97(1):83-92
pubmed: 24548927
Meat Sci. 2008 Jan;78(1-2):77-89
pubmed: 22062098
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Feb;77(4):1196-203
pubmed: 21183650
Int J Food Microbiol. 1996 Nov;33(1):103-20
pubmed: 8913812
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020 Apr;70(4):2782-2858
pubmed: 32293557
J Appl Microbiol. 2005;99(6):1303-13
pubmed: 16313402
J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Feb;108(2):510-20
pubmed: 19664065
Microbiome. 2018 Feb 27;6(1):42
pubmed: 29482639
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(16):5261-7
pubmed: 17586664
J Appl Microbiol. 2020 Feb;128(2):330-354
pubmed: 31299126
Microorganisms. 2020 Jul 27;8(8):
pubmed: 32727027
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Oct;75(10):4801-5
pubmed: 368799
Bioinformatics. 2009 Oct 1;25(19):2607-8
pubmed: 19654119
Int J Food Microbiol. 2002 Jan 30;72(1-2):97-105
pubmed: 11843419
Food Microbiol. 2020 Oct;91:103515
pubmed: 32539954
Food Microbiol. 2012 Sep;31(2):222-8
pubmed: 22608227
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2002 Jun;26(2):163-71
pubmed: 12069881
Front Microbiol. 2020 Apr 09;11:639
pubmed: 32328055
Food Microbiol. 2015 Feb;45(Pt A):83-102
pubmed: 25481065
Meat Sci. 2006 Nov;74(3):532-45
pubmed: 22063058
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005 Nov;55(Pt 6):2479-2484
pubmed: 16280513
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001 Nov 27;205(1):31-6
pubmed: 11728712