Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35670539›Full record

ArticlemSystems2022

Microbial Diversity and Interaction Specificity in Kombucha Tea Fermentations.

Elizabeth A Landis, Emily Fogarty, John C Edwards, Otilia Popa, A Murat Eren, Benjamin E Wolfe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mSystems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. ThaiFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth A LandisDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
Emily FogartyCommittee on Microbiology, University of Chicagogrid.170205.1, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
John C EdwardsProcess NMR Associates, LLC, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA.
Otilia PopaDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.
A Murat ErenCommittee on Microbiology, University of Chicagogrid.170205.1, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9013-4827
Benjamin E WolfeDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0194-9336
Tufts University · USUniversity of Chicago · USPoughkeepsie Public Library District · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the popularity of kombucha tea, the distribution of different microbes across kombucha ferments and how those microbes interact within communities are not well characterized. Using metagenomics, comparative genomics, synthetic community experiments, and metabolomics, we determined the taxonomic, ecological, and functional diversity of 23 distinct kombuchas from across the United States. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing demonstrated that the bacterium Komagataeibacter rhaeticus and the yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis were the most common microbes in the sampled kombucha communities. To determine the specificity of bacterium-yeast interactions, we experimentally quantified microbial interactions within kombucha biofilms by measuring densities of interacting species and biofilm production. In pairwise combinations of bacteria and yeast,

Indexed as

Kombucha TeaBacteriaBeveragesFermentationMetagenomeKombucha Teaacetic acid bacteriaBrettanomycesfermentationKomagataeibacterkombuchamicrobiomeyeast

Identifiers

PMID35670539
PMCPMC9238417
OpenAlexW4281637888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.