Comparative analysis of the microbial composition of three packaged sliced dry-cured hams from a Chinese market

Abstract

Ham, a widely consumed and culturally significant food, undergoes fermentation and aging processes that contribute to its distinctive flavor and texture. These processes are influenced by a complex interplay of microbial communities, which vary by the production region. Understanding these microbial dynamics can provide insights into flavor development and quality improvements in ham. In this study, the microbial communities found in ham produced in three distinct regions were compared, revealing that bacteria have a more dominant role in shaping the overall microbiota than fungi. Notably, each type of ham exhibited a unique microbial profile, although those from similar regions shared more similar profiles. Specific bacterial biomarkers were identified for each regional ham: Lactobacillus and Tetragonococcus in Serrano prosciutto, Odoribacter, Alistipes, Staphylococcus, and Akkermansia in Jinhua prosciutto, and Pseudomonas, Blautia, and Bacteroides in Xuanwei prosciutto. The microbial network analysis identified closer associations between microorganisms in the domestically produced Chinese hams than in the Spanish ham, suggesting limited foreign microbial invasions that contributed to a richer, more stable flavor. These findings offer new insights into how microbial interactions shape the development of flavor and quality in ham and clarify future strategies for improving the production process by leveraging microbial communities.

Keywords: Jinhua prosciutto; Serrano prosciutto; Xuanwei prosciutto; microbial composition; packaged sliced dry-cured hams.

Figure 1

Diversity analysis of fungal and bacterial communities in different types of prosciuttos. (A,B) The shared and unique characteristics among bacteria (A) and fungi (B) in different groups. (C,D) Analysis of the α-diversity of bacteria (C) and fungi (D) in each group using Shannon and Chao1 indices. (E,F) Principal coordinates analysis based on Bray–Curtis distances of bacteria (E) and fungi (F) in the three types of ham.

Figure 2

Analysis of the composition and abundance of bacteria at the phylum and genus levels among the three hams, and differences in the top three phyla and genera. (A,C) Analysis of the bacterial composition and ranking of the three different types of ham at the phylum level. (B,D) Analysis of differences in the bacterial composition and ranking of the three different types of ham at the genus level. Wilcoxon significance tests were performed between pairs.

Figure 3

Analysis of the composition and abundance of fungi at the phylum and genus levels, and phyla and genera among the three hams. (A,C) Analysis of the fungal composition and ranking of the three different types of ham at the phylum level. (B,D) Analysis of the fungal composition and ranking of the three types of ham at the genus level. Wilcoxon significance tests were performed between pairs.

Figure 4

Biomarker screening of fungi and bacteria in different hams. (A,B) Biomarkers based on Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) > 4 in different bacterial taxa of the three hams and the associated cladogram. (C,D) Biomarkers based on LDA > 3 in different fungal taxa of the three hams and the associated cladogram.

Figure 5

Network analysis based on Spearman correlation. Network interactions between fungi and bacteria were determined between each group and within the fungal and bacterial communities (r > 0.6, p < 0.05).