Metabonomics Approach To Determine Metabolic Differences between Green Tea and Black Tea Consumption

Ferdi A. Van Dorsten,* Clare A. Daykin,§ Theo P. J. Mulder, and John P. M. Van Duynhoven
Unilever Food and Health Research Institute, Olivier van Noortlaan 120, P.O. Box 114, 3130AC Vlaardingen, The Netherlands, and School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG72RD, United Kingdom
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2006, 54 (18), pp 6929–6938
DOI: 10.1021/jf061016x
Publication Date (Web): August 12, 2006
Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society
*

 Corresponding author (e-mail ferdi-van.dorsten@unilever.com; telephone +31 10 4606306; fax +31 10 4605310).

,

 Unilever Food and Health Research Institute.

,
§

 University of Nottingham.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of black and green tea consumption on human metabolism. Seventeen healthy male volunteers consumed black tea, green tea, or caffeine in a randomized crossover study. Twenty-four-hour urine and blood plasma samples were analyzed by NMR-based metabonomics, that is, high-resolution 1H NMR metabolic profiling combined with multivariate statistics. Green and black tea consumption resulted in similar increases in urinary excretion of hippuric acid and 1,3-dihydroxyphenyl-2-O-sulfate, both of which are end products of tea flavonoid degradation by colonic bacteria. Several unidentified aromatic metabolites were detected in urine specifically after green tea intake. Interestingly, green and black tea intake also had a different impact on endogenous metabolites in urine and plasma. Green tea intake caused a stronger increase in urinary excretion of several citric acid cycle intermediates, which suggests an effect of green tea flavanols on human oxidative energy metabolism and/or biosynthetic pathways.

Keywords: Tea; metabolism; metabolomics; NMR spectroscopy; multivariate analysis; catechins; flavanols; flavonoids; epigallocatechin gallate

Tools

History

  • Published In Issue September 06, 2006
  • Received for review April 11, 2006. Revised manuscript received June 26, 2006. Accepted June 28, 2006.

Recommend & Share

Related Content

Other ACS content by these authors: