Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential Use in Sustainable Crop Management. A Review

REVIEW
published: 03 December 2020

doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.607935
Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential

Use in Sustainable Crop
Management. A Review
Benoit Duong 1,2 , Pierre Marraccini 2,3 , Jean-Luc Maeght 4,5 , Philippe Vaast 6 ,
Michel Lebrun 1,2 and Robin Duponnois 1*
1
LSTM, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CIRAD, INRAE, SupAgro, Montpellier, France, 2 LMI RICE-2, Univ. Montpellier, IRD, CIRAD,
AGI, USTH, Hanoi, Vietnam, 3 IPME, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, IRD, Montpellier, France, 4 AMAP, Univ. Montpellier, IRD,
CIRAD, INRAE, CNRS, Montpellier, France, 5 Sorbonne Université, UPEC, CNRS, IRD, INRA, Institut d’Écologie et des
Sciences de l’Environnement, IESS, Bondy, France, 6 Eco&Sols, Univ. Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, IRD, SupAgro, Montpellier,
France
Intensive coffee production is accompanied by several environmental issues, including

soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and pollution due to the wide use of agrochemical
inputs and wastes generated by processing. In addition, climate change is expected to
Edited by:
decrease the suitability of cultivated areas while potentially increasing the distribution
Everlon Cid Rigobelo,
São Paulo State University, Brazil and impact of pests and diseases. In this context, the coffee microbiota has been
Reviewed by: increasingly studied over the past decades in order to improve the sustainability of the
Ugo De Corato, coffee production. Therefore, coffee associated microorganisms have been isolated and
Energy and Sustainable Economic
Development (ENEA), Italy
characterized in order to highlight their useful characteristics and study their potential
Erica Lumini, use as sustainable alternatives to agrochemical inputs. Indeed, several microorganisms
Italian National Research Council, Italy
(including bacteria and fungi) are able to display plant growth-promoting capacities
*Correspondence:
and/or biocontrol abilities toward coffee pests and diseases. Despite that numerous
Robin Duponnois
robin.duponnois@ird.fr studies emphasized the potential of coffee-associated microorganisms under controlled
environments, the present review highlights the lack of confirmation of such beneficial
Specialty section: effects under field conditions. Nowadays, next-generation sequencing technologies
This article was submitted to
Crop Biology and Sustainability, allow to study coffee associated microorganisms with a metabarcoding/metagenomic
a section of the journal approach. This strategy, which does not require cultivating microorganisms, now
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
provides a deeper insight in the coffee-associated microbial communities and their
Received: 18 September 2020
implication not only in the coffee plant fitness but also in the quality of the final product.
Accepted: 27 October 2020
Published: 03 December 2020 The present review aims at (i) providing an extensive description of coffee microbiota
Citation: diversity both at the farming and processing levels, (ii) identifying the “coffee core
Duong B, Marraccini P, Maeght J-L, microbiota,” (iii) making an overview of microbiota ability to promote coffee plant growth
Vaast P, Lebrun M and Duponnois R
(2020) Coffee Microbiota and Its and to control its pests and diseases, and (iv) highlighting the microbiota potential to
Potential Use in Sustainable Crop improve coffee quality and waste management sustainability.
Management. A Review.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:607935. Keywords: wastes and by-products management, quality, biocontrol agent, plant growth promoting agents, core
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.607935 microbiota, coffee microbiota
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | www.frontiersin.org 1 December 2020 | Volume 4 | Article 607935
Duong et al. Coffee Microbiota Review
INTRODUCTION the distribution and the impact of pests and diseases (Ghini et al.,
2008; Jaramillo et al., 2011; Groenen, 2018).
The coffee tree is a perennial plant belonging to the Rubiaceae The adverse effects of coffee cultivation and processing
family. The Coffea genus consists of c.a. one hundred species, on the environment highlight the importance of developing
but only Coffea arabica, C. canephora, and C. liberica are used sustainable solutions in order to maintain growers’ livelihood
for beverage production, the two formers representing around while limiting the environmental impact in the climate change
70 and 30% of the world production, respectively (Davis et al., context. Thus, the benefit of smart agronomical systems, such as
2006; Vieira et al., 2006). Coffea arabica is native from the agroforestry, are increasingly highlighted (Méndez et al., 2010;
Ethiopian’s highlands, between 1,300 and 2,000 m above the De Beenhouwer et al., 2013; Vaast et al., 2016; Sauvadet et al.,
sea level, whereas the origin of C. canephora is more dispersed 2019; Gomes et al., 2020). Moreover, some high-technology
across the African tropical areas below 1,000 m (Wintgens, 2004). microbial inputs (biofertilizers and biopesticides) are prone to
Coffee is the second most consumed beverage after water and increase the performances of such systems (reviewed in Singh
the most traded tropical agricultural commodity (Mussatto et al., et al., 2016a,b). Indeed, it is now well-documented that some of
2011; FAO, 2018). Around 25 million smallholder producers, the microorganisms interacting with plants are directly beneficial
especially in developing countries, rely on the coffee sector for by promoting their growth or indirectly by acting as antagonist
their livelihood (FAO, 2018; ICO, 2019a). By order of importance, of their pathogens (Compant et al., 2005; Olanrewaju et al.,
the main producing countries in 2018/2019 are Brazil, Vietnam, 2017). Therefore, to address the challenges associated with a
Colombia, Indonesia, Honduras, Mexico, Guatemala, and Ivory sustainable crop management, research focused on the plant-
Coast (ICO, 2019b). Although the production and consumption associated microbes has been increasingly developed during the
have followed fairly parallel increasing trends over the past 50 last decades (Berg et al., 2016; Compant et al., 2019; Arif et al.,
years (FAO, 2015), the coffee market is periodically characterized 2020). Nowadays, there is a shift in the ways of understanding
by an oversupply in years of optimal environmental conditions the relationships between macroorganisms and microorganisms
due to innovation in cultivation techniques and planting material leading to the “holobiont” concept (Rosenberg and Zilber-
leading to a price decrease trend (Ponte, 2002; Bitzer et al., Rosenberg, 2013; Bordenstein and Theis, 2015). According to
2008). Farmers that rely on a perennial crop such coffee for this concept, the plants can be considered as superorganisms
their livelihood cannot either easily change their land use or composed by the plant and associated microorganisms, the
anticipate their income. Therefore, it is difficult for them to latter acting as an entire component of the host fitness by
adapt to fluctuations in market and environmental conditions playing a role in the mineral nutrition, hormone balance, and
(Amamo, 2014; Schroth and Ruf, 2014). adaptation capacity to biotic and abiotic stresses (Lemanceau
In order to increase yield, the modernization of the coffee et al., 2017; Simon et al., 2019). The development in this
production has heavily engaged in the use of new varieties, research area that describes the microbial communities has been
the reduction of shade, and the increase of plant density and accompanied with the use of specific terms such as “microbiome”
agrochemical inputs (Perfecto et al., 1996). Nowadays, coffee and “microbiota” whose definitions are still debated (Marchesi
management strategies fall along an intensity continuum ranging and Ravel, 2015; Berg et al., 2020). In the present review, the term
from natural or managed forests with coffee plants grown microbiota refers to all microorganisms interacting in a specific
under tree canopy, to trees artificially planted to provide shade environment while the term microbiome encompasses their
up to open sunlight plantation (Moguel and Toledo, 1999; structural elements, molecules (e.g., DNA, metabolites) as well as
Rice, 1999; Gobbi, 2000; Jezeer et al., 2018; Otero-Jiménez the environmental conditions associated with the microbiota as
et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the intensive coffee systems result initially described by Whipps et al. (1988) and clarified by Berg
in serious environmental contamination due to excessive use et al. (2020).
of inputs (DaMatta, 2004), higher soil degradation (Ataroff and The use of microbes in the coffee farming and industry is
Monasterio, 1997) and are linked with a loss of biodiversity still poorly exploited despite its potential capacity to reduce
compared to traditional coffee systems (Perfecto et al., 1996; the amount of chemical inputs, improve coffee quality, and
Guillemot et al., 2018). After harvest, coffee cherries undergo increase the farmer income through sustainable certifications
several processing steps aiming at removing all the external part (Mithöfer et al., 2017). Moreover, engineering the plant
of the fruit in order to reduce the water content to a level microbiome/microbiota and taking it into account in the
compatible with storage. To do so, three different processing new plant breeding strategies could represent some promising
techniques (dry, semi-wet, and wet) are implemented depending approaches to sustainably maintain the productivity (Nogales
on the species, the country, and the farm size (Brando, 2004; et al., 2016; Orozco-Mosqueda et al., 2018; Arif et al., 2020).
Cleves, 2004; Schwan et al., 2012). However, coffee processing The present review intends to (i) describe the diversity of the
generates several by-products and wastes that can represent microorganisms that make up the coffee microbiota by focusing
source of environmental pollution (Chanakya and De Alwis, on archaea, bacteria, and fungi, (ii) summarize the current
2004; Haddis and Devi, 2008; Beyene et al., 2012; Awoke et al., knowledge on the use of microorganisms to promote the coffee
2016). Finally, the coffee crop is already facing the climate change. plant growth as well as to control the pests and diseases, and (iii)
This will decrease the suitability of the cultivated areas (Bunn give an overview of their potential incorporation in the coffee
et al., 2015; Ovalle-Rivera et al., 2015) and potentially increase processing and by-products management.
STRATEGIES USED TO STUDY THE sequences in the multilocus sequence typing was also used to
COFFEE MICROBIOTA increase the reliability of the identification (Peterson et al., 2005).
More recently, the whole-genome sequencing using the next-
The first mention of the microorganisms associated with coffee generation sequencing (NGS) technology was also employed
plants dates from the nineteenth century and the description of to sequence the genome of a lactic acid bacterial strain of
the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) colonizing the roots of Pediococcus acidilactici isolated during the coffee fermentation
C. arabica and C. liberica (Janse, 1897). Since then, two major (Muynarsk et al., 2019).
approaches have been used to describe the coffee microbiota The second methodology does not require cultivation of
diversity in combination with numerous identification strategies the microorganisms. During its early development, it consisted
allowing to identify microorganisms at varying taxonomic levels in pooling DNA extractions, amplifying some DNA markers
from the highest (e.g., kingdom and phylum) to the lowest (e.g., regions, and then sequencing them after some separation
genus and species). techniques such as the denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis
The first one is the culture-dependent approach involving the (DGGE) or the cloning of single sequences. This procedure was
isolation and the purification of the microorganisms. In that used to study the endophytes in coffee cherries (Oliveira et al.,
case, some basic morphological identifications using staining and 2013) and AMF (endophytic symbiotic fungi), colonizing the
microscopy were frequently employed to identify mycorrhizal roots (Mahdhi et al., 2017) as well as the bacteria and fungi
species (Caldeira et al., 1983; Bertolini et al., 2020) or filamentous present during different coffee processing techniques (Vilela
fungi (Mislivec et al., 1983; Casas-Junco et al., 2018). The et al., 2010; Feng et al., 2016).
morphology was often combined with standard biochemical tests Nowadays, the culturable-independent strategy is increasingly
such as those analyzing carbon sources utilization and enzymatic used. The development of the NGS technologies also allows
assays to identify bacteria (Pederson and Breed, 1946; Teshome performing metabarcoding analyses involving the amplification
et al., 2017) and fungi including yeasts (Agate and Bhat, 1966; and sequencing of specific marker genes to identify a whole
Ranjini and Raja, 2019). Some more complex biochemical tests community in an environmental DNA sample without the need
were sometimes applied to confirm the microorganisms’ identity of cloning or separation steps (Santos et al., 2020). For example,
such as the multilocus enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE) in the case De Beenhouwer et al. (2015a,b) were among the first to use
of nitrogen-fixing (N-fixing) bacteria (Jimenez-Salgado et al., NGS in order to highlight the differences of AMF communities
1997; Fuentes-Ramírez et al., 2001), the fatty acid methyl esters across a gradient of coffee management intensity. Then, two
gas chromatography (FAME-GC) for bacterial isolates (Vega metabarcoding studies, describing the bacterial inhabitants of the
et al., 2005; Silva et al., 2012; Miguel et al., 2013), and the coffee rhizosphere under organic or conventional cropping, were
matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight–mass also performed (Caldwell et al., 2015; Rodríguez et al., 2020).
spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) for several bacteria and yeasts In a recent work, Lamelas et al. (2020) examined the bacterial
(Martins et al., 2020). communities present in the C. arabica rhizosphere, in parasitic
Regarding the molecular-based methods, the DNA–DNA root-knot nematodes (females and eggs) as well as in healthy
reassociation study was one of the first molecular methods and nematode-infected coffee roots in order to determine the
employed by bacterial taxonomists to describe the relatedness specific microbial assemblages correlated with the infection by
between bacterial species since the 1960s (Goris et al., 2007). Up Meloidogyne enterolobii and M. paranaensis. In another recent
to now, it is still the gold standard to identify new species as study, a metabarcoding analysis also highlighted the influence
well as to discriminate bacterial isolates at the lowest taxonomic of edaphic and topographical factors on the bacterial and fungal
levels such as species and strain (Stackebrandt and Goebel, 1994; communities associated with both rhizosphere and cherries of
Janda and Abbott, 2007; Lagier et al., 2015). This method was C. arabica (Veloso et al., 2020). Other authors also studied the
successfully employed to describe some N-fixing bacterial species fungi associated with C. arabica leaves infected by Hemileia
associated with coffee (Jimenez-Salgado et al., 1997; Estrada- vastatrix, the causal agent of the coffee leaf rust (CLR), with
De Los Santos et al., 2001). With the development of the first- the aim to identify some potential mycoparasites (James et al.,
generation sequencing technologies, DNA sequence comparisons 2016). Recently, Fulthorpe et al. (2020) investigated both fungal
contributed in an unprecedented manner to the number of and bacterial endophytes in C. arabica roots across a climatic
identified microbial species (Rossi-Tamisier et al., 2015; Franco- gradient (temperature and humidity) in full sun and agroforestry
Duarte et al., 2019). cropping systems in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Futhermore, the
The amplification and sequencing of simple genetic markers metabarcoding approach was also used to study the microbial
such as the rDNA gene repeats like the 16S rDNA of bacteria, (bacteria and fungi) communities linked with several postharvest
as well as the 18S or 26S/28S rDNA and the ITS of fungi, processing steps and their impacts on coffee quality (De Bruyn
have been extensively used (Sakiyama et al., 2001; Masoud et al., 2017; De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019b;
et al., 2004; Oliveira et al., 2013; Prates Júnior et al., 2019; Elhalis et al., 2020a,b). Finally, the NGS approach involving the
Martins et al., 2020). Sometimes, some housekeeping genes like random sequencing of the fragmented DNA extract (shotgun
those coding the β-tubulin (Samson et al., 2004; De Almeida sequencing) now allows to study the microbial diversity and to
et al., 2019) and TEF-1α factor (Mulaw et al., 2010, 2013) were predict associated genes’ function. This technique was used to
sequenced for fungal identifications. The combination of several perform a metagenomic analysis and to decipher the functional
characteristics of the microbial communities found during C. To conclude, it is worth noting that both culture-dependent
arabica bean fermentation (Zhang et al., 2019a). and independent approaches remain complementary. In other
As usual, it is important to highlight that each approach words, it is of a great interest to decipher the microbial
displays its own strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, the diversity through metabarcoding/metagenomic analyses because
culture-dependent strategy allows isolating the microorganisms this allows a better understanding of the interactions between
and further characterizing their biochemical and functional coffee and microorganisms. Furthermore, the microbial diversity
traits. However, it is laborious and time consuming with a is a relevant indicator of environmental changes. However,
limited capacity to cover the whole diversity of microorganisms it is necessary to isolate the microorganisms (e.g., to screen
because it is dependent of many parameters such as the beneficial capacities and also to develop some biotechnological
culture media employed. Indeed, the concept of “unculturable applications); hence, more efforts are certainly required to
microorganisms” was highlighted in the early twentieth century develop the culturomics approaches with the coffee microbiota as
with the finding that there was far less colony able to grow on it has already been established to characterize the human (Lagier
the medium than the number of cells observed by microscopy et al., 2018) and plant microbiota (Sarhan et al., 2019).
(Amann, 1911 in Ghosh and Bhadury, 2019). Nevertheless,
this limit can now be bypassed with the use of various
culture media leading to the development of the “culturomics” COFFEE MICROBIOTA DIVERSITY
(Lagier et al., 2012).
On the other hand, the culture-independent approach is more The main objective of the present review is to make an extensive
labor/cost effective in studying the diversity of microorganisms survey of the literature describing the microbiota associated
as it allows identifying the uncultivable ones. This strategy can with coffee plants, including mainly the archaeal, bacterial,
also picture the relative abundance of the microorganisms in and fungal kingdoms. The keywords used for database search
metabarcoding studies and the potential function of associated were Coffee, Coffea, microbiome, microbiota, archaea, bacteria,
genes when the metagenomic strategy is used. Despite that fungi, yeast, endophytes, epiphyte, rhizosphere, plant growth
a bias can be introduced by the DNA extraction step when promotion, PGPR, PGPB, PGPF, and PGPM (plant growth
studying the microbial relative abundance, the introduction of promoting rhizobacteria, bacteria, fungi, and microorganisms,
an artificial community (mock) and the improvement of the respectively), biocontrol, BCA (biocontrol agent), sustainable,
DNA extraction protocols can help to standardize the results biological, postharvest, processing, fermentation, wastes, and by-
(Berg et al., 2020). Another constraint is the difficulty to reach products. The databases screened were PubMed, Google Scholar,
the lowest taxonomic levels because of the limited amplicons Web of Science, and SciELO. In total, 234 publications were
length with the second-generation sequencers (Johnson et al., found with identifications at least at the genus level and a well-
2019; De Corato, 2020; Santos et al., 2020). Indeed, most of defined origin of the microorganisms (rhizosphere, episphere,
the metabarcoding studies related to coffee microorganisms’ endosphere or associated with the cherries, beans, and wastes
diversity were performed with second-generation sequencing during the postharvest processes). The full detailed dataset
platforms (Roche 454 and Illumina MiSeq) that allow sequencing describing the microorganisms’ origin (continent, country,
only a part (usually hypervariable regions) of markers such as Coffea species, the type of colonization, the plant organs, the
the 16S rDNA for bacteria and 18S rDNA for fungi or only type of postharvest processing), the identification strategies,
smaller markers such as the ITS for fungi (Caldwell et al., the thresholds used to filter the identifications, the accession
2015; De Beenhouwer et al., 2015a,b; De Bruyn et al., 2017; numbers (when available), and all the other analyses described in
De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019a,b; Elhalis the scientific articles and their potential applications are provided
et al., 2020a,b; Fulthorpe et al., 2020; Lamelas et al., 2020; in the Supplementary Table 1.
Rodríguez et al., 2020; Veloso et al., 2020). Moreover, it has Then, the microbiota was further divided into two principal
already been demonstrated for bacteria that the partial sequence components. The first one is the indigenous microbiota
does not achieve the taxonomic resolution obtained with the full- composed of the microorganisms living in close association
length 16S rDNA (Johnson et al., 2019). By contrast, the last with the coffee plants, in the soil at the vicinity of the roots
technologies (third and fourth generations) now allow generating (rhizosphere), at the surface (episphere), and inside the plant
longer sequences compared to the advent of NGS, but this is tissues (endosphere). The second component is related to the
done at the expense of the quality due to a higher sequencing postharvest microbiota that encompasses all the microorganisms
error rate (Kulski, 2016; De Corato, 2020). Thus, James et al. associated with the coffee cherries postharvest processing and its
(2016) were the only ones to study the coffee microbiota using by-products including the fermentation, the drying steps, and the
a third-generation sequencing platform (PacBio) and concluded wastes (husks, pulps, and wastewater).
that the error rate remained very low. However, the full capacity The indigenous and the postharvest coffee microbiota have
of the platform remained unexploited as they sequenced only been relatively equally studied with 115 and 127 publications,
the ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 region of rDNA (<1 kb). Finally, it is respectively (Table 1). To the best of our knowledge, the overall
important to have in mind that the data generated during coffee microbiota is covering 22 phyla, encompassing 129
metabarcoding/metagenomic analyses need a both statistical and orders, 607 genera, and 923 species mainly belonging to the
bioinformatical treatment and the algorithms used still need to bacterial and fungal kingdoms. Indeed, only two archaeal phyla
be improved (Ghosh and Bhadury, 2019). (including four orders and five genera without any species
TABLE 1 | Overview of the coffee microbiota with the numbers of phyla, orders, genera, species, and citations for the three kingdoms (archaea, bacteria, and fungi)
constituting the coffee microbiota (indigenous and postharvest).
Microbiota Kingdom Phylum Order Genus Species No. of citations
Indigenous Archaea 2 4 5 0 2
Bacteria 9 43 152 174 50
Fungi (AMF;yeasts) 4 (1;2) 53 (4;6) 248 (24;10) 380 (126;24) 72 (38;9)
Total number 15 100 405 554 115
Postharvest Bacteria 14 59 227 176 51

Fungi (yeasts) 4 (2) 34 (10) 119 (51) 270 (117) 105 (47)
Total 18 93 346 446 127
Total Archaea 2 4 5 0 2
Bacteria 15 67 279 265 97
Fungi (AMF;yeasts) 5 (1;2) 58 (4;11) 315 (24;53) 610 (126;133) 172 (38;54)
Total number 22 129 607 923 234
For the fungal kingdom, the detailed numbers of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and yeasts are indicated between brackets.
identification) have been described (Supplementary Table 1). rhizobacteria” since its formulation by Kloepper and Schroth
This is not surprising since archaea were discovered relatively (1978), the rhizosphere microorganisms represent a well-known
recently in the microbiology history (Woese et al., 1978) and source of plant beneficial microorganisms able to improve the
remain quite difficult to cultivate (Song et al., 2019). acquisition of nutrients as well as the resistance to biotic and
It is worth noting that our survey is a qualitative description abiotic stresses (Avis et al., 2008; De Zelicourt et al., 2013; Meena
of the coffee microbiota diversity. However, we tried to (i) give et al., 2017).
an insight into the relative abundances of the microorganisms In the present review, we recorded 34 publications related
based on their occurrence frequency in the literature and (ii) to the coffee rhizospheric microbiota. Thirty-one used a
compare these results with the relative abundances identified culture-dependent approach, and only three studies employed a
through metabarcoding studies (when available). metabarcoding approach to describe the microorganisms in the
coffee rhizosphere (Caldwell et al., 2015; Lamelas et al., 2020;
The Indigenous Coffee Microbiota Rodríguez et al., 2020). Based on this survey, we recorded that
Many biotic and abiotic factors influence the plant microbiota the rhizosphere microbiota diversity covers 12 phyla, 40 orders,
such as the soil physical–chemical characteristics (Fierer, 2017; 98 genera, and 58 species with as the most studied kingdoms the
Tkacz et al., 2020), the plant compartment (rhizosphere, bacteria and fungi across 30 and 8 articles (Table 2).
episphere, and endosphere), and the organ studied (Compant The bacterial diversity is composed of eight phyla, 31
et al., 2019; Berg et al., 2020; Tkacz et al., 2020). Moreover, orders, 81 genera, and 42 species. The most encountered and
the plant genotype is also believed to influence the microbial diversified phylum is the Proteobacteria with 45 genera
community (Patel et al., 2015; Mina et al., 2020). However, it is and 22 species described, with the Pseudomonas being
worth noting that most of the microorganisms associated with the most diversified and common genus with 11 species
coffee have been described in C. arabica across 170 scientific identified across 14 publications. All studies that used
articles while the remaining studies referred to C. canephora, the NGS to describe the coffee rhizosphere prokaryotic
C. liberica, and C. congensis or did not specified the Coffea abundance and diversity also reported the dominance of
species studied (Supplementary Table 1). Thereby, due to the the Proteobacteria phylum and the Pseudomonas genus
multifactorial influence on the microbiota, we decided to split (Caldwell et al., 2015; Lamelas et al., 2020; Rodríguez et al.,
the indigenous microbiota in the following plant compartments, 2020). The remaining diversity is distributed among the
namely, the rhizosphere, the episphere, and the endosphere. Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and
Verrucomicrobia phyla.
The Coffee Rhizospheric Microbiota The fungal diversity comprises three phyla, eight orders, 16
The soil represents an underestimated reservoir of microbial genera, and 16 species, the Ascomycota phylum being the most
diversity for which a large part never been cultivated (Mendes reported. Indeed, all the eight publications dealing with fungi in
et al., 2013). Plants are able to influence the diversity of the coffee rhizosphere described some members of this phylum
microorganisms in their rhizosphere and to potentially select with 14 genera and 16 species identified. The most commonly
from the soil the beneficial ones through the production of root identified genera belonging to this phylum are by number
exudates (Hartmann et al., 2008; Mendes et al., 2013). As attested of citations Penicillium (6), Aspergillus (5), Fusarium (4), and
by the increasing use of the term “plant growth-promoting Trichoderma (3). Even though there is no metabarcoding analysis
TABLE 2 | Rhizospheric archaea, bacteria, and fungi diversity including phyla, orders, and genera, as well as the numbers of species identified and citations.
Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations
Archaea Thaumarchaeota Nitrososphaerales Nitrososphaera 0 1

Bacteria Acidobacteria Acidobacteriales Edaphobacter 0 1
Bryobacterales Bryobacter 0 1
Candidatus Solibacter 0 1
Solibacter 0 1
Actinobacteria Acidothermales Acidothermus 0 1
Corynebacteriales Gordonia 1 2
Mycobacterium 0 1
Rhodococcus 1 1
Micrococcales Agromyces 0 1
Arthrobacter 0 1
Kocuria 0 1
Leifsonia 1 1
Micrococcus 0 1
Phycicoccus 0 1
Salinibacterium 0 1
Micromonosporales Salinispora 0 1
Propionibacteriales Aeromicrobium 0 1
Streptomycetales Streptomyces 0 1
Bacteroidetes Chitinophagales Filimonas 0 1
Flavobacteriales Chryseobacterium 0 3
Flavobacterium 0 4
Sphingobacteriales Pedobacter 0 1
Sphingobacterium 0 1
Firmicutes Bacillales Alicyclobacillus 0 1
Ammoniphilus 0 1
Bacillus 16 12
Brevibacillus 0 1
Lysinibacillus 0 1
Paenibacillus 0 2
Pasteuria 1 1
Terribacillus 0 1
Nitrospirae Nitrospirales Nitrospira 0 1
Planctomycetes Planctomycetales Planctomyces 0 1
Proteobacteria Aeromonadales Aeromonas 0 2
Burkholderiales Achromobacter 0 2
Acidovorax 0 1
Alcaligenes 0 2
Burkholderia 1 7
Comamonas 0 1
Janthinobacterium 0 1
Rhodoferax 0 1
Variovorax 0 1
Caulobacterales Caulobacter 0 1
Phenylobacterium 0 1
Cellvibrionales Cellvibrio 0 1
Chromatiales Rheinheimera 0 1
Enterobacterales Citrobacter 0 1
Enterobacter 1 2
Erwinia 1 2
(Continued)
TABLE 2 | Continued
Bacteria Proteobacteria Enterobacterales Serratia 2 4

Shinella 0 1
Neisseriales Chromobacterium 0 2
Nevskiales Steroidobacter 0 2
Pasteurellales Pasteurella 0 2
Pseudomonadales Acinetobacter 0 3
Azotobacter 1 6
Chryseomonas 0 2
Pseudomonas 11 14
Rhizobiales Afipia 0 1
Agrobacterium 0 3
Beijerinckia 0 1
Bradyrhizobium 0 2
Devosia 0 1
Kaistia 0 1
Mesorhizobium 0 1
Methylotenera 0 1
Ochrobactrum 1 2
Pedomicrobium 0 1
Pseudolabrys 0 1
Rhodoplanes 0 2
Rhodospirillales Acetobacter 0 1
Azospirillum 0 2
Gluconacetobacter 3 3
Sphingomonadales Kaistobacter 0 1
Sphingobium 0 1
Sphingomonas 0 2
Vibrionales Vibrio 0 2
Xanthomonadales Stenotrophomonas 1 5
Verrucomicrobia Chthoniobacterales Candidatus Udaeobacter 0 1
Candidatus Xiphinematobacter 0 1
Verrucomicrobiales Luteolibacter 0 1
Fungi Ascomycota Chaetothyriales Cladophialophora 0 1
Cladosporiales Cladosporium 0 2
Eurotiales Aspergillus 1 5
Paecilomyces 1 1
Penicillium 2 6
Hypocreales Acremonium 0 2
Aschersonia 0 1
Cylindrocarpon 2 2
Fusarium 0 4
Trichoderma 10 3
Sordariales Chaetomium 0 2
Humicola 0 1
Basidiomycota Cantharellales Rhizoctonia 0 1
Mucoromycota Mucorales Mucor 0 1
(Yeasts) Ascomycota Saccharomycetales Candida 0 1
Saccharomyces 0 1
Archaea 1 1 1 0 1
Bacteria 8 31 81 42 30
Fungi (Yeasts) 3 (1) 8 (1) 16 (2) 16 (0) 8 (1)
Total number 12 40 98 58 34
of the fungal community in the coffee rhizosphere, it has already endophytes to be less affected by soil condition fluctuations and
been reported for several other plant species that the rhizosphere by competition with other microorganisms (Santoyo et al., 2016).
is dominated by fungi from the Ascomycota phylum (Wang et al., In addition, endophytes were reported to display plethora of
2017; Qiao et al., 2019; Schöps et al., 2020; Tkacz et al., 2020). By activities that can be beneficial for the plants (Afzal et al., 2019;
contrast, the other fungal phyla are underrepresented with only White et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2019).
two isolates belonging to the Basidiomycota and Mucoromycota. It must be stressed that more than half of the studies
related to coffee endophytes focused on AMF, which represent
The Coffee Epiphytic Microbiota a particular class of endophytic symbiotic fungi belonging to
In general, the plant epiphytic microbiota is composed of the Mucoromycotina phylum and the Glomeromycotina sub-
a high diversity of microorganisms able to attach and live phylum (Spatafora et al., 2016). They are qualified of mutualistic
on the surface of the above and belowground plant tissues obligate symbionts colonizing the plant roots while the external
(Vorholt, 2012; Newman and Cragg, 2020). This microhabitat mycelium is foraging the soil to transfer some water and
requires a specific adaptation of the microorganisms to tolerate inorganic compounds (phosphorus, nitrogen, and other essential
the particular environment at the surface of the plant tissues nutrients) to their host in exchange of a carbon source (Genre
especially the leaves (Vorholt, 2012; Vandenkoornhuyse et al., et al., 2020). Furthermore, their beneficial effects not only on the
2015). Furthermore, the episphere is somehow considered as a plant nutrition but also on their tolerance to biotic and abiotic
boundary for the microorganisms limiting their establishment as stresses are now well-documented (Chen et al., 2018; Begum
endophytes (Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015). et al., 2019).
Despite the fact that the episphere represents a source The endosphere is the most studied compartment of the
of plant beneficial microorganisms and bioactive compounds indigenous coffee microbiota. We reviewed the content of 71
(Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015; Newman and Cragg, 2020), publications dealing with coffee endophytes, among which 65
it is the least studied compartment of the indigenous coffee employed a culture-dependent method to isolate bacterial and
microbiota with only 19 articles (Table 3). All the reviewed fungal endophytes from various C. arabica, C. canephora, and
studies used a culture-dependent approach to isolate the C. liberica tissues including cherries (Sakiyama et al., 2001; Vega
microorganisms at the surface of several coffee tissues, mainly et al., 2008; Miguel et al., 2013), leaves (Santamaría and Bayman,
from leaves (Vélez and Rosillo, 1995; Haddad et al., 2014) and 2005; Bongiorno et al., 2016), roots (Raviraja et al., 1996; Jimenez-
cherries (Agate and Bhat, 1966; Compri et al., 2016), but also Salgado et al., 1997; Vega et al., 2006; Hoang et al., 2020; Duong
from roots (Velmourougane et al., 2000; Teshome et al., 2017) et al., 2021), seeds (Vega et al., 2006; Duong et al., 2021),
and stems (Velmourougane et al., 2000; Waller and Masaba, and stems (Vega et al., 2005, 2010). Basic culture-independent
2006). Two metabarcoding studies could have pictures the strategies were used in three studies to identify archaea, bacteria,
epiphytic communities at the surface of coffee leaves and cherries; and fungi including AMF inside the C. arabica roots and cherries
however, the authors extracted DNA from the crushed organs (Oliveira et al., 2013; Mahdhi et al., 2017; Prates Júnior et al.,
making impossible to discriminate epiphytes from endophytes 2019). Finally, three metabarcoding studies were also performed
(James et al., 2016; Veloso et al., 2020) (Supplementary Table 1). to study the AMF, endophytic bacteria, and fungi associated with
The coffee epiphytic diversity is composed of seven phyla, C. arabica roots across some management and environmental
25 orders, 52 genera, and 42 species (Table 3). The fungal gradients (De Beenhouwer et al., 2015a,b; Fulthorpe et al., 2020).
kingdom is the most studied, encompassing 3 phyla, 15 orders, The coffee endophytic microbiota encompasses 12 phyla,
34 genera, and 25 species. The most cited fungal phylum is the 70 orders, 241 genera, and 350 species (Table 4). Fungi are
Ascomycota followed by the Basidiomycota and Mucoromycota the most studied microorganisms with a total 55 articles (38
and by citation number the genera Fusarium (6), Penicillium related to AMF), followed by bacteria and archaea with 18
(5), and Aspergillus (4). Regarding the bacterial kingdom, it and 1 studies, respectively. The fungal kingdom is composed
includes four phyla 10 orders, 18 genera, and 17 species, the of four phyla, 39 orders, 149 genera, and 253 species. In
Proteobacteria phylum being the most cited and diversified terms of citations for the filamentous fungi and the yeasts,
with 12 genera, 13 species and the Pseudomonas as the most the Ascomycota phylum is by far the most studied with 18
commonly isolated genus. citations, followed by the Basidiomycota (4), the Cryptomycota
(1), and the Mucoromycota (1). This is also the case in terms
The Coffee Endophytic Microbiota of richness with 102 genera and 88 species belonging to the
Endophytic microorganisms are characterized by their capacity Ascomycota while the Basidiomycota phylum is represented by
to colonize the internal part of the plant tissues without only 21 genera with two species identified. Finally, only one genus
causing any negative symptoms to their host (Wilson, 1995; is reported for both the Cryptomycota and the Mucoromycota
Hyde and Soytong, 2008). The endophytic lifestyle is therefore phyla with no species identified. In the Ascomycota phylum,
characterized by microorganisms spending only a part up to their the most cited genera by number of citations are Cladosporium
entire life cycle within the plant tissues (Hardoim et al., 2015). It is (9), Colletotrichum (9), Aspergillus (6), Penicillium (6), Fusarium
worth noting that some endophytes can be vertically transmitted (6), and Trichoderma (6). It is noteworthy that Fulthorpe et al.
while other are characterized by diverse colonization patterns (2020) also reported using a metabarcoding approach these
(Saikkonen et al., 2004; Hardoim et al., 2015; Frank et al., 2017). genera in coffee roots from all the sites that they studied across
It is also believed that the internal colonization capacity allows a gradient of temperature and humidity. In the same study,
TABLE 3 | Epiphytic bacteria and fungi diversity including phyla, orders, and genera, as well as the numbers of species identified and citations.
Bacteria Actinobacteria Micrococcales Curtobacterium 1 1

Kocuria 1 1
Bacteroidetes Flavobacteriales Flavobacterium 0 2
Firmicutes Bacillales Bacillus 2 4
Lactobacillales Streptococcus 0 1
Proteobacteria Burkholderiales Burkholderia 2 2
Enterobacterales Cedecea 1 1
Citrobacter 1 1
Enterobacter 2 2
Pantoea 1 1
Proteus 0 1
Serratia 1 1
Yersinia 1 1
Pseudomonadales Pseudomonas 1 5
Rhodospirillales Gluconacetobacter 2 1
Xanthomonadales Stenotrophomonas 1 1
Xanthomonas 0 1
Fungi Ascomycota Botryosphaeriales Botryosphaeria 0 1
Guignardia 1 1
Diaporthales Phomopsis 0 1
Penicillium 0 5
Glomerellales Colletotrichum 3 2
Hypocreales Beauveria 1 1
Calcarisporium 2 2
Cylindrocarpon 0 1
Fusarium 1 6
Lecanicillium 0 1
Simplicillium 1 2
Trichoderma 0 2
Verticillium 1 3
Ophiostomatales Sporothrix 1 2
Pleosporales Alternaria 1 1
Bipolaris 0 1
Drechslera 0 1
Epicoccum 0 1
Exserohilum 0 1
Phoma 0 1
Trichosphaeriales Nigrospora 0 2
Xylariales Pestalotia 0 1
Xylaria 0 1
Basidiomycota Cantharellales Rhizoctonia 0 1
Mucoromycota Mucorales Mucor 0 3
Rhizopus 0 1
(Yeasts) Ascomycota Pleosporales Torula 0 1
Saccharomycetales Candida 4 2
Saccharomyces 3 3
(Continued)
TABLE 3 | Continued
(Yeasts) Ascomycota Saccharomycetales Torulopsis 1 1

Schizosaccharomycetales Schizosaccharomyces 0 1
Basidiomycota Sporidiobolales Rhodotorula 1 2
Bacteria 4 10 18 17 9
Fungi (Yeasts) 3 15 34 25 13
(2) (4) (6) (9) (4)
Total 7 25 52 42 19
these authors also highlighted that the genera Cladosporium beans. The two other methods involve the removal of the
and Penicillium represented more than 40 and 10% of all the exocarp (skin) and a part of the mesocarp (pulp) of the fresh
fungal sequences, respectively. When focusing only on AMF, the cherries leaving the beans with a remaining part of the mesocarp
most cited genera are Acaulospora (34), Gigaspora (30), Glomus (mucilage). In the semidry process, the beans are then dried
(29), Claroideoglomus (18), Rhizophagus (18) Scutellospora (15), before the hulling (dry fermentation) while in the wet processing
Ambispora (13), Funneliformis (12), Sclerocystis (11), Paraglomus the mucilage layer is removed by a fermentation step in tanks
(11), Archaeospora (10), and Entrophospora (10). The genera (wet fermentation) before being dried and hulled. In the final
Glomus and Acaulospora are also the most diversified with 26 and steps, the coffee endocarp (“parchment” or “husk”) is removed
23 different species, respectively (see also Supplementary Table 2 to obtain the green coffee bean enveloped in its spermoderm
for the complete list of species). Moreover, several metabarcoding (“silverskin”). Whatever the method used, it is well-known that
studies also reported as dominant AMF associated with coffee the microorganisms play important roles during the postharvest
the genera Glomus, Acaulospora, and Archaeospora under various processes, especially by degrading the mucilage layer during the
management and environmental conditions (De Beenhouwer fermentation (Agate and Bhat, 1966) but also by influencing
et al., 2015a,b; Fulthorpe et al., 2020). either positively (Elhalis et al., 2020a) or negatively (Ndayambaje
Finally, the coffee endophytic bacteria diversity is composed et al., 2019) the organoleptic quality of the final product as well
of seven phyla, 28 orders, 88 genera, and 134 species. The most as its safety with respect to the presence of mycotoxins (Urbano
common bacterial phyla are the Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and et al., 2001).
Actinobacteria with 15, 15, and 12 mentions in the literature, These are the reasons why the postharvest microbiota has
respectively. These phyla are also the most diversified with been extensively studied in order to describe the diversity of
42 genera and 61 species for the Proteobacteria, 28 genera microorganisms associated with the dry (Pasin et al., 2011;
and 39 species for the Actinobacteria, and 8 genera and 31 Evangelista et al., 2014) the semidry (Van Pee and Castelein,
species for the Firmicutes. The most encountered genera in 1971; Silva et al., 2013) and the wet processes (Pederson and
terms of number of citations are Bacillus (14), Enterobacter (8), Breed, 1946; De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019). Furthermore,
Cedecea (6), Paenibacillus (6), Pseudomonas (6), and Pantoea microorganisms associated with the beans during the storage
(5). In addition, the authors of the only metabarcoding analysis (Mislivec et al., 1983; Ndayambaje et al., 2019) and with the
dealing with endophytic bacteria also reported as dominant the wastes and by-products were also studied (Aquiahuatl et al., 1988;
genera Pantoea, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas with a relative Pires et al., 2017; Oumer and Abate, 2018). These researches
abundance of 17, 12, and 4% of all the bacterial sequences were conducted in order to better understand the role of the
obtained from all the studied locations across a climatic gradient microbial component of the coffee processing and to develop
(Fulthorpe et al., 2020). some biotechnological applications to improve coffee quality as
well as the wastes management sustainability.
The Microbiota Associated With Coffee Among the 127 publications related to the microbiota
present after the harvest, most of them were performed using
Postharvest Processes basic culture-dependent and independent methods. However,
Before discussing the microbiota associated with postharvest
seven studies used NGS to perform some metabarcoding (one
treatments, it is important to have in mind the various processes metagenomic) analyses of the bacterial and fungal communities
commonly used in coffee (reviewed in Brando, 2004; Cleves, associated with coffee fermentation (De Bruyn et al., 2017; De
2004; Schwan et al., 2012). Independently of the Coffea species, Carvalho Neto et al., 2018; De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019;
all postharvest technics aim to remove all the external part Zhang et al., 2019a,b; Elhalis et al., 2020a,b).
of the cherries (exocarp, mesocarp, and endocarp) in order to Based on the survey of these studies, we can notice that
produce green coffee beans to be commercialized. To do so, the coffee postharvest microbiota is constituted by 18 phyla, 93
dry, semi-wet, and wet processes are implemented. The first orders, 346 genera, and 446 species belonging to the bacterial
one consists in drying the whole cherries and to mechanically and fungal kingdoms (Table 5). The fungi (including yeast) are
remove the external parts (hulling) to obtain the green coffee the most studied microorganisms associated with the coffee
TABLE 4 | Endophytic archaea bacteria and fungi diversity including phyla, orders, and genera, as well as the numbers of species identified and citations.
Archaea Euryarchaeota Halobacteriales Halobacterium 0 1

Halococcus 0 1
Haloferacales Haloferax 0 1
Methanobacteriales Methanobrevibacter 0 1
Bacteria Acidobacteria Acidobacteriales Acidipila 0 1
Acidobacterium 0 1
Edaphobacter 0 1
Granulicella 0 1
Actinobacteria Corynebacteriales Corynebacterium 1 1
Gordonia 0 1
Mycobacterium 3 3
Mycolicibacterium 1 1
Nocardia 5 2
Rhodococcus 1 1
Frankiales Frankia 0 1
Micrococcales Arthrobacter 2 2
Brachybacterium 1 1
Brevibacterium 1 1
Cellulomonas 3 2
Clavibacter 1 2
Curtobacterium 3 2
Humibacter 0 1
Janibacter 1 1
Kocuria 4 4
Leifsonia 1 1
Microbacterium 1 4
Micrococcus 4 2
Sinomonas 2 1
Nakamurellales Nakamurella 0 1
Pseudonocardiales Amycolatopsis 0 1
Kutzneria 0 1
Lechevalieria 1 1
Solirubrobacterales Solirubrobacter 0 1
Streptomycetales Kitasatospora 2 1
Streptomyces 1 2
Streptosporangiales Actinoallomurus 0 1
Bacteroidetes Cytophagales Cytophaga 1 1
Flavobacteriales Chryseobacterium 2 2
Chloroflexi Ktedonobacterales Ktedonobacter 0 1
Thermosporothrix 0 1
Firmicutes Bacillales Bacillus 23 14
Brevibacillus 1 3
Lysinibacillus 1 1
Ornithinibacillus 0 1
Paenibacillus 4 6
Staphylococcus 1 2
Virgibacillus 0 1
Lactobacillales Lactobacillus 1 1
Planctomycetes Gemmatales Gemmata 0 1
Pirellulales Blastopirellula 0 1
(Continued)
TABLE 4 | Continued
Bacteria Proteobacteria Aeromonadales Aeromonas 1 1

Burkholderiales Alcaligenes 1 1
Burkholderia 7 4
Caballeronia 1 1
Comamonas 1 1
Herbaspirillum 1 1
Hydrogenophaga 1 1
Janthinobacterium 0 1
Pandoraea 1 2
Paraburkholderia 2 1
Ralstonia 0 1
Variovorax 1 1
Enterobacterales Cedecea 1 6
Citrobacter 0 2
Enterobacter 4 8
Erwinia 0 2
Escherichia 3 4
Klebsiella 4 3
Kluyvera 1 2
Pantoea 2 5
Pectobacterium 1 1
Salmonella 2 2
Serratia 1 2
Shigella 1 1
Neisseriales Chromobacterium 0 1
Nevskiales Steroidobacter 0 1
Nitrosomonadales Nitrosovibrio 0 1
Pseudomonadales Acinetobacter 4 4
Pseudomonas 9 6
Rhizobiales Agrobacterium 1 1
Bradyrhizobium 1 2
Methylobacterium 2 2
Ochrobactrum 0 2
Rhizobium 2 2
Rhodobacterales Paracoccus 1 1
Rhodospirillales Azospirillum 0 1
Gluconacetobacter 1 1
Saccharibacter 0 1
Sphingomonadales Sphingobium 1 1
Sphingomonas 0 1
Xanthomonadales Luteibacter 1 1
Stenotrophomonas 1 3
Fungi Ascomycota Botryosphaeriales Botryosphaeria 0 2
Diplodia 0 1
Guignardia 2 4
Lasiodiplodia 1 1
Macrophomina 0 2
Microdiplodia 0 1
Chaetosphaeriales Codinaeopsis 0 1
Chaetothyriales Coniosporium 0 1
(Continued)
TABLE 4 | Continued
Fungi Ascomycota Chaetothyriales Exophiala 0 1

Knufia 0 1
Diaporthales Diaporthe 2 2
Ophiognomonia 0 1
Phomopsis 2 5
Dothideales Aureobasidium 1 1
Emericella 1 1
Neosartorya 0 1
Paecilomyces 2 5
Penicillium 17 6
Talaromyces 1 1
Glomerellales Brunneochlamydosporium 0 1
Chordomyces 0 1
Colletotrichum 5 9
Glomerella 2 3
Musidium 0 1
Plectosphaerella 0 2
Helotiales Cryptosporiopsis 1 1
Hypocreales Acremonium 1 2
Beauveria 2 5
Bionectria 0 1
Clonostachys 2 3
Cylindrocarpon 0 1
Engyodontium 0 1
Fusarium 3 6
Isaria 0 1
Lecanicillium 1 1
Myrothecium 1 1
Sarocladium 1 1
Trichoderma 6 6
Verticillium 0 1
Xenomyrothecium 0 1
Incertae_sedis Phyllosticta 1 1
Triscelophorus 3 1
Magnaporthales Pseudohalonectria 1 1
Microascales Microascus 0 1
Parascedosporium 0 1
Petriella 0 1
Pseudallescheria 1 1
Mycosphaerellales Acrodontium 0 1
Cercospora 0 2
Mycocentrospora 0 1
Mycosphaerella 0 4
Staninwardia 0 1
Onygenales Lacazia 1 1
Pezizales Conoplea 0 1
Pleosporales Acrocalymma 0 1
Alternaria 2 3
Ascochyta 0 1
(Continued)
TABLE 4 | Continued
Fungi Ascomycota Pleosporales Bipolaris 0 1

Camarosporium 0 1
Crassiparies 1 1
Dokmaia 0 1
Drechslera 1 1
Epicoccum 1 2
Leptosphaeria 0 1
Leptosphaerulina 0 1
Microsphaeropsis 0 1
Neodidymella 0 1
Neopyrenochaeta 0 1
Neosetophoma 0 1
Nigrograna 0 1
Paraconiothyrium 0 2
Paraphaeosphaeria 0 1
Periconia 0 1
Phaeosphaeria 0 1
Phoma 3 3
Rhizopycnis 0 2
Roussoella 0 1
Stagonospora 0 1
Stagonosporopsis 0 2
Sordariales Chaetomium 0 1
Lunulospora 1 1
Trichosphaeriales Khuskia 1 1
Nigrospora 0 1
Xylariales Biscogniauxia 0 1
Daldinia 0 1
Hansfordia 0 1
Hypoxylon 0 2
Idriella 0 1
Leptosillia 0 1
Libertella 0 1
Lopadostoma 0 1
Muscodor 1 1
Nemania 0 1
Nodulisporium 1 2
Pestalotia 0 1
Pestalotiopsis 1 3
Phialemoniopsis 0 1
Pseudobeltrania 0 1
Rosellinia 0 1
Xylaria 0 5
Basidiomycota Agaricales Clitocybe 0 1
Marasmius 0 1
Mycena 0 1
Schizophyllum 0 2
Auriculariales Exidiopsis 0 1
Entylomatales Tilletiopsis 0 1
Exobasidiales Meira 0 1
Hymenochaetales Fuscoporia 0 1
(Continued)
TABLE 4 | Continued
Fungi Basidiomycota Incertae_sedis Peniophora 0 1

Microstromatales Jaminaea 0 1
Polyporales Irpex 0 1
Phlebiopsis 0 1
Trametes 0 1
Russulales Stereum 0 1
Tilletiales Tilletia 0 1
Trechisporales Sistotremastrum 1 1
Trechispora 0 1
Ustilaginales Pseudozyma 0 1
Cryptomycota Rozellida Paramicrosporidium 0 1
Mucoromycota Mucorales Gongronella 0 1
(AMF) Mucoromycota Archaeosporales Ambispora 6 13
Archaeospora 3 10
Diversisporales Acaulospora 23 34
Cetraspora 4 7
Dentiscutata 4 9
Diversispora 3 4
Entrophospora 1 10
Gigaspora 5 30
Otospora 1 1
Pacispora 1 1
Racocetra 3 5
Redeckera 1 1
Scutellospora 5 15
Sieverdingia 1 4
Claroideoglomus 5 18
Dominikia 1 1
Funneliformis 8 12
Glomus 26 29
Oehlia 1 3
Rhizoglomus 1 2
Rhizophagus 9 18
Sclerocystis 6 11
Septoglomus 3 5
Paraglomerales Paraglomus 5 11
(Yeasts) Basidiomycota Sporidiobolales Rhodotorula 1 1
Sporobolomyces 0 1
Tremellales Cryptococcus 0 2
Archaea 1 3 4 0 1
Bacteria 7 28 88 134 18
Fungi 4 39 149 216 55
(AMF;Yeasts) (1;1) (4;2) (24;3) (126;1) (38;3)
Total 12 70 241 350 71
postharvest steps with 105 references. This kingdom includes Cladosporium (29), Mucor (16), and Rhizopus (16) focusing on
four phyla, 34 orders, 119 genera, and 270 species. In terms of filamentous fungi. Indeed, the presence of filamentous fungi has
citations, the most encountered fungal phyla are the Ascomycota been extensively studied due to the presence of mycotoxins such
(105), Mucoromycota (23), and Basidiomycota (19) and at the the ochratoxins and aflatoxins (Joosten et al., 2001; Rezende
genus level the Aspergillus (67), Penicillium (45), Fusarium (37), et al., 2013). It is worth noting that all these toxigenic fungi
TABLE 5 | Postharvest bacteria and fungi diversity including phyla, orders, and TABLE 5 | Continued
genera, as well as the numbers of species identified and citations.
Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of
Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of species citations
species citations
Bacteria Bacteroidetes Cytophagales Rudanella 0 1
Bacteria Acidobacteria Acidobacteriales Koribacter 0 1 Spirosoma 0 2
Actinobacteria Actinomycetales Actinomyces 0 1 Flavobacteriales Blattabacterium 0 1
Actinopolysporales Actinopolyspora 0 1 Capnocytophaga 0 1
Bifidobacteriales Bifidobacterium 0 1 Chryseobacterium 3 4
Corynebacteriales Corynebacterium 2 3 Flavobacterium 1 4
Mycobacterium 0 1 Fluviicola 0 1
Nocardia 2 1 Wautersiella 0 1
Rhodococcus 1 3 Sphingobacteriales Olivibacter 0 1
Williamsia 0 1 Pedobacter 0 2
Geodermatophilales Geodermatophilus 0 1 Sphingobacterium 1 3
Incertae_sedis Actinobacterium 0 1 Chlamydiae Parachlamydiales Protochlamydia 0 1
Kineosporiales Kineococcus 0 1 Rhabdochlamydia 0 1
Kineosporia 0 1 Cyanobacteria Nostocales Anabaena 0 1
Micrococcales Arsenicicoccus 0 1 Oscillatoriales Arthrospira 0 2
Arthrobacter 4 7 Spirulinales Halospirulina 0 1
Brachybacterium 0 2 Deinococcus- Deinococcales Deinococcus 0 1

Thermus
Brevibacterium 0 3
Truepera 0 1
Cellulomonas 0 2
Firmicutes Bacillales Alicyclobacillus 0 1
Cellulosimicrobium 2 3
Ammoniphilus 0 1
Cryocola 0 1
Bacillus 9 21
Curtobacterium 1 3
Brevibacillus 1 1
Dermabacter 0 1
Brochothrix 0 1
Kocuria 0 2
Domibacillus 0 1
Lysinimonas 1 1
Exiguobacterium 0 1
Microbacterium 5 4
Kurthia 0 1
Micrococcus 2 2
Lysinibacillus 0 2
Pseudoclavibacter 0 1
Paenibacillus 1 3
Rathayibacter 0 1
Pusillimonas 0 1
Rothia 0 1
Rummeliibacillus 0 1
Salana 0 1
Saccharibacillus 0 2
Salinibacterium 0 1
Staphylococcus 3 4
Terracoccus 0 1
Clostridiales Blautia 0 1
Micromonosporales Actinoplanes 0 1
Clostridium 0 5
Pilimelia 0 1
Coprococcus 0 1
Propionibacteriales Aeromicrobium 0 1
Dorea 0 1
Nocardioides 0 2
Faecalibacterium 0 1
Pseudonocardiales Actinomycetospora 0 1
Oscillospira 0 1
Pseudonocardia 0 2
Ruminococcus 0 1
Solirubrobacterales Patulibacter 0 1
Erysipelotrichales Turicibacter 0 1
Lactobacillales Enterococcus 2 8
Streptosporangiales Actinoallomurus 0 1
Fructobacillus 0 3
Sphaerisporangium 0 1
Lactobacillus 6 18
Armatimonadetes Fimbriimonadales Fimbriimonas 0 2 Lactococcus 2 10
Bacteroidetes Bacteroidales Bacteroides 0 1 Leuconostoc 5 20
Dysgonomonas 0 1 Oenococcus 0 1
Paludibacter 0 1 Pediococcus 2 6
Parabacteroides 0 1 Streptococcus 2 2
Prevotella 0 2 Weissella 4 9
Chitinophagales Chitinophaga 0 1 Fusobacteria Fusobacteriales Fusobacterium 0 1
Flavisolibacter 0 1 GemmatimonadetesGemmatimonadales Gemmatimonas 0 1
Niabella 0 1 Nitrospirae Nitrospirales Nitrospira 0 1
Sediminibacterium 0 1 Planctomycetes Gemmatales Gemmata 0 1
Segetibacter 0 1 Planctomycetales Planctomyces 0 2
Cytophagales Dyadobacter 0 1 Proteobacteria Aeromonadales Aeromonas 1 3
Emticicia 0 1 Alteromonadales Idiomarina 0 1
Hymenobacter 0 2 Marinobacter 0 1
Larkinella 0 1 Bdellovibrionales Bdellovibrio 0 2
Leadbetterella 0 1 Burkholderiales Achromobacter 0 1
(Continued) (Continued)
TABLE 5 | Continued TABLE 5 | Continued
Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of
species citations species citations
Bacteria Proteobacteria Burkholderiales Burkholderia 1 3 Bacteria Proteobacteria Rhizobiales Bosea 0 1

Comamonas 0 2 Devosia 0 1
Hylemonella 0 1 Hyphomicrobium 0 1
Janthinobacterium 1 3 Kaistia 0 1
Lautropia 0 1 Labrys 0 1
Paucibacter 0 1 Mesorhizobium 0 1
Pigmentiphaga 0 1 Methylobacterium 0 5
Polaromonas 0 1 Methylocella 0 1
Polynucleobacter 0 1 Methylocystis 0 1
Rubrivivax 0 1 Methylopila 0 1
Campylobacterales Arcobacter 0 1 Methylosinus 0 1
Campylobacter 0 1 Mycoplana 0 2
Cardiobacteriales Cardiobacterium 0 1 Neorhizobium 0 2
Caulobacterales Brevundimonas 0 1 Ochrobactrum 1 4
Phenylobacterium 0 2 Parvibaculum 0 2
Cellvibrionales Cellvibrio 0 1 Pedomicrobium 0 1
Enterobacterales Bandoniozyma 2 1 Rhizobium 0 2
Buttiauxella 1 1 Rhodoplanes 0 2
Cedecea 0 1 Xanthobacter 0 1
Citrobacter 3 8 Rhodobacterales Falsirhodobacter 0 1
Cronobacter 1 1 Oceanicaulis 0 1
Enterobacter 9 18 Paracoccus 0 1
Erwinia 5 11 Rhodobaca 0 1
Escherichia 2 7 Rhodobacter 0 1
Ewingella 1 1 Rubellimicrobium 0 1
Hafnia 1 3 Rhodospirillales Acetobacter 13 7
Klebsiella 5 16 Asaia 0 1
Kluyvera 2 1 Azospirillum 0 2
Kosakonia 1 1 Gluconacetobacter 1 2
Leminorella 1 1 Gluconobacter 8 8
Pantoea 8 12 Inquilinus 0 1
Pectobacterium 0 2 Kozakia 1 2
Plesiomonas 0 1 Rhodospirillum 0 1
Proteus 2 3 Roseococcus 0 1
Rahnella 1 2 Roseomonas 0 1
Raoultella 0 1 Rickettsiales Wolbachia 0 1
Rosenbergiella 0 1 Sphingomonadales Blastomonas 0 1
Salmonella 3 6 Kaistobacter 0 1
Serratia 4 11 Novosphingobium 0 3
Shigella 1 1 Sphingobium 0 2
Tatumella 2 6 Sphingomonas 1 6
Trabulsiella 0 1 Sphingopyxis 0 1
Yersinia 2 4 Xanthomonadales Dokdonella 0 1
Legionellales Legionella 0 1 Dyella 1 2
Methylococcales Crenothrix 0 1 Luteibacter 0 1
Myxococcales Nannocystis 0 1 Luteimonas 0 2
Neisseriales Chromobacterium 1 1 Stenotrophomonas 0 2
Eikenella 0 1 Xanthomonas 1 1
Neisseria 0 1 Verrucomicrobia Chthoniobacterales Chthoniobacter 0 1
Nevskiales Steroidobacter 0 1 Candidatus 0 1
Nitrosomonadales Thiobacillus 0 1 Xiphinematobacter
Pasteurellales Aggregatibacter 0 1 Fungi Ascomycota Botryosphaeriales Microdiplodia 1 1
Pasteurella 1 1 Capnodiales Antennariella 1 1
Pseudomonadales Acinetobacter 4 10 Capnodium 0 1
Moraxella 1 2 Chaetothyriales Strelitziana 0 1
Pseudomonas 18 17 Cladosporiales Cladosporium 11 29
Rhizobiales Agrobacterium 1 3 Dothideales Aureobasidium 0 1
Alsobacter 0 1 Eurotiales Aspergillus 48 67
Aminobacter 0 1 Byssochlamys 1 2
Beijerinckia 0 2 Eurotium 2 8
(Continued) (Continued)
TABLE 5 | Continued TABLE 5 | Continued
Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of No. of
species citations species citations
Fungi Ascomycota Eurotiales Paecilomyces 0 3 (Yeasts) Ascomycota Saccharomycetales Arxula 1 2

Penicillium 39 45 Barnettozyma 1 1
Talaromyces 1 5 Blastobotrys 2 2
Glomerellales Colletotrichum 3 3 Brettanomyces 0 1
Plectosphaerella 1 1 Candida 32 26
Helotiales Articulospora 0 2 Citeromyces 1 1
Botrytis 1 2 Clavispora 1 1
Cadophora 1 1 Cyberlindnera 1 2
Monilia 0 1 Debaryomyces 1 10
Hypocreales Acremonium 0 5 Dekkera 1 1
Beauveria 2 2 Dipodascus 1 2
Cylindrocarpon 1 2
Geotrichum 3 8
Fusariella 0 1
Hanseniaspora 4 16
Fusarium 18 37
Hyphopichia 1 3
Gibberella 2 4
Issatchenkia 0 1
Myrothecium 1 1
Kazachstania 2 3
Sarocladium 1 1
Kloeckera 1 3
Stachybotrys 0 1
Kluyveromyces 2 5
Trichoderma 1 4
Kodamaea 1 2
Microascales Microascus 0 1
Lachancea 2 2
Scopulariopsis 1 2
Lodderomyces 1 1
Mycosphaerellales Cercospora 0 3
Meyerozyma 3 12
Neodevriesia 0 1
Ogataea 1 1
Zymoseptoria 0 1
Pichia 13 28
Onygenales Chrysosporium 0 1
Orbiliales Arthrobotrys 0 1 Saccharomyces 3 21
Pleosporales Alternaria 1 4 Saccharomycopsis 3 3
Drechslera 0 1 Saturnispora 1 1
Epicoccum 0 1 Schwanniomyces 1 3
Leptosphaerulina 1 1 Sporopachydermia 1 1
Phaeosphaeria 0 1 Starmerella 1 3
Phoma 0 2 Torulaspora 1 15
Wickerhamomyces 4 13
Pyrenochaeta 0 1
Williopsis 1 1
Pyrenochaetopsis 0 2
Yarrowia 1 1
Setophoma 0 1
Zygotorulaspora 0 1
Stemphylium 0 1
Schizosaccharomycetales Schizosaccharomyces1 3
Ulocladium 0 1
Basidiomycota Cystofilobasidiales Cystofilobasidium 2 6
Saccharomycetales Eremothecium 0 1 Filobasidiales Naganishia 0 1
Sordariales Neurospora 1 1 Holtermanniales Holtermannia 1 2
Trichosphaeriales Nigrospora 1 2 Incertae_sedis Trichosporonoides 1 2
Xylariales Pestalotia 0 1 Leucosporidiales Leucosporidium 0 1
Pestalotiopsis 0 1 Sporidiobolales Rhodosporidium 1 1
Basidiomycota Agaricostilbales Bensingtonia 0 1 Rhodotorula 7 9

Sporidiobolus 1 3
Cantharellales Rhizoctonia 0 1
Sporobolomyces 2 3
Leucosporidiales Leucosporidiella 0 1
Tremellales Bullera 1 1
Malasseziales Malassezia 0 1
Cryptococcus 4 7
Tremellales Fellomyces 1 1
Papiliotrema 2 4
Hannaella 1 4 Sirobasidium 0 1
Rhynchogastrema 0 1 Trichosporonales Apiotrichum 1 1
Vishniacozyma 2 3 Cutaneotrichosporon 0 1
Ustilaginales Pseudozyma 0 1
Bacteria 14 59 227 176 51
Wallemiales Wallemia 1 3
Fungi (yeasts) 4 34 119 270 105
Mucoromycota Mucorales Absidia 1 4
(2) (10) (51) (117) (47)
Circinella 0 1
Lichtheimia 1 1 Total 18 93 346 446 127
Mucor 2 16
Rhizopus 2 16
Syncephalastrum 1 3
Zoopagomycota Zoopagales Syncephalis 0 1
belong to the Ascomycota phylum, the Eurotiales order, and
the genera Aspergillus, Byssochlamys, and Penicillium with 23
(Continued) toxigenic species identified to date (Supplementary Table 3).
FIGURE 2 | Venn diagrams of the archaea and bacteria (blue), and fungi (red)
shared between at least one compartment of the indigenous coffee microbiota
and the postharvest coffee microbiota. (A) At the genus level and (B) at the
species level.
FIGURE 1 | Venn diagrams of the archaea and bacteria (blue), and fungi (red)
shared between endophytic, epiphytic, and rhizospheric compartments of the
indigenous coffee microbiota. (A) At the genus level and (B) at the species
level.
Regarding yeasts, the most cited genera are Pichia (28), Candida
(26), Saccharomyces (21), Hanseniaspora (16), Torulaspora (15),
Wickerhamomyces (13), Meyerozyma (12), and Debaryomyces
(10). Furthermore, the yeast genera Pichia and Candida are also
reported to be the dominant genera in term of relative abundance
during the coffee fermentation across all the metabarcoding
studies (De Bruyn et al., 2017; De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019; FIGURE 3 | Venn diagrams of the archaea and bacteria (blue), and fungi (red)
shared between continents. (A) At the genus level and (B) at the species level.
Zhang et al., 2019b; Elhalis et al., 2020a,b).
Regarding the bacterial kingdom, it contains 14 phyla,
59 orders, 227 genera, and 176 species described across
51 publications. In matter of recurrence in the literature,
contain highly competitive plant colonizers representing choice
the most cited are the Firmicutes (38), Proteobacteria (33),
candidates for functional studies (Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015;
Actinobacteria (14), and the Bacteroidetes (7) at the phylum
Müller et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the “core
level and the Bacillus (21), Leuconostoc (20), Lactobacillus
microbiota” is the result of a coevolution process in which the
(18), Enterobacter (18), Pseudomonas (17), Klebsiella (16)
microbes have been selected to achieve essential functions for
Pantoea (12), Erwinia (11), Serratia (11), Lactococcus (10),
their hosts (Lemanceau et al., 2017; Compant et al., 2019).
and Acinetobacter (10) at the genus level. These findings are
In the framework of this review, we defined the “core coffee
in accordance with the relative abundances registered using
microbiota” corresponding to the microbial taxa (at genus and
metabarcoding/metagenomic approach. Indeed, in such studies
species levels) shared between (i) indigenous coffee microbiota
the lactic acid bacteria (LAB), especially from the genus
plant compartments, namely, the rhizosphere, episphere, and
Leuconostoc, and acetic acid bacteria (AAB) are often reported
endosphere (Figure 1; see also Supplementary Table 5 for the
to be the dominant bacteria during the fermentation along
complete list of genera and species in each partitions), (ii) at least
with other bacterial genera (e.g., Bacillus, Erwinia, Pseudomonas)
one indigenous coffee microbiota compartment and postharvest
belonging to the Firmicutes and Proteobacteria phyla (De
coffee microbiota (Figure 2; see also Supplementary Table 6 for
Bruyn et al., 2017; De Carvalho Neto et al., 2018; De Oliveira
the complete list of genera and species in each partitions), (iii)
Junqueira et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019a,b; Elhalis et al.,
the continents (Figure 3; see also Supplementary Table 7 for
2020a,b). Thus, a total of 22 species of AAB belonging to
the complete list of genera and species in each partitions), and
the genera Acetobacter, Gluconacetobacter, Gluconobacter, and
(iv) all indigenous coffee microbiota plant compartments across
Kozakia, as well as 23 species of LAB from the Bifidobacterium,
all continents (Figure 4; see also Supplementary Table 8 for the
Bacillus, Clostridium, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus,
complete list of genera and species in each partitions).
Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, and Weissella genera
Considering the taxa shared between the rhizosphere,
have been described during the coffee postharvest steps (see also
endosphere, and episphere, a total of 10 bacterial genera (Bacillus,
Supplementary Table 4 for the complete list of species).
Burkholderia, Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Gluconacetobacter,
Kocuria, Pseudomonas, Serratia, Stenotrophomonas, and
The Core Coffee Microbiota Related to Streptomyces) and three species (B. subtilis, P. putida,
Specific Functional Roles S. maltophilia), as well as six fungal genera (Aspergillus,
The plant “core microbiota” can be described at different Cladosporium, Cylindrocarpon, Fusarium, Penicillium,
taxonomic, spatial, and temporal levels and is likely to and Trichoderma), and one species (A. niger), are able to
Thus, these microbial taxa, which are ubiquitous across

continents, are able to adapt themselves to various
environmental conditions.
Finally, a total of six bacterial genera (Bacillus, Citrobacter,
Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Stenotrophomonas) and
two species (B. subtilis and S. maltophilia), as well as four fungal
genera (Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Fusarium, and Penicillium),
are present in all coffee plant compartments across all continents
(Figure 4; see also Supplementary Table 8).
To summarize, the coffee microbiota contains some
FIGURE 4 | Venn diagrams of the bacteria (blue), and fungi (red) shared microorganisms that are either some competitive coffee
between all compartments of the indigenous coffee microbiota across all plant colonizers or able to adapt themselves to various
continents. (A) At the genus level and (B) at the species level. environmental conditions, and sometimes both. Therefore,
these microorganisms should be further studied in order
to exploit their capacities for the development of new
biotechnological applications.
colonize all the coffee plant compartments (Figure 1; see also
Supplementary Table 5). These microorganisms can therefore
be considered as those presenting the highest competitiveness Biotechnological Applications of the
to colonize and survive in the coffee rhizosphere but also at the Coffee Microbiota
surface and inside coffee plant tissues/organs. Potential Uses as Plant Growth Promoting Agents
Regarding the microorganisms associated both to coffee Coffee-associated microorganisms have been extensively studied
plants in the field and during coffee processing, we highlighted for their potential use as plant-growth promoting agents
92 genera (32% of the total) and 37 species (12% of including rhizospheric bacteria and fungi (Jimenez-Salgado et al.,
the total) for bacteria, as well as 52 genera (17% of the 1997; Posada et al., 2013; Kejela et al., 2016; Perea Rojas et al.,
total) and 40 species (7% of the total) for the fungi, 2019), epiphytic bacteria (Estrada-De Los Santos et al., 2001;
shared between the postharvest microbiota and at least one Teshome et al., 2017), endophytic bacteria (Jimenez-Salgado
indigenous coffee microbiota compartment (Figure 2; see also et al., 1997; Silva et al., 2012) and AMF (Caldeira et al., 1983;
Supplementary Table 6). Furthermore, 135 bacterial and 67 Perea Rojas et al., 2019).
fungal genera, as well as 139 bacterial and 230 fungal The microorganisms’ capacity to promote the plant growth
species, were found only in the postharvest microbiota and is often linked with the improvement of the plant mineral
are therefore introduced during the processing steps. These nutrition or the regulation of the plant hormonal balance
observations are particularly relevant regarding toxigenic fungi (Egamberdieva et al., 2017; Kudoyarova et al., 2019; Aeron
because among the 23 species found during postharvest et al., 2020). Since nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron are among
processing, only 10 are member of indigenous microbiota. the most limiting nutrients for plants, the use of N-fixing,
Indeed, the species A. flavus and A. ochraceus are also phosphorus-solubilizing (P-solubilizing), and siderophore-
present as epiphytes while A. sclerotiorum, A. versicolor, A. producing microorganisms could represent a sustainable
westerdijkiae, P. crustosum, P. olsonii, and P. oxalicum as strategy to reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers (Vitousek
endophytes (Supplementary Table 3). Finally, A. niger and P. et al., 2002; Scavino and Pedraza, 2013; Alori et al., 2017;
brevicompactum are present in all coffee plant compartments. Pahari et al., 2017; Prabhu et al., 2019; Smercina et al.,
Therefore, the presence of the other 13 toxigenic species could 2019).
be avoided by taking stricter hygiene measures in the processing Thus, in vitro screenings were often used to highlight
facilities and thus reducing the losses associated with fungal the microbiota potential capacity to improve the coffee plant
toxins contaminations. nutrition. For example, the ability to fix the atmospheric nitrogen
Concerning the diversity between the coffee growing was demonstrated for some bacterial species associated with
continents, 11 bacterial genera (Bacillus, Citrobacter, C. arabica roots belonging to the genera Gluconacetobacter
Enterobacter, Enterococcus, Erwinia, Klebsiella, Leuconostoc, (Jimenez-Salgado et al., 1997; Fuentes-Ramírez et al., 2001),
Pantoea, Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Stenotrophomonas) Burkholderia (Estrada-De Los Santos et al., 2001), Azotobacter,
and eighth species (B. megaterium, B. subtilis, E. cloacae, Leifsonia, and Stenotrophomonas (Wedhastri et al., 2012).
K. pneumoniae, L. mesenteroides, P. agglomerans, P. Another valuable microbial process is the improvement of
fluorescens, and S. maltophilia), together with 10 fungal nutrient availability. To this end, the capacity to solubilize the
genera (Aspergillus, Candida, Cladosporium, Fusarium, phosphorus has been demonstrated not only for numerous
Hanseniaspora, Penicillium, Pichia, Rhodotorula, Torulaspora, bacterial species associated with C. arabica, C. canephora, and C.
and Wickerhamomyces) and six species (A. westerdijkiae, H. liberica roots and seeds, belonging to the genera Acinetobacter,
uvarum, P. brevicompactum, P. citrinum, R. mucilaginosa, Aeromonas, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Bacillus, Brachybacterium,
and W. anomalus), are shared all across the coffee Burkholderia, Caballeronia, Cellulomonas, Chromobacterium,
world (Figure 3; see also Supplementary Table 7). Chryseobacterium, Chryseomonas, Citrobacter, Curtobacterium,
Enterobacter, Gordonia, Kocuria, Luteibacter, Mycolicibacterium, on the growth of C. arabica seedlings and their nutrient
Nocardia, Paenibacillus, Paraburkholderia, Pasteurella, acquisition including nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium,
Pseudomonas, Rhodococcus, Sphingomonas, Staphylococcus, magnesium, and manganese (Caldeira et al., 1983; Vaast and
Stenotrophomonas, and Vibrio (Baon et al., 2012; Muleta et al., Zasoski, 1992; Siqueira et al., 1995; Vaast et al., 1997b; Osorio
2013; Teshome et al., 2017; Duong et al., 2021) and also for some et al., 2002). Other authors also emphasized the potential of
fungi from the genera Aspergillus, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, the AMF co-inoculation with other plant growth-promoting
Cylindrocarpon, Fusarium, Humicola, Paecilomyces, and microorganisms. Indeed, Pérez et al. (2002) observed an
Penicillium (Posada et al., 2013; Perea Rojas et al., 2019). Another increased AMF colonization of C. canephora seedlings when
capacity is the iron mobilization through the production of combined with N-fixing bacteria. Moreover, González et al.
siderophores as displayed by the bacterial genera Acinetobacter, (2004) underlined a consistent increase of the AMF effects on
Bacillus, Burkholderia, Caballeronia, Cellulomonas, Enterobacter, height and foliar area of C. arabica seedlings when N-fixing
Escherichia, Luteibacter, Mycolicibacterium, Paraburkholderia, bacteria were applied simultaneously with the mycorrhizal fungi.
Lechevalieria, Mycobacterium, Pseudomonas, Nocardia, Recently, Perea Rojas et al. (2019) confirmed the positive effect
Paenibacillus, and Rhizobium associated with roots, leaves of AMF on C. arabica seedling growth and showed an improved
and seeds of C. arabica, C. canephora, and C. liberica (Silva efficiency by the addition of P-solubilizing fungi with a significant
et al., 2012; Kejela et al., 2016; Duong et al., 2021). Finally, increase of the phosphorus content in the leaves.
the production of phytohormones (e.g., auxins) or regulators The last step toward the development of sustainable
(e.g., the ACC deaminase enzyme able to lower ethylene alternatives to chemical fertilizers is the confirmation of
level) was established for some members of the genera the results obtained in controlled conditions in situ. Field
Bacillus, Brachybacterium, Burkholderia, Erwinia, Escherichia, experiments were exclusively conducted with AMF so far.
Kocuria, Luteibacter, Methylobacterium, Mycobacterium, Siqueira et al. (1993) were among the first authors to study the
Mycolicibacterium, Nocardia, Ochrobactrum, Paenibacillus, effect of mycorrhiza during 3 years in the field by inoculating
Paracoccus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Serratia, Sinomonas, and different AMF strains (alone or in combination) on C. arabica
Sphingobium (Muleta et al., 2009; Baon et al., 2012; Silva et al., seedlings under greenhouse conditions before to transfer the
2012; Kejela et al., 2016; Duong et al., 2021). plants in the field. At the transplantation, the authors reported
Even though highlighting some plant growth-promoting that most of the treatments were able to increase the plant
capacities in vitro represents a tool to select some potential biomasses and nutrient content (P and Cu) and after 6 months
beneficial microorganisms, the most important step to support all the treatments increased the survival rate, stem diameter, and
the use of microorganisms in coffee production is the validation height of the plants. Finally, when superphosphate was applied
of the effects on the plants. Therefore, several in planta some treatments also increased the yield with a mean increase of
experiments under various controlled conditions (nursery, 74% with the most efficient one.
greenhouse, and phytotron) were performed to confirm the These beneficial effects of AMF were confirmed by several
growth-promoting effect of the microorganisms. For example, other studies. Indeed Colozzi-Filho et al. (1994) and Trejo
Chattopadhyay et al. (2006) and Wedhastri et al. (2012) et al. (2011) also observed an increase in C. arabica vegetative
demonstrated the capacity of some N-fixing bacteria to promote growth and nutrition (P, K, and Cu) under controlled conditions
the growth and the nutrient acquisition of C. canephora after the inoculation of different AMF isolates. These effects
seedlings. Baon et al. (2012) and Cisneros-Rojas et al. (2017) were maintained after the field transplantation along with
also highlighted the increase in biomass of C. arabica and an improvement of survival and first yield (up to 100% for
C. canephora seedlings after the inoculation of P-solubilizing some treatments). Siqueira et al. (1998) performed a 6-year
bacteria. Furthermore, Medina et al. (2003) carried out some field study during which they also confirmed the beneficial
C. arabica seed inoculations with an N-fixing bacterial strain effect of AMF inoculation during the early development of
alone or in combination with some P-solubilizing bacteria coffee seedlings. However, after 26 months in the field the
and they were able to demonstrate a plant height increase of differences between the inoculated and control plants started to
33% with the co-inoculation. By testing numerous endophytic decrease and became insignificant during the following years.
isolates (bacteria and fungi), Silva et al. (2012) showed that This finding was explained by the fact that the non-inoculated
only 6 bacterial strains out of 234 isolates tested significantly plants started to be colonized by indigenous mycorrhizal fungi
promoted the growth of C. arabica seedlings while some after the transplantation. Therefore, the authors suggested that
isolates even had a deleterious effect. Trying to understand the the AMF inoculation is really relevant only to increase the initial
mechanisms involved, the authors further characterized the most development of coffee seedlings and the first productions.
the efficient strains and demonstrated their ability to solubilize These findings also highlighted the need to further
phosphorus, as well as to produce auxins and siderophores. characterize the coffee-associated microorganisms especially
This result underlines the interest to perform some preliminary under field conditions in order to develop some efficient
beneficial capacity screenings before undertaking further larger microbiota-based alternatives to conventional fertilizers.
experiments with the coffee plants.
The majority of other in planta experiments in controlled Potential Uses as Biocontrol Agents
condition were focused on AMF. Several authors were able Microorganisms colonizing several coffee plant compartments
to demonstrate the positive effect of these symbiotic fungi have been examined for their potential use as biocontrol agents
including bacteria and fungi isolated from the rhizosphere Kaltoft, 2006; Ramos et al., 2010; Djossou et al., 2011; Leong
(Mulaw et al., 2010; Kejela et al., 2016), the episphere (Haddad et al., 2014; De Melo Pereira et al., 2015a; De Almeida et al.,
et al., 2014; Leong et al., 2014), and the endosphere (Silva et al., 2019).
2012; Hoang et al., 2020; Duong et al., 2021). Several in planta experiments on C. arabica grown under
As for the plant growth-promoting agents, several in controlled conditions (growth chamber and greenhouse)
vitro screenings of potential biocontrol capacities were confirmed the capacity of several bacterial antagonists to
employed. For example, it was successfully demonstrated decrease the spore germination, the disease severity, and the
that numerous bacterial isolates (from the genera: Acinetobacter, sporulation of H. vastatrix (Shiomi et al., 2006; Bettiol et al.,
Aeromonas, Alcaligenes, Bacillus, Brachybacterium, Brevibacillus, 2007; Silva et al., 2008, 2012; Haddad et al., 2013, 2014; Culliao
Burkholderia, Cedecea, Caballeronia, Cellulomonas, and Barcelo, 2015). Some authors underlined the fact that the
Chromobacterium, Chryseobacterium, Chryseomonas, treatment was more efficient when applied before the pathogen
Curtobacterium, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Escherichia, inoculation (Shiomi et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2012; Haddad et al.,
Flavobacterium, Herbaspirillum, Kitasatospora, Lechevalieria, 2014), and other studies also demonstrated that the simultaneous
Leifsonia, Luteibacter, Microbacterium, Micrococcus, applications of some bacterial isolates were as efficient as copper
Mycobacterium, Mycolicibacterium, Nocardia, Ochrobactrum, hydroxide in reducing CLR severity (Haddad et al., 2013).
Paenibacillus, Paraburkholderia, Pasteurella, Pectobacterium, In another greenhouse studies, Tiru et al. (2013) corroborated
Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Salmonella, Serratia, Sinomonas, the in vitro results obtained with some G. xylarioides (CWD)
Streptomyces, and Vibrio) were able to produce some enzymes antagonists. They showed that depending on the isolate and
including chitinases, gelatinases, lipases, and proteases (Muleta timing of application (before, after, or simultaneously), the
et al., 2009; Tiru et al., 2013; Kejela et al., 2016; Asyiah et al., inoculation of the biocontrol agents was able to significantly
2018; Hoang et al., 2020; Duong et al., 2021) as well as some control the pathogen with a reduction of the disease severity
other active compounds like HCN and siderophores (Muleta comprised between 40 and 82.4%.
et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2012; Tiru et al., 2013; Duong et al., 2021), Nematode control capacity was also confirmed in planta.
already known to be involved in the biocontrol mechanisms Indeed, Asyiah et al. (2018) demonstrated that a bacterial
(Compant et al., 2005; Saraf et al., 2014; Köhl et al., 2019). endophyte isolate was able to inhibit the penetration of the
Another approach that was extensively employed to highlight migratory endoparasitic nematode, P. coffeae, in the roots of C.
the biocontrol capacity of bacterial and fungal isolates involved arabica seedlings. Moreover, Vaast et al. (1997a) demonstrated
the confrontation of the pathogen either directly with the that the inoculation of C. arabica seedlings with AMF 4 months
antagonist (dual culture method) or with the compounds before introducing P. coffeae significantly improved the tolerance
secreted in the culture medium (agar diffusion method). This to nematodes compared to the control without AMF. Finally,
strategy was successfully employed to demonstrate the ability Mekete et al. (2009) confirmed the results obtained in vitro on
of some biocontrol agents to inhibit the development of some tomato seedlings and showed that the inoculation of several
of the major coffee diseases such as the CLR caused by the bacterial endophytes significantly reduced the number of egg
fungal pathogen H. vastatrix (Shiomi et al., 2006; Bettiol et al., masses and galls caused by the root knot nematode M. incognita.
2007; Silva et al., 2008, 2012; Daivasikamani and Rajanaika, The only in situ experiments were conducted in order to
2009; Haddad et al., 2013) or the coffee wilt disease (CWD) test some microbial antagonists against H. vastatrix (CLR)
also known as tracheomycosis caused by the fungal pathogen under the field conditions. Vélez and Rosillo (1995) evaluated
Gibberella xylarioides (Muleta et al., 2007; Mulaw et al., 2010, the efficiency of an isolate of the fungus Verticillium lecanii
2013; Tiru et al., 2013). This methodology was also used to reveal by spraying the antagonist 48 h before the inoculation of
the microorganisms biocontrol potential toward numerous CLR spores. They noticed a delayed latent period (5 days),
other phytopathogens including Alternaria alternata, A. solani, but the biocontrol agent failed to display a significant
Ambrosiella macrospora, Botrytis cinereal, Colletotrichum protecting effect although the number of lesions was reduced
gloeosporioides, C. coffeicola, Fusarium oxysporum, F. solani, compared to the controls. More recently, Daivasikamani and
F. verticillioides, Glomerella sp., Macrophomina phaseolina, Rajanaika (2009) tested some bacterial isolates as prevention
Myrothecium roridum, Pestalotia longisetula, Phoma sp., treatment over a 2-year period and compared the results to
Phytophthora capsici, P. meadii, Pythium aphanidermatum, those obtained with a copper-based (Bordeaux mixture) and
Rhizoctonia solani, and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Nair et al., a systemic fungicide (Triadimefon). By taking the average
2002; Mulaw et al., 2013; Bongiorno et al., 2016; Kejela of the 2 years, the authors highlighted that the two best
et al., 2016; Monteiro et al., 2017; Ranjini and Raja, 2019; biocontrol agents were able to decrease the disease incidence
Hoang et al., 2020; Duong et al., 2021) but also some pests by 36% with B. subtilis and 28% with P. fluorescens. However,
such as the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Vega the chemical fungicides were still more efficient with a
et al., 2008), the root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita mean disease incidence reduction of 44% with the Bordeaux
(Mekete et al., 2009; Hoang et al., 2020), the burrowing mixture and 64% with Triadimefon. In another study, Haddad
nematode Radopholus duriophilus, and the root lesion nematode et al. (2009) assessed the efficiency of two bacterial isolates
Pratylenchus coffeae (Duong et al., 2021), as well as some (Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp.) compared to copper
toxigenic fungi including Aspergillus carbonarius, A. flavus, hydroxide in controlling CLR. Depending on the rate and
A. niger, A. ochraceus, and A. westerdijkiae (Masoud and time of application, the Bacillus isolate was as efficient as
the copper-based fungicide in reducing the disease incidence fungi. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that some yeasts and
and severity. lactic acid bacteria are able to control the development and toxin
Another interesting way to control CLR was explored with production by toxigenic fungi during artificially contaminated
the use fungal hyper-parasites. Indeed, the pathogenicity of coffee fermentation (Massawe and Lifa, 2010; De Melo Pereira
fungal mycoparasites toward H. vastatrix has already been et al., 2015a).
demonstrated on infected leaves (Carrion and Ruiz-Belin, 1988; It is also important to mention that coffee processing generates
Gómez-De La Cruz et al., 2017). The identification of CLR fungal several by-products including the fruit skin, pulp, parchment,
hyper-parasites is therefore of prime interest and has already silverskin, and used coffee grounds (Iriondo-DeHond et al.,
been done with a standard microbiological procedure (Carrion 2020). Several strategies have been explored to valorize these
and Rico-Gray, 2002) as well as by a comparative metabarcoding wastes by using them among others as animal feed, fertilizer,
analysis of the fungal communities associated with healthy and substrate for biogas/biodiesel production, compost for plants,
diseased coffee leaves (James et al., 2016). and edible fungi and for earthworm production (Perraud-Gaime
Finally, the AMF abundance, diversity, and root colonization et al., 2000; Kondamudi et al., 2008; Ronga et al., 2016). However,
in C. arabica infested or not with H. vastatrix in the field these strategies are difficult to implement because of caffeine,
were compared. Some authors reported a higher mycorrhizal tannin, and polyphenol contents that make the wastes toxic.
colonization and spore density as well as the prevalence of For these reasons, microorganisms have also been studied for
some AMF genera in healthy plants, therefore highlighting the their potential utilization in detoxifying the coffee wastes and
potential implication of mycorrhizal fungi in CLR tolerance were therefore screened for their capacity to degrade the caffeine
(Monroy et al., 2019). and tannins (Aquiahuatl et al., 1988; Roussos et al., 1995;
Together, these results emphasized the potential use of Brand et al., 2000; Mazzafera, 2002; Nayak et al., 2012). Finally,
microbes as biocontrol agents that might be as efficient as the microorganisms have also been explored for some industrial
chemical pesticides and fungicides in controlling some of the applications such as the production of enzymes with by-products
major coffee pests and diseases. such as amylases (Murthy et al., 2009), pectinases (Antier et al.,
1993; Boccas et al., 1994; Sakiyama et al., 2001; Serrat et al., 2002;
Potential to Improve the Quality and the By-product Masoud and Jespersen, 2006), proteases (Rodarte et al., 2011),
Management and xylanases (Murthy and Naidu, 2012).
The quality of the coffee is not only influenced by several Consequently, the application of microbes in the coffee
parameters during the production such as the plant genotype, industry is of prime interest, not only to improve the quality of
environmental conditions, cultivation techniques and the the final product but also to achieve a better management of the
associated microbiota (Toledo et al., 2016; Martins et al., 2020), wastes and potentially add some value to by-products.
but also by the type of postharvest processing (Gonzalez-Rios
et al., 2007b; Lee et al., 2015; Poltronieri and Rossi, 2016), the CONCLUSION AND FUTURE TRENDS
storage conditions (Bucheli et al., 1998; Urbano et al., 2001;
Geremew et al., 2016), and the roasting and brewing methods The coffee microbiota has been extensively studied and the
(Gonzalez-Rios et al., 2007a; Frost et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020). potential applications of the microorganisms to improve the
The involvement and potential use of microorganisms to coffee plant fitness, either by directly promoting its growth or
improve the coffee quality is being increasingly studied. For by acting as pathogen antagonists are now well-documented.
example, the coffee undergoing the wet processing is often Despite that a substantial work has been done in vitro and
associated with a higher cup quality and it is now established in planta under a controlled environment, there is a lack of
that several groups of microorganisms especially the acetic acid assessment of the real potential of these microorganisms in situ
bacteria (AAB), the lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and the yeasts under field conditions. This should be included as a research
are involved in the improvement of the quality by producing priority despite the difficulty of implementing this kind of
several metabolites, organic acids, and volatile compounds (De experimental approach for a perennial crop such as coffee,
Bruyn et al., 2017; De Oliveira Junqueira et al., 2019; Zhang which requires the monitoring of the plants for several years.
et al., 2019a,b; Elhalis et al., 2020b). In a recent study, Elhalis Consumers, producers, industries, and governments are more
et al. (2020a) inhibited the yeast growth during the fermentation and more concerned about the environmental and health issues
and compared the bean composition as well as the quality and associated with intensive agriculture and chemical inputs. Thus,
sensory characteristics of coffee fermented with or without yeasts. microorganisms represent a promising alternative to improve
Using this strategy, they were able to clearly demonstrate the the sustainability not only of the coffee production but also
implication of yeasts in the quality improvement of the wet- of the wastes’ management as well as the quality of the final
processed coffee. Finally, several authors also demonstrated the product. Despite the fact that metabarcoding studies now provide
improvement of the quality after the inoculation of selected yeasts a more global understanding of the microbial communities
and lactic acid bacteria strains on coffee undergoing not only the associated with coffee, there are still some limitations regarding
wet (De Melo Pereira et al., 2015b, 2016; Da Silva Vale et al., 2019; the taxonomic resolution. However, this issue should be resolved
Bressani et al., 2020) but also the semidry processing (Martinez in the coming years with the improvement of both the sequencing
et al., 2017). technologies and the bioinformatics treatments. Nevertheless,
Another explored aspect where microorganisms could have this strategy remains complementary of the culture-dependent
an impact on coffee quality is the potential control of toxigenic applied research that could be improved by some culturomics
approaches, for example. The present review provides an colleagues from IRD, CIRAD, and LMI RICE 2 for their
extensive description of the diversity of microorganisms at both critical editing.
farming and processing levels and an overview of their potential
uses. The present paper also highlights the need of further SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
researches in this area.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.
2020.607935/full#supplementary-material
BD: writing—original draft. PM, J-LM, PV, ML, and RD: Supplementary Table 1 | Coffee microbiota full description.
writing—review & editing. All authors contributed to the article Supplementary Table 2 | Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in association with coffee.
and approved the submitted version.
Supplementary Table 3 | Toxigenic fungi producing Ochratoxin A (OTA),
Ochratoxin B (OTB), and Aflatoxin B (AFB) in association with coffee.
FUNDING Supplementary Table 4 | Acetic acid bacteria (AAB) and lactic acid bacteria
(LAB) in association with coffee.
This work was supported by the funding of the French Institute
Supplementary Table 5 | Venn diagrams and partitions of the archaea, bacteria,
for the Research and Development (IRD) and the Laboratory and fungi shared between endophytic, epiphytic, and rhizospheric compartments
of Mediterranean and Tropical Symbioses research unit (LSTM) of the indigenous coffee microbiota.
in the framework of the France-Vietnam International Joint Supplementary Table 6 | Venn diagrams and partitions of the archaea, bacteria,
Laboratory (Rice, Interactions & Coffee in Environment-phase and fungi shared between at least one compartment of the indigenous coffee
2, RICE-2). microbiota and the postharvest coffee microbiota.
Supplementary Table 7 | Venn diagrams and partitions of the archaea, bacteria,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and fungi shared between continents.
Supplementary Table 8 | Venn diagrams and partitions of the bacteria and fungi
We are thankful to IRD for the funding and LMI RICE 2 for shared between all compartments of the indigenous coffee microbiota across
providing the necessary facilities. We thankfully acknowledge all continents.
REFERENCES Ataroff, M., and Monasterio, M. (1997). Soil erosion under different management
of coffee plantations in the Venezuelan Andes. Soil Technol. 11, 95–108.
Aeron, A., Khare, E., Jha, C. K., Meena, V. S., Aziz, S. M. A., Islam, M. T., doi: 10.1016/S0933-3630(96)00118-3
et al. (2020). Revisiting the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: lessons Avis, T. J., Gravel, V., Antoun, H., and Tweddell, R. J. (2008).
from the past and objectives for the future. Arch. Microbiol. 202, 665–676. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on
doi: 10.1007/s00203-019-01779-w plant health and productivity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 1733–1740.
Afzal, I., Shinwari, Z. K., Sikandar, S., and Shahzad, S. (2019). Plant doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.013
beneficial endophytic bacteria: mechanisms, diversity, host range and genetic Awoke, A., Beyene, A., Kloos, H., Goethals, P. L. M., and Triest, L. (2016).
determinants. Microbiol. Res. 221, 36–49. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2019.02.001 River water pollution status and water policy scenario in Ethiopia: raising
Agate, A. D., and Bhat, J. V. (1966). Role of pectinolytic yeasts in the degradation awareness for better implementation in developing countries. Environ. Manage.
of mucilage layer of Coffea robusta cherries. Appl. Microbiol. 14, 256–260. 58, 694–706. doi: 10.1007/s00267-016-0734-y
Alori, E. T., Glick, B. R., and Babalola, O. O. (2017). Microbial phosphorus Baon, J. B., Wedhastri, S., and Kurniawan, A. (2012). The ability of phosphate
solubilization and its potential for use in sustainable agriculture. Front. solubilizing bacteria isolated from coffee plant rhizosphere and their effects
Microbiol. 8:971. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00971 on Robusta coffee seedlings. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. A 2, 1064–1070.
Amamo, A. A. (2014). Coffee production and marketing in Ethiopia. Eur. J. Bus. doi: 10.17265/2161-6256/2012.09A.005
Manage. 6, 109–121. doi: 10.7176/EJBM Begum, N., Qin, C., Ahanger, M. A., Raza, S., Khan, M. I., Ashraf, M., et al. (2019).
Amann, J. (1911). Die direkte zählung der wasserbakterien mittels des Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant growth regulation: implications
ultramikroskops. Centralblatt Bakteriol. 29, 381–384. in abiotic stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 10:1068. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.
Antier, P., Minjares, A., Roussos, S., Raimbault, M., and Viniegra-Gonzalez, G. 01068
(1993). Pectinase-hyperproducing mutants of Aspergillus niger C28B25 for Berg, G., Rybakova, D., Fischer, D., Cernava, T., Vergès, M.-C. C., Charles, T.,
solid-state fermentation of coffee pulp. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 15, 254–260. et al. (2020). Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges.
doi: 10.1016/0141-0229(93)90146-S Microbiome 8:103. doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0
Aquiahuatl, M. A., Raimbault, M., Roussos, S., and Trejo, M. R. (1988). “Coffee Berg, G., Rybakova, D., Grube, M., and Köberl, M. (2016). The plant microbiome
pulp detoxification by solid state fermentation: isolation, identification and explored: implications for experimental botany. J. Exp. Bot. 67, 995–1002.
physiological studies,” in Solid State Fermentation in Bioconversion of Agro- doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv466
Industrial Raw Materials, ed M. Raimbault (Montpellier: ORSTOM), 13–26. Bertolini, V., Montaño, N. M., Salazar-Ortuño, B. L., Chimal-Sánchez, E., and
Arif, I., Batool, M., and Schenk, P. M. (2020). Plant microbiome Varela, L. (2020). Diversidad de hongos micorrizógenos arbusculares en
engineering: expected benefits for improved crop growth and resilience. plantaciones de café (Coffea arabica) del volcán Tacaná, Chiapas, México. Acta
Trends Biotechnol. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.04.015. [Epub ahead Bot. Mexic. 127, 1–16. doi: 10.21829/abm127.2020.1602
of print]. Bettiol, W., Silva, H. S. A., de Melo, I. S., Terrasan, C. R. F., Tozzi, J. P. L., and
Asyiah, I. N., Husain, M., Iqbal, M., Hindersah, R., Narulita, E., and Mudakir, Nunes, F. V. (2007). “Endophytic bacteria for biocontrol of coffee leaf rust
I. (2018). The endophytic bacteria isolation as biological control agent (Hemileia vastatrix),” in Spa (Belgium: IOBC-WPRS, Bulletin OILB-SROP), 68.
of Pratylenchus coffeae. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci. 20, Beyene, A., Kassahun, Y., Addis, T., Assefa, F., Amsalu, A., Legesse, W., et al.
165–171. (2012). The impact of traditional coffee processing on river water quality
in Ethiopia and the urgency of adopting sound environmental practices. Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clément, C., and Barka, E. A. (2005). Use of
Environm. Monit. Assess. 184, 7053–7063. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2479-7 plant growth-promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant diseases: principles,
Bitzer, V., Francken, M., and Glasbergen, P. (2008). Intersectoral partnerships mechanisms of action, and future prospects. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71,
for a sustainable coffee chain: really addressing sustainability or 4951–4959. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.9.4951-4959.2005
just picking (coffee) cherries? Global Environ. Change 18, 271–284. Compant, S., Samad, A., Faist, H., and Sessitsch, A. (2019). A review on the plant
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.01.002 microbiome: ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application.
Boccas, F., Roussos, S., Gutierrez, M., Serrano, L., and Viniegra-Gonzalez, G. J. Adv. Res. 19, 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.004
(1994). Production of pectinase from coffee pulp in solid state fermentation Compri, L., Florentino, L. A., Veiga, R. M., Da Silva, A. B., and Miranda, J.
system: selection of wild fungal isolate of high potency by a simple three-step M. (2016). Diversidade de microrganismos em frutos do cafeeiro cultivado
screening technique. J. Food Sci. Technol. 31, 22–26. na proximidade do Lago de Furnas. Coffee Sci. Lavras 11, 285–289.
Bongiorno, V. A., Rhoden, S. A., Garcia, A., Polonio, J. C., Azevedo, J. L., doi: 10.25186/cs.v11i2.1094
Pereira, J. O., et al. (2016). Genetic diversity of endophytic fungi from Culliao, A. G. L., and Barcelo, J. M. (2015). Fungal and mycotoxin contamination
Coffea arabica cv. IAPAR-59 in organic crops. Ann. Microbiol. 66, 855–865. of coffee beans in Benguet province, Philippines. Food Addit. Contamin. Part A
doi: 10.1007/s13213-015-1168-0 32, 250–260. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2014.1001796
Bordenstein, S. R., and Theis, K. R. (2015). Host biology in light of the microbiome: Da Silva Vale, A., De Melo Pereira, G. V., De Carvalho Neto, D. P., Rodrigues,
ten principles of holobionts and hologenomes. PLoS Biol. 13:e1002226. C., Pagnoncelli, M. G. B., and Soccol, C. R. (2019). Effect of co-inoculation
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002226 with Pichia fermentans and Pediococcus acidilactici on metabolite produced
Brand, D., Pandey, A., Roussos, S., and Soccol, C. R. (2000). Biological during fermentation and volatile composition of coffee beans. Fermentation
detoxification of coffee husk by filamentous fungi using a solid 5:67. doi: 10.3390/fermentation5030067
state fermentation system. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 27, 127–133. Daivasikamani, S., and Rajanaika (2009). Biological control of coffee leaf rust
doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00186-1 pathogen, Hemileia vastatrix Berkeley and Broome using Bacillus subtilis and
Brando, C. H. J. (2004). “Harvesting and green coffee processing,” in Coffee: Pseudomonas fluorescens. J. Biopest. 2, 94–98.
Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production, ed J. N. Wintgens (Weinheim: DaMatta, F. M. (2004). Ecophysiological constraints on the production of
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH), 604–715. doi: 10.1002/9783527619627.ch24 shaded and unshaded coffee: a review. Field Crops Res. 86, 99–114.
Bressani, A. P. P., Martinez, S. J., Sarmento, A. B. I., Borém, F. M., and Schwan, R. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.09.001
F. (2020). Organic acids produced during fermentation and sensory perception Davis, A. P., Govaerts, R., Bridson, D. M., and Stoffelen, P. (2006). An annotated
in specialty coffee using yeast starter culture. Food Res. Int. 128:108773. taxonomic conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae). Bot. J. Linnean Soc. 152,
doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108773 465–512. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00584.x
Bucheli, P., Meyer, I., Pittet, A., Vuataz, G., and Viani, R. (1998). Industrial De Almeida, Â. B., Corrêa, I. P., Furuie, J. L., De Farias Pires, T., Do Rocio
storage of green Robusta coffee under tropical conditions and its impact on raw Dalzoto, P., and Pimentel, I. C. (2019). Inhibition of growth and ochratoxin
material quality and ochratoxin A content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46, 4507–4511. A production in Aspergillus species by fungi isolated from coffee beans. Braz. J.
doi: 10.1021/jf980468+ Microbiol. 50, 1091–1098. doi: 10.1007/s42770-019-00152-9
Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Ovalle Rivera, O., and Kirschke, D. (2015). A bitter cup: De Beenhouwer, M., Aerts, R., and Honnay, O. (2013). A global meta-analysis of
climate change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. the biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits of coffee and cacao agroforestry.
Clim. Change 129, 89–101. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1306-x Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 175, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.003
Caldeira, S. F., Chaves, G. M., and Zambolim, L. (1983). Associação de De Beenhouwer, M., Muleta, D., Peeters, B., Van Geel, M., Lievens, B., and Honnay,
micorriza vesicular-arbuscular com café, limão-rosa e capim-gordura. Pesquisa O. (2015a). DNA pyrosequencing evidence for large diversity differences
Agropecuária Bras. 18, 223–228. between natural and managed coffee mycorrhizal fungal communities. Agron.
Caldwell, A. C., Silva, L. C. F., da Silva, C. C., and Ouverney, C. C. Sustain. Dev. 35, 241–249. doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0231-8
(2015). Prokaryotic diversity in the rhizosphere of organic, intensive, De Beenhouwer, M., Van Geel, M., Ceulemans, T., Muleta, D.,
and transitional coffee farms in Brazil. PLoS ONE 10:e0106355. Lievens, B., and Honnay, O. (2015b). Changing soil characteristics
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106355 alter the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi communities of Arabica
Carrion, G., and Rico-Gray, V. (2002). Mycoparasites on the coffee rust in Mexico. coffee (Coffea arabica) in Ethiopia across a management intensity
Fungal Divers. 11, 49–60. gradient. Soil Biol. Biochem. 91, 133–139. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.
Carrion, G., and Ruiz-Belin, F. (1988). Laboratory inoculation of Verticillium 08.037
lecanii on the coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix). Rev. Mexic. Micol. 4, 317–321. De Bruyn, F., Zhang, S. J., Pothakos, V., Torres, J., Lambot, C., Moroni,
Casas-Junco, P. P., Ragazzo-Sánchez, J. A., de Jesus Ascencio-Valle, F., and A. V., et al. (2017). Exploring the impacts of postharvest processing
Calderón-Santoyo, M. (2018). Determination of potentially mycotoxigenic on the microbiota and metabolite profiles during green coffee bean
fungi in coffee (Coffea arabica L.) from Nayarit. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 27, production. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 83:e02398–e02316. doi: 10.1128/AEM.
891–898. doi: 10.1007/s10068-017-0288-7 02398-16
Chanakya, H. N., and De Alwis, A. A. P. (2004). Environmental issues and De Carvalho Neto, D. P., De Melo Pereira, G. V., De Carvalho, J. C.,
management in primary coffee processing. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 82, Soccol, V. T., and Soccol, C. R. (2018). High-throughput rRna gene
291–300. doi: 10.1205/095758204323162319 sequencing reveals high and complex bacterial diversity associated with
Chattopadhyay, N., Swain, S., and Hore, J. K. (2006). Response of coffee seedlings Brazilian coffee beans fermentation. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 56, 90–95.
to nitrogen fixing biofertilizers. Agric. Sci. Digest. 26, 103–106. doi: 10.17113/ftb.56.01.18.5441
Chen, M., Arato, M., Borghi, L., Nouri, E., and Reinhardt, D. (2018). Beneficial De Corato, U. (2020). Soil microbiota manipulation and its role in suppressing
services of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi – from ecology to application. Front. soil-borne plant pathogens in organic farming systems under the light
Plant Sci. 9:1270. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01270 of microbiome-assisted strategies. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 7:17.
Cisneros-Rojas, C. A., Sánchez-de Prager, M., and Menjivar-Flores, J. C. (2017). doi: 10.1186/s40538-020-00183-7
Efecto de bacterias solubilizadoras de fosfatos sobre el desarrollo de plántulas De Melo Pereira, G. V., Beux, M., Pagnoncelli, M. G. B., Soccol, V. T.,
de café. Agron. Mesoamericana 28, 149–158. doi: 10.15517/am.v28i1.22021 Rodrigues, C., and Soccol, C. R. (2015a). Isolation, selection and evaluation
Cleves, R. (2004). “Ecological processing of coffee and use of byproducts,” in Coffee: of antagonistic yeasts and lactic acid bacteria against ochratoxigenic fungus
Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production, ed J. N. Wintgens (Weinheim: Aspergillus westerdijkiae on coffee beans. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 62, 96–101.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH), 716–730. doi: 10.1002/9783527619627.ch25 doi: 10.1111/lam.12520
Colozzi-Filho, A., Siqueira, J. O., Saggin Junior, O. J., Guimarães, P. T. G., and De Melo Pereira, G. V., de Carvalho Neto, D. P., Medeiros, A. B. P., Soccol, V. T.,
Oliveira, E. (1994). Efetividade de diferentes fungos micorrízicos arbusculares Neto, E., Woiciechowski, A. L., et al. (2016). Potential of lactic acid bacteria to
na formação de mudas, crescimento pós-transplante e produção do cafeeiro. improve the fermentation and quality of coffee during on-farm processing. Int.
Pesquisa Agropecuária Bras. 29, 1397–1406. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51, 1689–1695. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13142
De Melo Pereira, G. V., Neto, E., Soccol, V. T., Medeiros, A. B. P., and relationships with functional traits. Phytobiomes J. 4, 27–39.
Woiciechowski, A. L., and Soccol, C. R. (2015b). Conducting starter culture- doi: 10.1094/PBIOMES-04-19-0021-R
controlled fermentations of coffee beans during on-farm wet processing: Genre, A., Lanfranco, L., Perotto, S., and Bonfante, P. (2020). Unique and
growth, metabolic analyses and sensorial effects. Food Res. Int. 75, 348–356. common traits in mycorrhizal symbioses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 649–660.
doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.027 doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0402-3
De Oliveira Junqueira, A. C., de Melo Pereira, G. V., Coral Medina, J. D., Geremew, T., Abate, D., Landschoot, S., Haesaert, G., and Audenaert, K. (2016).
Alvear, M. C. R., Rosero, R., de Carvalho Neto, D. P., et al. (2019). First Occurrence of toxigenic fungi and ochratoxin A in Ethiopian coffee for local
description of bacterial and fungal communities in Colombian coffee beans consumption. Food Control 69, 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.04.025
fermentation analysed using Illumina-based amplicon sequencing. Sci. Rep. Ghini, R., Hamada, E., Pedro Júnior, M. J., Marengo, J. A., and do Valle
9:8794. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-45002-8 Gonçalves, R. R. (2008). Risk analysis of climate change on coffee
De Zelicourt, A., Al-Yousif, M., and Hirt, H. (2013). Rhizosphere microbes nematodes and leaf miner in Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Bras. 43, 187–194.
as essential partners for plant stress tolerance. Mol. Plant 6, 242–245. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2008000200005
doi: 10.1093/mp/sst028 Ghosh, A., and Bhadury, P. (2019). “Methods of assessment of microbial
Djossou, O., Perraud-Gaime, I., Lakhal Mirleau, F., Rodriguez-Serrano, G., Karou, diversity in natural environments,” in Microbial Diversity in the
G., Niamke, S., et al. (2011). Robusta coffee beans post-harvest microflora: Genomic Era, eds S. Das and H. Dash (London: Elsevier), 3–14.
Lactobacillus plantarum sp. as potential antagonist of Aspergillus carbonarius. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814849-5.00001-0
Anaerobe 17, 267–272. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2011.03.006 Gobbi, J. A. (2000). Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of
Duong, B., Nguyen, H. X., Phan, H. V., Colella, S., Trinh, P. Q., Hoang, G. T., five different coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecol. Econ. 33,
et al. (2021). Identification and characterization of Vietnamese coffee bacterial 267–281. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00147-0
endophytes displaying in vitro antifungal and nematicidal activities. Microbiol. Gomes, L. C., Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Cardoso, I. M., Fernandes, R. B. A., Filho, E. I.
Res. 242:126613. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2020.126613 F., and Schulte, R. P. O. (2020). Agroforestry systems can mitigate the impacts
Egamberdieva, D., Wirth, S. J., Alqarawi, A. A., Abd_Allah, E. F., and of climate change on coffee production: a spatially explicit assessment in Brazil.
Hashem, A. (2017). Phytohormones and beneficial microbes: essential Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 294:106858. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106858
components for plants to balance stress and fitness. Front. Microbiol. Gómez-De La Cruz, I., Pérez-Portilla, E., Escamilla-Prado, E., Martínez-
8:2104. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02104 Bolaños, M., Carrión-Villarnovo, G. L. L., and Hernández-Leal, T. I. (2017).
Elhalis, H., Cox, J., Frank, D., and Zhao, J. (2020a). The crucial role of yeasts in the Selection in vitro of mycoparasites with potential for biological control on
wet fermentation of coffee beans and quality. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 333:108796. coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix). Mexican J. Phytopathol. 36, 172–183.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108796 doi: 10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.1708-1
Elhalis, H., Cox, J., and Zhao, J. (2020b). Ecological diversity, evolution González, C. B., Esmoris, C. S., and Rodríguez, M. I. (2004). “Utilización de
and metabolism of microbial communities in the wet fermentation Azotobacter en Coffea arabica L. y Coffea canephora Pierre ex Froehner.
of Australian coffee beans. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 321:108544. Resultados de 13 años de investigaciones,” in Convención Trópico 2004. II
doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108544 Congreso de Agricultura Tropical, Cuba (Havana), 15.
Estrada-De Los Santos, P., Bustillos-Cristales, R., and Caballero-Mellado, J. Gonzalez-Rios, O., Suarez-Quiroz, M. L., Boulanger, R., Barel, M., Guyot, B.,
(2001). Burkholderia, a genus rich in plant-associated nitrogen fixers with Guiraud, J.-P., et al. (2007a). Impact of “ecological” post-harvest processing
wide environmental and geographic distribution. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, on coffee aroma: II. Roasted coffee. J. Food Compos. Anal. 20, 297–307.
2790–2798. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.6.2790-2798.2001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2006.12.004
Evangelista, S. R., Silva, C. F., da Cruz Miguel, M. G. P., de Souza Cordeiro, C., Gonzalez-Rios, O., Suarez-Quiroz, M. L., Boulanger, R., Barel, M., Guyot, B.,
Pinheiro, A. C. M., Duarte, W. F., et al. (2014). Improvement of coffee beverage Guiraud, J.-P., et al. (2007b). Impact of “ecological” post-harvest processing on
quality by using selected yeasts strains during the fermentation in dry process. the volatile fraction of coffee beans: I. Green coffee. J. Food Compos. Anal. 20,
Food Res. Int. 61, 183–195. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.11.033 289–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2006.07.009
FAO (2015). FAO Statistical Pocketbook. Coffee. Food and Agriculture Goris, J., Konstantinidis, K. T., Klappenbach, J. A., Coenye, T., Vandamme, P.,
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). and Tiedje, J. M. (2007). DNA–DNA hybridization values and their relationship
FAO (2018). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, November to whole-genome sequence similarities. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 81–91.
2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Trade doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.64483-0
and Markets Division. Groenen, D. (2018). The effects of climate change on the pests and diseases
Feng, X., Dong, H., Yang, P., Yang, R., Lu, J., Lv, J., et al. (2016). Culture- of coffee crops in mesoamerica. J. Climatol. Weather Forecast. 6, 1–5.
dependent and -independent methods to investigate the predominant doi: 10.4172/2332-2594.1000239
microorganisms associated with wet processed coffee. Curr. Microbiol. 73, Guillemot, J., le Maire, G., Munishamappa, M., Charbonnier, F., and Vaast, P.
190–195. doi: 10.1007/s00284-016-1047-3 (2018). Native coffee agroforestry in the Western Ghats of India maintains
Fierer, N. (2017). Embracing the unknown: disentangling the higher carbon storage and tree diversity compared to exotic agroforestry. Agric.
complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 579–590. Ecosyst. Environ. 265, 461–469. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.06.002
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87 Haddad, F., Maffia, L. A., Mizubuti, E. S. G., and Teixeira, H. (2009).
Franco-Duarte, R., Cernáková, L., Kadam, S., Kaushik, K. S., Salehi, B., Biological control of coffee rust by antagonistic bacteria under field
Bevilacqua, A., et al. (2019). Advances in chemical and biological methods conditions in Brazil. Biol. Control 49, 114–119. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.
to identify microorganisms-from past to present. Microorganisms 7:130. 02.004
doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7050130 Haddad, F., Saraiva, R. M., Mizubuti, E. S. G., Romeiro, R. S., and
Frank, A., Saldierna Guzmán, J., and Shay, J. (2017). Transmission of bacterial Maffia, L. A. (2013). Antifungal compounds as a mechanism to control
endophytes. Microorganisms 5:70. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms5040070 Hemileia vastatrix by antagonistic bacteria. Trop. Plant Pathol. 38, 398–405.
Frost, S. C., Ristenpart, W. D., and Guinard, J. (2020). Effects of brew strength, doi: 10.1590/S1982-56762013000500004
brew yield, and roast on the sensory quality of drip brewed coffee. J. Food Sci. Haddad, F., Saraiva, R. M., Mizubuti, E. S. G., Romeiro, R. S., and Maffia, L. A.
85, 2530–2543. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.15326 (2014). Isolation and selection of Hemileia Vastatrix antagonists. Eur. J. Plant
Fuentes-Ramírez, L. E., Bustillos-Cristales, R., Tapia-Hernández, A., Jiménez- Pathol. 139, 763–772. doi: 10.1007/s10658-014-0430-9
Salgado, T., Wang, E. T., Martínez-Romero, E., et al. (2001). Novel Haddis, A., and Devi, R. (2008). Effect of effluent generated from
nitrogen-fixing acetic acid bacteria, Gluconacetobacter johannae sp. nov. and coffee processing plant on the water bodies and human health in its
Gluconacetobacter azotocaptans sp. nov., associated with coffee plants. Int. J. vicinity. J. Hazard. Mater. 152, 259–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.
Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 51, 1305–1314. doi: 10.1099/00207713-51-4-1305 06.094
Fulthorpe, R., Martin, A. R., and Isaac, M. E. (2020). Root endophytes Hardoim, P. R., van Overbeek, L. S., Berg, G., Pirttilä, A. M., Compant, S.,
of coffee (Coffea arabica): variation across climatic gradients Campisano, A., et al. (2015). The hidden world within plants: ecological and
evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Kulski, J. K. (2016). “Next-generation sequencing - an overview of the
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 79, 293–320. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00050-14 history, tools, and ‘omic’ applications,” in Next Generation Sequencing -
Hartmann, A., Rothballer, M., and Schmid, M. (2008). Lorenz Hiltner, a pioneer Advances, Applications and Challenges, ed J. K. Kulski (Rijeka: InTech), 3–60.
in rhizosphere microbial ecology and soil bacteriology research. Plant Soil 312, doi: 10.5772/61964
7–14. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9514-z Lagier, J.-C., Armougom, F., Million, M., Hugon, P., Pagnier, I., Robert, C., et al.
Hoang, H., Tran, L. H., Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, D. A. T., Nguyen, H. H. T., Pham, (2012). Microbial culturomics: paradigm shift in the human gut microbiome
N. B., et al. (2020). Occurrence of endophytic bacteria in Vietnamese Robusta study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 18, 1185–1193. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12023
coffee roots and their effects on plant parasitic nematodes. Symbiosis 80, 75–84. Lagier, J.-C., Dubourg, G., Million, M., Cadoret, F., Bilen, M., Fenollar, F., et al.
doi: 10.1007/s13199-019-00649-9 (2018). Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.
Hu, G., Peng, X., Gao, Y., Huang, Y., Li, X., Su, H., et al. (2020). Effect 16, 540–550. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0041-0
of roasting degree of coffee beans on sensory evaluation: research from Lagier, J.-C., Hugon, P., Khelaifia, S., Fournier, P.-E., La Scola, B., and Raoult,
the perspective of major chemical ingredients. Food Chem. 331:127329. D. (2015). The rebirth of culture in microbiology through the example of
doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127329 culturomics to study human gut microbiota. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 28, 237–264.
Hyde, K. D., and Soytong, K. (2008). The fungal endophyte dilemma. Fungal doi: 10.1128/CMR.00014-14
Divers. 33, 163–173. Lamelas, A., Desgarennes, D., López-Lima, D., Villain, L., Alonso-Sánchez,
ICO (2019a). Annual Review 2017/18. London: International Coffee Organization A., Artacho, A., et al. (2020). The bacterial microbiome of Meloidogyne-
(ICO). Available online at: http://www.ico.org/ based disease complex in coffee and tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 11:136.
ICO (2019b). Coffee Market Report, March 2019. London: International Coffee doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00136
Organization (ICO). Available online at: http://www.ico.org/ Lee, L. W., Cheong, M. W., Curran, P., Yu, B., and Liu, S. Q. (2015). Coffee
Iriondo-DeHond, A., Iriondo-DeHond, M., and del Castillo, M. D. (2020). fermentation and flavor - an intricate and delicate relationship. Food Chem.
Applications of compounds from coffee processing by-products. Biomolecules 185, 182–191. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.124
10:1219. doi: 10.3390/biom10091219 Lemanceau, P., Blouin, M., Muller, D., and Moënne-Loccoz, Y. (2017).
James, T. Y., Marino, J. A., Perfecto, I., and Vandermeer, J. (2016). Let the core microbiota be functional. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 583–595.
Identification of putative coffee rust mycoparasites via single-molecule dna doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.04.008
sequencing of infected pustules. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 631–639. Leong, K., Chen, Y., Pan, S., Chen, J., Wu, H., Chang, Y., et al. (2014). Diversity
doi: 10.1128/AEM.02639-15 of lactic acid bacteria associated with fresh coffee cherries in Taiwan. Curr.
Janda, J. M., and Abbott, S. L. (2007). 16S rRna gene sequencing for bacterial Microbiol. 68, 440–447. doi: 10.1007/s00284-013-0495-2
identification in the diagnostic laboratory: pluses, perils, and pitfalls. J. Clin. Mahdhi, M., Tounekti, T., Al-Turki, T. A., and Khemira, H. (2017). Composition
Microbiol. 45, 2761–2764. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01228-07 of the root mycorrhizal community associated with Coffea arabica in Fifa
Janse, J. M. (1897). Les endophytes radicaux de quelques plantes javanaises. Ann mountains (Jazan region, Saudi Arabia). J. Basic Microbiol. 57, 691–698.
Jardin Bot. Buitenzorg 14, 53–212. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201700075
Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F. E., Davis, A., Borgemeister, C., and Chabi- Marchesi, J. R., and Ravel, J. (2015). The vocabulary of microbiome research: a
Olaye, A. (2011). Some like it hot: the influence and implications of climate proposal. Microbiome 3:31. doi: 10.1186/s40168-015-0094-5
change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and coffee production in Martinez, S. J., Bressani, A. P. P., da Cruz Pedrozo Miguel, M. G., Dias, D.
East Africa. PLoS ONE 6:e24528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024528 R., and Schwan, R. F. (2017). Different inoculation methods for semi-dry
Jezeer, R. E., Santos, M. J., Boot, R. G. A., Junginger, M., and Verweij, processed coffee using yeasts as starter cultures. Food Res. Int. 102, 333–340.
P. A. (2018). Effects of shade and input management on economic doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.096
performance of small-scale Peruvian coffee systems. Agric. Syst. 162, 179–190. Martins, P. M. M., Batista, N. N., da Cruz Pedrozo Miguel, M. G., Simão, J. B. P.,
doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.014 Soares, J. R., and Schwan, R. F. (2020). Coffee growing altitude influences the
Jimenez-Salgado, T., Fuentes-Ramirez, L. E., Tapia-Hernandez, A., Mascarua- microbiota, chemical compounds and the quality of fermented coffees. Food
Esparza, M. A., Martinez-Romero, E., and Caballero-Mellado, J. (1997). Coffea Res. Int. 129:108872. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108872
arabica L., a new host plant for Acetobacter diazotrophicus, and isolation of Masoud, W., Bjørg Cesar, L., Jespersen, L., and Jakobsen, M. (2004). Yeast involved
other nitrogen-fixing acetobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 3676–3683. in fermentation of Coffea arabica in East Africa determined by genotyping
Johnson, J. S., Spakowicz, D. J., Hong, B.-Y., Petersen, L. M., Demkowicz, and by direct denaturating gradient gel electrophoresis. Yeast 21, 549–556.
P., Chen, L., et al. (2019). Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing doi: 10.1002/yea.1124
for species and strain-level microbiome analysis. Nat. Commun. 10:5029. Masoud, W., and Jespersen, L. (2006). Pectin degrading enzymes in yeasts involved
doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13036-1 in fermentation of Coffea arabica in East Africa. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 110,
Joosten, H. M. L. J., Goetz, J., Pittet, A., Schellenberg, M., and Bucheli, P. (2001). 291–296. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.04.030
Production of ochratoxin A by Aspergillus carbonarius on coffee cherries. Int. J. Masoud, W., and Kaltoft, C. H. (2006). The effects of yeasts involved in the
Food Microbiol. 65, 39–44. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00506-7 fermentation of Coffea arabica in East Africa on growth and ochratoxin
Kejela, T., Thakkar, V. R., and Thakor, P. (2016). Bacillus species (BT42) isolated A (OTA) production by Aspergillus ochraceus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 106,
from Coffea arabica L. rhizosphere antagonizes Colletotrichum gloeosporioides 229–234. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.06.015
and Fusarium oxysporum and also exhibits multiple plant growth promoting Massawe, G. A., and Lifa, S. J. (2010). Yeasts and lactic acid bacteria coffee
activity. BMC Microbiol. 16:277. doi: 10.1186/s12866-016-0897-y fermentation starter cultures. Int. J. Postharvest Technol. Innov. 2, 41–82.
Kloepper, J. W., and Schroth, M. N. (1978). “Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria doi: 10.1504/IJPTI.2010.038187
on radishes,” in Proc. 4th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria, Mazzafera, P. (2002). Degradation of caffeine by microorganisms and potential use
Vol. 2 (Angers), 879–882. of decaffeinated coffee husk and pulp in animal feeding. Sci. Agric. 59, 815–821.
Köhl, J., Kolnaar, R., and Ravensberg, W. J. (2019). Mode of action of microbial doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162002000400030
biological control agents against plant diseases: relevance beyond efficacy. Medina, A. D., López, J. A., Pérez, C. S., Albelo, N., and Reboso, A. G. (2003).
Front. Plant Sci. 10:845. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00845 Efecto de la aplicación de Azotobacter chroococcum y bacterias solubilizadoras
Kondamudi, N., Mohapatra, S. K., and Misra, M. (2008). Spent coffee grounds de fósforo sobre el desarrollo de posturas de cafeto (Coffea arabica L.). Centro
as a versatile source of green energy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56, 11757–11760. Agric. 30, 94–95.
doi: 10.1021/jf802487s Meena, V. S., Meena, S. K., Verma, J. P., Kumar, A., Aeron,
Kudoyarova, G., Arkhipova, T., Korshunova, T., Bakaeva, M., Loginov, O., and A., Mishra, P. K., et al. (2017). Plant beneficial rhizospheric
Dodd, I. C. (2019). Phytohormone mediation of interactions between plants microorganism (PBRM) strategies to improve nutrients use
and non-symbiotic growth promoting bacteria under edaphic stresses. Front. efficiency: a review. Ecol. Eng 107, 8–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.
Plant Sci. 10:1368. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01368 06.058
Mekete, T., Hallmann, J., Kiewnick, S., and Sikora, R. (2009). Endophytic bacteria Nair, J. R., Singh, G., and Sekar, V. (2002). Isolation and characterization of a novel
from Ethiopian coffee plants and their potential to antagonise Meloidogyne Bacillus strain from coffee phyllosphere showing antifungal activity. J. Appl.
incognita. Nematology 11, 117–127. doi: 10.1163/156854108X398462 Microbiol. 93, 772–780. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01756.x
Mendes, R., Garbeva, P., and Raaijmakers, J. M. (2013). The rhizosphere Nayak, S., Harshitha, M. J., Sampath, C., Anilkumar, H. S., and Rao, C. V. (2012).
microbiome: significance of plant beneficial, plant pathogenic, and Isolation and characterization of caffeine degrading bacteria from coffee pulp.
human pathogenic microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 634–663. Indian J. Biotechnol. 11, 86–91. doi: 10.13057/biodiv/d200614
doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12028 Ndayambaje, J. B., Nsabimana, A., Dushime, S., Ishimwe, F., Janvier, H., and Ongol,
Méndez, V. E., Bacon, C. M., Olson, M., Morris, K. S., and Shattuck, A. M. P. (2019). Microbial identification of potato taste defect from coffee beans.
(2010). Agrobiodiversity and shade coffee smallholder livelihoods: a review Food Sci. Nutr. 7, 287–292. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.887
and synthesis of ten years of research in Central America. Profess. Geogr. 62, Newman, D. J., and Cragg, G. M. (2020). Plant endophytes and epiphytes:
357–376. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2010.483638 burgeoning sources of known and “unknown” cytotoxic and antibiotic agents?
Miguel, P. S. B., Delvaux, J. C., de Oliveira, M. N. V., Monteiro, L. C. P., de Planta Med. 86, 891–905. doi: 10.1055/a-1095-1111
Souza Freitas, F., Tótola, M. D. C., et al. (2013). Diversity of endophytic Nogales, A., Nobre, T., Valadas, V., Ragonezi, C., Döring, M., Polidoros, A., et al.
bacteria in the fruits of Coffea canephora. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 7, 586–594. (2016). Can functional hologenomics aid tackling current challenges in plant
doi: 10.5897/AJMR12.2036 breeding? Brief. Funct. Genomics 15, 288–297. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elv030
Mina, D., Pereira, J. A., Lino-Neto, T., and Baptista, P. (2020). Epiphytic and Olanrewaju, O. S., Glick, B. R., and Babalola, O. O. (2017). Mechanisms of action
endophytic bacteria on olive tree phyllosphere: exploring tissue and cultivar of plant growth promoting bacteria. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.33:197.
effect. Microb. Ecol. 80, 145–157. doi: 10.1007/s00248-020-01488-8 doi: 10.1007/s11274-017-2364-9
Mislivec, P. B., Bruce, V. R., and Gibson, R. (1983). Incidence of toxigenic Oliveira, M. N. V., Santos, T. M. A., Vale, H. M. M., Delvaux, J. C., Cordero, A. P.,
and other molds in green coffee beans. J. Food Prot. 46, 969–973. Ferreira, A. B., et al. (2013). Endophytic microbial diversity in coffee cherries
doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-46.11.969 of Coffea arabica from southeastern Brazil. Can. J. Microbiol. 59, 221–230.
Mithöfer, D., Méndez, V. E., Bose, A., and Vaast, P. (2017). Harnessing local doi: 10.1139/cjm-2012-0674
strength for sustainable coffee value chains in India and Nicaragua: reevaluating Orozco-Mosqueda, M., del Rocha-Granados, M. C., Glick, B. R., and
certification to global sustainability standards. Int. J. Biodivers. Sc. Ecosyst. Serv. Santoyo, G. (2018). Microbiome engineering to improve biocontrol
Manage. 13, 471–496. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1460400 and plant growth-promoting mechanisms. Microbiol. Res. 208, 25–31.
Moguel, P., and Toledo, V. M. (1999). Biodiversity conservation in doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2018.01.005
traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv. Biol. 13, 11–21. Osorio, N. W., Alzate, J. M., and Ramírez, G. A. (2002). Coffee seedling
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97153.x growth as affected by mycorrhizal inoculation and organic amendment.
Monroy, S. H., Brindis, R. C., Moreno, J. P., and Velarde, E. V. (2019). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33, 1425–1434. doi: 10.1081/CSS-1200
Endomycorrhizal diversity in coffee plants (Coffea arabica L.) infected with rust 04291
(Hemileia vastatrix). Nova Sci. 11, 102–123. doi: 10.21640/ns.v11i22.1642 Otero-Jiménez, B., Vandermeer, J. H., and Tucker, P. K. (2018). Effect of coffee
Monteiro, M. C. P., Alves, N. M., Queiroz, M. V., de Pinho, D. B., Pereira, O. L., agriculture management on the population structure of a forest dwelling
Souza, S. M. C., et al. (2017). Antimicrobial activity of endophytic fungi from rodent (Heteromys desmarestianus goldmani). Conserv. Genet. 19, 495–499.
coffee plants. Biosci. J. 33, 381–389. doi: 10.14393/BJ-v33n2-34494 doi: 10.1007/s10592-017-1016-9
Mulaw, T., Druzhinina, I., Kubicek, C., and Atanasova, L. (2013). Novel endophytic Oumer, O. J., and Abate, D. (2018). Screening and molecular identification of
Trichoderma spp. isolated from healthy Coffea arabica roots are capable of pectinase producing microbes from coffee pulp. Biomed Res. Int. 2018:2961767.
controlling coffee tracheomycosis. Diversity 5, 750–766. doi: 10.3390/d5040750 doi: 10.1155/2018/2961767
Mulaw, T. B., Kubicek, C. P., and Druzhinina, I. S. (2010). The rhizosphere Ovalle-Rivera, O., Läderach, P., Bunn, C., Obersteiner, M., and Schroth,
of Coffea arabica in its native highland forests of Ethiopia provides a G. (2015). Projected shifts in Coffea arabica suitability among major
niche for a distinguished diversity of Trichoderma. Diversity 2, 527–549. global producing regions due to climate change. PLoS ONE 10:e0124155.
doi: 10.3390/d2040527 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124155
Muleta, D., Assefa, F., Börjesson, E., and Granhall, U. (2013). Phosphate- Pahari, A., Pradhan, A., Nayak, S. K., and Mishra, B. B. (2017). “Bacterial
solubilising rhizobacteria associated with Coffea arabica L. in natural coffee siderophore as a plant growth promoter,” in Microbial Biotechnology, eds J.
forests of southwestern Ethiopia. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 12, 73–84. K. Patra, C. N. Vishnuprasad, and G. Das (Singapore: Springer), 163–180.
doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2012.07.002 doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-6847-8_7
Muleta, D., Assefa, F., and Granhall, U. (2007). In vitro antagonism of rhizobacteria Pasin, L. A. A. P., Abreu, M. S., de, and Souza, I. P. (2011). Influence
isolated from Coffea arabica L. against emerging fungal coffee pathogens. Eng. of the fungi population on the physicochemical and chemical
Life Sci. 7, 577–586. doi: 10.1002/elsc.200700004 composition of coffee (Coffea arabica L.). Food Sci. Technol. 31, 681–687.
Muleta, D., Assefa, F., Hjort, K., Roos, S., and Granhall, U. (2009). Characterization doi: 10.1590/S0101-20612011000300020
of rhizobacteria isolated from wild Coffea arabica L. Eng. Life Sci. 9, 100–108. Patel, J. S., Singh, A., Singh, H. B., and Sarma, B. K. (2015). Plant genotype,
doi: 10.1002/elsc.200700031 microbial recruitment and nutritional security. Front. Plant Sci. 6:608.
Müller, D. B., Vogel, C., Bai, Y., and Vorholt, J. A. (2016). The plant microbiota: doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00608
systems-level insights and perspectives. Annu. Rev. Genet. 50, 211–234. Pederson, C. S., and Breed, R. S. (1946). Fermentation of coffee. J. Food Sci. 11,
doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-120215-034952 99–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1946.tb16331.x
Murthy, P. S., and Naidu, M. M. (2012). Production and application of xylanase Perea Rojas, Y., del, C., Arias, R. M., Medel Ortiz, R., Trejo Aguilar, D.,
from Penicillium sp. utilizing coffee by-products. Food Bioprocess Technol. 5, Heredia, G., et al. (2019). Effects of native arbuscular mycorrhizal and
657–664. doi: 10.1007/s11947-010-0331-7 phosphate-solubilizing fungi on coffee plants. Agrofor. Syst. 93, 961–972.
Murthy, P. S., Naidu, M. M., and Srinivas, P. (2009). Production of α-amylase doi: 10.1007/s10457-018-0190-1
under solid-state fermentation utilizing coffee waste. J. Chem. Technol. Pérez, A., Bustamante, C., Rodríguez, R., Díaz, A., and Bertot, Y. (2002). Influencia
Biotechnol. 84, 1246–1249. doi: 10.1002/jctb.2142 de diferentes variantes de fertilización en el crecimiento y desarrollo de posturas
Mussatto, S. I., Machado, E. M. S., Martins, S., and Teixeira, J. A. (2011). de Coffea canephora Pierre. Cult. Trop. 23, 89–93.
Production, composition, and application of coffee and its industrial residues. Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R., and van der Voort, M. E. (1996).
Food Bioprocess Technol. 4, 661–672. doi: 10.1007/s11947-011-0565-z Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46, 598–608.
Muynarsk, E. S. M., de Melo Pereira, G. V., Mesa, D., Thomaz-Soccol, V., doi: 10.2307/1312989
Carvalho, J. C., Pagnoncelli, M. G. B., et al. (2019). Draft genome sequence of Perraud-Gaime, I., Saucedo-Castañeda, G., Augur, C., and Roussos, S. (2000).
Pediococcus acidilactici strain LPBC161, isolated from mature coffee cherries “Adding value to coffee solid by-products through biotechnology,” in Coffee
during natural fermentation. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 8:e00332–e00319. Biotechnology and Quality, eds T. Sera, C. R. Soccol, A. Pandey, and S. Roussos
doi: 10.1128/MRA.00332-19 (Dordrecht: Springer), 437–446. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-1068-8_41
Peterson, S. W., Vega, F. E., Posada, F., and Nagai, C. (2005). Penicillium Saikkonen, K., Wali, P., Helander, M., and Faeth, S. H. (2004).
coffeae, a new endophytic species isolated from a coffee plant and its Evolution of endophyte-plant symbioses. Trends Plant Sci. 9, 275–280.
phylogenetic relationship to P. fellutanum, P. thiersii and P. brocae based on doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2004.04.005
parsimony analysis of multilocus DNA sequences. Mycologia 97, 659–666. Sakiyama, C. C. H., Paula, E. M., Pereira, P. C., Borges, A. C., and Silva,
doi: 10.1080/15572536.2006.11832796 D. O. (2001). Characterization of pectin lyase produced by an endophytic
Pires, J. F., Cardoso, L., de, S., Schwan, R. F., and Silva, C. F. (2017). Diversity strain isolated from coffee cherries. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 33, 117–121.
of microbiota found in coffee processing wastewater treatment plant. World J. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2001.00961.x
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 33:211. doi: 10.1007/s11274-017-2372-9 Samson, R. A., Houbraken, J. A. M. P., Kuijpers, A. F. A., Frank, J. M., and Frisvad,
Poltronieri, P., and Rossi, F. (2016). Challenges in specialty coffee processing and J. C. (2004). New ochratoxin A or sclerotium producing species in Aspergillus
quality assurance. Challenges 7:19. doi: 10.3390/challe7020019 section Nigri. Stud. Mycol. 50, 45–61.
Ponte, S. (2002). The ‘latte revolution’? Regulation, markets and Santamaría, J., and Bayman, P. (2005). Fungal epiphytes and endophytes of coffee
consumption in the global coffee chain. World Dev. 30, 1099–1122. leaves (Coffea arabica). Microb. Ecol. 50, 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00248-004-0002-1
doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00032-3 Santos, A., van Aerle, R., Barrientos, L., and Martinez-Urtaza, J.
Posada, R. H., Heredia-Abarca, G., Sieverding, E., and Sánchez de Prager, (2020). Computational methods for 16S metabarcoding studies using
M. (2013). Solubilization of iron and calcium phosphates by soil fungi Nanopore sequencing data. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 18, 296–305.
isolated from coffee plantations. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 59, 185–196. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.01.005
doi: 10.1080/03650340.2011.610030 Santoyo, G., Moreno-Hagelsieb, G., del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda, M. A., and
Prabhu, N., Borkar, S., and Garg, S. (2019). “Phosphate solubilization Glick, B. R. (2016). Plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes. Microbiol.
by microorganisms,” in Advances in Biological Science Research, Res. 183, 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.11.008
eds S. N. Meena and M. M. Naik (London: Elsevier), 161–176. Saraf, M., Pandya, U., and Thakkar, A. (2014). Role of allelochemicals in plant
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-817497-5.00011-2 growth promoting rhizobacteria for biocontrol of phytopathogens. Microbiol.
Prates Júnior, P., Moreira, B. C., da Silva, M., de, C. S., Veloso, T. Res. 169, 18–29. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.08.009
G. R., Stürmer, S. L., et al. (2019). Agroecological coffee management Sarhan, M. S., Hamza, M. A., Youssef, H. H., Patz, S., Becker, M., ElSawey,
increases arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi diversity. PLoS ONE 14:e0209093. H., et al. (2019). Culturomics of the plant prokaryotic microbiome and
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209093 the dawn of plant-based culture media - a review. J. Adv. Res. 19, 15–27.
Qiao, Q., Zhang, J., Ma, C., Wang, F., Chen, Y., Zhang, C., et al. (2019). doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.04.002
Characterization and variation of the rhizosphere fungal community Sauvadet, M., den Meersche, K. V., Allinne, C., Gay, F., de Melo Virginio Filho,
structure of cultivated tetraploid cotton. PLoS ONE 14:e0207903. E., Chauvat, M., et al. (2019). Shade trees have higher impact on soil nutrient
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207903 availability and food web in organic than conventional coffee agroforestry. Sci.
Ramos, D. M. B., Silva, C. F., Batista, L. R., and Schwan, R. F. (2010). Tot. Environ. 649, 1065–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.291
Inibição in vitro de fungos toxigênicos por Pichia sp. e Debaryomyces sp. Scavino, A. F., and Pedraza, R. O. (2013). “The role of siderophores in plant
isoladas de frutos de café (Coffea arabica). Acta Sci. Agron. 32, 397–402 growth-promoting bacteria,” in Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Productivity, eds
doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v32i3.3361 D. K. Maheshwari, M. Saraf, and A. Aeron (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer),
Ranjini, A. P., and Raja, N. (2019). Efficacy of biocontrol agents on Myrothecium 265–285. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-37241-4_11
roridum, the stem necrosis and leaf spot pathogen of coffee seedlings. J. Biopest. Schöps, R., Goldmann, K., Korell, L., Bruelheide, H., Wubet, T., and Buscot,
12, 109–113. F. (2020). Resident and phytometer plants host comparable rhizosphere
Raviraja, N. S., Sridhar, K. R., and Bärlocher, F. (1996). Endophytic aquatic fungal communities in managed grassland ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 10:919.
hyphomycetes of roots of plantation crops and ferns from India. Sydowia doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-57760-x
48, 152–160. Schroth, G., and Ruf, F. (2014). Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification
Rezende, E., de, F., Borges, J. G., Cirillo, M. Â., Prado, G., Paiva, L. C., et al. (2013). in the humid tropics. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 139–154.
Ochratoxigenic fungi associated with green coffee beans (Coffea arabica L.) in doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0175-4
conventional and organic cultivation in Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 44, 377–384. Schwan, R., Silva, C., and Batista, L. (2012). “Coffee fermentation,” in Handbook
doi: 10.1590/S1517-83822013000200006 of Plant-Based Fermented Food and Beverage Technology, 2nd Edn, eds Y. H.
Rice, R. A. (1999). A place unbecoming: the coffee farm of Northern Latin America. Hui and E. Ö. Evranuz (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 677–690. doi: 10.1201/b1
Geogr. Rev. 89, 554–579. doi: 10.1111/j.1931-0846.1999.tb00234.x 2055-49
Rodarte, M. P., Dias, D. R., Vilela, D. M., and Schwan, R. F. (2011). Serrat, M., Bermúdez, R. C., and Villa, T. G. (2002). Production, purification, and
Proteolytic activities of bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi isolated characterization of a polygalacturonase from a new strain of Kluyveromyces
from coffee fruit (Coffea arabica L.). Acta Sci. Agron. 33, 457–464. marxianus isolated from coffee wet-processing wastewater. Appl. Biochem.
doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v33i3.6734 Biotechnol. 97, 193–208. doi: 10.1385/ABAB:97:3:193
Rodríguez, A. C., Calzada, R. T., Peña, C. G.-D., la, Ávila, J. G. A., Reyna, E. Shiomi, H. F., Silva, H. S. A., Melo, I. S., de Nunes, F. V., and Bettiol, W. (2006).
N., Paniagua, F. V., et al. (2020). A metagenomic approach in the evaluation Bioprospecting endophytic bacteria for biological control of coffee leaf rust. Sci.
of the soil microbiome in coffee plantations under organic and conventional Agric. 63, 32–39. doi: 10.1590/S0103-90162006000100006
production in tropical agroecosystems. Emirates J. Food Agric. 32, 263–270. Silva, C. F., Vilela, D. M., de Souza Cordeiro, C., Duarte, W. F., Dias, D. R., and
doi: 10.9755/ejfa.2020.v32.i4.2092 Schwan, R. F. (2013). Evaluation of a potential starter culture for enhance
Ronga, D., Pane, C., Zaccardelli, M., and Pecchioni, N. (2016). Use of spent quality of coffee fermentation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 29, 235–247.
coffee ground compost in peat-based growing media for the production of doi: 10.1007/s11274-012-1175-2
basil and tomato potting plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 47, 356–368. Silva, H. S. A., Terrasan, C. R. F., Tozzi, J. P. L., Melo, I. S., and Bettiol, W.
doi: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1122803 (2008). Bacterias endofitas do cafeeiro e a inducao de enzimas relacionadas
Rosenberg, E., and Zilber-Rosenberg, I. (2013). The Hologenome Concept: Human, com o controle da ferrugem (Hemileia vastatrix). Trop. Plant Pathol. 33, 49–54.
Animal and Plant Microbiota. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1590/S1982-56762008000100008
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04241-1 Silva, H. S. A., Tozzi, J. P. L., Terrasan, C. R. F., and Bettiol, W.
Rossi-Tamisier, M., Benamar, S., Raoult, D., and Fournier, P.-E. (2015). Cautionary (2012). Endophytic microorganisms from coffee tissues as plant growth
tale of using 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity values in identification of promoters and biocontrol agents of coffee leaf rust. Biol. Control 63, 62–67.
human-associated bacterial species. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 1929–1934. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.06.005
doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.000161 Simon, J.-C., Marchesi, J. R., Mougel, C., and Selosse, M.-
Roussos, S., Perraud-Gaime, I., and Denis, S. (1995). Biotechnological A. (2019). Host-microbiota interactions: from holobiont
management of coffee pulp. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 42, 756–762. theory to analysis. Microbiome 7:5. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-
doi: 10.1007/BF00171958 0619-4
Singh, D. P., Singh, H. B., and Prabha, R. (eds.). (2016a). Microbial Inoculants in acquisition of coffee seedlings (Coffea arabica L.). Plant Soil 147, 31–39.
Sustainable Agricultural Productivity. Vol. 1: Research Perspectives. New Delhi: doi: 10.1007/BF00009368
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2647-5 Van Pee, W., and Castelein, J. (1971). The yeast flora of fermenting Robusta coffee.
Singh, D. P., Singh, H. B., and Prabha, R. (eds.). (2016b). Microbial Inoculants East Afr. Agric. For. J. 36, 308–310. doi: 10.1080/00128325.1971.11662476
in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity. Vol. 2: Functional Applications. New Vandenkoornhuyse, P., Quaiser, A., Duhamel, M., Le Van, A., and Dufresne, A.
Delhi: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2644-4 (2015). The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol.
Siqueira, J. O., Colozzi Filho, A., Saggin Júnior, O. J., Guimarães, P. T. G., 206, 1196–1206. doi: 10.1111/nph.13312
and Oliveira, E. (1993). Crescimento de mudas e produção do cafeeiro Vega, F. E., Pava-Ripoll, M., Posada, F., and Buyer, J. S. (2005).
sob influência de fungos micorrízicos e superfosfato. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo Endophytic bacteria in Coffea arabica L. J. Basic Microbiol. 45, 371–380.
17, 53–60. doi: 10.1002/jobm.200410551
Siqueira, J. O., Saggin Junior, O. J., Colozzi-Filho, A., and De Oliveira, E. (1995). Vega, F. E., Posada, F., Catherine Aime, M., Pava-Ripoll, M., Infante, F., and
Influencia do substrato de formacao e da micorriza no crescimento de mudas Rehner, S. A. (2008). Entomopathogenic fungal endophytes. Biol. Control 46,
de cafeeiro transplantadas. Pesquisa Agropecuária Bras. 30, 1417–1425. 72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.01.008
Siqueira, J. O., Saggin-Júnior, O. J., Flores-Aylas, W. W., and Guimarães, P. T. G. Vega, F. E., Posada, F., Peterson, S. W., Gianfagna, T. J., and Chaves, F. (2006).
(1998). Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation and superphosphate application Penicillium species endophytic in coffee plants and ochratoxin A production.
influence plant development and yield of coffee in Brazil. Mycorrhiza 7, Mycologia 98, 31–42. doi: 10.3852/mycologia.98.1.31
293–300. doi: 10.1007/s005720050195 Vega, F. E., Simpkins, A., Aime, M. C., Posada, F., Peterson, S. W., Rehner,
Smercina, D. N., Evans, S. E., Friesen, M. L., and Tiemann, L. K. (2019). S. A., et al. (2010). Fungal endophyte diversity in coffee plants from
To fix or not to fix: controls on free-living nitrogen fixation in the Colombia, Hawai’i, Mexico and Puerto Rico. Fungal Ecol. 3, 122–138.
rhizosphere. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85:e02546–e02518. doi: 10.1128/AEM. doi: 10.1016/j.funeco.2009.07.002
02546-18 Vélez, P. E., and Rosillo, A. G. (1995). Evaluación del antagonismo del hongo
Song, G. C., Im, H., Jung, J., Lee, S., Jung, M., Rhee, S., et al. (2019). Plant growth- Verticillium lecanii sobre Hemileia vastatrix en condiciones de invernadero y
promoting archaea trigger induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana de campo. Cenicafé 46, 45–55.
against Pectobacterium carotovorum and Pseudomonas syringae. Environ. Velmourougane, K., Panneerselvam, P., and Alwar, R. P. A. (2000). Qualitative
Microbiol. 21, 940–948. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14486 and quantitative distribution of microflora associated with coffee plants and
Spatafora, J. W., Chang, Y., Benny, G. L., Lazarus, K., Smith, M. E., Berbee, M. berries. in (Thirteenth plantation crops symposium 1998. Recent advances in
L., et al. (2016). A phylum-level phylogenetic classification of zygomycete fungi plantation crops research, Coimbatore, India), 396–399.
based on genome-scale data. Mycologia 108, 1028–1046. doi: 10.3852/16-042 Veloso, T. G. R., da Silva, M., de, C. S., Cardoso, W. S., Guarçoni, R.
Stackebrandt, E., and Goebel, B. M. (1994). Taxonomic note: a place for C., Kasuya, M. C. M., et al. (2020). Effects of environmental factors on
DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRna sequence analysis in the present microbiota of fruits and soil of Coffea arabica in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 10:14692.
species definition in bacteriology. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 44, 846–849. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71309-y
doi: 10.1099/00207713-44-4-846 Vieira, L. G. E., Andrade, A. C., Colombo, C. A., Moraes, A. H., de, A., Metha,
Teshome, B., Wassie, M., and Abatneh, E. (2017). Isolation, screening and Â., et al. (2006). Brazilian coffee genome project: an EST-based genomic
biochemical characterization of phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria associated resource. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 18, 95–108. doi: 10.1590/S1677-04202006000
with Coffea arabica L. J. Fertil. Pest. 1, 1–7. doi: 10.4172/2471-2728.1000188 100008
Tiru, M., Muleta, D., Berecha, G., and Adugna, G. (2013). Antagonistic effects of Vilela, D. M., Pereira, G. V., de, M., Silva, C. F., Batista, L. R., and
rhizobacteria against coffee wilt disease caused by Gibberella xylarioides. Asian Schwan, R. F. (2010). Molecular ecology and polyphasic characterization
J. Plant Pathol. 7, 109–122. doi: 10.3923/ajppaj.2013.109.122 of the microbiota associated with semi-dry processed coffee (Coffea
Tkacz, A., Bestion, E., Bo, Z., Hortala, M., and Poole, P. S. (2020). Influence of plant arabica L.). Food Microbiol. 27, 1128–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2010.
fraction, soil, and plant species on microbiota: a multikingdom comparison. 07.024
MBio 11:e02785. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02785-19 Vitousek, P. M., Cassman, K., Cleveland, C., Crews, T., Field, C. B., Grimm, N.
Toledo, P. R. A. B., Pezza, L., Pezza, H. R., and Toci, A. T. (2016). B., et al. (2002). “Towards an ecological understanding of biological nitrogen
Relationship between the different aspects related to coffee quality and fixation,” in The Nitrogen Cycle at Regional to Global Scales, eds E. W. Boyer
their volatile compounds. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 15, 705–719. and R. W. Howarth (Dordrecht: Springer), 1–45. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-
doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12205 3405-9_1
Trejo, D., Ferrera-Cerrato, R., García, R., Varela, L., Lara, L., and Alarcón, Vorholt, J. A. (2012). Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10,
A. (2011). Efectividad de siete consorcios nativos de hongos micorrízicos 828–840. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2910
arbusculares en plantas de café en condiciones de invernadero y campo. Rev. Waller, J. M., and Masaba, D. M. (2006). The microflora of coffee surfaces
Chil. Hist. Nat. 84, 23–31. doi: 10.4067/S0716-078X2011000100002 and relationships to coffee berry disease. Int. J. Pest Manage. 52, 89–96.
Urbano, G. R., Taniwaki, M. H., Leitão, M. F., and Vicentini, M. C. (2001). doi: 10.1080/09670870600568311
Occurrence of ochratoxin A–producing fungi in raw Brazilian coffee. J. Food Wang, Z., Li, T., Wen, X., Liu, Y., Han, J., Liao, Y., et al. (2017).
Prot. 64, 1226–1230. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-64.8.1226 Fungal communities in rhizosphere soil under conservation tillage shift in
Vaast, P., Caswell-Chen, E. P., and Zasoski, R. J. (1997a). Influences of a root- response to plant growth. Front. Microbiol. 8:1301. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.
lesion nematode, Pratylenchus coffeae, and two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, 01301
Acaulospora mellea and Glomus clarum on coffee (Coffea arabica L.). Biol. Fertil. Wedhastri, S., Yudianti, N. F., Widada, J., and Baon, J. B. (2012). Ability of
Soils 26, 130–135. doi: 10.1007/s003740050355 non symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria isolated from coffee plant rhizosphere
Vaast, P., Harmand, J.-M., Rapidel, B., Jagoret, P., and Deheuvels, O. and their effects on Robusta coffee seedlings. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. A
(2016). “Coffee and cocoa production in agroforestry—a climate-smart 2, 660–666. doi: 10.17265/2161-6256/2012.05A.009
agriculture model,” in Climate Change and Agriculture Worldwide, ed Whipps, J., Lewis, K., and Cooke, R. (1988). “Mycoparasitism and plant disease
E. Torquebiau (Dordrecht: Springer), 209–224. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017- control,” in Fungi in Biological Control Systems, ed M. Burge (Manchester:
7462-8_16 Manchester University Press), 161–187. doi: 10.1002/jctb.280480109
Vaast, P., Zasoski, R. J., and Bledsoe, C. S. (1997b). Effects of vesicular- White, J. F., Kingsley, K. L., Zhang, Q., Verma, R., Obi, N., Dvinskikh, S.,
arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation at different soil P availabilities et al. (2019). Review: endophytic microbes and their potential applications
on growth and nutrient uptake of in vitro propagated coffee (Coffea in crop management. Pest Manag. Sci. 75, 2558–2565. doi: 10.1002/ps.
arabica L.) plants. Mycorrhiza 6, 493–497. doi: 10.1007/s0057200 5527
50153 Wilson, D. (1995). Endophyte: the evolution of a term, and clarification
Vaast, Ph., and Zasoski, R. J. (1992). Effects of VA-mycorrhizae and of its use and definition. Oikos 73, 274–276. doi: 10.2307/
nitrogen sources on rhizosphere soil characteristics, growth and nutrient 3545919
Wintgens, J. N. (2004). “The coffee plant,” in Coffee: Growing, Processing, and metabolomic analysis of wet processing of Coffea arabica. Appl. Environ.
Sustainable Production, ed J. N. Wintgens (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag Microbiol. 85:e02635–e02618. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02635-18
GmbH), 1–24. doi: 10.1002/9783527619627.ch1
Woese, C. R., Magrum, L. J., and Fox, G. E. (1978). Archaebacteria. J. Mol. Evol. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
11, 245–252. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Yan, L., Zhu, J., Zhao, X., Shi, J., Jiang, C., and Shao, D. (2019). Beneficial effects potential conflict of interest.
of endophytic fungi colonization on plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 103,
3327–3340. doi: 10.1007/s00253-019-09713-2 Copyright © 2020 Duong, Marraccini, Maeght, Vaast, Lebrun and Duponnois. This
Zhang, S. J., De Bruyn, F., Pothakos, V., Contreras, G. F., Cai, Z., Moccand, C., is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
et al. (2019a). Influence of various processing parameters on the microbial Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
community dynamics, metabolomic profiles, and cup quality during wet coffee is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
processing. Front. Microbiol. 10:2621. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02621 and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
Zhang, S. J., De Bruyn, F., Pothakos, V., Torres, J., Falconi, C., Moccand, C., et al. academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
(2019b). Following coffee production from cherries to cup: microbiological comply with these terms.

Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential Use in Sustainable Crop Management. A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential Use in Sustainable Crop Management. A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential Use in Sustainable Crop Management. A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW

published: 03 December 2020

Coffee Microbiota and Its Potential

Intensive coffee production is accompanied by several environmental issues, including

Microbiota Kingdom Phylum Order Genus Species No. of citations

Total number 15 100 405 554 115

Postharvest Bacteria 14 59 227 176 51

Total 18 93 346 446 127

Total number 22 129 607 923 234

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Archaea Thaumarchaeota Nitrososphaerales Nitrososphaera 0 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Bacteria Proteobacteria Enterobacterales Serratia 2 4

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Bacteria Actinobacteria Micrococcales Curtobacterium 1 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

(Yeasts) Ascomycota Saccharomycetales Torulopsis 1 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Archaea Euryarchaeota Halobacteriales Halobacterium 0 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Bacteria Proteobacteria Aeromonadales Aeromonas 1 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Fungi Ascomycota Chaetothyriales Exophiala 0 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Fungi Ascomycota Pleosporales Bipolaris 0 1

Kingdom Phylum Order Genus No. of species No. of citations

Fungi Basidiomycota Incertae_sedis Peniophora 0 1

Total 12 70 241 350 71

Brachybacterium 0 2 Deinococcus- Deinococcales Deinococcus 0 1

TABLE 5 | Continued TABLE 5 | Continued

Bacteria Proteobacteria Burkholderiales Burkholderia 1 3 Bacteria Proteobacteria Rhizobiales Bosea 0 1

TABLE 5 | Continued TABLE 5 | Continued

Fungi Ascomycota Eurotiales Paecilomyces 0 3 (Yeasts) Ascomycota Saccharomycetales Arxula 1 2

Pleosporales Alternaria 1 4 Saccharomycopsis 3 3

Basidiomycota Agaricostilbales Bensingtonia 0 1 Rhodotorula 7 9

Thus, these microbial taxa, which are ubiquitous across

Supplementary Table 7 | Venn diagrams and partitions of the archaea, bacteria,

You might also like