terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IMPACT OF ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC FACTORS ON BIOADHESION PROPERTIES OF BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS

IMPACT OF ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC FACTORS ON BIOADHESION PROPERTIES OF BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS

Abstract

Brettanomyces bruxellensis is an ubiquitous yeast associated with different fermentation media such as beer and kombucha, where its presence is beneficial to bring an aromatic typicity. However, it is a main spoilage yeast in wines, in which it produces volatile phenols responsible for organoleptic deviations causing significant economic losses (Chatonnet et al., 1992). Cellar and winery equipment’s are considered as the first source of contamination, during fermentation and wine ageing process (Connel et al., 2002). Indeed, it is possible to find B. bruxellensis in the air, on walls and floors of the cellars, on small materials, vats and barrels. Furthermore, specific strains are recurrently isolated in wines of certain wineries, thus showing the ability of the species to be resident in the cellar for long periods (Cibrario et al., 2019). Bioadhesion phenomena and biofilm formation are protective mechanisms that could explain the persistence of B. bruxellensis in the winery and recurrent wine contaminations. A subset of 17 B. bruxellensis strains, representative of the species genetic diversity and showing contrasting bioadhesion phenotypes, were selected to study the impact of pH and ethanol concentration on electronegativity (Zeta potential), hydrophobic character (MATS) and bioadhesion on stainless steel by confocal microscopy. The experimental design consisted in multi-strains and multi-species bioadhesions in order to observe potential interactions. Our results show that pH and ethanol concentrations do not impact the phenotypes but that the strains and genetic groups are the main factors explaining the variance suggesting the role of genetic mechanisms on bioadhesion properties. Regarding multispecies bioadhesion, a decrease in the bioadhesion of B. bruxellensis is observed in association with lactic acid and acetic acid bacteria. Multi-strains bioadhesion of B. bruxellensis show that the most bioadhesive strain is present in higher proportions during the first stages of the bioadhesive process comparing with other strains. This study provides new insights into the impact of environmental factors on B. bruxellensis lifestyles as bioadhesion in response to stressful environments, with major consequences on surface colonization in food industry and wine spoilage.

 

1. Chatonnet, P., Dubourdie, D., Boidron, J. -n., Pons, M., 1992. The origin of ethylphenols in wines. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 60, 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740600205
2. Cibrario, A., Avramova, M., Dimopoulou, M., Magani, M., Miot-Sertier, C., Mas, A., Portillo, M.C., Ballestra, P., Albertin, W., Masneuf-Pomarede, I., Dols-Lafargue, M., 2019. Brettanomyces bruxellensis wine isolates show high geographical dispersal and long persistence in cellars. PLOS ONE 14, e0222749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222749
3. Connell, L., Stender, H., Edwards, C.G., 2002. Rapid Detection and Identification of Brettanomyces from Winery Air Samples Based on Peptide Nucleic Acid Analysis. Am J Enol Vitic. 53, 322–324.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Paul Le Montagner1,2,3, Cécile Miot-Sertier¹, Marguerite Dols-Lafargue¹, Warren Albertin¹, Vincent Renouf³, Virginie Moine², Isabelle Masneuf Pomarède1,4

1. Univ. Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, 33140, Villenave d’Ornon, France 
2. Biolaffort, Floirac, France
3. Laboratoire Excell, Floirac, France
4. Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Gradignan, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Wine, Spoilage, Bioadhesion

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

PROGRESS OF STUDIES OF LEES ORIGINATING FROM THE FIRST ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION OF CHAMPAGNE WINES

Champagne wines are produced via a two-step process: the first is an initial alcoholic fermentation of grape must that produces a still base wine, followed by a second fermentation in bottle – the prise de mousse – that produces the effervescence. This appellation produces non-vintage sparkling wines composed of still base wines assembled from different vintages, varieties, and regions. These base wines, or “reserve wines,” are typically conserved on their fine lies and used to compensate for quality variance between vintages (1). Continuously blending small amounts of these reserve wines into newer ones also facilitates preserving the producer’s “house style.”

INSIGHT THE IMPACT OF GRAPE PRESSING ON MUST COMPOSITION

The pre-fermentative steps play a relevant role for the characteristics of white wine [1]. In particular, the grape pressing can affect the chemical composition and sensory profile and its optimized management leads to the desired extraction of aromas and their precursors, and phenols resulting in a balanced wine [2-4]. These aspects are important especially for must addressed to the sparkling wine as appropriate extraction of phenols is expected being dependent to grape composition, as well.

IMPACT OF MINERAL AND ORGANIC NITROGEN ADDITION ON ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION WITH S. CEREVISIAE

During alcoholic fermentation, nitrogen is one of essential nutrient for yeast as it plays a key role in sugar transport and biosynthesis of and wine aromatic compounds (thiols, esters, higher alcohols). The main issue of a lack in yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in winemaking is sluggish or stuck fermentations promoting the growth of alteration species and leads to economic losses. Currently, grape musts are often characterized by low YAN concentration and an increase of sugars concentration due to global warming, making alcoholic fermentations even more difficult. YAN depletion can be corrected by addition of inorganic (ammonia) or organic (yeast derivatives products) nitrogen during alcoholic fermentation.

EFFECT OF MANNOPROTEIN-RICH EXTRACTS FROM WINE LEES ON PHENOLICCOMPOSITION AND COLOUR OF RED WINE

In 2022, wine production was estimated at around 260 million hl. This high production rate implies to generate a large amount of by-products, which include grape pomace, grape stalks and wine lees. It is estimated that processing 100 tons of grapes leads to ~ 22 tons of by-products from which ~ 6 tons are lees [1]. Wine lees are a sludge-looking material mostly made of dead and living yeast cells, yeast debris and other particles that precipitate at the bottom of wine tanks after alcoholic fermentation. Unlike grape pomace or grape stalks, few strategies have been proposed for the recovery and valorisation of wine less [2].

DETERMINATION OF FREE AMINO ACIDS, AMINO ACID POTENTIAL AND PROTEASE ACTIVITY IN THE LEES AND STILL WINES OF CHAMPAGNE

Prior to winemaking, organic or mineral nitrogen compound concentrations are usually measured in the vineyard and in grape musts. These indicators facilitate vine cultivation decisions, usually through yield or vigor. During vinification, yeast and bacteria metabolize nitrogen compounds in the musts in order to generate biomass. After fermentation, the microorganisms rerelease a part of this nitrogen as soluble compounds into the wines. Another part remains bound in the lees and can be lost during racking. The must’s natural nitrogen quantities, additional supplements during fermentation, and lees contact management enhance the release of nitrogen compounds to the wines. During ageing these nitrogen compounds – primarily the amino acids – are implicated in the generation of odorous compounds such as heterocycles(1).