terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE EFFECT OF TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII/SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE INOCULATION STRATEGY ON MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION PERFORMANCE

NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE EFFECT OF TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII/SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE INOCULATION STRATEGY ON MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION PERFORMANCE

Abstract

Winemaking is influenced by micro-organisms, which are largely responsible for the quality of the product. In this context, Non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces species are of great importance not only because it influences the development of alcoholic fermentation (AF) but also on the achievement of malolactic fermentation (MLF). Among these yeasts, Torulaspora delbrueckii allows in sequential inoculation with strains of S. cerevisiae shorter MLF realizations [5] . Little information is available on the temporal effect of the presence of T. delbrueckii on (i) the evolution of AF and (ii) the MLF performance. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of sequential time (2, 4 and 6 days) of T. delbrueckii/ S. cerevisiae on the achievement of MLF by two strains of Oenococcus oeni. AF and the following MLF were performed in a synthetic must supplemented with linoleic acid and b-sitosterol. The results showed that differences were observed in the duration of the AF as for example co-inoculated AF lasted less time, even compared to the control, while sequential AF were prolonged in time. Regarding the abundance of the species in co-inoculation S. cerevisiae dominated the fermentation process from the middle to the end as previously described in literature [2,3] . In sequential fermentations, T. delbrueckii represented a higher percentage at the end, 40-30% of the total population. In relation to the differences between sequential conditions it seems that during the fermentation with 4 days of T. delbruekii contact the population was higher than 2 and 6 days. As for the supplementation with lipids to the synthetic must we could observe that yeast viability increased, acetic acid decreased and AF and MLF performance improved. Regarding MLF T. delbrueckii improved the total time of the process comparing with S. cerevisiae as described in literature [1,4] . However, in the co-inoculated wines MLF had a longer duration. Regarding sequential wines, in the 4-day contact condition with T. delbruekii the MLF was shortened to two days, with the two O. oeni strains, so this seemed to be the best strategy combination.

Overall, these findings highlight the importance of considering both the inoculation strategy and the specific strains used to a better understanding of the complex interactions between these species in the fermentation process.

 

1. Balmaseda, A., Rozès, N., Bordons, A., & Reguant, C. (2021). Torulaspora delbrueckii promotes malolactic fermentation in high polyphenolic red wines. LWT, 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111777
2. Bordet, F., Joran, A., Klein, G., Roullier-Gall, C., & Alexandre, H. (2020). Yeast-yeast interactions: Mechanisms, methodologies and impact on composition. In Microorganisms (Vol. 8, Issue 4). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8040600
3. Lleixà, J., Manzano, M., Mas, A., & Portillo, M. del C. (2016). Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces competition during microvinification under different sugar and nitrogen conditions. Frontiers in Microbiology, 7(DEC). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01959
4. Martín-García, A., Balmaseda, A., Bordons, A., & Reguant, C. (2020). Effect of the inoculation strategy of non-Saccharomyces yeasts on wine malolactic fermentation. Oeno One, 54(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.1.2906
5. Ruiz-de-Villa, C., Poblet, M., Cordero-Otero, R., Bordons, A., Reguant, C., & Rozès, N. (2023). Screening of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii strains in relation to their effect on malolactic fermentation. Food Microbiology, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2022.104212

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Candela Ruiz-de-Villa¹, Montse Poblet¹, Albert Bordons², Cristina Reguant², Nicolas Rozès¹

1. Grup de Biotecnologia Microbiana dels Aliments, Departament de Bioquímica i Biotecnologia, Facultat d’Enologia, Universi-tat Rovira i Virgili, c/ Marcel·lí Domingo s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain.
2. Grup de Biotecnologia Enològica,Departament de Bioquímica i Biotecnologia, Facultat d’Enologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, c/ Marcel·lí Domingo s/n, 43007 Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain.

Contact the author*

Keywords

Wine microorganisms, Alcoholic fermentation, Malolactic fermentation, Inoculation strategy

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

IMPACT OF MANNOPROTEIN N-GLYCOSYL PHOSPHORYLATION AND BRANCHING ON WINE POLYPHENOL INTERACTIONS WITH YEAST CELL WALLS

Yeast cell walls (CWs) may adsorb wine components with a significant impact on wine quality. When dealing with red wines, this adsorption is mainly related to physicochemical interactions between wine polyphenols and cell wall mannoproteins. However, mannoproteins are a heterogeneous family of complex peptidoglycans including long and highly branched N-linked oligosaccharides and short linear O-linked oligosaccharides, resulting in a huge structural diversity.

CHANGES IN METABOLIC FLUXES UNDER LOW PH GROWTH CONDITIONS: CAN THE SLOWDOWN OF CITRATE CONSUMPTION IMPROVE OENOCOCCUS OENI ACID-TOLERANCE?

Oenococcus oeni is the main Lactic Acid Bacteria responsible for malolactic fermentation, converting malic acid into lactic acid and carbon dioxide in wines. Following the alcoholic fermentation, this second fermentation ensures a deacidification and remains essential for the release of aromatic notes and the improvement of microbial stability in many wines. Nevertheless, wine is a harsh environment for microbial growth, especially because of its low pH (between 2.9 and 3.6 depending on the type of wine) and nutrient deficiency. In order to maintain homeostasis and ensure viability, O. oeni possesses different cellular mechanisms including organic acid metabolisms which represent also the major pathway to synthetize energy in wine.

THE EFFECT OF PRE-FERMENTATIVE GLYPHOSATE ADDITION ON THE METABOLITE PROFILE OF WINE

The synthetic herbicide glyphosate has been used extensively in viticulture over many decades to combat weeds. Despite this, the possible influence of residual glyphosate on both the alcoholic fermentation of grape juice and the subsequent metabolite profile of wines has not been investigated. In this study, Pinot noir juice supplemented with different concentrations of glyphosate (0 µg L-1, 10 µg L-1 and 1000 µg L-1) was fermented with commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast strains. Using a combination of analytical methods, 80 metabolites were quantified in the resulting wines.

PINKING PHENOMENA ON WHITE WINES: RELATION BETWEEN PINKING SUSCEPTIBILITY INDEX (PSI) AND WINE ANTHOCYANINS CONTENT

Pinking is the emergence of pink tones in white wines exclusively produced from white grape varieties, known as pinking phenomena for many years. Pinking is essentially appeared when white wines are produced under reducing conditions [1,2,3]. Pinking usually occurs after bottling and storage of white wines, but its appearance has also been described after alcoholic fermentation or even as soon as the grape must is extracted [4]. Therefore, the purpose of this work was to investigate the existence of an-thocyanins in white wines made from different white grape varieties and grown locations and critically evaluate the most common method used for predicting pinking appearance in white wines: the Pinking Susceptibility Index (PSI).

INOCULATION OF THE SELECTED METSCHNIKOWIA PULCHERRIMA MP1 AS A BIOPROTECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO SULFITES TO PREVENT BROWNING OF WHITE GRAPE MUST

Enzymatic browning (BE) of must is caused by polyphenol oxidases (PPOs), tyrosinase and laccase. Both PPOs can oxidize diphenols such as hydroxycinnamic acids (HA) to quinones, which can later polymerize to form melanins [1], which are responsible of BE in white wines and of oxidasic haze in red wines. SO₂ is the main tool used to protect must from BE thanks to its capacity to inhibit PPOs [2]. However, the current trend in winemaking is to reduce and even eliminate this unfriendly additive. Among the different possible alternatives for protecting must against BE, the inoculation with a selected Metschnikowia pulcherrima MP1 is without any doubt one of the most promising ones.