Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 New molecular evidence of wine yeast-bacteria interaction unraveled by untargeted metabolomic profiling

New molecular evidence of wine yeast-bacteria interaction unraveled by untargeted metabolomic profiling

Abstract

Bacterial malolactic fermentation (MLF) has a considerable impact on wine quality. The yeast strain used for primary fermentation can consistently stimulate (MLF+ phenotype) or inhibit (MLF- phenotype) malolactic bacteria and the MLF process as a function of numerous winemaking practices, but the molecular evidence behind still remains a mystery. In this study, such evidence was elucidated by the direct comparison of extracellular metabolic profiles of MLF+ and MLF- yeast phenotypes. Untargeted metabolomics combining ultrahigh-resolution FT-ICR-MS analysis, powerful machine learning methods and a comprehensive wine metabolite database, discovered around 800 putative biomarkers and 2500 unknown masses involved in phenotypic distinction. For the putative biomarkers, we also developed a biomarker identification workflow and elucidated the exact structure (by UPLC-Q-ToF-MS2) and/or exact physiological impact (by in vivo tests) of several novel biomarkers, such as gluconic acid, citric acid, caffeic acid-sulfate, palmitic acid and tripeptide Pro-Phe-Val. In addition to new biomarkers, molecular evidence was reflected by unprecedented chemical diversity (more than 3000 discriminant masses) that characterized MLF+ and MLF- phenotypes. Distinct chemical families such as phenolic compounds, carbohydrates, amino acids and peptides characterize the extracellular metabolic profiles of the MLF+ phenotype, whereas the MLF- phenotype is associated with sulphur-containing peptides. Moreover, the location of MLF+ biomarkers in the yeast metabolic network indicated the potential involvement of specific pathways in MLF stimulation. The untargeted approach used in this study played a significant role in discovering new and unexpected molecular evidence of wine yeast-bacteria interaction.

This work will appear in the accepted article in Metabolomics (Volume 12 issue 5). (http://link.springer.com/journal/11306).

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Youzhong Liu*, Cedric Longin, Claudine Degueurce, Hervé Alexandre, Magali Deleris-Bou, Marianna Lucio, Mourad Harir, Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin, Régis Gougeon, Sara Forcisi, Sibylle Dr. Krieger-Weber

*Université de Bourgogne

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Novel contribution to the study of mouth-feel properties in wines

In general, there is a well-established lexicon related to wine aroma and taste properties; however mouth-feel-related vocabulary usually includes heterogeneous, multimodal and personalized terms. Gawel et al.
(2000) published a wheel related to mouthfeel properties of red wine. However, its use in scientific publications has been limited. The authors accepted that the approach had certain limitations as it included redundant and terms with hedonic tone and some others were absent. It is of high interest to generate a mouth-feel lexicon and finding the chemical compound or group of compounds responsible for such properties in red wine. In the present work a chemical fractionation method has been developed.

Oxygen consumption by diferent oenological tanins in a model wine solution

INTRODUCTION: Oenological tannins are widely used in winemaking to improve some characteristics of wines [1] being the antioxidant properties probably one of the main reasons [2]. However, commercial tannins have different botanical sources and chemical composition [3] which probably determines different antioxidant potential. There are some few references about the antioxidant properties of commercial tannins [4] but none of them have really measured the direct oxygen consumption by them. The aim of this work was to measure the kinetics of oxygen consumption by different commercial tannins in order to determine their real capacities to protect wine against oxygen. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 4 different commercial tannins were used: T1: condensed tannin from grape seeds, T2: gallotannin from chinese gallnuts, T3: ellagitannin from oak and T4: tannin from quebracho containing condensed tannins and ellagitannins.

Directed Evolution of Oenococcus oeni: optimising yeast-bacteria interactions for improved malolactic fermentation

Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a secondary step in the vinification process and it follows alcoholic fermentation (AF) which is predominantly carried out by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These two processes result in the degradation of metabolites to produce secondary metabolites which also contribute to the final wine flavour and quality. AF results in the production of ethanol and carbon dioxide from sugars and MLF stems from the degradation of L-malic acid (a dicarboxylic acid) to L-lactic acid (a monocarboxylic acid). The latter process results in a smoother texture as the acidity of the wine is reduced by the process, it also adds to the flavour complexity of the wine.

Study of the colour and phenolic evolution of three different tannin/anthocyanin ratios over time in a model wine

Phenolic compounds are important quality indicators in red wine. A large number of polyphenols play an important role in wine development, contributing to the colour and the sensory perception of the wines. Anthocyanins are the pigments responsible for the colour in young red wines while tannins are the principal contributors to the bitterness and the astringency of the wines. Wine polyphenols are considered more complex molecules than grape phenolics, due to the enormous number of chemical reactions which take place during the entire winemaking process and storage, forming more stable compounds.

Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

The Ability of PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone), PVP-DEGMA-TAIC (copolimerization of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and triallyl isocyanurate) and PAEGDMA
(poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate)) polymers was tested as removal agents for Fumonisin B1 (FB1) and Fumonisin B2 (FB2) from model solutions and red wine. The polymers removal capacity was checked at three different resident times (2, 8 and 24 hours of contact time between the polymer and the sample), showing no differences in the percentage of FB1 and FB2 removal. Then, different polymer concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1) were tested in model solution with and without phenolics (i.e. gallic acid and 4-methylcatechol).