Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 89, Issue 5, pp 1621–1628 | Cite as

Microvinification—how small can we go?

  • Tommaso Liccioli
  • Tina M. T. Tran
  • Daniel Cozzolino
  • Vladimir Jiranek
  • Paul J. Chambers
  • Simon A. Schmidt
Methods and Protocols

Abstract

High-throughput methodologies to screen large numbers of microorganisms necessitate the use of small-scale culture vessels. In this context, an increasing number of researchers are turning to microtiter plate (MTP) formats to conduct experiments. MTPs are now widely used as a culturing vessel for phenotypic screening of aerobic laboratory cultures, and their suitability has been assessed for a range of applications. The work presented here extends these previous studies by assessing the metabolic footprint of MTP fermentation. A comparison of Chardonnay grape juice fermentation in MTPs with fermentations performed in air-locked (self-induced anaerobic) and cotton-plugged (aerobic) flasks was made. Maximum growth rates and biomass accumulation of yeast cultures grown in MTPs were indistinguishable from self-induced anaerobic flask cultures. Metabolic profiles measured differed depending on the metabolite. While glycerol and acetate accumulation mirrored that of self-induced anaerobic cultures, ethanol accumulation in MTP ferments was limited by the increased propensity of this volatile metabolite for evaporation in microlitre-scale culture format. The data illustrates that microplate cultures can be used as a replacement for self-induced anaerobic flasks in some instances and provide a useful and economical platform for the screening of industrial strains and culture media.

Keywords

Yeast Microplates Grape juice Fermentation High-throughput 

Supplementary material

253_2010_2992_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (71 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 70 kb)

References

  1. Baranyi J, Roberts TA (1994) A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food. Int J Food Microbiol 23:277–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berthels NJ, Otero RRC, Bauer FF, Thevelein JM, Pretorius IS (2004) Discrepancy in glucose and fructose utilisation during fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains. FEMS Yeast Res 4:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthels NJ, Otero RRC, Bauer FF, Pretorius IS, Thevelein JM (2008) Correlation between glucose/fructose discrepancy and hexokinase kinetic properties in different Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 77:1083–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisson LF (1999) Stuck and sluggish fermentations. Am J Enol Vitic 50:107–119Google Scholar
  5. Blank LM, Kuepfer L, Sauer U (2005a) Large-scale C-13-flux analysis reveals mechanistic principles of metabolic network robustness to null mutations in yeast. Genome Biol 6:R49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank LM, Lehmbeck F, Sauer U (2005b) Metabolic-flux and network analysis in fourteen hemiascomycetous yeasts. FEMS Yeast Res 5:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börner J, Buchinger S, Schomburg D (2007) A high-throughput method for microbial metabolome analysis using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Biochem 367:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duetz WA (2007) Microtiter plates as mini-bioreactors: miniaturization of fermentation methods. Trends Microbiol 15:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duetz WA, Witholt B (2004) Oxygen transfer by orbital shaking of square vessels and deepwell microtiter plates of various dimensions. Biochem Eng J 17:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duetz WA, Ruedi L, Hermann R, O'Connor K, Buchs J, Witholt B (2000) Methods for intense aeration, growth, storage, and replication of bacterial strains in microtiter plates. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2641–2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferreira-Torres C, Micheletti M, Lye GJ (2005) Microscale process evaluation of recombinant biocatalyst libraries: application to Baeyer-Villiger monooxygenase catalysed lactone synthesis. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 28:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleet GH, Heard GA (1993) Yeasts—growth during fermentation. In: Fleet GH (ed) Wine microbiology and biotechnology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  13. Frayne RF (1986) Direct analysis of the major organic components in grape must and wine using high-performance liquid-chromatography. Am J Enol Vitic 37:281–287Google Scholar
  14. Henzler HJ, Schedel M (1991) Suitability of the shaking flask for oxygen supply to microbiological cultures. Bioprocess Eng 7:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hermann R, Lehmann M, Buchs J (2003) Characterization of gas-liquid mass transfer phenomena in microtiter plates. Biotechnol Bioeng 81:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kensy F, Zimmermann HF, Knabben I, Anderlei T, Trauthwein H, Dingerdissen U, Buchs J (2005) Oxygen transfer phenomena in 48-well microtiter plates: determination by optical monitoring of sulfite oxidation and verification by real-time measurement during microbial growth. Biotechnol Bioeng 89:698–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maresova L, Sychrova H (2007) Applications of a microplate reader in yeast physiology research. Biotechniques 43:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Micheletti M, Lye GJ (2006) Microscale bioprocess optimisation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Micheletti M, Barrett T, Doig SD, Baganz F, Levy MS, Woodley JM, Lye GJ (2006) Fluid mixing in shaken bioreactors: implications for scale-up predictions from microlitre-scale microbial and mammalian cell cultures. Chem Eng Sci 61:2939–2949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ooi BG, Wanamaker LE, Markuszewski BM, Chong NS (2008) Genetic and enological analysis of selected Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for wine production. Int J Food Sci Technol 43:1111–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reynolds AG, Edwards CG, Cliff MA, Thorngate JH, Marr JC (2001) Evaluation of yeast strains during fermentation of Riesling and Chenin blanc musts. Am J Enol Vitic 52:336–344Google Scholar
  22. Schutz M, Gafner J (1995) Lower fructose uptake capacity of genetically characterized strains of Saccharomyces bayanus compared to strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae—a likely cause of reduced alcoholic fermentation activity. Am J Enol Vitic 46:175–180Google Scholar
  23. Stitt DT, Nagar MS, Haq TA, Timmins MR (2002) Determination of growth rate of microorganisms in broth from oxygen-sensitive fluorescence plate reader measurements. Biotechniques 32:684–689Google Scholar
  24. Varela C, Pizarro F, Agosin E (2004) Biomass content governs fermentation rate in nitrogen-deficient wine musts. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:3392–3400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warringer J, Blomberg A (2003) Automated screening in environmental arrays allows analysis of quantitative phenotypic profiles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 20:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmermann HF, Rieth J (2007) A fully automated robotic system for high throughput fermentation. Clin Lab Med 27:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zimmermann HF, John GT, Trauthwein H, Dingerdissen U, Huthmacher K (2003) Rapid evaluation of oxygen and water permeation through microplate sealing tapes. Biotechnol Prog 19:1061–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommaso Liccioli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tina M. T. Tran
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel Cozzolino
    • 2
  • Vladimir Jiranek
    • 1
  • Paul J. Chambers
    • 2
  • Simon A. Schmidt
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and WineThe University of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia
  2. 2.The Australian Wine Research InstituteGlen OsmondAustralia
  3. 3.School of Molecular SciencesVictoria University of TechnologyMelbourne CityAustralia

Personalised recommendations