Advertisement

Annals of Microbiology

, Volume 68, Issue 12, pp 963–967 | Cite as

Oenological characterisation of indigenous strains of S. cerevisiae isolated in a biodynamic winery in the Cortona DOC area

  • Raffaele GuzzonEmail author
  • Tilde Labagnara
  • Annita Toffanin
  • Tomas Roman Villegas
Short Communication
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Genotypic and technological characterisation of the S. cerevisiae population isolated in a biodynamic winery in the Cortona DOC area was performed to gain better knowledge of the variables that influence winemaking. The oenological performance of 11 S. cerevisiae strains was evaluated with physiological tests; strain typing was performed through analysis of interdelta sequences and 26S rDNA sequencing. The analysis revealed a remarkable variability in terms of S. cerevisiae strains, despite the homogeneity of wine features, underlining the high levels of biodiversity characterising biodynamic agriculture. Some strains were found in wines of different vintages, suggesting the presence of an established microbiota in the winery. Oenological tests demonstrated that while some yeasts provided reliable oenological performance, other strains were not able to accomplish prompt and effective alcoholic fermentation, or were characterised by spoilage characteristics, such as excessive production of volatile phenols or acetic acid. Indigenous strains of S. cerevisiae could be a useful instrument for reliable winemaking without altering the native microbiota of each oenological environment. However, characterisation of their oenological suitability, and the application of practices able to drive the evolution of microbiota, must be employed to reduce the risk of wine spoilage.

Keywords

Spontaneous fermentation Yeasts Microbial selection Biodiversity Biodynamic Syrah 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Stefano Amerighi, Giulia Marangon, Alessandro Magrin and Calogero Caruana for their suggestions and for stimulating discussion throughout the course of this work.

Funding

This work was funded with the standard resources of the Edmund Mach Foundation and the University of Pisa.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

N/A

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants involved in the study.

References

  1. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ (1997) Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res 25:3389–3402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barata A, Malfeito-Ferreira M, Loureiro V (2012) The microbial ecology of wine grape berries. Int J Food Microbiol 153:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartowsky EJ (2009) Bacterial spoilage of wine and approaches to minimize it. Lett Appl Microbiol 48:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bely M, Stoeckle P, Masneuf-Pomarede I, Dubourdieu D (2008) Impact of mixed Torulaspora delbrueckii-Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on high-sugar fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol 122:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capozzi V, Garofalo C, Chiriatti MA, Grieco F, Spano G (2015) Microbial terroir and food innovation: the case of yeast biodiversity in wine. Microbiol Res 181:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charpentier C, Colin A, Alais A, Legras JL (2009) French Jura flor yeasts: genotype and technological diversity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 95:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chatonnet P, Dubourdieu D, Boidron JN (1995) The influence of Brettanomyces/Dekhera spp. yeasts and lactic acid bacteria on the ethylphenol content of red wines. Am J Enol Vitic 46:463–468Google Scholar
  8. Chaves-López C, Serio A, Osorio-Cadavid E, Paparella A, Suzzi G (2009) Volatile compounds produced in wine by Colombian wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Ann Microbiol 59:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciani M, Capece A, Comitini F, Canonico L, Siesto G, Romano P (2016) Yeast interactions in inoculated wine fermentation. Front Microbiol article no. 555Google Scholar
  10. Comitini F, Capece A, Ciani M, Romano P (2017) New insights on the use of wine yeasts. Curr Opin Food Sci 13:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guzzon R, Larcher R (2015) The application of flow cytometry in microbiological monitoring during winemaking: two case studies. Ann Microbiol 65:1865–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guzzon R, Nicolini G, Nardin T, Malacarne M, Larcher R (2014) Survey about the microbiological features, the oenological performance and the influence on the character of wine of active dry yeast employed as starters of wine fermentation. Int J Food Sci Technol 49:2142–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kurtzman CP, Robnett CJ (1998) Identification and phylogeny of ascomycetous yeasts from analysis of nuclear large subunit (26S) ribosomal DNA partial sequences. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 73:331–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larcher R, Nicolini G, Puecher C, Bertoldi D, Moser S, Favaro G (2007) Determination of volatile phenols in wine using high-performance liquid chromatography with a coulometric array detector. Anal Chim Acta 582:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Legras JL, Karst F (2003) Optimisation of interdelta analysis for Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain characterisation. FEMS Microbiol Lett 221:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu SQ (2002) Malolactic fermentation in wine - beyond deacidification. J Appl Microbiol 92:589–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loureiro V, Malfeito-Ferreira M (2003) Spoilage yeasts in the wine industry. Int J Food Microbiol 86:23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morrison-Whittle P, Lee SA, Goddard MR (2017) Fungal communities are differentially affected by conventional and biodynamic agricultural management approaches in vineyard ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 246:306–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. OIV (2016) Compendium of international methods of analysis of wines and musts (vol 2) OIV-MA-AS4-01. OIV, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Renouf V (2015) Brettanomyces et phénols volatils. Lavoisier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Rojas IB, Smith PA, Bartowsky EJ (2012) Influence of choice of yeasts on volatile fermentation-derived compounds, colour and phenolics composition in Cabernet Sauvignon wine. J Microbiol Biotechnol 28:3311–3321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Settanni L, Sannino C, Francesca N, Guarcello R, Moschetti G (2012) Yeast ecology of vineyards within Marsala wine area (western Sicily) in two consecutive vintages and selection of autochthonous Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. J Biosci Bioeng 114:606–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Teixeira MC, Mira NP, Sa-Correia I (2011) A genome-wide perspective on the response and tolerance to food-relevant stresses in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Opin Biotechnol 22:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and the University of Milan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro di Trasferimento TecnologicoFondazione Edmund MachSan Michele all’AdigeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (DAFE)University of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations