Metabolic footprint analysis of metabolites that discriminate single and mixed yeast cultures at two key time-points during mixed culture alcoholic fermentations
There has been a growing interest towards creating defined mixed starter cultures for alcoholic fermentations. Previously, metabolite differences between single and mixed cultures have been explored at the endpoint of fermentations rather than during fermentations.
To create metabolic footprints of metabolites that discriminate single and mixed yeast cultures at two key time-points during mixed culture alcoholic fermentations.
1H NMR- and GC–MS-based metabolomics was used to identify metabolites that discriminate single and mixed cultures of Lachancea thermotolerans (LT) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) during alcoholic fermentations.
Twenty-two metabolites were found when comparing single LT and mixed cultures, including both non-volatiles (carbohydrate, amino acid and acids) and volatiles (higher alcohols, esters, ketones and aldehydes). Fifteen of these compounds were discriminatory only at the death phase initiation (T1) and fifteen were discriminatory only at the death phase termination (T2) of LT in mixed cultures. Eight metabolites were discriminatory at both T1 and T2. These results indicate that specific metabolic changes may be descriptive of different LT growth behaviors. Fifteen discriminatory metabolites were found when comparing single SC and mixed cultures. These metabolites were all volatiles, and twelve metabolites were discriminatory only at T2, indicating that LT-induced changes in volatiles occur during the death phase of LT in mixed cultures and not during their initial growth stage.
This work provides a detailed insight into yeast metabolites that differ between single and mixed cultures, and these data may be used for understanding and eventually predicting yeast metabolic changes in wine fermentations.
KeywordsSingle and mixed cultures Yeast growth behaviors Metabolic footprints Metabolomics Alcoholic fermentations
The authors would like to thank Janne Margrethe Benjaminsen for excellent technical assistance.
NA, CP and TV conceived and designed research. CP conducted experiments. MAP and FHL contributed new reagents and analytical tools. CP and FHL analyzed data. CP and NA wrote the manuscript. All authors read, revised and approved the manuscript.
This study was funded by Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen and Chinese Scholarship Council (201406300048).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Chuantao Peng, Tiago Viana, Mikael Agerlin Petersen, Flemming Hofmann Larsen and Nils Arneborg declares that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
- Alonso-del-Real, J., Contreras-Ruiz, A., Castiglioni, G. L., Barrio, E., & Querol, A. (2017). The use of mixed populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. kudriavzevii to reduce ethanol content in wine: Limited aeration, inoculum proportions, and sequential inoculation. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 2087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Sadoudi, M., Tourdot-Maréchal, R., Rousseaux, S., Steyer, D., Gallardo-Chacón, J. J., Ballester, J., et al. (2012). Yeast-yeast interactions revealed by aromatic profile analysis of Sauvignon Blanc wine fermented by single or co-culture of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts. Food Microbiology, 32, 243–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Takahashi, H., Kai, K., Shinbo, Y., Tanaka, K., Ohta, D., Oshima, T., et al. (2008). Metabolomics approach for determining growth-specific metabolites based on Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 391, 2769–2782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Tredoux, A., De Villiers, A., Májek, P., Lynen, F., Crouch, A., & Sandra, P. (2008). Stir bar sorptive extraction combined with GC-MS analysis and chemometric methods for the classification of South African wines according to the volatile composition. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56, 4286–4296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar