| Literature DB >> 32599933 |
Dinka Mandakovic1,2, Rodrigo Pulgar1,3, Jonathan Maldonado1, Wladimir Mardones4,5, Mauricio González1,2,3, Francisco A Cubillos4,5, Verónica Cambiazo1,2,3.
Abstract
Autochthonous microorganisms are an important source of the distinctive metabolites that influence the chemical profile of wine. However, little is known about the diversity of fungal communities associated with grape musts, even though they are the source of local yeast strains with potential capacities to become starters during fermentation. By using internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon sequencing, we identified the taxonomic structure of the yeast community in unfermented and fermented musts of a typical Vitis vinifera L. var. Sauvignon blanc from the Central Valley of Chile throughout two consecutive seasons of production. Unsurprisingly, Saccharomyces represented the most abundant fungal genus in unfermented and fermented musts, mainly due to the contribution of S. uvarum (42.7%) and S. cerevisiae (80%). Unfermented musts were highly variable between seasons and showed higher values of fungal diversity than fermented musts. Since microbial physiological characterization is primarily achieved in culture, we isolated nine species belonging to six genera of fungi from the unfermented must samples. All isolates were characterized for their potential capacities to be used as new starters in wine. Remarkably, only Metschnikowia pulcherrima could co-exist with a commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain under fermentative conditions, representing a feasible candidate strain for wine production.Entities:
Keywords: Metschnikowia pulcherrima; Sauvignon blanc; culture-dependent method; grape must; high-throughput sequencing; non-conventional yeasts; starter culture fermentation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32599933 PMCID: PMC7356840 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8060956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Figure 1Fungal assemblages of unfermented and end of fermentation stages. (A) Average relative abundances of genera from unfermented (M) and end of fermentation (EF) samples (>0.1% of relative abundance in at least one sample) based on massive sequencing of Operational Taxonomical Units (OTUs) in triplicates. (B) Fungal interaction network of M and EF samples from both seasons.
Figure 2Relative abundance of isolates in unfermented and end of fermentation stages. Reads from high-throughput sequencing (HTS) were mapped to the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences of isolates to calculate the average relative abundances of isolated species from unfermented (M) and end of fermentation (EF) samples. In grey, relative abundance of the remaining species that were not isolated but were massive sequenced.
Figure 3Wine-related phenotypes in natural strains. (A) Maximum growth rate (µmax, OD/h) in synthetic wine must (SWM), a,b,c,d,e depict significant differences (p-value < 0.05, ANOVA). (B) Heatmap from all phenotypes evaluated under micro-cultivation conditions.
Figure 4Fermentative capacity of natural strains. (A) Total CO2 lost in all strains in 10 mL fermentations (SF, Slow Fermenters and FF, Fast Fermenters), a,b,c,d,e depict significant differences (p-value < 0.05, ANOVA). (B) FF under 50 mL fermentations with agitation. EC1118 was used as the commercial S. cerevisiae control.
Figure 5HPLC results from fermentation with Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces strains. (A). Sugar consumption, (B) Ethanol and Glycerol production, (C) Ethanol and Glycerol yields, and (D) Acetic acid production.
Figure 6Competition experiment between commercial strains versus natural isolates. The relative percentage of the reporter commercial strain EC1118 (black line) in competition with each of the other FF strains inoculated in (A) equal proportions and (B) 1:100 proportion.