Wine microbiome: A dynamic world of microbial interactions

Abstract

Most fermented products are generated by a mixture of microbes. These microbial consortia perform various biological activities responsible for the nutritional, hygienic, and aromatic qualities of the product. Wine is no exception. Substantial yeast and bacterial biodiversity is observed on grapes, and in both must and wine. The diverse microorganisms present interact throughout the winemaking process. The interactions modulate the hygienic and sensorial properties of the wine. Many studies have been conducted to elucidate the nature of these interactions, with the aim of establishing better control of the two fermentations occurring during wine processing. However, wine is a very complex medium making such studies difficult. In this review, we present the current state of research on microbial interactions in wines. We consider the different kinds of interactions between different microorganisms together with the consequences of these interactions. We underline the major challenges to obtaining a better understanding of how microbes interact. Finally, strategies and methodologies that may help unravel microbe interactions in wine are suggested.

Microbial Resources and Enological Significance: Opportunities and Benefits

“…In this light, our contribute proposes an overview of the opportunities and benefits associated with the exploitation of this microbial potential in winemaking. Considering future perspectives, the increasing number of species/strains used, often associated to new isolations from spontaneous fermentations (e.g., Garofalo et al, 2015; Garofalo et al, 2016), introduces a relevant change in terms of interspecific interactions (Ciani et al, 2016; Liu Y. et al, 2017; Tronchoni et al, 2017). A field of particular interest if we consider that different grape juices and batch volumes could influence the growth and final biomass of yeasts in mixed fermentations (Gobbi et al, 2013) and that most studies have been performed at laboratory scale without an effective validation at industrial or semi-industrial scale, questioning their applicability at cellar (Belda et al, 2016).…”

Microbial Resources and Innovation in the Wine Production Sector

“…Indeed, several non-Saccharomyces species have been proven to positively modify the wine chemical composition, contributing especially to the sensory properties of wines (Jolly et al, 2014;Oro et al, 2014;Lu et al, 2015;Petruzzi et al, 2017a). However, the growth of certain non-Saccharomyces strains in grape musts can cause the development of antagonistic interactions among yeasts and lead to an excessive accumulation of several undesirable metabolites, such as acetic acid, ethyl acetate, aldehyde and acetoin (Medina et al, 2012;Ciani et al, 2016;Liu et al, 2017), and other phenotypic properties in some cases also characteristic to S. cerevisiae strains from alcoholic beverages . Some non-Saccharomyces species even exhibit low fermentation power and rate, as well as low ethanol and SO 2 resistance (Medina et al, 2012;Tristezza et al, 2013;Alonso et al, 2015).…”

Enological Qualities and Interactions Between Native Yeast and Lactic Acid Bacteria from Queretaro, Mexico

“…Even though microbial interactions can derive from direct physical contact (predation, parasitism, symbiosis, etc. ), in wine, they mostly derive from the presence of extracellular metabolites inducing competition, mutualism, or commensalism (Liu et al., ; Nissen, Nielsen, & Arneborg, ). Because of the typical succession in winemaking (LAB after yeast), one of the most frequent outcomes is the inhibition of LAB caused by yeasts.…”

“…However, yeasts may also stimulate LAB growth, due to the amino acids and vitamins released by autolyzed cells and the bioadsorbent effect that biomass can also exert (Fleet, ; Guilloux‐Benatier, & Chassagne, ). However, LAB can inhibit yeasts by excreting proteases, glucanases, bacteriocin‐like compounds, and short chain carboxylic acids, which may degrade cell walls and/or accelerate yeast death (Bayrock, & Ingledew, ; Farías, and Manca de Nadra, ; Guilloux‐Benatier, Pageault, Man, and Feuillat, ; Halil, Ömür, Bekir, and Tahsin Faruk, ; Liu et al., ; Yurdugül, & Bozoglu, ). Recent studies have explored the interaction of commercial strains in a typical successive process (Arnink, & Henick‐Kling, ; Nehme, Mathieu, & Taillandier, ) and the possibility of simultaneous inoculation (Muñoz, Beccaria, & Abreo, ).…”