Next Article in Journal
Antiviral Activity of a Nanoemulsion of Polyprenols from Ginkgo Leaves against Influenza A H3N2 and Hepatitis B Virus in Vitro
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of a Quantitative Method for the Analysis of Chiral Monoterpenes in White Wine by HS-SPME-MDGC-MS of Different Wine Matrices
Previous Article in Journal
Docking and Antiherpetic Activity of 2-Aminobenzo[de]-isoquinoline-1,3-diones
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study of Two Table Grape Varieties with Contrasting Texture during Cold Storage
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Functional Characterization of Individual- and Mixed-Burgundian Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates for Fermentation of Pinot Noir

by
Emily Terrell
1,
Margaret A. Cliff
2,* and
Hennie J. J. Van Vuuren
1,*
1
Wine Research Centre, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
2
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2015, 20(3), 5112-5136; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20035112
Submission received: 8 January 2015 / Revised: 25 February 2015 / Accepted: 9 March 2015 / Published: 19 March 2015
(This article belongs to the Collection Wine Chemistry)

Abstract

:
Pinot noir has traditionally been fermented by native flora of multiple yeasts producing a complex combination of aromas and flavors. With the use of industrial dry yeasts, winemakers gained enological reliability and consistency in their wines, but lost diversity and complexity. This research evaluated the use of co-culturing yeasts to fulfill this dual role. Fermentations of Burgundian Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolates and their mixtures were evaluated for their enological characteristics and production of volatile compounds, at 22 °C and 27 °C. The novel isolates were genetically unique and enologically equivalent to the industrial strains. Analysis of variance and principal component analysis of 25 headspace volatiles revealed differences among the yeasts and between the fermentation temperatures. Wines from the mixed-Burgundian isolates were most similar to one another and could be differentiated from the industrial strains at both 22 °C and 27 °C. Mixed-Burgundian wines at both temperatures had higher concentrations of ethyl esters and acetate esters, compared to the industrial strains which had higher concentrations of higher alcohols at 27 °C and higher concentration of other ethyl esters at 22 °C. Given the unique profiles of the co-cultured wines, this research offers winemakers a strategy for producing wines with unique and more complex characters without the risk of spontaneous fermentations.

1. Introduction

Pinot noir is well known as one of the most complex and revered red wine grape varietals. As Pinot noir’s popularity grows, there is an increasing demand for fermentation products designed to promote varietal-specific aromas and flavors as well as the complexity that some wine aficionados believe has deteriorated with the widespread use of single commercial yeast starter cultures. Recent advances in wine biotechnology may provide the best of both worlds: yeast products that perform enologically yet produce premium Pinot noirs redolent of the finest Old World techniques.
This search for premium yeast products has gone in several directions: (i) some scientists have utilized modern biotechnology and developed genetically modified yeast strains [1], (ii) others have captured the beneficial aspects of traditional spontaneous fermentation using mixed strain fermentations [2,3,4,5] and (iii) yet others have worked with native yeasts, not necessarily in spontaneous or mixed cultures to improve the aroma/flavor of fermented foods [6]. In such cases, novel yeast products must not only possess unique genetic traits or provide exceptional complexity, but must also meet the wine yeast phenotypic expectations that have evolved over the past 50 years of wine research. These enological traits have been grouped into two classes in the literature; technological traits that influence the efficiency of the fermentation process and qualitative traits that affect the chemical composition and the sensory profile of the finished wine [7].
The fermentation properties of wine yeast strains represent one subset of technological traits. Desirable fermentation properties include rapid initiation of fermentation, low nitrogen requirements, high fermentation efficiency, high osmotic stress tolerance, growth at high and low temperatures, moderate biomass formation and high ethanol tolerance [8]. Additional technological traits beyond fermentation properties are also desirable in wine yeast strains, including genetic stability, capacity for genetic marking, killer phenotype, low foam production, flocculation, high sulfur dioxide tolerance, low sulfur dioxide binding, compact sediment formation and resistance to desiccation and proteolytic activity [8].
Qualitative wine yeast traits directly affect the aroma or flavor of the finished wine. This encompasses the synthesis and liberation of a number of compounds, including acetaldehyde, acetic acid, sulfur compounds, higher alcohols and esters [8,9]. These compounds are currently understood to varying degrees in terms of their synthetic pathways, desirable concentrations, sensory impact and influence on other volatiles.
Despite the popularity of Pinot noir, research has not been particularly successful in elucidating the key aromatic compounds responsible for its varietal profile. Moio and Etievant [10] identified ethyl anthranilate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl 2,3-dihydrocinnamate and methyl anthranilate as important Pinot noir odourants, although subsequent quantification of these compounds in 33 Pinot noir wines by Aubry et al. [11] revealed very low average concentrations that did not exceed the known thresholds of ethyl cinnamate and methyl anthranilate in water [12]. Aside from these esters, ethyl and methyl vanillate, acetovanillone, 3-methylthio-1-propanol, 2-phenylethanol, benzyl alcohol and 3-methylbutanoic, hexanoic, octanoic, and decanoic acids have been identified as potentially important in Pinot noir wines [13]. However, the characteristic aroma of Pinot noir is due to the combination of compounds derived from the grape, produced from the microflora (yeast, bacteria) and synthesized from primary and secondary metabolites [14].
As the understanding of the yeast volatiles continue to advance, so will the development of premium fermentation products designed to capture the benefits of improved flavor or flavor complexity from yeast fermentation. One such approach has been the investigation and characterization of mixed strain and mixed species inocula.
While the contribution of non-Saccharomyces yeast species to wine production has been the topic of much research [15], only a few studies have focused on the effects of deliberately mixing S. cerevisiae strains during fermentation [16]. By mixing yeast strains known to differ in their liberation of specific thiols, King et al. [16] were able to demonstrate that the volatile thiol content and the sensory profiles of wines differed in mixed S. cerevisiae culture beyond the effects of each individual yeast strain, suggesting a synergistic effect. Another study by Howell et al. [17] confirmed that the unique volatile profiles created by mixing S. cerevisiae strains during wine fermentation cannot be replicated by fermenting each strain individually and then blending the resulting wines. These findings, along with the simultaneous isolation of a number of novel S. cerevisiae strains from a premium vineyard in Burgundy led to the hypothesis that fermenting Pinot noir grape must with mixed ratios of these Burgundian isolates will result in unique volatile profiles that may be unique and/or more complex than those associated with fermentation by industrial or individual-Burgundian yeasts of S. cerevisiae.
To this end, research was undertaken: (i) to document the genetic uniqueness of the three new Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) using genetic fingerprinting and phenotype characterization, (ii) to demonstrate that these isolates were enologically equivalent to industrial yeast strains for winemaking and (iii) to compare the volatile profiles of Pinot noir wines fermented individually and in mixtures to industrial strains fermented at 22 °C and 27 °C.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Genetic and Phenotypic Characterization of Wine Yeast Strains

Genetic and phenotypic characterization revealed the genetic uniqueness of the Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) and their compatibility with one another in mixed culture fermentations. PCR-based genetic fingerprinting [18] differentiated the three Bugundian isolates from six industrial (commercial) strains (Figure 1). All strains had unique banding patterns except Enoferm Burgundy (BGY) and Maurivin B (MB) which were identical. Therefore, MB was excluded from further analysis (Figure 1). As such, they were genetically different from one another and would be expected to have different enological characteristics [19].
The Burgundian isolates were identified as killer positive (K+) phenotype. As such they would be expected to kill wild yeast strains, predominate in individual strain fermentations and be able to be co-cultured with one another [20,21]. The initial strain ratios for each of the mixed cultures (M1, M2, M3, M4) at 22 °C and 27 °C are shown in Figure 2a,b. Colony PCR in conjunction with δ sequence typing revealed the strain ratios at the midpoint (22 °C Figure 2c; 27 °C Figure 2d) and end (22 °C Figure 2e; 27 °C Figure 2f) of fermentation. The mixed culture M2 approximately maintained the inoculated yeast ratios at the midpoint (Figure 2c,d) and immediately following fermentation (Figure 2d,e) at 22 °C and 27 °C; whereas, the mixed culture M3 maintained the yeast ratios at 22 °C, but not at 27 °C. In contrast, mixed cultures M1 and M4 did not maintain their inoculated yeast ratios at either 22 °C or 27 °C.
Figure 1. Genetic fingerprints of three Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates (A1, A2, A3) and six industrial S. cerevisiae yeast strains [Enoferm Assmanshausen (AMH), Enoferm Burgundy (BGY), Lalvin RA17 (RA17), Lalvin Bourgorouge (RC212), Maurivin B (MB), Australian Wine Research Institute 796 (AWRI796)]. The δ sequence typing of all strains is shown relative to the 1 kilobase (kb) DNA ladder obtained from Fermentas (Thermo Fisher, Burlington, ON, Canada). Since the genetic fingerprint and fermentation data for BGY and MB were identical, MB was excluded from further analysis.
Figure 1. Genetic fingerprints of three Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates (A1, A2, A3) and six industrial S. cerevisiae yeast strains [Enoferm Assmanshausen (AMH), Enoferm Burgundy (BGY), Lalvin RA17 (RA17), Lalvin Bourgorouge (RC212), Maurivin B (MB), Australian Wine Research Institute 796 (AWRI796)]. The δ sequence typing of all strains is shown relative to the 1 kilobase (kb) DNA ladder obtained from Fermentas (Thermo Fisher, Burlington, ON, Canada). Since the genetic fingerprint and fermentation data for BGY and MB were identical, MB was excluded from further analysis.
Molecules 20 05112 g001
Interestingly, strains A1, A2 and A3 were present in all mixtures fermented at 22 °C and 27 °C, despite the tendency of strain A3 to exceed its inoculated ratio at the midpoint of the fermentation (Figure 2c,d). If a mixed-Burgundian yeast product were to be commercialized, the fermentation kinetics of the three isolates A1, A2 and A3 would need to be more thoroughly examined, both individually and in combination, in order to optimize performance.
Figure 2. Initial inoculation ratios of Pinot noir fermentations co-cultured with Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) in mixtures M1 (1:1:1), M2 (1:2:3), M3 (3:2:1), and M4 (1:3:2) at (a) 22 °C and (b) at 27 °C. Mixed strain populations at the midpoint (~6.0% v/v ethanol) (c) at 22 °C and (d) 27 °C and end of fermentation (~13.5% v/v ethanol) (e) at 22 °C and (f) at 27 °C. Yeast populations were quantified using colony PCR in conjunction with δ sequence typing on 45 colonies for each of three biological replicates.
Figure 2. Initial inoculation ratios of Pinot noir fermentations co-cultured with Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) in mixtures M1 (1:1:1), M2 (1:2:3), M3 (3:2:1), and M4 (1:3:2) at (a) 22 °C and (b) at 27 °C. Mixed strain populations at the midpoint (~6.0% v/v ethanol) (c) at 22 °C and (d) 27 °C and end of fermentation (~13.5% v/v ethanol) (e) at 22 °C and (f) at 27 °C. Yeast populations were quantified using colony PCR in conjunction with δ sequence typing on 45 colonies for each of three biological replicates.
Molecules 20 05112 g002

2.2. Enological Characterization of Wine Yeast Strains

Analyses of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated that six of the eight enological characteristics varied significantly among the yeasts (Table 1). Two characteristics, ethanol and sugar/ethanol ratio, with values of 13.39%–13.77% v/v and 0.464–0.482, respectively, were not different among the yeasts.
Glycerol production by the individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates fell within the range (8–10.5 g·L−1) associated with industrial yeasts (Table 1); this demonstrated their enological equivalence and suitability for winemaking. Wines from A1 at 22 °C, had a higher glycerol concentration than the other individual- and mixed-Burgundian wines (Table 1). Thus, this yeast would be looked upon favorably by winemakers, for glycerol increases osmotolerance and shunts carbon away from ethanol production [22].
In contrast, the individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates produced amongst the lowest acetic acid concentrations, with the commercial strain BGY producing the highest concentrations at both 22 °C and 27 °C (Table 1). However all concentrations were below the red wine aroma detection threshold (0.6–0.9 g·L−1) [23] and beneath the US legal limit of 1.2 g·L−1. Therefore, all isolates and their mixtures were acceptable for commercial winemaking.
Ethanol tolerance of all yeast strains was within a single percentage point of one another at 22 °C (18.15%–18.90% v/v) and 27 °C (17.35%–17.75% v/v) (Table 1). Two industrial strains (AMH, BGY) were markedly less tolerant than the other yeast strains, producing 17.68 and 18.21% (v/v) ethanol at 22 °C, and 15.42 and 16.33% (v/v) ethanol at 27 °C, respectively. At both temperatures, the individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates had intermediate ethanol tolerances, reflecting that they were enologically similar to the industrial strains.
Final optical density (growth phenotype) of the yeasts revealed that the Burgundian isolate (A1), and its mixtures (M1–M4), showed aberrant overall growth pattern (Table 1), with a complete scattering of OD measurements upon reaching the stationary phase due to flocculation. Flocculation of yeast cells is considered desirable in winemaking [8] for it allows for easier exclusion of yeast sediment during racking [24]. This characteristic could be particularly important for the production of premium unfiltered red wines. In contrast, BGY had a visibly longer lag phase at 27 °C; this was somewhat undesirable for it would allow other yeasts to establish and potentially dominate the fermentation. Interestingly, Enoferm Assmanshausen (AMH) reached only 75% of the final cell density of the other strains (Table 1), which were similar. Based on growth phenotype, the Burgundian isolates and their mixtures were considered enologically equivalent, as long as the late flocculation of strain A1 could be manageable in the cellar.
Foam production of the Burgundian isolates (22 °C, 15.7–16.3 mm; 27 °C, 20.3–32.3 mm) fell within the range produced by the industrial strains (22 °C, 9.7–34.0 mm; 27 °C, 7.3–28.0 mm) (Table 1), with the individual-Burgundian isolates (A1, A2) producing foam at the higher end of this range. While they did not differ significantly from two industrial strains (BGY, RC212), further investigations would be necessary to assess their foam production in other musts and to establish the necessary tank requirements [24].
Table 1. Mean a,b enological characteristics (glycerol, acetic acid, ethanol tolerance, final optical density, foam height, sulfur dioxide) for Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
Table 1. Mean a,b enological characteristics (glycerol, acetic acid, ethanol tolerance, final optical density, foam height, sulfur dioxide) for Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
YeastGlycerol (g·L−1)p cAcetic Acid (g·L−1)pEthanol Tolerance dp
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH8.79 d10.02 d***0.124 b0.187 cde***17.68 a15.42 a***
AWRI7969.34 e10.64 e*0.132 c0.179 bcd*18.30 bc17.66 ef**
BGY8.80 d9.65 bcd**0.337 j0.411 h**18.21 b16.32 b***
RA178.43 bc9.31 ab*0.224 h0.292 g***18.56 cd17.59 e***
RC2127.94 a9.12 a**0.246 i0.250 fns18.90 e17.58 e***
Individual BurgundianA18.49 bcd9.25 a**0.119 a0.142 a**18.20 b17.56 de***
A29.19 e9.63 bc**0.209 g0.240 f*18.73 de17.35 c***
A38.44 bc9.41 ab***0.135 c0.167 b*18.15 b17.42 cd***
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)8.37 b9.33 ab***0.147 d0.187 cde**18.55 cd17.75 f***
M2 (1:2:3)8.46 bc9.85 cd**0.160 e0.194 dens18.40 bc17.64 ef***
M3 (3:2:1)8.48 bcd9.37 ab**0.149 d0.171 bc**18.57 cd17.72 ef***
M4 (1:3:2)8.72 cd9.65 bcd**0.177 f0.200 e**18.50 cd17.75 f*
Range7.94–9.349.12–10.64 0.119–0.3370.142–0.411 17.68–18.7315.42–17.75
YeastFinal Optical Density epFoam Height f (mm)pSulfur Dioxide f (mg·L−1)p
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH1.494 a1.667 a**9.7 a7.3 ans15.0 ab12.5 abns
AWRI7961.938 d1.914 bcns10.0 a18.0 b*9.2 a12.1 abns
BGY1.658 b1.841 bns34.0 b28.0 dens9.9 a6.4 ans
RA171.931 d1.992 c***13.3 a20.3 bc**24.8 c50.3 f**
RC2121.940 d1.989 c*16.3 a24.0 cdns36.5 d28.4 cdns
Individual BurgundianA1n/an/a 16.0 a28.3 dens26.1 c40.9 ef***
A21.819 c1.831 bns15.7 a32.3 e***32.6 d30.4 dens
A31.861 cd1.979 c**16.3 a20.3 bcns20.6 bc18.2 bcns
Mixed BurgundianM1-M4n/an/a n/an/a n/an/a
Range1.494–1.9381.667–1.992 9.7–34.07.3–32.3 9.2–36.56.4–50.3
a The mean values of the biological replicates of each yeast strain were shown (n = 3). b Yeast strain means not sharing the same subscript are significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different at each temperature. c ns, *, **, *** indicates non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, for temperature effects. d Ethanol tolerance (% v/v) was defined as the ethanol produced from a high sugar must. e The final optical density (A600) of A1 was not available (n/a) due to complete light scattering due to flocculation. f Foam height and sulfur dioxide concentrations were assessed using additional fermentations.
Although sulfur dioxide production is generally not considered a selection criterion for wine yeasts, over abundance could inhibit the growth or cause stuck malolactic fermentations. Yeast strains in this research produced SO2 concentrations in the range of 10–50 mg·L−1 (Table 1). Although this was slightly higher than the usual (10–30 mg·L−1), it was believed attributed to the need to use a nutrient-poor synthetic grape must. Interestingly, the individual Burgundian isolates produced more SO2 than AMH, AWRI796, and BGY, but similar concentrations to Lalvin RA17 (RA17) and Lalvin Bourgorouge RC212 (RC212) (Table 1). The sulfur dioxide produced by the Burgundian isolates would not be expected to adversely impact malolactic fermentations, for most O. oeni strains can tolerate 15 mg·L−1 free- and 60–100 mg·L−1 total SO2, To verify this, assays were conducted to quantify malic acid consumption and lactic acid production for the Pinot noir fermentations (data not shown). Wines produced by the Burgundian strains completed malolactic fermentation as expected and had similar malic and lactic acid concentrations as the majority of the commercial strains. Therefore the Burgundian strains were considered enologically equivalent.

2.3. Analysis of Volatile Compounds

GC-MS of the headspace volatile compounds of Pinot noir wines revealed 25 quantifiable compounds. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences among the yeasts for nine higher alcohols (Table 2), seven ethyl esters (Table 3) and five acetate esters, two aldehydes, one acid and one acetal (Table 4) at 22 °C and 27 °C, except for 1-hexanol at 27 °C (Table 3), phenylethanol at 27 °C (Table 2) and hexyl acetate at 22 °C (Table 4). While differences for a particular yeast were really apparent, differences among the classes of yeast (industrial, individual- and mixed-Burgundian) were not. As such, it was desirable to use a multivariate statistical tool, principal component analysis (PCA), in order to extract the pattern of volatiles among the yeasts and between the temperatures. PCA allowed all 25 volatiles (higher alcohols, ethyl esters, acetate esters, aldehydes, acid, acetal) to be considered together.
Principal components (PC) 1, 2 and 3 explained 28.4%, 23.2%, and 14.9% of the variation in the data set, respectively (Figure 3), with the vector loadings for the volatile compounds provided in Table 5. Volatile compounds with loadings greater than 1.2 were considered ‘heavily loaded’ and accounted for the majority of the variation among the yeasts.
Wines were clearly grouped according to their fermentation temperature (22 °C, 27 °C) (Figure 3), but yeast groups were more difficult to discern in a three-dimensional plot. Therefore, two-dimensional plots (Figure 4a–c) were prepared showing PC 1 vs PC 2 (Figure 4a), PC 2 versus PC 3 (Figure 4b) and PC 1 versus PC 3 (Figure 4c).
In Figure 4a, PC 1 was most heavily loaded in the positive direction with five ethyl esters (ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl laurate, ethyl decanoate) and three acetate esters (ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, isoamyl acetate), as denoted by the high positive PC 1 values (Table 5). PC 1 was most heavily loaded in the negative direction with three higher alcohols (2-methyl-1-butanol, phenylethanol, 1-hexanol), as denoted by the negative PC 2 values (Table 5). Wine located on the lower left hand side of the plot (Figure 4a), such as the industrial wines fermented at 27 °C, had higher concentrations of these higher alcohols, while the remaining wines located on the right hand side of the plot (Figure 4a), had higher concentrations of the aforementioned ethyl and acetate esters.
Table 2. Higher alcohols (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
Table 2. Higher alcohols (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
Yeast1,3-butanediolp c2,3-butanediolp2-methyl-1-butanolp
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH3.150 bcde7.216 e*0.929 bcde2.001 e*1.693 a2.024 ans
AWRI7962.651 abcde5.585 cd**0.854 abcd1.497 cd*2.089 bcd2.416 bcdns
BGY2.773 abcde4.336 ab**0.913 bcde1.213 abc**2.433 ef2.481 cdns
RA173.359 de5.219 bcd*1.000 cde1.405 bcd*1.951 ab2.392 bcdns
RC2122.392 abcd3.886 a***0.773 abc1.050 a**2.053 bc2.674 d**
Individual BurgundianA12.112 a4.226 ab***0.669 a1.166 ab***2.357 def2.282 abcns
A22.317 abc4.663 abc**0.790 abc1.322 abcd**2.315 cdef2.140 abns
A32.239 ab3.818 a***0.748 ab1.057 a***2.090 bcd2.074 ans
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)3.610 e5.893 d*1.110 e1.524 dns2.306 cdef2.309 abcns
M2 (1:2:3)3.554 e5.801 d*1.087 de1.549 d*2.265 cde2.484 cd*
M3 (3:2:1)3.234 cde5.734 cd**0.977 bcde1.510 cd**2.330 cdef2.278 abcns
M4 (1:3:2)3.575 e5.187 bcd*1.075 de1.343 abcdns2.580 f2.299 abcns
Range2.112–3.6513.818–7.216 0.669–1.1101.050–2.001 1.693–2.5802.024–2.674
Yeast3-methyl-1-butanolpButanolp1-hexanolp
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH8.229 a9.309 ans0.185 cd0.270 cd***2.206 ab2.520ns
AWRI7969.840 bcd10.815 bcdns0.169 bc0.317 e***2.413 abc2.354ns
BGY10.949 de11.003 cdns0.169 bc0.212 a*2.649 cd2.448ns
RA179.486 b11.004 cdns0.157 ab0.225 ab**2.164 a2.275ns
RC2129.605 bc11.843 d*0.263 f0.517 f***2.214 ab2.600ns
Individual BurgundianA111.518 e10.888 bcdns0.147 a0.227 ab***2.499 bc2.096*
A210.736 cde9.745 ab*0.208 e0.280 cd*2.497 abc2.110*
A39.921 bcd9.360 ans0.189 cde0.290 de***2.351 abc2.005*
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)10.693 bcde10.648 bcdns0.184 cd0.271 cd***2.54 bcd2.171ns
M2 (1:2:3)10.492 bcde11.197 cd*0.194 de0.254 bc*2.487 abc2.393ns
M3 (3:2:1)10.828 cde10.541 abcns0.171 bc0.272 cd***2.533 bcd2.151ns
M4 (1:3:2)11.712 e10.209 abcns0.203 de0.261 cd*2.841 d2.187*
Range8.229–11.7129.309–11.843 0.169–0.2630.227–0.317 2.164–2.8412.005–2.600
YeastIsobutanolpPhenylethanolpPropanolp
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH31.380 a28.825 ans0.472 a0.827**12.845 f11.804 ens
AWRI79650.592 bc53.129 bns0.709 cd0.783ns11.198 de12.111 ens
BGY71.731 d72.157 dns0.680 bcd0.829ns8.654 ab7.456 ans
RA1753.548 bc66.743 cdns0.565 ab0.745ns8.179 a7.837 abns
RC21272.158 d110.846 f**0.570 ab0.732*8.221 a9.086 cdns
Individual BurgundianA162.119 cd87.520 e**0.652 bc0.672ns13.487 f14.164 fns
A244.142 b55.413 bns0.623 bc0.618ns9.555 bc9.217 cdns
A343.416 ab51.732 b*0.632 bc0.641ns8.815 ab7.767 ab*
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)58.954 c56.836 bcns0.645 bc0.682ns10.984 de9.908 dns
M2 (1:2:3)56.976 c56.554 bcns0.636 bc0.746ns9.989 c8.589 bcns
M3 (3:2:1)60.020 cd58.112 bcns0.713 cd0.661ns11.775 e11.122 ens
M4 (1:3:2)53.698 bc51.769 bns0.804 d0.673ns10.258 cd8.380 abc**
Range31.380–72.15828.825–87.520 0.472–0.8040.661–0.829 8.179–12.8457.456–14.164
a the mean values of the biological replicates of each yeast strain were shown (n = 3). b yeast strain means not sharing the same subscript are significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different at each temperature. c ns, *, **, *** indicates non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, for temperature effects.
Table 3. Ethyl esters (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
Table 3. Ethyl esters (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
YeastEthyl butanoatep cEthyl decanoatepEthyl hexanoatep
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH2.689 ab1.707 a***0.031 d0.020 ab**0.060 d0.040 ab***
AWRI7963.232 cde2.327 bcns0.025 cd0.024 abcns0.059 cd0.043 bcd*
BGY2.368 a2.193 abcns0.021 bc0.017 ans0.046 ab0.036 a*
RA172.862 bcd2.180 abc***0.022 bc0.024 abcns0.051 abc0.041 abc**
RC2123.181 cde2.116 abc*0.024 c0.023 abcns0.052 abc0.040 abcns
Individual BurgundianA13.262 de3.131 ens0.025 cd0.034 e*0.054 cd0.050 dns
A22.286 a2.107 abns0.015 ab0.031 cde***0.046 ab0.046 cdns
A33.387 e2.893 de*0.023 c0.026 bcdens0.053 bcd0.041 abc**
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)3.275 de3.080 ens0.024 c0.030 cdens0.054 cd0.048 dns
M2 (1:2:3)3.316 e2.626 cdens0.024 c0.024 abcns0.053 bcd0.042 abcns
M3 (3:2:1)3.252 de3.117 ens0.025 cd0.033 dens0.054 cd0.050 dns
M4 (1:3:2)2.826 bc2.494 bcdns0.013 a0.025 bcdns0.045 a0.041 abcns
Range2.368–3.3161.707–3.131 0.013–0.0310.017–0.034 0.045–0.0600.036–0.050
YeastEthyl lactatepEthyl lauratepEthyl octanoatep
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH0.548 a0.682 b*0.006 def0.004 a**0.068 d0.035 a***
AWRI7960.847 ab0.882 cdns0.007 ef0.008b cdns0.053 bc0.040 abns
BGY1.773 c0.671 bns0.004 bcd0.004 ans0.046 abc0.033 ans
RA170.631 ab0.726 bns0.004 abc0.005 abns0.047 abc0.040 abns
RC2120.753 ab0.939 d**0.005 cd0.006 abns0.046 abc0.035 ans
Individual BurgundianA10.973 b0.936 dns0.007 f0.009 cd**0.057 cd0.052 cdns
A20.749 ab0.671 bns0.002 ab0.007 bc**0.043 ab0.052 cd***
A30.724 ab0.719 bns0.004 abc0.006 ab*0.055 bc0.040 ab*
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)0.817 abnot quantifiable ***0.005 cd0.009 d*0.057 cd0.048 bcdns
M2 (1:2:3)0.780 ab0.799 bcns0.004 cd0.007 bcdns0.056 cd0.040 abns
M3 (3:2:1)0.857 ab0.766 bcns0.005 cde0.009 d*0.057 cd0.055 dns
M4 (1:3:2)0.902 ab0.698 bns0.002 a0.006 b*0.036 a0.042 abcns
Range0.548–1.7730.671–0.939 0.002–0.0070.004–0.009 0.036–0.0680.035–0.055
YeastEthyl palmitatep
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH0.045 a0.054 ans
AWRI7960.118 ef0.133 dns
BGY0.072 abc0.083 bns
RA170.068 abc0.101 bc*
RC2120.103 def0.143 dns
Individual BurgundianA10.123 f0.145 dns
A20.056 ab0.101 bc*
A30.090 cde0.101 bcns
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)0.105 ef0.139 dns
M2 (1:2:3)0.108 ef0.120 cdns
M3 (3:2:1)0.114 ef0.127 cdns
M4 (1:3:2)0.077 bcd0.090 bns
Range0.045–0.1230.054–0.133
a the mean values of the biological replicates of each yeast strain were shown (n = 3). b yeast strain means not sharing the same subscript are significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different at each temperature. c ns, *, **, *** indicates non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, for the temperature effects.
Table 4. Acetate esters, aldehydes, acid and acetal (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented by industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
Table 4. Acetate esters, aldehydes, acid and acetal (mg·L−1) a,b in Pinot noir fermented by industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates, at 22 °C and 27 °C. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively. For each determination, strain and temperature effects are shown with subscripts and p values, respectively.
YeastEthyl acetatepcHexyl acetatepIsoamyl acetatep
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH10.039 bc8.968 abns0.0290.017 ans0.203 abcd0.148 ans
AWRI7969.889 bc10.191 bcd**0.0220.020 abns0.188 abc0.213 bcdns
BGY10.083 bc9.636 abcns0.0160.018 ans0.171 a0.184 abcns
RA179.944 bc10.111 bcd*0.0270.027 abcdns0.228 bcd0.255 defns
RC2128.824 a8.615 ans0.0220.016 ans0.190 abc0.178 abns
Individual BurgundianA110.467 c11.271 dens0.0240.036 dns0.235 cd0.320 g*
A29.335 ab10.342 bcd*0.0150.033 cd***0.167 a0.267 defg***
A310.077 bc9.342 abns0.0250.025 abcdns0.211 abcd0.222 bcdns
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)10.613 c11.471 dens0.0270.030 bcdns0.234 cd0.291 efgns
M2 (1:2:3)10.850 c10.994 cde*0.0270.020 abns0.237 d0.225 bcdns
M3 (3:2:1)10.599 c11.807 ens0.0270.032 cdns0.241 d0.305 fgns
M4 (1:3:2)10.360 c9.751 abcns0.0160.024 abcns0.182 ab0.241 cdens
Range8.824–10.8508.615–11.807 0.016–0.0290.016–0.033 0.167–0.2410.148–0.320
YeastIsobutyl acetatepMethyl acetatepAcetaldehydep
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH0.00091 a0.00071 a**0.889 a0.784 ans1.026 cd0.967 bcdns
AWRI7960.00105 ab0.00137 bns1.245 cd1.041 bcns0.504 a0.614 a*
BGY0.00148 de0.00187 cdns1.105 bc1.077 bcns0.670 a0.690 abns
RA170.00125 bcd0.00194 cdens0.996 ab0.932 abns1.339 e1.357 efns
RC2120.00158 e0.00202 cde**1.304 d1.126 cdns0.871 bc0.803 abns
Individual BurgundianA10.00155 e0.00286 fns1.311 d1.175 cdens0.839 b0.947 bcdns
A20.00096 a0.00165 bc**0.946 a1.017 bcns0.979 bcd1.156 cdens
A30.00111 abc0.00159 bcns1.196 cd1.006 bc*0.901 bcd0.737 abns
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)0.00133 cde0.00215 de**1.183 cd1.252 dens0.923 bcd1.377 ef***
M2 (1:2:3)0.00133 cde0.00176 bcd*1.198 cd1.335 ens1.009 cd1.538 fns
M3 (3:2:1)0.00140 de0.00235 e**1.192 cd1.333 ens1.049 d1.245 defns
M4 (1:3:2)0.00104 ab0.00166 bcns1.172 cd1.065 bcns0.937 bcd0.939 bcns
Range0.0009–0.001550.00071–0.00235 0.889–1.3110.784–1.335 0.504–1.3390.737–1.538
YeastBenzaldehydepAcetic acidp1,1-diethoxyacetalp
Strain or Isolate22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C22 °C27 °C
IndustrialAMH0.029 ab0.056 abcd*0.387 a0.427 abns2.833 b3.357 dns
AWRI7960.056 fg0.061 bcdefns0.394 a0.375 a**2.049 a2.364 bns
BGY0.045 de0.056 abcd*0.662 b0.658 cdns1.885 a2.808 cns
RA170.063 g0.068 fns0.450 a0.864 dns4.677 e4.827 fns
RC2120.050 ef0.063 def**0.480 a0.693 cdns3.210 bcd2.750 cns
Individual BurgundianA10.034 bc0.055 abc***0.332 a0.586 bcns3.303 bcd3.569 dns
A20.026 a0.053 ab**0.439 a0.347 ans3.362 bcd3.336 dns
A30.025 a0.052 a***0.356 a0.847 dns3.169 bc2.373 bns
Mixed BurgundianM1 (1:1:1)0.039 cd0.064 ef***0.445 a0.726 cdns3.294 bcdnot quantifiable ns
M2 (1:2:3)0.037 cd0.062 cde**0.415 a0.533 abc**3.780 cdnot quantifiable ns
M3 (3:2:1)0.043 de0.057 abc*0.342 a0.586 bc**3.909 d4.163 ens
M4 (1:3:2)0.050 ef0.059 abcns0.383 a0.629 bc*3.601 cd3.498 dns
Range0.029–0.0630.052–0.068 0.332–0.6620.347–0.864 1.885–4.6772.364–4.827
a the mean values of the biological replicates of each yeast strain were shown (n = 3). b yeast strain means not sharing the same subscript are significantly (p ≤ 0.05) different at each temperature. c ns, *, **, *** indicates non-significant and significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively, for temperature effects.
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) of the mean concentration of 25 volatile compounds (nine higher alcohols, seven ethyl esters, five acetate esters, two aldehydes, one acid, one acetal) in Pinot noir, fermented using five industrial strains, three individual- and four mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates in triplicate, at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red).
Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) of the mean concentration of 25 volatile compounds (nine higher alcohols, seven ethyl esters, five acetate esters, two aldehydes, one acid, one acetal) in Pinot noir, fermented using five industrial strains, three individual- and four mixed-Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates in triplicate, at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red).
Molecules 20 05112 g003
Two of the mixed-Burgundian isolate wines from M1 and M2 were positioned particularly low in the plane (Figure 4a), with extremely high positive PC 1 and negative PC 2 values (Table 5); these wines had very much higher concentration of 1,3-butanediol and 2,3-butandiol (Table 2) and benzaldehyde (Table 4). A separation of the wines by temperature can also be seen in Figure 4b. Wines fermented at 22 °C and 27 °C were grouped diagonally across the plot, primarily located in the under right and lower left, respectively. Those in the upper right (+PC 2, +PC 3) (Table 5) had higher concentrations of ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate and ethyl octanoate (Table 3), while those in the lower left (PC 2, PC 3) (Table 5) had higher concentrations of 2,3-butanediol and 1,3-butanediol (Table 2), benzaldehyde (Table 4) and acetic acid (Table 4).
Wines on the right hand side were further differentiated along PC 2, in the upper (+PC 2) and lower (PC 2) quadrants. Wines from the industrial stains and the individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates fermented at 22 °C, were located primarily in quadrant 1 (Figure 4a) with positive PC 1 and PC 2 values (Table 5). These wines had higher concentration of three ethyl esters (ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate) (Table 3). Many of the wines fermented with the individual- and most of the mixed-Burgundian isolates at 27 °C were located in quadrant 4 (Figure 4a) with positive PC 1 and negative PC 2 values (Table 5). These wines had higher concentrations of three ethyl esters (ethyl laurate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl palmitate) (Table 3), five acetate esters (methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, isoamyl acetate) (Table 4), as well as acetaldehyde (Table 4).
Figure 4. Principal component analysis (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) of the mean concentration of 25 volatile compounds in Pinot noir, fermented using five industrial yeast strains (squares), three individual-Burgundian (circles) and four mixed-Burgundian (triangles) S. cerevisiae isolates in triplicate, at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red) (a) plot of PC 1 versus PC 2 (b) plot of PC 1 versus PC 2 and (c) plot of PC 1 versus PC 3. Ellipses drawn around wine fermented with industrial strains (dashed lines) and mixed-Burgundian isolates (solid lines), at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red), are to aid in discussion only.
Figure 4. Principal component analysis (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) of the mean concentration of 25 volatile compounds in Pinot noir, fermented using five industrial yeast strains (squares), three individual-Burgundian (circles) and four mixed-Burgundian (triangles) S. cerevisiae isolates in triplicate, at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red) (a) plot of PC 1 versus PC 2 (b) plot of PC 1 versus PC 2 and (c) plot of PC 1 versus PC 3. Ellipses drawn around wine fermented with industrial strains (dashed lines) and mixed-Burgundian isolates (solid lines), at 22 °C (green) and 27 °C (red), are to aid in discussion only.
Molecules 20 05112 g004
Table 5. Identification and principal component analysis factor loadings (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) for 25 volatile compounds in the headspace of Pinot noir, fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates.
Table 5. Identification and principal component analysis factor loadings (PC 1, PC 2, PC 3) for 25 volatile compounds in the headspace of Pinot noir, fermented with industrial strains and individual- and mixed-Burgundian isolates.
Quadrant in Figure 4aVolatile CompoundVolatile ClassLoading a PC 1 (x) 28.4%Loading a PC 2 (y) 23.2%Loading a PC 3 (z) 14.9%Temperature that volatile predominates
1PropanolHigher alcohol1.100.201.02Inconclusive
1Ethyl octanoateEthyl ester2.111.250.7222 °C
1Ethyl hexanoateEthyl ester1.761.441.2922 °C
1Ethyl butanoateEthyl ester1.860.621.7422 °C
11,1-DiethyoxyacetalAcetal0.170.820.1022 °C
32,3-ButanediolHigher alcohol−0.03−1.98−1.9327 °C
3IsobutanolHigher alcohol−0.24−1.351.8327 °C
3ButanolHigher alcohol−0.42−1.70−0.4927 °C
33-Methyl-1-butanolHigher alcohol−0.88−1.692.3827 °C
32-Methyl-1-butanolHigher alcohol−1.19−1.881.9627 °C
3PhenylethanolHigher alcohol−1.23−1.860.7027 °C
31-HexanolHigher alcohol−1.62−0.232.07Inconclusive
3Ethyl lactateEthyl ester−0.80−0.032.09Inconclusive
3BenzaldehydeAldehyde−0.03−2.22−1.0927 °C
3Acetic acidAcid−0.14−1.88−1.0827 °C
41,3-ButanediolHigher alcohol0.10−2.10−1.9727 °C
4Ethyl laurateEthyl ester1.93−1.460.0027 °C
4Ethyl decanoateEthyl ester2.35−0.43−0.4127 °C
4Ethyl palmitateEthyl ester1.00−1.871.4827 °C
4Methyl acetateAcetate ester1.01−0.962.4527 °C
4Ethyl acetateAcetate ester1.95−0.960.7327 °C
4Hexyl acetateAcetate ester2.45−0.02−0.51Inconclusive
4Isobutyl acetateAcetate ester1.36−1.890.4227 °C
4Isoamyl acetateAcetate ester2.31−0.95−0.0727 °C
4AcetaldehydeAldehyde1.10−0.90−1.1227 °C
a coordinates in bold font, with absolute values greater than 1.2, were most heavily loaded.
The mixed-Burgundian isolates formed smaller tighter subsets within the larger groupings (Figure 4b), suggesting that they were more similar to one another than to the remaining wines. Such findings are consistent with Saberi et al. (2012) [5] who also reported that co-cultured wines were more similar to one another than to industrial strains. The similarity of mixed-Burgundian strain wines was also evident in Figure 4c. Wine fermented with the mixed-Burgundian at 22 °C (+PC 1, +PC 3) (Table 5) had higher concentrations of ethyl esters (ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl palmitate) (Table 3) and acetate esters (methyl acetate, ethyl acetate) (Table 4). In contrast the mixed-Burgundian wines at 27 °C (+PC 1, PC 3) (Table 5) had higher concentrations of acetate esters (hexyl acetate, isobutyl acetate and isoamyl acetate) (Table 4) and 1,3-butanediol (Table 2). Close examination of the volatiles produced from the individual-Burgundian isolates (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) revealed that the yeast with the lowest production at 22 °C was not necessarily the yeasts with the lowest production at 27 °C (higher alcohols, Table 2; ethyl esters, Table 3; acetate esters/aldedhydes/acid/acetal, Table 4). This suggested that the strain differences, while significant, may be subtle compared to the magnitude of the temperature differences. For example, the low concentration of 3-methyl-1-butanol in the co-cultured wine M2 at 22 °C (10.49 mg·L−1, Table 2) reflected the concentration associated with the low producer A3 (9.921 mg·L−1, Table 2). Similarly, the low concentrations of ethyl butanoate (2.826 mg·L−1, Table 3) and ethyl acetate (0.00104 mg·L−1, Table 4) in M4 at 22 °C were consistent with the concentrations produced by the dominant yeast A2 (ethyl butanoate, 2.286 mg·L−1, Table 3; ethyl acetate 0.00096 mg·L−1, Table 4). Such results were consistent with the inoculation and fermentation ratios (Figure 2) and are a testament to the fact that co-cultured yeasts can be used to significantly modify the headspace volatiles of a wine. Such trends were not as readily apparent at 27 °C, in part due to the fact that the inoculation ratios were not as well maintained at this temperature.
The volatile compositions of the wine from the mixed-Burgundian isolates were unattainable by any single industrial yeast strain. Although the compound 2,3-butanediol may be present at relatively high concentrations (Table 2) [25], its contribution to wine aroma is somewhat elusive given its high detection threshold (150 mg·L−1) [26]. Similarly, propanol’s contribution to wine aroma is unclear [27]. However, it shows an inverse correlation with hydrogen sulfide [28], suggesting that wines from mixed-Burgundian isolates may have a lower propensity to sulfur flaws.
While the higher alcohols (1-hexanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-methyl-1-butanol) can contribute to wine quality at low concentrations (~300 mg·L−1), they can detract from wine quality at high concentrations (~400 mg·L−1) [29]. In the context of this study, it is difficult to determine whether the increased in concentration of these higher alcohols for the mixed-Burgundian isolates represents a positive, negative, or negligible impact on the sensory properties of the wine. Nevertheless, the differences in higher alcohol production and the unique combination of higher alcohols in wines fermented with mixed-Burgundian yeasts could indicate the future potential of mixed strain yeast products.
The industrial strains and mixed-Burgundian isolates at 27 °C had a propensity to produce slightly more ethyl esters during fermentation (Table 3). Esters are particularly important to wine aroma for they can be perceived sensorially. Although Ferreira et al. [30] suggests that acetate and ethyl esters may only play a modulatory role in red wine aroma, their contribution would be expected to be dependent on the style of red wine, particularly if the Pinot noir was prepared without skin contact as in this research Howell et al. [17] identified that co-culturing wines produced volatile profiles that could not be replicated by fermenting each strain individually, or by blending the wines from single cultures. This suggests that co-cultured yeasts may be sharing metabolites [31] and creating unique volatile profiles that are more than the sum of their parts. King et al. [16] reported that consumers, who were familiar with the higher priced wines, preferred wines that had been co-cultured with two yeast strains. Such findings are consistent with Saberi et al. [5] and Grossman et al. [32] who report that co-cultured wines had intermediate concentrations of odor active compounds and were perceived as more complex, respectively. As such the isolates evaluated in this research offer winemakers an opportunity to produce wines with unique and/or more complex characters.

3. Experimental Section

3.1. Yeast and Bacterial Strains Employed

Three novel S. cerevisiae strains (A1, A2, A3) were isolated in 2007 from a vineyard in Burgundy France and preserved in 15% glycerol/yeast peptone dextrose (YPD) broth at −80 °C. These isolates were compared to five commercially available S. cerevisiae strains, which were recommended for Pinot noir fermentation. The industrial strains Enoferm Assmanshausen (AMH), Enoferm Burgundy (BGY), Lalvin RA17 (RA17) and Lalvin Bourgorouge RC212 (RC212) were purchased as active dry yeast from Lallemand Inc. (Rexdale, ON, Canada); whereas Australian Wine Research Institute 796 (AWRI796) was obtained as an agar slant from Mauri Yeast Australia (Sydney, Australia).Yeast for the killer phenotyping assay, S. cerevisiae wine strains EC 1118 and UCD 522 (Montrachet), were obtained from freezer stocks maintained by the van Vuuren laboratory. The malolactic O. oeni bacterial strain Lalvin 31 was purchased from Lallemand Inc. The individual-Burgundian isolates were prepared in four mixtures (M1, M2, M3, M4) consisting of the ratios of the isolates A1, A2 and A3 as follows: 1:1:1, 1:2:3, 3:2:1 and 1:3:2, respectively.

3.2. Media and Culture Conditions

All S. cerevisiae strains were maintained as freezer stocks at −80 °C in 15% glycerol/YPD and cultured in Difco YPD broth and agar (Becton, Dickinson and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) according to standard procedures [33]. Lyophilized O. oeni was rehydrated in 50 mL of sterile distilled water for 15 min and used directly for the malolactic fermentation compatibility study.
Killer assay medium was formulated by buffering YPD agar with 50 mM dibasic phosphate and adjusting the pH to 4.2 with citric acid prior to autoclaving. Filter sterile (0.22 µm) methylene blue was added at a rate of 0.0015% w/v (adapted from van Vuuren and Wingfield [34]).
Free run Pinot noir and Chardonnay grape must (2008) were obtained from Calona Vineyards (Kelowna, BC, Canada). It had been crushed, pressed and treated with ~50 mg kg−1 sulfur dioxide, then frozen prior to shipment to the Wine Research Centre (Vancouver, BC, Canada). Pinot noir must was thawed just prior to inoculation; its composition was: 25.2 °Brix, 3.77 pH, 5.62 g·L−1 titratable acidity (TA) and 244 mg·L−1 yeast available nitrogen (YAN). Chardonnay juice was used for the growth kinetic and phenotyping assays, since a lightly colored juice was required for the spectrophotometric determinations. Chardonnay juice was sterilized using a 0.22 µm filter; its composition was: 27.0 °Brix, 3.46 pH, 5.76 g·L−1 TA and 121 mg·L−1 YAN.

3.3. Genetic Fingerprinting and Monitoring of Mixed Strains During Fermentation

S. cerevisiae strains were genetically fingerprinted with the PCR method and the primers δ12 and δ2 described in Schuller et al. [18]. S. cerevisiae strains were grown and genomic DNA was extracted [33]. A 50 µL reaction mixture was prepared, which contained 10 ng of DNA template, 1 U iProof DNA polymerase (BioRad, Mississauga, ON, Canada), 5× GC buffer, 0.5% v/v DMSO, 0.2 mM of each dNTP, and 25 pmol of each primer. After the initial denaturation at 98 °C for 3 minutes, the reaction mixture was cycled 30 times according to the following program: 98 °C for 10 s, 55 °C for 1 min, and 72 °C for 1 min, which was followed by a final elongation period at 72 °C for 10 min. The PCR products were separated by gel electrophoresis on a 1.5% agarose gel and visualized with SYBR Safe DNA gel stain (Invitrogen Inc., Burlington, ON, Canada).
Wine fermentations containing the Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) in the mixtures M1 (1:1:1), M2 (1:2:3), M3 (3:2:1), and M4 (1:3:2) were monitored with genetic fingerprinting of the individual visualized through colony PCR. Cells were harvested by centrifugation (5000 × g for 5 min) at the midpoint (9% v/v ethanol) and end (13.5% v/v ethanol) of fermentation. Cells were resuspended and diluted in sterile MilliQ water before being grown up on YPD agar plates at 30 °C for 3 d. The genetic fingerprints of 45 colonies from each replicate (n = 3) at each time point (n = 2) and temperature (n = 2) were assessed via colony PCR by substituting a small amount of colony for the DNA template in the method described above and increasing the initial denaturation period to 10 minutes.

3.4. Killer Factor Phenotyping

The killer factor phenotype was assessed in the individual-Burgundian isolates (A1, A2, A3) against the killer positive control (K+) S. cerevisiae strain EC1118, and killer negative control (K) S. cerevisiae strain UCD522. All strains were grown on YPD-agar plates for 72 h at 30 °C. Three colonies of sensitive strain AMH were picked and resuspended in sterile MilliQ water to give 5 × 108 cells mL−1; 300 µL of this suspension was spread as a lawn on a plate containing killer assay medium and allowed to dry. Colonies from each of the other strains were swabbed and spread as a thick line on top of the killer lawn. The plate was then incubated at 18 °C for 5 d (adapted from van Vuuren and Wingfield [34].

3.5. Model Fermentations—Fermentation Characteristics

S. cerevisiae freezer stocks were used to inoculate 5 mL cultures of YPD, which were grown overnight in a rotary wheel to stationary phase at 30 °C. Flasks containing 50 mL of YPD were subsequently inoculated at a rate of 5 × 105 cells mL−1 and grown aerobically in a shaker bath (180 rpm) for 24 h at 30 °C. Cells were harvested by centrifugation (5000× g for 5 min), washed with sterile MilliQ water, and resuspended in fermentation medium at a density of 5 × 108 cells mL−1. Fermentations were inoculated in biological triplicate at a rate of 2 × 106 cells mL−1. In the case of the mixed strain fermentations, yeast strains were not combined prior to inoculation of the fermentation medium. All fermentations were conducted in media bottles topped with rubber bungs and water-filled capped gas locks to ensure anaerobic conditions. Sampling occurred anaerobically by piercing the rubber bungs with 5-inch hypodermic needles (Air-Tite Products Co., Virginia Beach, VA, USA) attached to 3 mL syringes (Becton, Dickinson and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) and extracting approximately 1 mL of sample.
The primary experimental fermentations were conducted in triplicate in 900 mL of Pinot noir must at 22 °C and 27 °C, respectively, and were used to assess fermentation kinetics, ethanol, glycerol, and acetic acid production, mixed strain population dynamics, and production of volatile compounds. Sampling occurred twice daily early in the early stage, daily in the intermediate stage, and every two days in the final stage of fermentation. Ethanol production, form formation and glycerol production were measured at each time while acetic acid and the volatile compounds were assessed at the end of fermentation. Fermentation samples were vortexed, centrifuged, and filter sterilized (0.22 µm) before compounds were analysed. After sugars were depleted, 100 mg·L−1 of potassium metabisulfite was added to the wine to protect against oxidation. Samples were stored at 4 °C until GC-MS analysis. The ethanol tolerance of the various S. cerevisiae strains was assessed by fermenting each strain in biological triplicate in a high sugar must. This must was created by supplementing the Pinot noir must to 33% sugar, using equi-molar amounts of glucose and fructose (Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, ON, Canada). Fermentations were sampled initially and after the fermentations were complete (21 d) and the concentration of ethanol determined and expressed in % v/v, as described above.
Sulfur dioxide production by yeasts was assayed following the alcoholic fermentation in biological triplicate in 200 mL of synthetic juice at 22 °C and 27 °C. Sulfur dioxide was quantified in technical triplicate according to manufacturer protocols using the “Total SO2” UV test kit from R-Biopharm (Darmstadt, Germany). Unfermented synthetic juice was also assayed to ensure that it was free from sulfite contamination.
The malolactic compatibility of the strains was assessed following the alcoholic fermentation in biological triplicate in 400 mL of Pinot noir must at 22 °C. Wines were inoculated with O. oeni strain MBR 31 and fermented at 20 °C. Samples were collected and analysed for malic and lactic acids at 3–4 d intervals for 18 d.

3.6. Growth Phenotype Assay

The growth phenotypes of the yeasts were assayed in a Bioscreen C Growth Chamber (Thermo-Labsystems) in filter sterilized (0.22 µm) Chardonnay juice (Calona Vineyards). The S. cerevisiae strains were grown to stationary phase in 5 mL cultures of YPD at 30 °C in a rotary wheel, harvested by centrifugation (5000× g for 5 min) and resuspended in Chardonnay juice. The juice was then inoculated at a rate of 5 × 105 cells mL−1 and 150 µL aliquots were transferred in triplicate into a 100-well Bioscreen C optical plate (Thermo-Labsystems). The optical plate was placed in the growth chamber and grown for 96 h with continuous shaking at 22 °C and 27 °C. The OD (A600nm) was measured automatically each hour; data were compiled using the affiliated Biolink-DOS software.

3.7. Foam Production Assay

Foam production was assessed in yeasts at 22 °C and 27 °C using an assay modified from Regodón et al. [35]. Yeasts were cultured in preparation for fermentation and were inoculated into 18 × 150 mm test tubes containing 10 mL of Pinot noir juice. Foam height was monitored three times per day and the maximum height achieved was measured and recorded in millimeters.

3.8. Quantification of Compounds Using HPLC

Ethanol, glycerol and acetic acid were quantified according with an Agilent 1100 series HPLC (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) using a Supelcogel C-61OH 30 cm × 7.8 mm column (Sigma-Aldrich, Oakville, ON, Canada), an Agilent G1362A refractive index detector with positive polarity and Agilent LC-MS ChemStation revision A.09.03 software. The method consisted of a 23 min isocratic run of 0.1% phosphoric acid at 0.75 mL min−1 [36]. Peak monitoring was performed with an Agilent G1362A refractive index detector (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Concentrations were determined for each of the three replicates from the standard curves. Glycerol and acetic acid concentrations were reported in g·L−1. Ethanol concentrations were reported in percentage (v/v), in order to be consistent with units utilized by the wine industry.

3.9. Identification and Quantification of Volatile Compounds Using GC-MS

GC-MS headspace analysis was used to analyze Pinot noir wine samples according to the method of Danzer et al. [37], without solid phase microextraction (SPME) as described in Husnik et al. [1]. An Agilent 6890N GC interfaced to a 5973N Mass Selective Detector along with a 60 m × 0.25 mm ID, 0.25 µm thickness DBWAX fused silica open tubular column (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA) were used to detect and quantify volatile compounds, which were analysed with Enhanced Chemstation software (MSD Chemstation Build 75, Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and identified with the Wiley7Nist05 library (Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA).

3.10. Statistical Analyses

One-factor ANOVA with replication were used to examine the ethanol, glycerol, acetic acid, sulfur dioxide and volatile effects among the yeast strains using MS Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Differences among strains were differentiated using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) at p ≤ 0.05 and delineated using subscripts.
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to examine the patterns of 25 volatile compounds associated with the wine products from the five industrial strains and three individual- and four mixed-Burgundian isolates, at both fermentation temperatures in triplicate using Minitab 16 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). Vector coordinates were scaled by a factor of five times to aid in visualization of the data. A principal component (PC) plot was prepared for the first three dimensions (3d-plot) in Minitab 16 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). Two dimensional figures (2-d plots) of PC 1 versus PC 2, PC 2 versus PC 3 and PC 1 versus PC 3 were prepared in MS Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Ellipses were drawn on these plots around the industrial strains and mixed-Burgundian isolates as visual aids only.

4. Conclusions

This research demonstrated the three Burgundian S. cerevisiae isolates (A1, A2, A3) were genetically unique from five industrial strains (AMH, AWRI796, BGY, RA17, RC212), killer positive and compatible with malolactic bacteria. The individual- and mixed-cultures of these new isolates were demonstrated to be suitable for winemaking, since their enological characteristics fell within the range associated with the industrial strains.
ANOVA of the 25 volatile compounds (nine alcohols, seven ethyl esters, five acetate esters, two aldehydes, one acid, one acetal) revealed differed among the yeast strains. Principal component analysis revealed that the differences in the volatile profiles among the yeasts (industrial, individual- and mixed-Burgundian) were more subtle than those due to temperature. Mixed-Burgundian isolates at 22 °C and 27 °C produced lower concentrations of higher alcohols than industrial yeasts at 27 °C, creating wines with unique volatile profiles. In general, the mixed-Burgundian strain wines were more similar to one another than to the industrial strains, with higher concentrations of several ethyl ester and acetate esters. This research documented that co-culturing novel strains can produce wines with unique volatile profiles, without the risks of spontaneous fermentation. As such, a commercial multi-yeast starter culture could serve as a winemaking tool to increase wine complexity and improve wine differentiation in the marketplace. However, much research remains to be conducted to optimize performance of the co-cultured strains, understand the mechanisms of yeast-yeast interaction, evaluate the relative contribution of the strains to overall wine flavor, elucidate the volatile/non-volatile interactions, and understand the changes to volatiles during ingestion and consumption.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Lina Madilao for the GC-MS headspace analyses. This research was funded by an NSERC Discovery Grant 217271-09 to H.J.J. van Vuuren.

Author Contributions

Emily Terrell: experimental work, data analyses and manuscript preparation. Margaret Cliff: statistical analyses and manuscript preparation: Hennie J.J. van Vuuren: conceptualization, experimental work, data analyses and manuscript preparation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Husnik, J.; Delaquis, P.A.; Cliff, M.A.; van Vuuren, H.J.J. Functional analysis of the malolactic wine yeast ML01. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2007, 58, 42–52. [Google Scholar]
  2. Clemente-Jimenez, J.M.; Mingorance-Cazorla, L.; Martínez-Rodríguez, S.; Las Heras-Vázquez, F.J.; Rodríguez-Vico, F. Influence of sequential yeast mixtures on wine fermentation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005, 98, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rojas, V.; Gil, J.V.; Piñaga, F.; Manzanares, P. Acetate ester formation in wine by mixed cultures in laboratory fermentations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 86, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. King, E.S.; Swiegers, J.H.; Travis, B.; Francis, I.L.; Bastian, S.E.P.; Pretorius, I.S. Coinoculated fermentations using Saccharomyces yeasts affect the volatile composition and sensory properties of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sauvignon blanc wines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 10829–10837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Saberi, S.; Cliff, M.A.; van Vuuren, H.J.J. Impact of mixed S. cerevisiae strains on the production of volatiles and estimated sensory profiles of Chardonnay wines. Food Res. Internat. 2012, 48, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carrau, F.; Gaggero, C.; Aguilar, P.S. Yeast diversity and native vigor for flavor phenotypes. Trends Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zambonelli, C. Microbiologia e Biotecnologia dei Vini; Edagricole: Bologna, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pretorius, I.S. Tailoring wine yeast for the new millennium: Novel approaches to the ancient art of winemaking. Yeast 2000, 16, 675–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lambrechts, M.G.; Pretorius, I.S. Yeast and its importance to wine aroma—A review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 21, 97–129. [Google Scholar]
  10. Moio, L.; Etievant, P.X. Ethyl anthranilate, ethyl cinnamate, 2,3-dihydrocinnamate, and methyl anthranilate: Four important odorants identified in Pinot noir wines of Burgundy. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1995, 46, 392–398. [Google Scholar]
  11. Aubry, V.; Etievant, P.X.; Ginies, C.; Henry, R. Quantitative determination of potent flavor compounds in Burgundy Pinot noir wines using a stable isotope dilution assay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 2120–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Etievant, P.; Issanchou, S.; Bayonove, C.L. The flavor of Muscat wine: The sensory contribution of some volatile compounds. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1983, 34, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fang, Y.; Qian, M.C. Quantification of Selected Aroma-Active Compounds in Pinot noir Wines from Different Grape Maturities. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 22, 8567–8573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Styger, G.; Prior, B.; Bauer, F.F. Wine flavor and aroma. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 1145–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jolly, N.P.; Augustyn, O.P.H.; Pretorius, I.S. The role and use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in wine production. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 27, 15–39. [Google Scholar]
  16. King, E.S.; Kievit, R.L.; Curtin, C.; Swiegers, J.H.; Pretorius, I.S.; Bastian, S.E.P.; Francis, I.L. The effect of multiple yeasts co-inoculations on Sauvignon Blanc wine aroma composition, sensory properties and consumer preference. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Howell, K.S.; Cozzolino, D.; Bartowsky, E.J.; Fleet, G.H.; Henschke, P.A. Metabolic profiling as a tool for revealing Saccharomyces interactions during wine fermentation. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006, 6, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Schuller, D.; Valero, E.; Dequin, S.; Casal, M. Survey of molecular methods for the typing of wine yeast strains. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 231, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Ranieri, S.; Pretorius, I.S. Selection and improvement of wine yeasts. Ann. Microbiol. 2000, 50, 15–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. Van Vuuren, H.J.J.; Jacobs, C.J. Killer yeasts in the wine industry: A review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1992, 43, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  21. Saberi, S.; Cliff, M.A.; van Vuuren, H.J.J. Comparison of genetic and enological characteristics of new and existing S. cerevisiae strains for Chardonnay wine fermentations. Food Biotechnol. 2014, 28, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Remize, F.; Roustan, J.L.; Sablayrolles, J.M.; Barre, P.; Dequin, S. Glycerol overproduction by engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains leads to substantial changes in by-product formation and to a stimulation of fermentation rate in stationary phase. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Eglinton, J.; Henschke, P.A. The occurrence of volatile acidity in Australian wines. Aust. Grapegr. Winemaker. 1999, 426a, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  24. Arriagada-Carrazanaa, J.P.; Sáez-Navarretea, C.; Bordeu, E. Membrane filtration effects on aromatic and phenolic quality of Cabernet Sauvignon wines. J. Food Eng. 2005, 68, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Romano, P. Metabolic characteristics of wine strains during spontaneous and inoculated fermentation. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 1997, 35, 255–260. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dubois, P. Les arȏmes des vins et leurs défauts. Revue Francaise d'œnologie 1994, 145, 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rankine, B.C. Formation of higher alcohols by wine yeasts, and relationship to taste threshold. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1967, 18, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Giudici, P.; Zambonelli, C.; Kunkee, R.E. Increased production of n-propanol in wine by yeast strains having an impaired ability to form hydrogen sulfide. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1993, 44, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Clarke, R.J.; Bakker, J. Wine Flavor Chemistry; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferreira, V.; Fernández, P.; Peña, C.; Escudero, A.; Cacho, J.F. Investigation on the role played by fermentation esters in the aroma of young Spanish wines by multivariate analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1995, 67, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheraiti, N.; Guezenec, S.; Salmon, J.M. Redox interactions between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces uvarum in mixed culture under enological conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Grossman, M.; Linsemeyer, H.; Muno, H.; Rapp, A. Use of oligo-strain yeast cultures to increase complexity of wine aroma. Vitic. Enol. Sci. 1996, 51, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ausubel, F.M.; Brent, R.; Kingston, R.E.; Moore, D.D.; Seidman, J.G.; Smith, J.A.; Struhl, K. Short Protocols in Molecular Biology; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Vuuren, H.J.J.; Wingfield, B.D. Killer yeasts—The cause of stuck fermentations in a wine cellar. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 1986, 7, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  35. Regodón, J.A.; Peréz, F.; Valdés, M.E.; de Miguel, C.; Ramírez, M. A simple and effective procedure for selection of wine yeast strains. Food Microbiol. 1997, 14, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adams, C.; van Vuuren, H.J.J. The timing of diammonium phosphate addition to fermenting grape must affects the production of ethyl carbamate in wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2010, 61, 125–129. [Google Scholar]
  37. Danzer, K.; Garcia, D.D.; Thiel, G.; Reichenbacher, M. Classification of wine samples according to origin and grape varieties on the basis of inorganic and organic trace analyses. Am. Lab. 1999, 31, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  • Sample Availability: Not available.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Terrell, E.; Cliff, M.A.; Van Vuuren, H.J.J. Functional Characterization of Individual- and Mixed-Burgundian Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates for Fermentation of Pinot Noir. Molecules 2015, 20, 5112-5136. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20035112

AMA Style

Terrell E, Cliff MA, Van Vuuren HJJ. Functional Characterization of Individual- and Mixed-Burgundian Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates for Fermentation of Pinot Noir. Molecules. 2015; 20(3):5112-5136. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20035112

Chicago/Turabian Style

Terrell, Emily, Margaret A. Cliff, and Hennie J. J. Van Vuuren. 2015. "Functional Characterization of Individual- and Mixed-Burgundian Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates for Fermentation of Pinot Noir" Molecules 20, no. 3: 5112-5136. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20035112

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop