Yeast in winemaking was first studied for its role in alcoholic fermentation, and has led to the publication of a huge amount of scientific articles. Since then, scientists have tried to understand yeast metabolism in different yeast species, yeast interactions, and aroma production by yeast in order to master the wine profile. This Special Issue has gathered 11 articles reflecting the efforts realized by the scientific community in order to understand how to better control wine quality and wine profile.
Many efforts have been done to identify yeast involved in the wine profile. While DNA based tools allowed precise yeast taxonomy, it has recently been proved the existence of a strong link between physiology and taxonomy suggesting that many loci could be particularly interesting as “double usage” markers for taxonomy and general metabolic evolution or ethanol stress [1]. Besides Saccharomyces cerevisiae, from many years now, it has been shown that the so-called ‘non-Saccharomyces’ encompasses different yeast species that contribute positively to wine quality thanks to their flavor contribution. Russo et al. [2] report the impact of Candida zemplinina on the final aroma of produced wine. Aging on yeast lees is also a winemaking strategy that impacts wine quality. Autolysis during aging on yeast lees is responsible for the observed changes. A correlation between autophagy and autolysis has been proposed in order to accelerate the acquisition of wine organoleptic properties during sparkling wine elaboration. It has been shown by Porras-Agüera et al. [3] that differences in autophagy-related proteomes between strains and conditions exist. Furthermore, the same authors proposed that the use of flor yeast in sparkling wine production would be interesting considering its fast cell death during the process [4]. Moreover, Gonzalez-Jimenez [5] reports that flor yeast may be proposed for sparkling wine production to enhance the diversity and typicity of sparkling wine yeasts. Wine quality needs to be controlled by preventing the development of spoilage microorganisms. In that sense, a good comprehension of these microorganisms is necessary. An example is given in this Special Issue with Brettanomyces, which is considered the nightmare of winemakers. G-Poblete et al. [6] report that p-coumaric acid has a protective action against the toxic effects of SO2.
Scientists should also consider consumer expectation, and, nowadays, a demand for low ethanol wine and low sulfite content wine exists. In this context, strategies are being developed to decrease ethanol [7] and sulfite content in wine [8]. Consumers are also seeking wine fermented with indigenous yeast. The control of such fermentation is more difficult, because a consortium of yeast is present with a specific population dynamic across the alcoholic fermentation. The final results are intimately linked to the interactions between microorganisms. Knowledge regarding such interactions is important to control indigenous fermentation. These interactions exist between yeast and bacteria as reported by du Toit et al. [9] and between yeasts [10].
The yeast consortium has been proposed to play a role to the Terroir effect, however contradictory results has been published, thus, the concept of microbial terroir has been examined [11].
This Special Issue reminds us of the prominent role of yeast at each step of the winemaking process. Indeed, yeast is not only responsible for alcoholic fermentation, but could also be used for different applications, as described in these articles.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to all the authors and reviewers for their impactful contributions to this Special Issue. A sincere thank you to the staff of the Microorganisms Editorial Office for their professional assistance and continuous helpful support.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Roscinie, L.; Conti, A.; Casagrande Pierantoni, D.; Robert, V.; Corte, L.; Cardinali, G. Do metabolomics and taxonomic barcode markers tell the same story about the evolution of Saccharomyces sensu stricto complex in fermentative environments. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russo, P.; Tufariello, M.; Renna, R.; Tristezza, M.; Taurino, M.; Palombi, L.; Capozzi, V.; Rizzello, C.G.; Grieco, F. New Insights into the Oenological Significance of Candida zemplinina: Impact of Selected Autochthonous Strains on the Volatile Profile of Apulian Wines. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Porras-Agüera, J.A.; Moreno-García, J.; González-Jiménez, M.d.C.; Mauricio, J.C.; Moreno, J.; García-Martínez, T. Autophagic Proteome in Two Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains during Second Fermentation for Sparkling Wine Elaboration. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Porras-Agüera, J.A.; Moreno-García, J.; Mauricio, J.C.; Moreno, J.; García-Martínez, T. First Proteomic Approach to Identify Cell Death Biomarkers in Wine Yeasts during Sparkling Wine Production. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- González-Jiménez, M.d.C.; Moreno-García, J.; García-Martínez, T.; Moreno, J.J.; Puig-Pujol, A.; Capdevilla, F.; Mauricio, J.C. Differential Analysis of Proteins Involved in Ester Metabolism in two Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains during the Second Fermentation in Sparkling Wine Elaboration. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- G-Poblete, C.; Peña-Moreno, I.C.; de Morais, M.A., Jr.; Moreira, S.; Ganga, M.A. Biodiversity among Brettanomyces bruxellensis Strains Isolated from Different Wine Regions of Chile: Key Factors Revealed about Its Tolerance to Sulphite. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, X.; Navarro, Y.; Mas, A.; Torija, M.-J.; Beltran, G. A Rapid Method for Selecting Non-Saccharomyces Strains with a Low Ethanol Yield. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Capece, A.; Pietrafesa, R.; Siesto, G.; Romano, P. Biotechnological Approach Based on Selected Saccharomyces cerevisiae Starters for Reducing the Use of Sulfur Dioxide in Wine. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- du Toit, S.C.; Rossouw, D.; du Toit, M.; Bauer, F.F. Enforced Mutualism Leads to Improved Cooperative Behavior between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus plantarum. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bordet, F.; Joran, A.; Klein, G.; Roullier-Gall, C.; Alexandre, H. Yeast–Yeast Interactions: Mechanisms, Methodologies and Impact on Composition. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alexandre, H. Wine yeast Terroir: Separating the wheat from the chaff-for an open debate. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).