Next Article in Journal
The Biodiversity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Spontaneous Wine Fermentation: The Occurrence and Persistence of Winery-Strains
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Native Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains from D.O. “Vinos de Madrid” in the Volatile Profile of White Wines
Previous Article in Journal
Xylose-Enriched Ethanol Fermentation Stillage from Sweet Sorghum for Xylitol and Astaxanthin Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Must Replacement and Hot Pre-Fermentative Maceration on the Color of Uruguayan Tannat Red Wines
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Climate Changes and Food Quality: The Potential of Microbial Activities as Mitigating Strategies in the Wine Sector

Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, degli Alimenti e dell’Ambiente, Università di Foggia, via Napoli 25, 71100 Foggia, Italy
EnolabERI BioTecMed, Universitat de València, 46100 Valencia, Spain
Istituto di Scienze delle Produzioni Alimentari, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Unità Operativa di Supporto di Lecce, 73100 Lecce, Italy
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2019, 5(4), 85;
Received: 6 September 2019 / Revised: 18 September 2019 / Accepted: 19 September 2019 / Published: 23 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Technologies and Their Influence in Fermentation Quality)


Climate change threatens food systems, with huge repercussions on food security and on the safety and quality of final products. We reviewed the potential of food microbiology as a source of biotechnological solutions to design climate-smart food systems, using wine as a model productive sector. Climate change entails considerable problems for the sustainability of oenology in several geographical regions, also placing at risk the wine typicity. The main weaknesses identified are: (i) The increased undesired microbial proliferation; (ii) the improved sugars and, consequently, ethanol content; (iii) the reduced acidity and increased pH; (iv) the imbalanced perceived sensory properties (e.g., colour, flavour); and (v) the intensified safety issues (e.g., mycotoxins, biogenic amines). In this paper, we offer an overview of the potential microbial-based strategies suitable to cope with the five challenges listed above. In terms of microbial diversity, our principal focus was on microorganisms isolated from grapes/musts/wines and on microbes belonging to the main categories with a recognized positive role in oenological processes, namely Saccharomyces spp. (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae), non-Saccharomyces yeasts (e.g., Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Torulaspora delbrueckii, Lachancea thermotolerans, and Starmerella bacillaris), and malolactic bacteria (e.g., Oenococcus oeni, Lactobacillus plantarum).

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

“Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity and livestock are a significant driver of climate change, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere and triggering global warming. Climate change has both direct and indirect effects on agricultural productivity including changing rainfall patterns, drought, flooding and the geographical redistribution of pests and diseases. FAO is supporting countries to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change through a wide range of research based and practical programmes and projects, as an integral part of the 2030 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.”
It is clear how widespread and complex the impacts of climate change phenomena associated with global warming on food systems are [1,2,3,4,5]. We can disentangle these extensive and multifaceted influences in different (often interdependent) components, such as agricultural, livestock and fishery yields, food prices, effectiveness of delivery, global food quality, and, a crucial facet of global quality, food safety [6]. Great attention has been placed to many aspects related to food security (e.g., yields reduction, prices rises). Instead, marginal interest has been given to quality issues, including, among others, palatability, hygienic properties, nutritional contributes, and functional contributes. For fermented foods and beverages, microbes’ activity associated with the matrices is susceptible to affect all the main aspects contributing to the final product quality [7,8]. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the effects of climate change belong to different disciplines, such as agricultural sciences, plant and animal biology and breeding, food technology, and food microbiology. In this mini-review article, we use wine as a model matrix to describe the impact of climate changes on the quality of fermented matrices, examining the potential of protechnological microbes as agents capable to ‘mitigate’ the negative features of this evolving climatic influence.
Within the macro-category of fermented products, wine belongs to the group of fermented alcoholic beverages [7]. Yeasts are responsible for alcoholic fermentation (AF) and more generally, for biochemical changes linked to the chemical transformation of must obtained from grapevine crushing in wine [9,10,11]. Among oenological yeasts, the following categories can be found: (i) Yeast belonging to the Saccharomyces genera, and particularly to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae species, which are mainly responsible for alcoholic fermentation in wine [10,11,12]; and (ii) the heterogeneous category of the so-called non-Saccharomyces yeasts [10,11,13]. Within this complex category, we can find both protechnological species/strains [13,14] and spoilage organisms [15,16]. Non-Saccharomyces of interest for their oenological aptitude, other than contributing to alcoholic fermentation, can be helpful to solve specific technological/oenological issues (e.g., reduction of volatile acidity) [13,17], to modulate wine aroma [17,18,19], and/or to exert biocontrol activity against undesired microbes [20,21,22]. Together with the eukaryotic contribution to wine quality, we have to mention malolactic bacteria to encompass all microbes that positively modulate wine chemistry. Malolactic bacteria and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are capable of decarboxylating malic in lactic acid, and are responsible for the so-called malolactic fermentation (MLF), a process associated with positive changes in palatability, increased aromatic complexity, and enhanced microbial stability [23].

2. Wine Quality and Climate Change

Climate change affects, to different extents, wine production and quality. About 10 years ago, Mira de Orduña provided an extensive review of the ‘climate change-associated effects on grape and wine quality and production’ [24]. The review followed a cause-and-effect ratio analysis, and pointed out the effects on viticulture and the corresponding consequences on winemaking. Adopting this point of view, we can examine the main effects of climate change on viticulture and oenology (Table 1).
Harvesting is in a double relationship with climate trends; on the one side, harvesting is a function of the seasonal climate, on the other, it provides a criterion to classify different grapevine varieties depending on their relationship to the climate. In general, data from different grapevine production areas offer a picture of prior fruit maturation patterns, with a consequential shift forward of the harvesting time [24]. Considering the different grapevine varieties, recent evidence on early wine grape harvests in France indicates that climate change has profoundly transformed the climatic drivers of the plant, with possible repercussions for viticulture management and wine quality [25,26]. If we consider the general influence of temperature increases, not only on a given phenological phase (i.e., fruit maturity), we have to report an increase in sugar contents, decreased concentration of organic acids/total acidity, and improved potassium content [24,27]. Moving from primary to secondary metabolites, the effort to summarize specific trends becomes more complex, giving that more variables act in the system that are susceptible to influencing the pathways associated with metabolites’ biosynthesis: Temperature, carbon dioxide, and radiation [24]. In general, climate change has led to significant modulations in the accumulation of heterogeneous classes of polyphenols and volatile organic compounds [24,28]. In addition to the direct effect, we have to consider the indirect effects, such as enhanced salinity and increased probability of wild bushfires [24]. Present evidence also suggests that climate change can influence the proliferation of certain viticultural pathogens, introducing new insight into pest management in the field [24]. We must also consider the direct effects on the root system imputable to the response of the plant to abiotic heat stress. Finally, the effects on the development and quality of oak, the main wood utilized for wine aging, caused by modifications of carbon dioxide levels and weather patterns have been considered [24].
Shifting from the viticultural to the oenological aspects, we may list the main consequences on the wine quality of the highlighted effects on the raw material. The shift of the harvest date and the impact on grape maturation can intensify oxidative phenomena (e.g., oxidation of specific volatiles) and microbial growth (e.g., increased microbial spoilage proliferation, enhanced risks of starvation during the fermentative process, and increased the content of toxic compounds released by undesired microorganisms, such as mycotoxins) [24,25,27]. The immediate oenological consequence of an increased sugar content is an improved concentration of ethanol in the final product. This phenomenon implies a higher likelihood of stuck/sluggish during the alcoholic fermentation, sharpened microbial stress response, modulation of sensory perception (prominent alcohol sense and a reduced passage of volatiles in the wine headspace, increasing the perception of astringency, masking the perception of esters), and lowered social acceptance of wines, due to the recognized toxic effect of ethylic alcohol (without considering the impact on caloric intake) [28]. Increased pH implies the following: (i) An improved risk of undesired microbial proliferation, from the first fermentative steps (e.g., lactic acid bacteria, spoilage yeasts) up to the aging/finished wines (e.g., Dekkera/Brettanomyces yeasts); and (ii) changes in the wine colour, taste, and aroma [28]. Modifications in the wine colour, taste, and aroma can also be addressed by modulation of the compound directly responsible for these perceptions. The phenomena associated with climate change seem to lessen anthocyanins and enhance the proanthocyanidins content, contributing to a reduction of the ‘colour potential’ and to pronounced astringency [27,28]. In terms of the concern regarding aroma compounds, even if it is difficult to depict clear trends, it is possible to point out some patterns [29,30]. First, it is worth remembering that notes of “green pepper, herbaceous, blackcurrant, blackberry, figs, or prunes are strongly linked with the maturity of the grapes” [31]. The ‘cooked’ aroma generally increases with temperature. Contrastingly, pyrazine accumulation follows an opposite change (responsible for ‘veggie, herbaceous notes’) [27,29,32]. The same was found for rotundone contents in grapes (responsible for the peppery aroma) [29]; whereas contrasting results were reported for the terpenol family [29].
It is possible to speculate that the present literature presents findings that are not always harmonic and that it remains difficult to combine direct and indirect effects, both positive and negative. To this purpose, Drappier et al. [28] observed that the remarkably hot 2003 season in Europe offered the opportunity to mimic and test in vivo the climatic condition expected by the conclusion of this century, demonstrating the potential of climate change in clouding wine typicity. With this concern, the authors reported, in light of the recent experimental investigations, the sensory features associated with the different viticultural climates: Enhanced alcohol perception, reduced acidity sense, imbalanced colour development, and perceived aroma [28]. These are sensory defects that are generally coherent with the indications reported in the scientific literature.

3. The Potential of Microbial Activities as Mitigating Technologies

When facing emerging challenges, humans explore different routes in order to find innovative solutions suitable to ensuring the sustainability of resources and productions. This is also true for the problems in food systems triggered by climate change. For example, in the wine sector, the scientific and professional communities have proposed numerous possible approaches susceptible to developing a climate-smart wine system. These potential solutions range from the agronomic and viticultural fields up to applications in the technology and biotechnology branches, with different potentials in terms of performances and temporal horizons. Among other factors, microorganisms can also exert activities to mitigate product depreciation due to climate change. Here, we propose an overview of potential microbial-based strategies able to concretize mitigating biotechnologies, declined in five categories corresponding to the main safety/quality aspects affected by climate changes in oenology.

3.1. Microbial Solution for the Biocontrol of Spoilage Microorganisms in Wine

The main spoilage microbes in enology belong to the yeast genera Brettanomyces (e.g., B. bruxellensis), Candida (e.g., C. stellata), Hanseniaspora (e.g., H. vineae), Pichia (e.g., P. anomala, P. membranifaciens), and Zygosaccharomyces (e.g., Z. bailii, Z. rouxii); and to the bacterial genera Lactobacillus (e.g., L. hilgardii), Leuconostoc (e.g., L. mesenteroides), Pediococcus (e.g., P. damnosus, P. pentosaceus), Acetobacter (e.g., A. aceti, A. pasteurianus), or Gluconobacter (e.g., G. oxydans) [33,34]. The increasing incidence of these spoilage microbes could be responsible for considerable economic losses in this sector. In Table 2, we propose an exemplified list of microbial applications potentially suitable to ensuring the control of microbial spoilage.
Biocontrol provides alternatives to chemical preservatives, such as SO2, which is associated with adverse reactions in humans [40]. We recognize two different categories of microbial-based solutions: The case when a product of microbial metabolism is added as biopreservatives in the wine chain [34,35,38] or the option to add to the matrix the microorganism itself as a starter/protective culture [20,37,40]. Considering the molecular basis responsible for the antagonistic microbial phenotypes, we highlight two main categories, competition for nutrients and the production of molecules with antimicrobial activities. Concerning the last class, yeasts’ killer toxins and bacteriocins are the main reservoirs of this competitive arsenal developed by specific yeasts and bacteria that find potential applications in wine [41].

3.2. Microbial-Based Solutions to Reduce Ethanol Content

High ethanol concentration may reduce the complexity of wine by suppressing the aroma intensity, but also by exalting the perception of ‘hotness’ and ‘bitterness’. Moreover, health considerations combined with market demand make the wine industry actively seek ways to facilitate the production of wines with lower alcohol concentration [42]. Among the possible approaches, microbial strategies present an attractive opportunity to decrease ethanol levels while preserving the quality and aromatic integrity of the wine (Table 3).
S. cerevisiae is efficient at converting sugar to alcohol and has a preeminent tolerance to the stressful conditions encountered during alcoholic fermentation. Thus, one of the methods explored consists in breeding different S. cerevisiae strains to select less ethanol producer yeast [43,44]. This strategy could also involve different Saccharomyces species, where wine industrial strains can be combined with less known alcoholic species. Indeed, hybrid strains have been described with a reduced efficiency concerning alcohol yields and are able to preserve wine’s organoleptic properties after fermentation [43]. Additionally, yeasts could be forced to evolve and adapt to conditions where glycerol synthesis is more favoured than ethanol, for example, conditioning the yeast to higher osmotic pressures [45] or using SO2 at alkaline pH [46].
Another microbial strategy that has seen growing interest in the last decade involves the use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts. These species exhibit physiological properties that are especially relevant during the winemaking process, such as their good fermentative capabilities at low temperatures, resulting in wines with lower alcohol and higher glycerol amounts [10,11]. Several studies have described a reduced ethanol yield (0.2–0.6 % v/v) when using non-Saccharomyces and S. cerevisiae strains in co-inoculated or sequential cultures [14,47,48,49,50,51,59]. Another alternative to lower the ethanol concentration in wine is to exploit the oxidative metabolism detected in some non-Saccharomyces species [52,53,54,55]. The supply of oxygen to the fermenters under a controlled flow rate promotes the respiratory consumption of sugars by these non-Saccharomyces yeasts.
An additional approach consists in generating low-ethanol yeast strains using metabolic engineering. The principle behind this strategy is the engineering of yeast strains through altered gene expression to modify carbon fluxes in the cell [60]. One of the key target carbon sinks in these approaches has been glycerol, as several research groups have attempted to redirect carbon towards glycerol in order to decrease the flow of carbon to ethanol [56]. Rossouw et al. [43] demonstrated that an alternative metabolite in central carbon metabolism, trehalose, can be targeted as a carbon sink without resulting in the accumulation of undesirable redox-linked metabolites. Besides, the expression in wine yeast of the lactate dehydrogenase gene (LDH) from Lactobacillus casei has also resulted in reduced ethanol concentration (0.25% v/v less) by diverting carbon to lactic acid production [58].

3.3. Microbial-Based Solutions to Improve Organic Acids Content and to Reduce pH

Among the effects of climate change, the harsh lessening in the acidity of wines has a complex impact on wine quality. Indeed, the low total acidity led to wines with defects in the sensory quality (e.g., less sour/acid taste, changes in the colour) and prone to the implantation of microbial spoilages (reduced wine stability) [24]. These phenomena are likely to be regional-dependent, as recently indicated by Lucio et al. [61], who found an increase of 0.5 units in the pH, also achieving pH values of 3.8–4.0 in the case of wine produced in La Rioja (Spain). Some organic acids are principally associated with fruit composition (tartaric, malic, and citric), while others (succinic, lactic, and acetic acids) are mainly related to the fermentation processes, both to the alcoholic and malolactic [62]. In Table 4, an overview of species/strains selected for their potential of biological acidification of must and wine is given.
Non-Saccharomyces yeasts and malolactic bacteria are the main reservoirs of microorganisms capable of inducing biological acidification in oenology, due to their physiological features and genetic determinants associated with the production of organic acids [61,69].
The most promising species among non-Saccharomyces is Lachancea thermotolerans [9,70] due to a considerable aptitude to produce lactic acid [59,64]. Moreover, the use of L. thermotolerans has been proposed in combination with Schizosaccharomyces pombe [71,72], a yeast capable of converting malic acid in ethanol to mimic classic malolactic fermentation (the decarboxylation of malic acid to lactic acid) [64]. Also, the yeasts Candida stellata [73] and Candida zemplinina (synonym Starmerella bacillaris) [74] have been explored for their possible application in biological acidification in oenological matrices [63,66]. Among malolactic bacteria, Lactobacillus plantarum, in reason of the protechnological significance and versatility, extensive applications for their potential to increase the content of lactic acid in the tested matrices have been found [61,65,67,68].

3.4. Microbial-Based Solutions to Modulate/Enhance Sensory Characteristics (Colour, Taste, and Aroma)

The sensory issue represents a more complex matter to provide clear cause–effect solutions. In fact, it is difficult to highlight unambiguous trends associated with climate change (and, consequently, challenging to propose unambiguous microbial-based solutions). However, a plethora of biotechnological solutions that rely on microbial activities are susceptible to applications to cope with the different modifications in sensory attributes addressable to climate change. In Table 5, we provide only a few examples of the microbial-based solutions that are able to modulate/enhance sensory characteristics.

3.5. Microbial-Based Solutions to Less Toxic Compounds (Mycotoxins, Biogenic Amines)

During the winemaking process, several microorganisms may cause the depreciation of wine since they can produce undesirable compounds that are toxic to humans, such as biogenic amines (BA) or mycotoxins [7,8,87].
The main microorganisms responsible for BA production in wine are LAB [88] and some non-Saccharomyces yeasts [89]. Moreover, several strains of Enterococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. have recently been isolated from must and wine and described as histamine producers [90,91]. Microbial-based solutions that minimize the presence of these toxic compounds in wine are summarized in Table 6.
One of the main strategies to avoid the presence of BA in wine is the selection of malolactic starter cultures that are unable to produce these toxic compounds [92,93]. Another microbial strategy to reduce the presence of BA in wine is the use of selected yeast strains to induce malic acid consumption, thus avoiding malolactic fermentation and the risks of BA production associated with this phase [94]. Besides, the co-inoculation of yeast and LAB has been proposed as an interesting microbial-based solution to better control BA-producing microorganisms [95,96].
An alternative to the prevention strategies could be the use of BA-degrading microorganisms. Some wine LAB strains belonging to Lactobacillus and Pediococcus species were demonstrated to be capable of degrading BA, such as histamine, tyramine, and putrescine [97,98]. These strains showed interesting technological properties, suggesting that the ability to degrade BA could also be a criterion to select a new generation of starter cultures [98]. Enzymes isolated and purified from L. plantarum and P. acidilactici strains, and identified as multicopper oxidases, were able to degrade histamine, tyramine, and putrescine [99]. Such a finding opens a new perspective on the opportunity of employing purified microbial enzymes to deal with the problem of high BA concentrations in wine [103].
Grapes can be infected by mycotoxigenic fungi, of which Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp. producing ochratoxin A (OTA) is of the highest concern [7,8]. Climate is the most important factor in determining contamination once the fungi are established, with high temperatures being a major factor for OTA contamination [104]. Biological decontamination of mycotoxins using microorganisms is one of the well-known strategies to lessen these toxic compounds (Table 6). A promising approach for wine decontamination could be degradation/reduction of OTA by yeasts. Yeasts are efficient bio-sorbents and are used in winemaking to reduce the concentration of harmful substances from the must, which affect alcoholic fermentation [100,101]. Recently, research from Shukla and co-workers [105] suggests that the OTA may also be adsorbed by cells of bacteria, such as Bacillus subtilis. Moreover, many different yeast/bacterial strains have been demonstrated to be able to hydrolyze OTA by the action of a putative peptidase [101,102].

4. Conclusions

Climate change threatens food systems, with huge repercussions on food security and on the safety and quality of final products. In this light, it is crucial to develop a “climate-smart food system” [106] tailored to face the complex set of challenges associated with present and future climate trends, in order to ensure food sustainability [107]. We provided here an outline of potential microbial biotechnologies that may be able to tackle the changes in food quality and safety associated with climate change. With this purpose, we used wine production as a model field, considering the socio-economic relevance of this sector and the significant impact not only on the yield and wine quality, but also on the typicity of the wines [108]. Considering on-going research issues and future perspectives, it is always crucial to remember that the food production systems are interdependent structures. In this light, it is mandatory to assess the impact of the proposed biotechnological solution on the technological regimen, on the chemistry of the matrix, and on the protechnological microbiota. In the case of wine, for example, increasing studies are delving into the impact of different non-Saccharomyces species/strains on the microbiological [109,110,111] and chemical [17,112,113] features of wine. One further aspect that deserves attention is the presence of strain-dependent traits that have often been found to be associated with the protechnological and spoilage microbial phenotypes in oenology [16,114,115].
In some cases, biotechnological solutions have been patented, as we recently reviewed in the case of non-Saccharomyces yeasts [116]. Microbial-based approaches represent biological methods that can also find application in the production of organic wines. The potential of microbial activities as mitigating strategies in the wine sector renovates interest in the continuous exploration of microbial diversity-associated specific terroirs, autochthonous grapevines, and typical wines [117,118,119], and on systems that provide rapid, massive, and low-cost screening of the biotechnological potential associated with this microbial diversity [120,121,122,123].

Author Contributions

Investigation, C.B., M.F., P.R., F.B., F.G., G.S., and V.C.; conceptualization, C.B., M.F., P.R., F.B., F.G., G.S., and V.C.; literature search, C.B., M.F., P.R., F.B., F.G., G.S., and V.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B., M.F. and V.C.; writing—review and editing, P.R., F.B., F.G., and G.S.


This research was partially funded by the Apulia Region [project DOMINA APULIAE (POR Puglia FESR - FSE 2014-2020-Azione 1.6.–InnoNetwork)] grant number/project code AGBGUK2. Pasquale Russo is the beneficiary of a grant by MIUR in the framework of ‘AIM: Attraction and International Mobility’ (PON R&I 2014-2020) (practice code D74I18000190001).


We thank the Editor and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments have greatly improved this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Rosenzweig, C.; Parry, M.L. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 1994, 367, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schmidhuber, J.; Tubiello, F.N. Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19703–19708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  3. McMichael, A.J.; Powles, J.W.; Butler, C.D.; Uauy, R. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet 2007, 370, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lobell, D.B.; Burke, M.B.; Tebaldi, C.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Falcon, W.P.; Naylor, R.L. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030. Science 2008, 319, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. DaMatta, F.M.; Grandis, A.; Arenque, B.C.; Buckeridge, M.S. Impacts of climate changes on crop physiology and food quality. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1814–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vermeulen, S.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Ingram, J.S.I. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 195–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  7. Capozzi, V.; Fragasso, M.; Romaniello, R.; Berbegal, C.; Russo, P.; Spano, G. Spontaneous Food Fermentations and Potential Risks for Human Health. Fermentation 2017, 3, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Russo, P.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M.; Bevilacqua, A. Metabolites of Microbial Origin with an Impact on Health: Ochratoxin A and Biogenic Amines. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vilela, A. The Importance of Yeasts on Fermentation Quality and Human Health-Promoting Compounds. Fermentation 2019, 5, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berbegal, C.; Spano, G.; Tristezza, M.; Grieco, F.; Capozzi, V. Microbial Resources and Innovation in the Wine Production Sector. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2017, 38, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Petruzzi, L.; Capozzi, V.; Berbegal, C.; Corbo, M.R.; Bevilacqua, A.; Spano, G.; Sinigaglia, M. Microbial Resources and Enological Significance: Opportunities and Benefits. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  12. Du Plessis, H.; Du Toit, M.; Nieuwoudt, H.; Van der Rijst, M.; Hoff, J.; Jolly, N. Modulation of Wine Flavor using Hanseniaspora uvarum in Combination with Different Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains and Malolactic Fermentation Strategies. Fermentation 2019, 5, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Benito, Á.; Calderón, F.; Benito, S. The Influence of Non-Saccharomyces Species on Wine Fermentation Quality Parameters. Fermentation 2019, 5, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Capozzi, V.; Berbegal, C.; Tufariello, M.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G.; Grieco, F. Impact of co-inoculation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Hanseniaspora uvarum and Oenococcus oeni autochthonous strains in controlled multi starter grape must fermentations. LWT 2019, 109, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Di Toro, M.R.; Capozzi, V.; Beneduce, L.; Alexandre, H.; Tristezza, M.; Durante, M.; Tufariello, M.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G. Intraspecific biodiversity and ‘spoilage potential’ of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in Apulian wines. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 60, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Avramova, M.; Cibrario, A.; Peltier, E.; Coton, M.; Coton, E.; Schacherer, J.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V.; Blaiotta, G.; Salin, F.; et al. Brettanomyces bruxellensis population survey reveals a diploid-triploid complex structured according to substrate of isolation and geographical distribution. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Padilla, B.; Gil, J.V.; Manzanares, P. Past and Future of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts: From Spoilage Microorganisms to Biotechnological Tools for Improving Wine Aroma Complexity. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Escribano, R.; González-Arenzana, L.; Portu, J.; Garijo, P.; López-Alfaro, I.; López, R.; Santamaría, P.; Gutiérrez, A.R. Wine aromatic compound production and fermentative behaviour within different non-Saccharomyces species and clones. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 124, 1521–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Escribano-Viana, R.; González-Arenzana, L.; Portu, J.; Garijo, P.; López-Alfaro, I.; López, R.; Santamaría, P.; Gutiérrez, A.R. Wine aroma evolution throughout alcoholic fermentation sequentially inoculated with non- Saccharomyces/Saccharomyces yeasts. Food Res. Int. 2018, 112, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Berbegal, C.; Spano, G.; Fragasso, M.; Grieco, F.; Russo, P.; Capozzi, V. Starter cultures as biocontrol strategy to prevent Brettanomyces bruxellensis proliferation in wine. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 569–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Berbegal, C.; Garofalo, C.; Russo, P.; Pati, S.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G. Use of Autochthonous Yeasts and Bacteria in Order to Control Brettanomyces bruxellensis in Wine. Fermentation 2017, 3, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kuchen, B.; Maturano, Y.P.; Mestre, M.V.; Combina, M.; Toro, M.E.; Vazquez, F. Selection of Native Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts with Biocontrol Activity against Spoilage Yeasts in Order to Produce Healthy Regional Wines. Fermentation 2019, 5, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Campbell-Sills, H.; Khoury, M.E.; Gammacurta, M.; Miot-Sertier, C.; Dutilh, L.; Vestner, J.; Capozzi, V.; Sherman, D.; Hubert, C.; Claisse, O.; et al. Two different Oenococcus oeni lineages are associated to either red or white wines in Burgundy: Genomics and metabolomics insights. OENO One 2017, 51, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mira de Orduña, R. Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1844–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Rosenstock, T.; Sebastian, L.; Thornton, P.K.; et al. Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  26. Cook, B.I.; Wolkovich, E.M. Climate change decouples drought from early wine grape harvests in France. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mozell, M.R.; Thach, L. The impact of climate change on the global wine industry: Challenges & solutions. Wine Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 81–89. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  28. Drappier, J.; Thibon, C.; Rabot, A.; Geny-Denis, L. Relationship between wine composition and temperature: Impact on Bordeaux wine typicity in the context of global warming—Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Van Leeuwen, C.; Darriet, P. The Impact of Climate Change on Viticulture and Wine Quality. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11, 150–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Scarlett, N.J.; Bramley, R.G.V.; Siebert, T.E. Within-vineyard variation in the ‘pepper’ compound rotundone is spatially structured and related to variation in the land underlying the vineyard. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2014, 20, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pons, A.; Allamy, L.; Schüttler, A.; Rauhut, D.; Thibon, C.; Darriet, P. What is the expected impact of climate change on wine aroma compounds and their precursors in grape? OENO One 2017, 51, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Keller, M. Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment: A climate change primer for viticulturists. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2010, 16, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cimaglia, F.; Tristezza, M.; Saccomanno, A.; Rampino, P.; Perrotta, C.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G.; Chiesa, M.; Mita, G.; Grieco, F. An innovative oligonucleotide microarray to detect spoilage microorganisms in wine. Food Control 2018, 87, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Du Toit, M.; Pretorius, I.S. Microbial Spoilage and Preservation of Wine: Using Weapons from Nature’s Own Arsenal—A Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 21, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. García-Ruiz, A.; Requena, T.; Peláez, C.; Bartolomé, B.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V.; Martínez-Cuesta, M.C. Antimicrobial activity of lacticin 3147 against oenological lactic acid bacteria. Combined effect with other antimicrobial agents. Food Control 2013, 32, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oro, L.; Ciani, M.; Comitini, F. Antimicrobial activity of Metschnikowia pulcherrima on wine yeasts. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 116, 1209–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Ullivarri, M.F.; Mendoza, L.M.; Raya, R.R. Killer activity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains: Partial characterization and strategies to improve the biocontrol efficacy in winemaking. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2014, 106, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ndlovu, B.; Schoeman, H.; Franz, C.M.a.P.; Toit, M.D. Screening, identification and characterization of bacteriocins produced by wine-isolated LAB strains. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 118, 1007–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alonso, A.; Belda, I.; Santos, A.; Navascués, E.; Marquina, D. Advances in the control of the spoilage caused by Zygosaccharomyces species on sweet wines and concentrated grape musts. Food Control 2015, 51, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Simonin, S.; Alexandre, H.; Nikolantonaki, M.; Coelho, C.; Tourdot-Maréchal, R. Inoculation of Torulaspora delbrueckii as a bio-protection agent in winemaking. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mehlomakulu, N.N.; Setati, M.E.; Divol, B. Non-Saccharomyces killer toxins: Possible biocontrol agents against Brettanomyces in wine? S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2015, 36, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Varela, C. The impact of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in the production of alcoholic beverages. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 9861–9874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arroyo-López, F.N.; Pérez-Torrado, R.; Querol, A.; Barrio, E. Modulation of the glycerol and ethanol syntheses in the yeast Saccharomyces kudriavzevii differs from that exhibited by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and their hybrid. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oliveira, B.M.; Barrio, E.; Querol, A.; Pérez-Torrado, R. Enhanced enzymatic activity of glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase from the cryophilic Saccharomyces kudriavzevii. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tilloy, V.; Ortiz-Julien, A.; Dequin, S. Reduction of Ethanol Yield and Improvement of Glycerol Formation by Adaptive Evolution of the Wine Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae under Hyperosmotic Conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 2623–2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kutyna, D.R.; Varela, C.; Stanley, G.A.; Borneman, A.R.; Henschke, P.A.; Chambers, P.J. Adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to generate strains with enhanced glycerol production. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 93, 1175–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Benito, Á.; Jeffares, D.; Palomero, F.; Calderón, F.; Bai, F.-Y.; Bähler, J.; Benito, S. Selected Schizosaccharomyces pombe Strains Have Characteristics That Are Beneficial for Winemaking. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Contreras, A.; Hidalgo, C.; Henschke, P.A.; Chambers, P.J.; Curtin, C.; Varela, C. Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts for the Reduction of Alcohol Content in Wine. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 1670–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rossouw, D.; Bauer, F.F. Exploring the phenotypic space of non-Saccharomyces wine yeast biodiversity. Food Microbiol. 2016, 55, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Alonso-del-Real, J.; Contreras-Ruiz, A.; Castiglioni, G.L.; Barrio, E.; Querol, A. The Use of Mixed Populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. kudriavzevii to Reduce Ethanol Content in Wine: Limited Aeration, Inoculum Proportions, and Sequential Inoculation. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ciani, M.; Morales, P.; Comitini, F.; Tronchoni, J.; Canonico, L.; Curiel, J.A.; Oro, L.; Rodrigues, A.J.; Gonzalez, R. Non-conventional Yeast Species for Lowering Ethanol Content of Wines. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Contreras, A.; Hidalgo, C.; Schmidt, S.; Henschke, P.A.; Curtin, C.; Varela, C. The application of non-Saccharomyces yeast in fermentations with limited aeration as a strategy for the production of wine with reduced alcohol content. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 205, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Morales, P.; Rojas, V.; Quirós, M.; Gonzalez, R. The impact of oxygen on the final alcohol content of wine fermented by a mixed starter culture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 3993–4003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Quirós, M.; Rojas, V.; Gonzalez, R.; Morales, P. Selection of non-Saccharomyces yeast strains for reducing alcohol levels in wine by sugar respiration. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 181, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rodrigues, A.J.; Raimbourg, T.; Gonzalez, R.; Morales, P. Environmental factors influencing the efficacy of different yeast strains for alcohol level reduction in wine by respiration. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 1038–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Rossouw, D.; Heyns, E.H.; Setati, M.E.; Bosch, S.; Bauer, F.F. Adjustment of Trehalose Metabolism in Wine Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains to Modify Ethanol Yields. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 5197–5207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dequin, S.; Baptista, E.; Barre, P. Acidification of Grape Musts by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Wine Yeast Strains Genetically Engineered to Produce Lactic Acid. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1999, 50, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gobbi, M.; Comitini, F.; Domizio, P.; Romani, C.; Lencioni, L.; Mannazzu, I.; Ciani, M. Lachancea thermotolerans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in simultaneous and sequential co-fermentation: A strategy to enhance acidity and improve the overall quality of wine. Food Microbiol. 2013, 33, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Varela, C.; Kutyna, D.R.; Solomon, M.R.; Black, C.A.; Borneman, A.; Henschke, P.A.; Pretorius, I.S.; Chambers, P.J. Evaluation of Gene Modification Strategies for the Development of Low-Alcohol-Wine Yeasts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 6068–6077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lucio, O.; Pardo, I.; Krieger-Weber, S.; Heras, J.M.; Ferrer, S. Selection of Lactobacillus strains to induce biological acidification in low acidity wines. LWT 2016, 73, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Vilela, A. Use of Nonconventional Yeasts for Modulating Wine Acidity. Fermentation 2019, 5, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ciani, M.; Ferraro, L. Enhanced Glycerol Content in Wines Made with Immobilized Candida stellata Cells. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 128–132. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  64. Benito, Á.; Calderón, F.; Palomero, F.; Benito, S. Combine Use of Selected Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Lachancea thermotolerans Yeast Strains as an Alternative to theTraditional Malolactic Fermentation in Red Wine Production. Molecules 2015, 20, 9510–9523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Onetto, C.A.; Bordeu, E. Pre-alcoholic fermentation acidification of red grape must using Lactobacillus plantarum. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2015, 108, 1469–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Magyar, I.; Nyitrai-Sárdy, D.; Leskó, A.; Pomázi, A.; Kállay, M. Anaerobic organic acid metabolism of Candida zemplinina in comparison with Saccharomyces wine yeasts. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 178, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Berbegal, C.; Peña, N.; Russo, P.; Grieco, F.; Pardo, I.; Ferrer, S.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. Technological properties of Lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from grape must fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2016, 57, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lucio, O.; Pardo, I.; Heras, J.M.; Krieger, S.; Ferrer, S. Influence of yeast strains on managing wine acidity using Lactobacillus plantarum. Food Control 2018, 92, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Su, J.; Wang, T.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.-Y.; Li, H. The use of lactic acid-producing, malic acid-producing, or malic acid-degrading yeast strains for acidity adjustment in the wine industry. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 2395–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morata, A.; Loira, I.; Tesfaye, W.; Bañuelos, M.A.; González, C.; Suárez Lepe, J.A. Lachancea thermotolerans Applications in Wine Technology. Fermentation 2018, 4, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Loira, I.; Morata, A.; Palomero, F.; González, C.; Suárez-Lepe, J.A. Schizosaccharomyces pombe: A Promising Biotechnology for Modulating Wine Composition. Fermentation 2018, 4, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Benito, S.; Palomero, F.; Morata, A.; Calderón, F.; Suárez-Lepe, J.A. New applications for Schizosaccharomyces pombe in the alcoholic fermentation of red wines. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 2101–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. García, M.; Esteve-Zarzoso, B.; Cabellos, J.M.; Arroyo, T. Advances in the Study of Candida stellata. Fermentation 2018, 4, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Masneuf-Pomarede, I.; Juquin, E.; Miot-Sertier, C.; Renault, P.; Laizet, Y.; Salin, F.; Alexandre, H.; Capozzi, V.; Cocolin, L.; Colonna-Ceccaldi, B.; et al. The yeast Starmerella bacillaris (synonym Candida zemplinina) shows high genetic diversity in winemaking environments. FEMS Yeast Res. 2015, 15, fov045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morata, A.; González, C.; Suárez-Lepe, J.A. Formation of vinylphenolic pyranoanthocyanins by selected yeasts fermenting red grape musts supplemented with hydroxycinnamic acids. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 116, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Swiegers, J.H.; Pretorius, I.S. Modulation of volatile sulfur compounds by wine yeast. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 74, 954–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brizuela, N.; Tymczyszyn, E.E.; Semorile, L.C.; Valdes La Hens, D.; Delfederico, L.; Hollmann, A.; Bravo-Ferrada, B. Lactobacillus plantarum as a malolactic starter culture in winemaking: A new (old) player? Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2019, 38, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Loira, I.; Morata, A.; Comuzzo, P.; Callejo, M.J.; González, C.; Calderón, F.; Suárez-Lepe, J.A. Use of Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Torulaspora delbrueckii strains in mixed and sequential fermentations to improve red wine sensory quality. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Romboli, Y.; Mangani, S.; Buscioni, G.; Granchi, L.; Vincenzini, M. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida zemplinina on quercetin, vitisin A and hydroxytyrosol contents in Sangiovese wines. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 1137–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Renault, P.; Coulon, J.; de Revel, G.; Barbe, J.-C.; Bely, M. Increase of fruity aroma during mixed T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae wine fermentation is linked to specific esters enhancement. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 207, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tristezza, M.; di Feo, L.; Tufariello, M.; Grieco, F.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G.; Mita, G.; Grieco, F. Simultaneous inoculation of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria: Effects on fermentation dynamics and chemical composition of Negroamaro wine. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 66, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Moreno, J.; Moreno-García, J.; López-Muñoz, B.; Mauricio, J.C.; García-Martínez, T. Use of a flor velum yeast for modulating colour, ethanol and major aroma compound contents in red wine. Food Chem. 2016, 213, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Campbell-Sills, H.; Capozzi, V.; Romano, A.; Cappellin, L.; Spano, G.; Breniaux, M.; Lucas, P.; Biasioli, F. Advances in wine analysis by PTR-ToF-MS: Optimization of the method and discrimination of wines from different geographical origins and fermented with different malolactic starters. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 397–398, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Englezos, V.; Torchio, F.; Cravero, F.; Marengo, F.; Giacosa, S.; Gerbi, V.; Rantsiou, K.; Rolle, L.; Cocolin, L. Aroma profile and composition of Barbera wines obtained by mixed fermentations of Starmerella bacillaris (synonym Candida zemplinina) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. LWT 2016, 73, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Tristezza, M.; Tufariello, M.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G.; Mita, G.; Grieco, F. The Oenological Potential of Hanseniaspora uvarum in Simultaneous and Sequential Co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for Industrial Wine Production. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gammacurta, M.; Lytra, G.; Marchal, A.; Marchand, S.; Christophe Barbe, J.; Moine, V.; de Revel, G. Influence of lactic acid bacteria strains on ester concentrations in red wines: Specific impact on branched hydroxylated compounds. Food Chem. 2018, 239, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Costantini, A.; Vaudano, E.; Pulcini, L.; Carafa, T.; Garcia-Moruno, E. An Overview on Biogenic Amines in Wine. Beverages 2019, 5, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Coton, M.; Romano, A.; Spano, G.; Ziegler, K.; Vetrana, C.; Desmarais, C.; Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Lucas, P.; Coton, E. Occurrence of biogenic amine-forming lactic acid bacteria in wine and cider. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tristezza, M.; Vetrano, C.; Bleve, G.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V.; Logrieco, A.; Mita, G.; Grieco, F. Biodiversity and safety aspects of yeast strains characterized from vineyards and spontaneous fermentations in the Apulia Region, Italy. Food Microbiol. 2013, 36, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Capozzi, V.; Ladero, V.; Beneduce, L.; Fernández, M.; Alvarez, M.A.; Benoit, B.; Laurent, B.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G. Isolation and characterization of tyramine-producing Enterococcus faecium strains from red wine. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Benavent-Gil, Y.; Berbegal, C.; Lucio, O.; Pardo, I.; Ferrer, S. A new fear in wine: Isolation of Staphylococcus epidermidis histamine producer. Food Control 2016, 62, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Berbegal, C.; Benavent-Gil, Y.; Navascués, E.; Calvo, A.; Albors, C.; Pardo, I.; Ferrer, S. Lowering histamine formation in a red Ribera del Duero wine (Spain) by using an indigenous O. oeni strain as a malolactic starter. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 244, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Garofalo, C.; El Khoury, M.; Lucas, P.; Bely, M.; Russo, P.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. Autochthonous starter cultures and indigenous grape variety for regional wine production. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 118, 1395–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Benito, S. The impacts of Schizosaccharomyces on winemaking. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 4291–4312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Izquierdo Cañas, P.M.; Pérez-Martín, F.; García Romero, E.; Seseña Prieto, S.; de los Palop Herreros, M.L. Influence of inoculation time of an autochthonous selected malolactic bacterium on volatile and sensory profile of Tempranillo and Merlot wines. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 156, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Smit, A.Y.; Engelbrecht, L.; du Toit, M. Managing Your Wine Fermentation to Reduce the Risk of Biogenic Amine Formation. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  97. Niu, T.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.; Ma, Y. Identification of a Lactic Acid Bacteria to Degrade Biogenic Amines in Chinese Rice Wine and Its Enzymatic Mechanism. Foods. 2019, 8, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Capozzi, V.; Russo, P.; Ladero, V.; Fernandez, M.; Fiocco, D.; Alvarez, M.A.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G. Biogenic Amines Degradation by Lactobacillus plantarum: Toward a Potential Application in Wine. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Callejón, S.; Sendra, R.; Ferrer, S.; Pardo, I. Identification of a novel enzymatic activity from lactic acid bacteria able to degrade biogenic amines in wine. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Caridi, A.; Sidari, R.; Pulvirenti, A.; Meca, G.; Ritieni, A. Ochratoxin A adsorption phenotype: An inheritable yeast trait. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 58, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  101. Petruzzi, L.; Bevilacqua, A.; Corbo, M.R.; Speranza, B.; Capozzi, V.; Sinigaglia, M. A Focus on Quality and Safety Traits of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolated from Uva di Troia Grape Variety. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. De Bellis, P.; Tristezza, M.; Haidukowski, M.; Fanelli, F.; Sisto, A.; Mulè, G.; Grieco, F. Biodegradation of Ochratoxin A by Bacterial Strains Isolated from Vineyard Soils. Toxins 2015, 7, 5079–5093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Callejón, S.; Sendra, R.; Ferrer, S.; Pardo, I. Cloning and characterization of a new laccase from Lactobacillus plantarum J16 CECT 8944 catalyzing biogenic amines degradation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 3113–3124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Paterson, R.R.M.; Venâncio, A.; Lima, N.; Guilloux-Bénatier, M.; Rousseaux, S. Predominant mycotoxins, mycotoxigenic fungi and climate change related to wine. Food Res. Int. Ott. Ont. 2018, 103, 478–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  105. Shukla, S.; Park, J.H.; Chung, S.H.; Kim, M. Ochratoxin A reduction ability of biocontrol agent Bacillus subtilis isolated from Korean traditional fermented food Kimchi. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 8039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wheeler, T.; von Braun, J. Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science 2013, 341, 508–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Whitfield, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Rees, R.M. Frontiers in Climate Smart Food Systems: Outlining the Research Space. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Santos, J.A. An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food Energy Secur. 2012, 1, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Berbegal, C.; Borruso, L.; Fragasso, M.; Tufariello, M.; Russo, P.; Brusetti, L.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. A Metagenomic-Based Approach for the Characterization of Bacterial Diversity Associated with Spontaneous Malolactic Fermentations in Wine. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Balmaseda, A.; Bordons, A.; Reguant, C.; Bautista-Gallego, J. Non-Saccharomyces in Wine: Effect Upon Oenococcus oeni and Malolactic Fermentation. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nardi, T.; Panero, L.; Petrozziello, M.; Guaita, M.; Tsolakis, C.; Cassino, C.; Vagnoli, P.; Bosso, A. Managing wine quality using Torulaspora delbrueckii and Oenococcus oeni starters in mixed fermentations of a red Barbera wine. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2019, 245, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Benito, Á.; Calderón, F.; Benito, S. The Combined Use of Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Lachancea thermotolerans—Effect on the Anthocyanin Wine Composition. Molecules 2017, 22, 739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Escribano, R.; González-Arenzana, L.; Garijo, P.; Berlanas, C.; López-Alfaro, I.; López, R.; Gutiérrez, A.R.; Santamaría, P. Screening of enzymatic activities within different enological non-Saccharomyces yeasts. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 1555–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Capozzi, V.; Di Toro, M.R.; Grieco, F.; Michelotti, V.; Salma, M.; Lamontanara, A.; Russo, P.; Orrù, L.; Alexandre, H.; Spano, G. Viable But Not Culturable (VBNC) state of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in wine: New insights on molecular basis of VBNC behaviour using a transcriptomic approach. Food Microbiol. 2016, 59, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Avramova, M.; Vallet-Courbin, A.; Maupeu, J.; Masneuf-Pomarède, I.; Albertin, W. Molecular Diagnosis of Brettanomyces bruxellensis Sulfur Dioxide Sensitivity Through Genotype Specific Method. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Roudil, L.; Russo, P.; Berbegal, C.; Albertin, W.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. Non-Saccharomyces Commercial Starter Cultures: Scientific Trends, Recent Patents and Innovation in the Wine Sector. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Garofalo, C.; Tristezza, M.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. From grape berries to wine: Population dynamics of cultivable yeasts associated to “Nero di Troia” autochthonous grape cultivar. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 32, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Bokulich, N.A.; Collins, T.S.; Masarweh, C.; Allen, G.; Heymann, H.; Ebeler, S.E.; Mills, D.A. Associations among Wine Grape Microbiome, Metabolome, and Fermentation Behavior Suggest Microbial Contribution to Regional Wine Characteristics. mBio 2016, 7, e00631-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  119. Knight, S.; Klaere, S.; Fedrizzi, B.; Goddard, M.R. Regional microbial signatures positively correlate with differential wine phenotypes: Evidence for a microbial aspect to terroir. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Capozzi, V.; Yener, S.; Khomenko, I.; Farneti, B.; Cappellin, L.; Gasperi, F.; Scampicchio, M.; Biasioli, F. PTR-ToF-MS Coupled with an Automated Sampling System and Tailored Data Analysis for Food Studies: Bioprocess Monitoring, Screening and Nose-space Analysis. J. Vis. Exp. JoVE 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Romano, A.; Capozzi, V.; Spano, G.; Biasioli, F. Proton transfer reaction–mass spectrometry: Online and rapid determination of volatile organic compounds of microbial origin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 3787–3795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nieuwoudt, H.H.; Pretorius, I.S.; Bauer, F.F.; Nel, D.G.; Prior, B.A. Rapid screening of the fermentation profiles of wine yeasts by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. J. Microbiol. Methods 2006, 67, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Maqueda, M.; Pérez-Nevado, F.; Regodón, J.A.; Zamora, E.; Álvarez, M.L.; Rebollo, J.E.; Ramírez, M. A low-cost procedure for production of fresh autochthonous wine yeast. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. A list of the effects of climate change on viticulture and enology. Often, oenological effects are a consequence of viticultural effects.
Table 1. A list of the effects of climate change on viticulture and enology. Often, oenological effects are a consequence of viticultural effects.
Viticultural EffectsOenological Effects
Harvest datesHarvest conditions and fruit quality
Grape maturation (effect of temperature, of carbon dioxide and of radiation)Effects of high sugar and alcohol concentrations
Indirect effects of climate changeMicrobial and sensory effects of lower acidities and increased potassium and pH levels
Effects on vine pestsClimate change associated effects on wine chemistry
Effect on root systemsEffect on oak
Modified from Mira de de Orduña [24].
Table 2. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating the development of spoilage microorganisms in wine.
Table 2. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating the development of spoilage microorganisms in wine.
Microorganisms InvolvedMicrobial-Based Mitigating StrategiesReferences
Lactococcus lactis (as producer of lacticin 3147)Use of lacticin 3147 for the biocontrol of lactic acid bacteria in oenology[35]
Metschnikowia pulcherrimaBiocontrol of spoilage yeasts via iron depletion[36]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeKiller activity as biocontrol agents to avoid or reduce wine spoilage[37]
Enterococcus faeciumEnterocin heat stable, with broad pH range and bactericidal effects[38]
Pichia membranifaciensKiller toxin active against spoilage yeast in wine[39]
Torulaspora delbrueckiiUse as a bio-protective agent alternative to sulphites in winemaking[40]
Wickerhamomyces anomalus and Metschnikowia pulcherrimaBiocontrol activity against spoilage yeasts in winemaking[22]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida zemplinina, Hanseniaspora uvarum, Hanseniaspora guilliermondii, Torulaspora delbrueckii, Metschnikowia pulcherrimaUse of co-inoculation of autochthonous yeasts and bacteria in order to control Brettanomyces bruxellensis in wine[21]
Table 3. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating an increased ethanol concentration.
Table 3. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating an increased ethanol concentration.
Microorganisms InvolvedMicrobial-Based Mitigating StrategiesReferences
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeSelection of less ethanol producer yeasts[43,44]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAdaptive evolution to conditions where glycerol synthesis is more favoured than ethanol[45,46]
Hanseniaspora uvarum, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Lachancea thermotolerans, Saccharomyces kudriavzeviiNon-Saccharomyces sequential inoculation or co-inoculation with S. cerevisiae[14,47,48,49,50,51]
Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Kluyveromyces spp., Candida sake, Torulaspora delbrueckii, Zygosaccharomyces bailiiRespiratory consumption of sugars[52,53,54,55]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeGenetic engineering [56,57,58]
Table 4. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating the reduced content in organic acids and an increased pH.
Table 4. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating the reduced content in organic acids and an increased pH.
Microorganisms InvolvedMicrobial-Based Mitigating StrategiesReferences
Candida stellataConsistent increase in succinic acid content [63]
Lachancea thermotolerans and Saccharomyces cerevisiaepH reduction and increased total acidity perceived[59]
Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Lachancea thermotoleransA biotechnological alternative to the traditional malolactic fermentation in red wine production[64]
Lactobacillus plantarumBiological acidification using the lactic acid bacterium in pre-alcoholic fermentation[65]
Candida zemplininaModerate production of acetate, succinate, malate, and lactate, with specific nitrogen dependence of acid production[66]
Lactobacillus plantarumSelection of MLF starter cultures for high pH must[67]
Lactobacillus plantarumSelection of strains to provoke biological acidification in low acidity matrices[61]
Lactobacillus plantarumThe managing wine acidity depended on the couple LAB/yeast strains co-inoculated[68]
Table 5. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that have potential applications in mitigating modifications of sensory characteristics.
Table 5. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that have potential applications in mitigating modifications of sensory characteristics.
Microorganisms InvolvedMicrobial-Based Mitigating StrategiesReferences
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces uvarum and Saccharomyces montuliensisFormation of vinylphenolic pyranoanthocyanins, pigments affecting the colour of the finished wine[75]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeWine yeast are capable to influence volatile sulphur compounds [76]
Lactobacillus plantarum Detain enzymes are also involved in improving colour in red wines[77]
Torulaspora delbrueckiiThe yeast in mixed fermentation allows a potential increase of fruity aromas in the wine[78]
Schizosaccharomyces pombeThe yeast allows increasing the contents of vitisins, especially A type[78]
Candida zemplininaThe yeast improves vitisin A contents [79]
Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiaeT. delbrueckii in association with S. cerevisiae affects the esters content with impact on the aromatic traits of wines.[80]
Oenococcus oeni and Saccharomyces cerevisiaeCo-inoculation of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria as a strategy produces enhancement in wine aroma profile during fermentation[81]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeA flor velum Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain is able to influence colour and the contents of key aroma compound, susceptible to conceive new red wine types in a climate change scenario.[82]
Oenococcus oeniThe use of different malolactic starter culture led to modulation in the quality and quantity of volatile organic compounds[83]
Starmerella bacillaris and Saccharomyces cerevisiaeMixed fermentations could be considered as a tool to enhance the aroma profile[84]
Hanseniaspora uvarumCo-inoculation of Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in order to increase the aromatic profile and lessen the presence of the undesired characters[85]
Oenococcus oeniInfluence of protechnological and autochthonous strains on compounds relevant for wine aroma, particularly on branched hydroxylated compounds [86]
Table 6. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating an increased content in mycotoxin and biogenic amines.
Table 6. A list of studies that propose microbial-based solutions that can have potential applications in mitigating an increased content in mycotoxin and biogenic amines.
Microorganisms InvolvedMicrobial-Based Mitigating StrategiesReferences
Oenococcus oeniNon-BA producer’s selection to carry out the MLF[92,93]
Schizosaccharomyces pombeInhibition of LAB development (and of the consequent BA generation) by removing malic acid and sugars during AF[94]
Oenococcus oeni, Lactobacillus hilgardii, Lactobacillus brevisCo-inoculation of S. cerevisiae and LAB to control the BA-producing microorganisms[95,96]
Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus acidilacticiBA degradation[97,98,99]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeOTA reduction by adsorption[100,101]
Acinetobacter sp., Saccharomyces cerevisiaeOTA degradation by peptidases[101,102]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Berbegal, C.; Fragasso, M.; Russo, P.; Bimbo, F.; Grieco, F.; Spano, G.; Capozzi, V. Climate Changes and Food Quality: The Potential of Microbial Activities as Mitigating Strategies in the Wine Sector. Fermentation 2019, 5, 85.

AMA Style

Berbegal C, Fragasso M, Russo P, Bimbo F, Grieco F, Spano G, Capozzi V. Climate Changes and Food Quality: The Potential of Microbial Activities as Mitigating Strategies in the Wine Sector. Fermentation. 2019; 5(4):85.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Berbegal, Carmen, Mariagiovanna Fragasso, Pasquale Russo, Francesco Bimbo, Francesco Grieco, Giuseppe Spano, and Vittorio Capozzi. 2019. "Climate Changes and Food Quality: The Potential of Microbial Activities as Mitigating Strategies in the Wine Sector" Fermentation 5, no. 4: 85.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop