Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Food Chemistry: X logoLink to Food Chemistry: X
. 2019 Oct 11;4:100070. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2019.100070

Non-Saccharomyces yeast and lactic acid bacteria in Co-inoculated fermentations with two Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast strains: A strategy to improve the phenolic content of Syrah wine

PP Minnaar a,, HW du Plessis a, NP Jolly a, M van der Rijst c, M du Toit b
PMCID: PMC6806450  PMID: 31656955

Highlights

  • Reduced alcohol and astringency were found in wines from mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF.

  • Mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF resulted in increased phenolics.

  • Improved quality (preference) of wine using mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF were evident.

  • Mixed culture co-inoculations with MLF is a strategy to contemplate for Syrah wines.

Chemical compounds studied in this article: Caffeic acid (PubChem CID: 689043), Gallic acid (PubChem CID: 370), (+)-Catechin (PubChem: 73160), Chlorogenic acid (PubChem CID: 1794427), p-Coumaric acid (PubChem CID: 637542), Epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate (PubChem CID: 65064), Quercetin (PubChem CID: 5280343), Quercetin 3-O-glucoside (PubChem CID: 25203368), Quercetin 3-O-rutinoside (PubChem CID: 5280805), Malvidin-3-O-glucoside (PubChem CID: 443652).

Keywords: Co-inoculation, Hanseniaspora uvarum, Lactobacillus plantarum, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Oenococcus oeni, Phenolics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Syrah

Abstract

Syrah must was co-inoculated with mixed cultures of Saccharomyces + O. oeni/Lb. plantarum and Saccharomyces + non-Saccharomyces + O. oeni/Lb. plantarum to evaluate the effect on phenolics and sensory attributes. Reference wines were produced by S. cerevisiae. Malvidin-3-O-glucoside, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic acids were quantified using a RP-HPLC technique. Physicochemical characteristics and sensory attributes were measured. Total acidity and alcohol in mixed co-inoculations were different from reference wines. The concentration of l-malic acid was 7-times less in mixed co-inoculations. Mixed co-inoculations had ca. 1.3-times more malvidin-3-O-glucoside and phenolic acids than reference wines. Flavan-3-ols and flavonols were not different between mixed co-inoculations and reference wines. Acidity and astringency were least in mixed co-inoculations. Mouthfeel and bitterness least in S. cerevisiae wines. Tasters preferred mixed co-inoculated wines. Mixed co-inoculation is a strategy to contemplate for Syrah vinification but the modalities of inoculation need further investigation. Success depends on a suitable combination of yeast/bacteria and consideration of strain variation.

1. Introduction

Alcoholic fermentation (AF) is an essential step in the production of red wine (Costello, Francis, & Bartowsky, 2012). Single yeast cultures such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae are usually inoculated into grape must to initiate AF. Phenolic compound concentrations can be modified during AF through enzymatic reactions or metabolic activities of yeasts (Ribéreau-Gayon, Glories, Maujean, & Du Bourdieu, 2006). β-glucosidase is an enzyme responsible for catalysing the hydrolysis of glycosidic linkages in alkyl and aryl-β-d-glucosides to release phenolic aglycone moieties. Wine quality can be assessed by a combination of sensory (colour, aroma, astringency, bitterness, acidity, body, complexity, structure and mouthfeel) and chemical (flavonoids, non-flavonoids, volatile compounds and flavour profiles) analyses. Red wine made with different S. cerevisiae strains resulted in decreased anthocyanin concentrations (Morata, Gomez-Cordoves, Suberviola, Bartolome, & Saurez, 2003). The decrease may have been due to yeast-anthocyanin interaction.

Most non-Saccharomyces yeasts have limited fermentation potential, i.e. low fermentation rates as well as low tolerance for SO2 and pH (Du Plessis et al., 2017). Non-Saccharomyces yeasts are therefore used in combination with S. cerevisiae in mixed culture fermentations to finish AF and to ensure that the wines ferment to dryness (Benito et al., 2015, Varela et al., 2017).

The effect of different non-Saccharomyces yeasts species on wine quality has been evaluated by Viana, Belloch, Vallés, and Manzanares (2011). Medina et al. (2013) found that certain positive sensory attributes of Chardonnay wines and quality were correlated with increased phenolic concentrations in spontaneous fermentations and co-fermentations with Hanseniaspora vineae. Domizio, Liu, Bisson, and Barile (2014) reported that mixed fermentations of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in complex metabolic matrices can result in increased aroma and flavour diversity with improved wine quality. However, due to incomplete sugar catabolism, such fermentation lacks predictability.

Tempranillo grape must which was inoculated with S. cerevisiae in combination with Metschnikowia pulcherrima added after 48 h, resulted in wines with improved mouthfeel, compared to S. cerevisiae reference wines (Belda et al., 2016). However, the above-mentioned wines were not significantly different in colour (Belda et al., 2016).

Mixed fermentation cultures can modulate the chemical profiles of wine (Benito et al., 2015, Minnaar et al., 2017). Grape phenolic compounds, such as anthocyanins, flavonols, flavan-3-ols and phenolic acids contribute to wine quality by the amelioration of colour, astringency, bitterness, body, mouthfeel, fullness, complexity and structure (Rodriguez-Montealegre, Romero-Peces, Chacón-Vozmediano, Martinez-Gascueña, & García-Romero, 2006). Viana and co-workers (2011) found that mixed fermentations of S. cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum (anamorph: Kloeckera apiculate) using Muscat grape must have the ability to improve wine flavour, however, excessive growth of H. uvarum can result in wines with increased volatile acidity. Hranilovic et al. (2017) reported that Shiraz wines made with S. cerevisiae and M. pulcherrima had less flavan-3-ols and anthocyanins, compared to Saccharomyces wines. Medina, Boido, Dellacassa, and Carrau (2018) reported increased concentrations of colour intensities (anthocyanins) in Tannat wines made with mono cultures of M. pulcherrima and Hanseniaspora opuntiae than wines made with S. cerevisiae. Tannat wines made with S. cerevisiae and H. uvarum had increased colour intensity but less total anthocyanins than S. cerevisiae wines.

Red wine can also undergo a secondary fermentation called malolactic fermentation (MLF) using lactic acid bacteria (LAB), which can be induced at the beginning or during the final stages of AF or post AF (Costello et al., 2012). Malolactic fermentation leads to the enzymatic conversion of dicarboxylic l-malic acid to monocarboxylic l-lactic acid, which results in de-acidification of wine (Pérez-Martín, Seseña, Izquierdo, & Palop, 2013). Certain LAB can however cause stuck fermentations or wines with increased acetic acid. Oenococcus oeni (O. oeni) is associated with MLF due to its tolerance to an acidic pH and increased alcohol content (Hernández et al., 2007). Tempranillo wines made with a combination of S. cerevisiae yeasts (indigenous strains) and Lactobacillus plantarum in sequential inoculations had increased concentrations of flavonoids and phenolic acids, compared to Saccharomyces wines (Hernández et al., 2007).

Lactic acid bacteria can cause secondary metabolic activities during MLF that modulate the sensory attributes of wine with negative or positive effects on colour and mouthfeel (López et al., 2011). The effect of LAB on wine sensory attributes showed that it can enhance body, complexity, structure and mouthfeel of Cabernet Sauvignon wine (Costello et al., 2012). Syrah wines made with yeast and Lb. plantarum had more intense mouthfeel, when compared to Saccharomyces reference wines (Minnaar et al., 2017).

Co-inoculation of Malbec grape must with H. uvarum and S. cerevisiae yeast with O. oeni, resulted in wines with more phenolic aroma intensity than wines without MLF (Mendoza, Merín, Morata, & Farías, 2011). López et al. (2011) demonstrated that the esterase and glycosidase activities of O. oeni resulted in Tempranillo wines with increased total phenolics and anthocyanins, compared to wines that did not undergo MLF.

Malolactic fermentations in combination with non-Saccharomyces yeast can result in increased phenolic concentrations of Cabernet Sauvignon, Nero di Troia and Syrah wines (Costello et al., 2012, Suriano et al., 2012). Abrahamse and Bartowsky (2012) reported that mixed inoculations after MLF of Chardonnay, Malbec and Syrah grape musts, were not different in the final chemical composition, compared to wines without MLF. Burns and Osborne (2015) reported increased anthocyanin concentrations in Pinot noir wines that underwent MLF, when compared to wines made with S. cerevisiae. Chescheir, Philbin, and Osborne (2015) reported increased concentrations of phenolic acids in Pinot noir wines made with S. cerevisiae in combination with O. oeni as opposed to S. cerevisiae reference wines.

Hranilovic et al. (2017) reported that colour density increased in Syrah wines of sequentially inoculated grape must with M. pulcherrima and S. cerevisiae, compared to wines made with mixed cultures of S. cerevisiae, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Lb. plantarum. Wines made with a combination of Saccharomyces, non-Saccharomyces and O. oeni in sequential inoculations, when compared to S. cerevisiae reference wines, had increased anthocyanin concentrations (Minnaar et al., 2017). Increased concentrations of phenolic acids were also reported in sequentially inoculated Syrah grape must with S. cerevisiae, M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum after MLF.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mixed culture co-inoculation fermentations using two S. cerevisiae strains and two non-Saccharomyces yeasts with two lactic acid bacteria on the phenolic concentrations of Syrah wines. Additionally, the effect of treatment on selected sensory attributes were also reported on.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Yeast strains and lactic acid bacteria

Two commercial S. cerevisiae yeast strains (VIN13 and NT202, Anchor Wine Yeast, South Africa), one H. uvarum yeast strain (ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij culture collection, Y0858), one M. pulcherrima yeast strain (ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij culture collection, Y0839) and two LAB strains, i.e. O. oeni (Viniflora® oenos, Chr. Hansen, Denmark) and Lb. plantarum (Enoferm V22, Lallemand, France) were used to inoculate Syrah grape must. The following abbreviations were used: S. cerevisiae VIN13 (Sc1), S. cerevisiae NT202 (Sc2), H. uvarum (Hu), M. pulcherrima (Mp), O. oeni (LAB1) and Lb. plantarum (LAB2).

2.2. Fermentation process

Handpicked Syrah grapes from vines planted to a northwest-southeast row orientation and trained to a vertical shoot position trellis system on the Nietvoorbij research farm near Stellenbosch (–33.914865, 18.861047) South Africa were utilised for vinification at the ARC’s experimental wine cellar in Stellenbosch. Grapes were mechanically destemmed and crushed. Grape skins and grape pulp were separated, homogenised and reconstituted in equal ratios into 70 L fermentation bins. Yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) of the grape juice was measured using a Foss® Winescan (IWBT, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch). The YAN was 133.0 mg/L which was considered insufficient. Therefore, a standard addition of 50 g/hL diammonium hydrogen phosphate (DAP) was added to the juice (Minnaar, Ntushelo, Ngqumba, Van Breda, and Jolly (2015). Fermentations were conducted in a temperature-controlled room at ca. 24 °C using a standardised winemaking protocol as described by Minnaar et al. (2015). Treatments included S. cerevisiae (Sc1 or Sc2) on its own (reference wines), S. cerevisiae (Sc1 or Sc2) in combination with LAB (LAB1 or LAB2), and non-Saccharomyces yeasts (H. uvarum or M. pulcherrima) in combination with S. cerevisiae (Sc1 or Sc2) and LAB (O. oeni or Lb. plantarum). All treatments were repeated independently in three fermentation bins.

Metschnikowia pulcherrima and H. uvarum were inoculated as wet cultures on day 0 at a concentration of 8.4 × 105 and 6.4 × 105 cells/mL, respectively. Rehydrated commercial S. cerevisiae (0.3 g/L active dry yeast) was added 24 h later (day 1) to complete AF in the mixed culture co-inoculation fermentations, whereas 0.3 g/L of the active dry yeast was added on day 0 for the reference wines. Lactic acid bacteria were added to the ferments after 25 h (Day 1) and all ferments that will undergo MLF were inoculated according to the supplier’s recommendations, before the alcoholic fermentation became tumultuous.

The fermentation caps were punched down twice each day and all treatments were subjected to the same grape-pomace contact time. Wines were racked off the lees and the total SO2 adjusted to ca. 85 mg/L after completion of MLF. Malolactic fermentation was considered complete for the experimental wines when l-malic acid concentrations were below 0.3 g/L. All wines fermented to dryness (<0.2 g/L residual sugar). Wines were stored at 15 °C until required for analysis. The yeast and LAB populations were monitored throughout the duration of fermentation to ensure yeast and bacteria multiplication, which was reported by Du Plessis et al. (2019).

2.3. Physicochemical characteristics

Total soluble solids, total acidity (TA), l-malic acid and volatile acidity (VA) were analysed in the Syrah must using a Foss® Winescan (IWBT, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch). Residual sugar (RS), l-malic acid, pH, TA, alcohol and VA were determined on the finished wine using an OenoFoss™ analyser (FOSS Analytical A/S, Denmark).

2.4. Phenolic compounds

Phenolics were quantified using a liquid chromatographic method (RP-HPLC-DAD) as described by Waterhouse, Price, and McCord (1999). Malvidin-3-O-glucosides, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic acids were measured at absorbance wavelengths of 520 nm, 280 nm, 360 nm, and 316 nm, respectively. Quantification of phenolics was performed based on calibration curves using commercially available reference standards and matching ultra-violet absorbance spectra. Wines were filtered through a 0.45 µm nylon membrane syringe filter prior to analysis.

2.5. Sensory evaluation

A panel of twenty-four wine tasters evaluated the wines 16 months after bottling. The panellists were commercial winemakers and/or staff of The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council in Stellenbosch. Panel members had between 2 and 20 years’ experience in wine evaluation.

Wines were evaluated (classical profiling) during three sessions (three days) in a temperature-controlled room at ±20 °C with fluorescent light illumination. Each panellist was allocated to a separate tasting booth and ca. 30 mL of wine was presented in a randomised order, in a standard international wine tasting glass, labelled with a three-digit code. Water and wheat biscuits (neutral taste) were provided to tasters for palate cleansing between sample tastings. The tasters rated the attributes on a 10 cm unstructured line-scale from “low” to “high” (acidity, astringency, preference), “thin” to “full” (mouthfeel) and “undetectable” to “prominent” (bitterness).

2.6. Statistical analysis

Resulting data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA). Fisher’s significant difference values were calculated at a 5% probability level to facilitate comparisons between treatment means. Means within data sets that differed at a 5% probability level were considered significantly different.

3. Results and discussion

This paper reports on the effect of different treatments, i.e. Saccharomyces/LAB and Saccharomyces/non-Saccharomyces/LAB as strategies on Syrah wine’s physiochemical characteristics, phenolics and selected sensory attributes.

3.1. Yeast development

The naturally occurring Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast populations in the Syrah must were reported in Du Plessis et al. (2019). Initial yeast counts of the wines inoculated with H. uvarum and M. pulcherrima at day 0 were below 1 × 106 CFU/mL, but increased to levels > 10 million CFU/mL after 24 h (Du Plessis et al., 2019). However, this trend changed after inoculation of commercial S. cerevisiae yeasts (day 1), which resulted in the decrease of H. uvarum and M. pulcherrima cells.

3.2. LAB development and progression of MLF

Naturally occurring lactic acid bacteria populations in the Syrah grape must were reported by Du Plessis et al. (2019). The addition of commercial LAB resulted in an expected increase of LAB cells. No notable delays in MLF was found in the inoculated wines, despite the decrease of Lb. plantarum and O. oeni cells.

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1/Sc2) of H. uvarum completed MLF (O. oeni, Lb. plantarum) within 18 days, while S. cerevisiae (Sc1), completed MLF (O. oeni, Lb. plantarum) within 34 days. A delay in MLF (Sc1, Lb. plantarum) can be ascribed to a decrease in LAB cells. This trend was however not observed for S. cerevisiae (Sc1) after MLF (O. oeni), which had LAB cell count of > 1 × 106 CFU/mL throughout the fermentation (Du Plessis et al., 2019).

3.3. Physicochemical characteristics

The physicochemical characteristics of Syrah must and wine are listed in Table 1. Total acidity and l-malic acid were 7.43 g/L and 3.1 g/L, respectively in grape must with a pH of 3.57, compared to fermented must of 4.9 g/L and 0.5 g/L, respectively and a pH of 3.8. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1) after MLF, significantly increased the total acidity, compared to reference fermentations (Sc1) and mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF. Mixed culture co-inoculated fermentations had 4.74 g/L total acidity, compared to 5.25 g/L for Sc1 after MLF and 4.90 g/L for reference fermentations.

Table 1.

Physicochemical characteristics of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic of co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc1), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Physicochemical characteristics Syrah must Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc11 Sc1 + LAB12 Sc1 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc1 + LAB1 Mp + Sc1 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc1 + LAB1 Hu + Sc1 + LAB2
Total acidity (g/L) 7.43 4.90*±0.32b** 5.39 ± 0.34a 5.11 ± 0.04a 4.71 ± 0.63c 4.78 ± 0.09c 4.76 ± 0.07c 4.73 ± 0.05c
pH 3.57 3.82 ± 0.09a 3.77 ± 0.11a 3.88 ± 0.01a 3.81 ± 0.07a 3.89 ± 0.04a 3.74 ± 0.07a 3.81 ± 0.01a
Alcohol (% v/v) N D 13.54 ± 0.35a 13.51 ± 0.44a 13.57 ± 0.37a 12.49 ± 1.23b 12.41 ± 1.16b 12.11 ± 0.27b 12.76 ± 0.61b
l-malic acid (g/L) 3.1 2.02 ± 0.11a 0.21 ± 0.02c 0.22 ± 0.05c 0.26 ± 0.03b 0.24 ± 0.07b 0.28 ± 0.03b 0.27 ± 0.04b
Volatile acidity (g/L) 0.44 0.31 ± 0.03a 0.27 ± 0.02a 0.33 ± 0.01a 0.31 ± 0.03a 0.29 ± 0.03a 0.25 ± 0.02a 0.32 ± 0.01a
°Brix 23.0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A
Residual sugar (g/L) N A <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

N A: Not applicable.

N D: Not detected.

*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured parameters among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1 [VIN13], reference).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum

In mixed culture co-inoculations of H. uvarum after MLF (Sc2), total acidity was 4.69 g/L, compared 4.84 g/L for M. pulcherrima, 5.04 g/L for S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and 4.99 g/L for reference fermentations (Table 2). Hranilovic et al. (2017) reported reduced acetic acid production in mixed co-inoculations of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae, Lb. thermotolerans/S. cerevisiae and S. cerevisiae/Lb. thermotolerans/T. delbrueckii, compared to S. cerevisiae reference wines. Puertas et al. (2018) found increased concentrations of total acidity in Chardonnay wines made with S. cerevisiae, compared to sequentially inoculated must with S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii. The production of acid during AF is however dependent on the initial sugar concentration of the must.

Table 2.

Physicochemical characteristics of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic of co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc2), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Physicochemical characteristics Syrah must Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc21 Sc2 + LAB12 Sc2 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc2 + LAB1 Mp + Sc2 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc2 + LAB1 Hu + Sc2 + LAB2
Total acidity (g/L) 7.43 4.99*±0.18a** 5.11 ± 0.20a 4.98 ± 0.05a 4.86 ± 0.07ba 4.83 ± 0.03ba 4.73 ± 0.15c 4.66 ± 0.12c
pH 3.57 3.78 ± 0.05a 3.76 ± 0.08a 3.82 ± 0.02a 3.83 ± 0.02a 3.86 ± 0.02a 3.79 ± 0.04a 3.85 ± 0.04a
Alcohol (% v/v) N D 13.84 ± 0.34a 14.03 ± 0.27a 13.65 ± 0.32a 12.26 ± 0.15b 12.74 ± 0.48b 12.22 ± 0.01b 12.75 ± 0.72b
l-malic acid (g/L) 3.1 1.51 ± 0.05a 0.22 ± 0.03c 0.21 ± 0.05c 0.28 ± 0.08b 0.27 ± 0.06b 0.24 ± 0.06b 0.25 ± 0.07b
Volatile acidity (g/L) 0.44 0.39 ± 0.02a 0.41 ± 0.01a 0.39 ± 0.02a 0.38 ± 0.01a 0.40 ± 0.01a 0.43 ± 0.02a 0.39 ± 0.02a
°Brix 23.0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A
Residual sugar (g/L) N A <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

N A: Not applicable.

N D: Not detected.

*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured parameters among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc2 [NT202], reference).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima.

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum.

Reference fermentations (Sc1/Sc2) and S. cerevisiae wines after MLF had an average of 13.69% alcohol content, compared to mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF of 12.46%. Morales, Fierro-Risco, Ríos-Reina, Ubeda, and Paneque (2019) reported increased alcohol in wines made with S. cerevisiae as compared to co-inoculated ferments. Puertas et al. (2018) reported increased concentrations of alcohol in Chardonnay wines made with S. cerevisiae, compared to co-inoculated must with S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii. Inoculated strategy was however sequential.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1/Sc2) wines after MLF had an average of 0.21 g/L malic acid (L), whereas wines of mixed culture co-inoculations had an average of 0.26 g/L. Reference fermentations (Sc1/Sc2) had an average l-malic acid content of 1.76 g/L. Hranilovic et al. (2017) reported decreased l-malic acid concentrations in mixed co-inoculation fermentations in comparison to S. cerevisiae fermentations.

Volatile acidity and pH were not significantly different among any of the fermentations (Sc1/Sc2), including reference fermentations. This agrees with work by Puertas et al. (2018) where Chardonnay must was co-inoculated with S. cerevisiae/T. delbrucekii. All wines including reference wines (Sc1/Sc2) fermented to dryness with RS<0.2 g/L.

3.4. Phenolic compounds

3.4.1. Phenolic acids

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of H. uvarum after MLF, significantly increased gallic, caffeic, p-coumaric and chlorogenic acids, compared to reference fermentations, S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima after MLF (Table 3). Reference fermentations (Sc1) had 17.84 mg/L caffeic and 18.49 mg/L chlorogenic acid as opposed to 27.94 mg/L caffeic and 32.49 mg/L chlorogenic acid in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and 30.07 mg/L caffeic and 31.35 mg/L chlorogenic acid in mixed culture co-inoculations.

Table 3.

Average concentrations of phenolic compounds (mg/L) of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc1), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Phenolics Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc11 Sc1 + LAB12 Sc1 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc1 + LAB1 Mp + Sc1 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc1 + LAB1 Hu + Sc1 + LAB2
Gallic acid (THBA6) 2.45*±1.44c** 2.45 ± 1.05c 2.34 ± 1.23c 2.67 ± 3.23b 2.67 ± 1.64b 2.83 ± 2.15a 2.89 ± 1.26a
Caffeic acid (HCA7) 17.84 ± 1.12d 27.80 ± 2.25b 27.94 ± 1.89b 28.60 ± 2.88b 28.14 ± 1.46b 31.09 ± 0.15a 32.46 ± 1.06a
p-Coumaric acid (HCA7) 22.86 ± 2.97c 21.69 ± 2.12c 21.03 ± 0.59c 26.31 ± 4.24b 25.06 ± 2.31b 34.62 ± 2.38a 35.37 ± 1.69a
Chlorogenic acid (ester of HCA7, two isomers) 18.49 ± 1.52d 32.64 ± 0.15b 32.34 ± 2.95b 25.93 ± 0.72c 25.90 ± 2.84c 36.04 ± 0.38a 37.54 ± 4.55a
Phenolic acids 61.65c 84.59b 83.68b 83.52b 83.79b 104.60a 108.27a
Epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate (ester of EGC8) 1.29 ± 1.67c 1.29 ± 1.05c 1.33 ± 2.42c 1.57 ± 1.58b 1.45 ± 1.98b 1.79 ± 2.17a 1.87 ± 0.11a
(+)-Catechin 6.86 ± 0.38a 6.94 ± 0.55a 6.77 ± 0.19a 5.62 ± 0.47c 5.49 ± 1.53c 6.34 ± 1.37b 6.12 ± 0.62b
Flavan-3-ols 8.15a 8.23a 8.10a 7.19b 6.95b 8.13a 8.00a
Quercetin 3-O-rutinoside (rutin) 2.94 ± 1.76c 3.34 ± 0.17b 3.53 ± 0.30b 3.52 ± 0.11b 3.72 ± 0.80b 4.75 ± 0.42a 4.72 ± 0.49a
Quercetin 3-O-glucoside (isoquercetin) 1.26 ± 2.68c 1.35 ± 1.01b 1.35 ± 1.97b 1.47 ± 1.29b 1.41 ± 3.71b 1.81 ± 1.21a 1.62 ± 0.93a
Quercetin 2.60 ± 3.93a 2.56 ± 4.38a 2.50 ± 2.92a 1.74 ± 2.39b 1.72 ± 1.95b 1.78 ± 1.19b 1.76 ± 2.17b
Flavonols 6.80c 7.26b 7.39b 6.74c 6.86c 8.34a 8.12a
Malvidin-3-O-glucoside (anthocyanin) 63.49 ± 9.71b 65.53 ± 2.97b 65.21 ± 1.46b 82.31 ± 4.04a 81.55 ± 6.37a 67.35 ± 4.62b 67.33 ± 5.94b
Total phenolics 140.11d 165.63c 164.39c 179.77b 178.17b 188.43a 191.74a
*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured phenolic compounds among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1 [VIN13], reference wine).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima.

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum.

6

Trihydroxybenzoic acid.

7

Hydroxycinnamic acid.

8

Epigallocatechin.

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc2) after MLF, significantly increased gallic, p-coumaric and chlorogenic acids in comparison to reference fermentations and S. cerevisiae wines after MLF (Table 4). Caffeic acid was not significantly different among any of the fermentations, including reference fermentations.

Table 4.

Average concentrations of phenolic compounds (mg/L) of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc2), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Phenolics Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc21 Sc2 + LAB12 Sc2 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc2 + LAB1 Mp + Sc2 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc2 + LAB1 Hu + Sc2 + LAB2
Gallic acid (THBA6) 1.99*±2.27b** 1.95 ± 1.62b 1.76 ± 0.83b 2.15 ± 0.91a 2.15 ± 1.39a 2.41 ± 2.40a 2.23 ± 1.93a
Caffeic acid (HCA7) 26.87 ± 3.37a 29.68 ± 1.50a 28.05 ± 1.53a 26.07 ± 3.39a 26.28 ± 0.45a 27.60 ± 1.47a 27.41 ± 1.41a
p-Coumaric acid (HCA7) 22.66 ± 1.30b 24.47 ± 1.81b 23.84 ± 2.03b 31.60 ± 2.73a 31.08 ± 3.68a 33.93 ± 1.08a 33.52 ± 1.29a
Chlorogenic acid (ester of HCA7, two isomers) 21.68 ± 1.67c 26.43 ± 0.87b 26.93 ± 2.26b 35.33 ± 0.46a 34.34 ± 2.13a 36.38 ± 1.36a 36.70 ± 0.31a
Phenolic acids 73.21c 82.55b 80.59b 95.16a 93.86a 97.92a 99.86a
Epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate (ester of EGC8) 0.85 ± 4.60d 1.47 ± 2.62c 1.43 ± 0.24c 1.63 ± 0.70b 1.62 ± 0.71b 2.38 ± 0.45a 2.58 ± 0.56a
(+)-Catechin 4.97 ± 0.45d 4.78 ± 0.16d 4.55 ± 0.62d 5.59 ± 0.33b 5.55 ± 0.48b 6.20 ± 0.17a 6.04 ± 0.45a
Flavan-3-ols 5.82d 6.24c 5.98c 7.22b 7.17b 8.59a 8.62a
Quercetin 3-O-rutinoside (rutin) 3.83 ± 0.83b 4.47 ± 0.47a 4.50 ± 0.56a 3.32 ± 0.21c 3.24 ± 0.37c 2.50 ± 0.26d 2.44 ± 0.19d
Quercetin 3-O-glucoside (isoquercetin) 1.20 ± 1.77b 1.39 ± 1.83a 1.38 ± 2.10a 1.31 ± 0.63a 1.51 ± 1.53a 1.21 ± 1.68b 1.24 ± 2.13b
Quercetin 2.39 ± 1.28b 2.36 ± 4.32b 2.36 ± 2.57b 1.95 ± 1.02c 2.03 ± 2.14c 2.96 ± 2.92a 2.71 ± 2.07a
Flavonols 7.43b 8.23a 8.25a 6.59c 6.79c 6.68c 6.40c
Malvidin-3-O-glucoside (anthocyanin) 51.63 ± 2.68c 56.05 ± 2.97b 57.21 ± 1.46b 81.66 ± 4.04a 82.11 ± 6.37a 78.35 ± 4.62a 77.33 ± 5.94a
Total phenolics 138.10c 153.07b 152.04b 190.65a 189.94a 191.55a 192.24a
*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured phenolic compounds among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p ≤ 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc2 [NT202], reference wine).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima.

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum.

6

Trihydroxybenzoic acid.

7

Hydroxycinnamic acid.

8

Epigallocatechin.

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of H. uvarum after MLF, significantly increased the total phenolic acids, compared to the rest of the fermentations. For Sc2 wines, mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum after MLF had increased concentrations of total phenolic acids. Total phenolic acids ranged from 83.52 mg/L to 108.27 mg/L for mixed culture co-inoculation after MLF. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1/Sc2) wines after MLF ranged from 80.59 mg/L to 84.59 mg/L, whereas reference fermentations ranged from 61.65 mg/L to 73.21 mg/L.

Phenolic acids quantified in the wines represent ca. 50% of the total phenolics in the different fermentations, including reference fermentations. Hernández et al., 2007, Chescheir et al., 2015, Minnaar et al., 2017 reported increased concentrations of phenolic acids after MLF in Tempranillo, Pinot noir and Syrah wines respectively, in sequential inoculations of the grape musts using Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast after MLF. These increased concentrations of phenolic acids indicate that there may have been other sources of phenolic acids in grapes, which most likely originated through the hydrolysis of cinnamoyl-glucoside anthocyanins or from other hydroxycinnamic derivatives by the LAB’s enzymatic activity (Hernández et al., 2007). Work by Boido, Lloret, Medina, Carrau, and Dellacassa (2002) reported changes in the glycoside content of Tannat wines during MLF. Medina et al. (2018) describe LAB as a potential source of glycosidic activity.

3.4.2. Flavan-3-ols

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1/Sc2) of H. uvarum after MLF, significantly increased epigallocatechin 3-O-gallate (EGCG) concentrations, compared to the rest of the fermentations, including reference fermentations (Table 3, Table 4). Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1/Sc2) after MLF and mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum after MLF were significantly different among each other in EGCG concentrations.

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) after MLF had (+)-catechin levels of 5.89 mg/L, compared to 6.85 mg/L in reference fermentations and S. cerevisiae (Sc1) wines after MLF (Table 3). However, for Sc2 wines, increased (+)-catechin concentrations in mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF were found, compared to reference fermentations and S. cerevisiae wines after MLF (Table 4). Total flavan-3-ols were 7.03 mg/L in mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of M. pulcherrima after MLF, compared to 8.06 mg/L in H. uvarum and 8.15 mg/L in S. cerevisiae and reference wines. Contrary to the above, mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc2) of M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum had 7.9 mg/L of total flavan-3-ols as opposed to 6.11 mg/L in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and 5.82 mg/L in reference fermentations. Syrah wines made with mixed co-inoculations of S. cerevisiae/Lb. thermotolerans/T. delbrueckii had decreased concentrations of total flavan-3-ols, compared to S. cerevisiae wines (Hranilovic et al., 2017). MLF was however not induced. This is in contrast to results reported in this paper. Aglianico red wines co-inoculated with S. cerevisiae and Lb. plantarum (MLF) had increased levels of proanthocyanidins as opposed to S. cerevisiae wines (Suriano, Savino, Basile, Tarricone, & Di Gennario, 2015). Work by Suriano et al. (2015) is in agreement with results of this paper, however, Aglianico grape cultivar was under study. Total flavan-3-ol concentrations ranged from 6.95 mg/L to 8.62 mg/L for mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF. Fermentations of S. cerevisiae after MLF ranged from 5.98 mg/L to 8.23 mg/L, whereas reference fermentations ranged from 5.82 mg/L to 8.23 mg/L.

3.4.3. Flavonols

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of H. uvarum after MLF had 4.73 mg/L rutin and 1.71 mg/L isoquercetin, compared to 3.62 mg/L and 1.44 mg/L in mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima with 3.43 mg/L and 1.35 mg/L in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF (Table 3). Reference fermentations had decreased concentrations of rutin and isoquercetin. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc2) wines after MLF contained on average 4.48 mg/L rutin in comparison to 3.83 mg/L for reference wines and 3.28 mg/L for mixed culture co-inoculation fermentations of M. pulcherrima and 2.47 mg/L for H. uvarum. Isoquercetin reached a concentration of 1.38 mg/L in S. cerevisiae (Sc2) wines after MLF, 1.31 mg/L in mixed culture co-inoculations and 1.20 mg/L in reference fermentations.

Mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima (Sc1/Sc2) after MLF were limited to an average of 1.86 mg/L quercetin, whereas S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and reference fermentations, contained an average of 2.46 mg/L. Hernández et al. (2007) reported increased concentrations of myricetin and quercetin in Tempranillo wines that underwent MLF. Romboli, Mangani, Buscioni, Granchi, and Vincenzini (2015) found increased concentrations of quercetin but a reduction of quercetin 3-O-glucoside in Sangiovese wines inoculated with Candida zemplinina (St. bacillaris)/S. cerevisiae, compared to S. cerevisiae wines. Grape must was however sequentially inoculated. Izquierdo-Cañas, Garcia-Romero, Mena-Morales, and Gómez-Alonso (2016) found decreased levels of quercetin 3-O-glucoside, quercetin 3-O-rutinoside and quercetin in Petit Verdot wines made with S. cerevisiae after MLF (O. oeni), compared to S. cerevisiae wines without MLF. This is in contrast to result of this paper. Quercetin concentrations in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF increased.

Total flavonols in mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima (Sc1) after MLF and reference fermentations were both 6.80 mg/L in comparison to 7.33 mg/L in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and 8.23 mg/L in mixed culture co-inoculations of H. uvarum after MLF. Contrary to Sc1 fermentations, S. cerevisiae (Sc2) wines after MLF had more total flavonols than mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF, including reference fermentations. Significantly less total flavonols were found in mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima (Sc1 and Sc2) and H. uvarum (Sc2) after MLF, compared to S. cerevisiae wines (Sc1 and Sc2) after MLF. Tristezza et al. (2016) found increased concentrations of total flavonols in Negroamaro wines co-inoculated with H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, compared to S. cerevisiae wines. Vinification was however on a micro-scale. Total flavonol concentrations ranged from 6.40 to 8.34 mg/L for mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF. Fermentations of S. cerevisiae after MLF ranged from 7.26 mg/L to 8.25 mg/L, whereas reference fermentations ranged from 6.80 mg/L to 7.43 mg/L.

3.4.4. Malvidin-3-O-glucoside

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of M. pulcherrima after MLF had 81.93 mg/L malvidin-3-O-glucoside in comparison to an average of 65.78 mg/L for the rest of the fermentations (Table 3). Mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum (Sc2) after MLF had an average of 79.86 mg/L malvidin-3-O-glucoside, compared to 56.58 mg/L in S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and 51.63 mg/L in reference fermentations (Table 4). Malvidin-3-O-glucoside concentrations ranged from 67.33 to 82.31 mg/L for mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF. Saccharomyces cerevisiae wines after MLF ranged from 56.0 mg/L to 65.53 mg/L, whereas reference fermentations ranged from 51.63 mg/L to 63.49 mg/L. Saccharomyces cerevisiae wines after MLF and mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF had between 20.8% and 59.4% more malvidin 3-O-glucoside respectively, compared to reference fermentations. This is in agreement with work by Burns and Osborne, 2015, Minnaar et al., 2017 who reported increased malvidin-3-O-glucosides in Pinot noir and Syrah wines, respectively of mixed culture inoculations after MLF, compared to fermentations with Saccharomyces. Kwaw et al. (2018) inoculated Mulberry juice with Lb. plantarum, Lb. acidophilus and Lb. paracasei. The results showed that lactic acid fermentation impacted on the colour of the juice. Furthermore, the study showed that LAB positively affected the phenolic profile of the juice.

The decreased concentrations of malvidin-3-O-glucosides in reference fermentations and S. cerevisiae wines (Sc1/Sc2) after MLF can be due to excessive adsorption of free anthocyanin molecules onto yeast cell walls as proposed by Guadalupe, Martinez, and Ayestaran (2010). Interaction of yeast mannoproteins and arabinogalactans with anthocyanins could be another cause of the decrease in malvidin-3-O-glucosides or the reaction with cell wall proteins. Conversely, the reduced malvidin-3-O-glucosides in reference fermentations indicate that the sugar moiety of malvidin-3-O-glucoside was most likely metabolised by S. cerevisiae.

Mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) of H. uvarum contained an average of 187.58 mg/L total phenolics, while mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima were limited to 178.97 mg/L. S. cerevisiae wines after MLF and reference fermentations had an average 165.00 mg/L and 140.11 mg/L, respectively. For Sc2 wines, mixed culture co-inoculations of M. pulcherrima and H. uvarum contained an average of 191.07 mg/L total phenolics, followed by S. cerevisiae wines after MLF with 152.55 mg/L and reference fermentations of 138.10 mg/L. Suriano et al. (2015) reported increased concentrations of total phenolics in Aglianico mixed culture co-inoculations, compared to S. cerevisiae fermentations. Contrary to work by Suriano and co-workers (2015) and result reported in this paper; Abrahamse and Bartowsky (2012) reported decreased levels of total phenolics in S. cerevisiae Syrah wines after MLF (O. oeni) than wines without MLF. Total phenolics in mixed culture co-inoculations reported in this paper were ca. 1.4 times more than reference fermentations, whereas S. cerevisiae wines after MLF were ca. 1.2 times more than reference wines.

3.5. Sensory analysis

The perception of acidity for S. cerevisiae wines (Sc1) after MLF was 47.3%, followed by mixed culture co-inoculations of 48.5%, compared to reference fermentation of 53.9% (Table 5). Contrary to Sc1 fermentations, mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc2) scored 46.7% in acidity perception, S. cerevisiae wines after MLF scored 47.71% and references fermentations 50.8% (Table 6). Reference fermentations, both Sc1 and Sc2, were significantly different from the rest of the fermentations.

Table 5.

Average percentage scores of sensory attributes of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc1), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Sensory attributes Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc11 Sc1 + LAB12 Sc1 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc1 + LAB1 Mp + Sc1 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc1 + LAB1 Hu + Sc1 + LAB2
Acidity 53.9*±1.22a** 47.2 ± 2.23c 47.3 ± 2.11c 48.4 ± 0.97b 48.5 ± 0.99b 48.4 ± 1.12b 48.6 ± 2.01b
Mouthfeel 45.2 ± 0.89c 47.4 ± 1.44b 46.8 ± 0.98b 52.1 ± 1.09a 51.5 ± 0.78a 51.7 ± 1.01a 51.3 ± 1.45a
Astringency 42.1 ± 1.11ba 44.9 ± 1.89a 43.7 ± 0.99a 40.3 ± 1.19c 40.4 ± 1.45c 39.6 ± 2.02c 39.8 ± 2.02c
Bitterness 34.7 ± 2.34ba 38.2 ± 2.11a 37.9 ± 1.12a 30.1 ± 2.01c 29.1 ± 1.89c 29.7 ± 2.01c 29.0 ± 1.44c
Preference (quality) 51.0 ± 1.21c 53.9 ± 2.32b 53.0 ± 1.09b 55.9 ± 1.11a 55.6 ± 0.98a 56.9 ± 11.0a 55.8 ± 2.34a
*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured compounds among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p < 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc1, [VIN13], reference wine).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima.

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum.

Table 6.

Average percentage scores of sensory attributes of wines obtained by alcoholic and malolactic co-inoculated fermentations using mixed cultures of Saccharomyces (Sc2), non-Saccharomyces and lactic acid bacteria.

Sensory attributes Reference (S. cerevisiae)
S. cerevisiae/MLF
S. cerevisiae/co-inoculations/MLF
Sc21 Sc2 + LAB12 Sc2 + LAB23 Mp4 + Sc2 + LAB1 Mp + Sc2 + LAB2 Hu5 + Sc2 + LAB1 Hu + Sc2 + LAB2
Acidity 50.8*±2.01a** 47.0 ± 2.11b 48.3 ± 1.98b 46.0 ± 2.22c 46.1 ± 2.88c 47.4 ± 1.99c 47.5 ± 2.44b
Mouthfeel 50.0 ± 1.23c 52.7 ± 0.98b 52.5 ± 2.02b 55.0 ± 2.09a 55.3 ± 2.43a 55.7 ± 2.22a 55.3 ± 1.89a
Astringency 42.0 ± 1.89a 41.7 ± 1.44a 41.2 ± 2.44a 38.0 ± 1.89b 37.3 ± 1.22b 37.4 ± 2.08b 37.1 ± 1.79b
Bitterness 27.9 ± 2.03b 27.4 ± 1.09b 27.9 ± 1.88b 31.6 ± 1.22a 31.8 ± 2.01a 32.9 ± 2.23a 32.8 ± 2.77a
Preference (quality) 52.0 ± 2.45d 54.1 ± 2.33c 56.2 ± 1.99c 61.5 ± 2.11b 60.5 ± 2.11b 64.0 ± 1.34a 63.6 ± 1.99a
*

Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in the content of the measured compounds among the different treatments according to Fischer’s least significant difference test (p < 0.05).

**

Standard deviation.

1

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc2, [NT202], reference wine).

2

LAB1: Oenococcus oeni.

3

LAB2: Lactobacillus plantarum.

4

Metschnikowia pulcherrima.

5

Hanseniaspora uvarum.

Fermentations of mixed culture co-inoculations of Sc1 and Sc2, after MLF, scored an average of 51.7% and 55.3% respectively in mouthfeel, followed by S. cerevisiae after MLF of 47.1% and 52.6%, respectively.

Mixed culture co-inoculations of Sc1 and Sc2, after MLF scored an average of 40.0% and 37.5% respectively, in astringency, compared to 44.3% and 41.5% of S. cerevisiae wines after MLF, respectively. Hranilovic et al. (2017) reported that S. cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces combination wines (M. pulcherrima) to be more astringent than S. cerevisiae reference wines.

Bitterness in mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc1) after MLF scored an average of 29.5%. Conversely to the Sc1 fermentations, mixed culture co-inoculations (Sc2) after MLF scored 32.3% in bitterness. Hranilovic and co-workers (2017) reported that mixed cultures co-inoculations of Syrah wines with S. cerevisiae/T. delbrueckii/Lb. thermotolerans were more bitter than non-Saccharomyces mono-culture fermentations and S. cerevisiae ferments. This is in agreement with results reported in this paper for Sc2 mixed culture co-inoculations. S. cerevisiae wines (Sc1) after MLF scored 38.0% and reference wines scored 34.7% in bitterness. S. cerevisiae wines (Sc2) after MLF, scored 27.7% and reference wines 27.9% in bitterness. Mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF were perceived as better “quality”, compared to reference fermentations and S. cerevisiae wines after MLF.

Mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF had on average 187.8 mg/L total phenolics, compared to 152.2 mg/L and 49.1 mg/L for S. cerevisiae after MLF and reference fermentations, respectively. Mixed culture co-inoculations after MLF can also lead to an increased aroma and flavour profile, thereby improving wine quality (Jolly, Varela, & Pretorius, 2014). The tasters preferred mixed culture co-inoculated (Sc1) wines, possibly owing to their less astringent and bitterness and improved mouthfeel. Tasters, however, also preferred mixed culture co-inoculation (Sc2) wines, probably because of their decreased astringency and increased mouthfeel. The effect of non-Saccharomyces and LAB on sensory attributes may involve the modulation of interacting phenolics, the extent to which may depend upon yeast/bacterial strain and wine chemical composition (López et al., 2011). Differences in phenolics can also be a function of differential or partial adsorption capacities between yeast strains. However, Azzolini et al. (2012) reported no differences in the sensory properties of wines after MLF, as opposed to wines without MLF. Contrary to Azzolini et al., 2012, Gerbaux and Briffox, 2003 reported a loss of colour in Pinot noir wines after MLF. López et al. (2011) reported that the use of commercial LAB offers less risk compared to spontaneous MLF, and also positively affects the sensory profile of the wine, thereby increasing the complexity of the wine. The use of yeast strains and LAB that adsorb fewer phenolics onto their cell walls, compared to yeasts/bacteria that adsorb more phenolics, may also be beneficial for red wine colour (Morata et al., 2003). Certain yeasts may also improve the wine’s body, mouthfeel, complexity, structure and fullness by releasing polysaccharides and producing glycerol (Domizio et al., 2014, Belda et al., 2016).

4. Conclusions

The effect of mixed culture co-inoculations on the physicochemical characteristics, phenolics and sensory attributes of Syrah wines was investigated. Mixed culture co-inoculations strategies of Syrah grape must with non-Saccharomyces, Saccharomyces and LAB resulted in wines with reduced alcohol and ameliorated phenolics and sensory attributes, when compared to reference wines.

Mixed culture co-inoculations using S. cerevisiae cultures together with non-Saccharomyces and LAB present a practical way to improve the quality (preference) of Syrah wines. No negative effects of mixed culture co-inoculated MLF on the vinification process of the wines were found. Furthermore, the results indicate a technological advantage in applying this protocol for phenolic acids, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and malvidin-3-O-glucoside with increased concentration in the wines other than reference wines, but is dependent on the yeast and LAB strains used. The results also suggest that mixed culture co-inoculations are feasible strategies to consider for Syrah wines in comparison to AF, but success is subject to the selection of the yeast/LAB combination. The use of other red grape cultivars may have a different outcome using the identified yeast/LAB combination strategy. The interactions between different yeasts and LAB during fermentation and the modalities of inoculation are complex and therefore need further investigation.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Agricultural Research Council, Winetech and the National Research Foundation of South Africa (THRIP programme; grant numbers UID 71526 and 86086) for funding. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors. The National Research Foundation accepts no liability in this regard. Ms V. van Breda and P. Adonis are thanked for their technical assistance.

References

  1. Abrahamse C.E., Bartowsky E.J. Timing of malolactic fermentation inoculation in Shiraz grape must and wine: Influence on chemical composition. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2012;28:255–265. doi: 10.1007/s11274-011-0814-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Azzolini M., Fedrizzi B., Tosi E., Finato F., Vagnoli P., Scrinzi C., Zapparoli G. Effects of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed cultures on fermentation and aroma of Amarone wine. European Food Research and Technology. 2012;235:303–313. [Google Scholar]
  3. Belda I., Navascués E., Marquina D., Santos A., Calderón F., Benito S. Outlining the influence of non-conventional yeasts in wine ageing over lees. Yeast. 2016;33:329–338. doi: 10.1002/yea.3165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Benito Á., Calderón-Fernandez F., Palomero F., Benito S. Combined use of selected Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Lachancea thermotolerans yeast as an alternative to the traditional malolactic fermentation in red wine production. Molecules. 2015;20:9510–9523. doi: 10.3390/molecules20069510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boido E., Lloret A., Medina K., Carrau F., Dellacassa E. Effect of beta-glycosidase activity of Oenococcus oeni on the glycosylated flavor precursors of Tannat wine during malolactic fermentation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002;50:2344–2349. doi: 10.1021/jf0109367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burns T.R., Osborne J.P. Loss of Pinot noir wine colour and polymeric pigment after malolactic fermentation and potential causes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2015;66:130–137. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chescheir S., Philbin D., Osborne J.P. Impact of Oenococcus oeni on wine hydroxycinnamic acids and volatile phenol production by Brettanomyces bruxellensis. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2015;66:357–362. [Google Scholar]
  8. Costello P.J., Francis I.L., Bartowsky E.J. Variations in the effect of malolactic fermentation on the chemical and sensory properties of Cabernet Sauvignon wine: Interactive influences of Oenococcus oeni strain and wine matrix composition. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2012;18:287–301. [Google Scholar]
  9. Domizio P., Liu Y., Bisson L.F., Barile D. Use of non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts as novel sources of mannoproteins in wine. Food Microbiology. 2014;43:5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Du Plessis H., du Toit M., Nieuwoudt H., van der Rijst M., Kidd M., Jolly N. Effect of Saccharomyces, non-Saccharomyces yeasts and malolactic fermentation strategies on fermentation kinetics and flavor of Shiraz wines. Fermentation. 2017;3:64. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gerbaux V., Briffox C. The impact of lysozyme on the colour of red wines, Infowine. Internet Journal of Viticulture and Enology. 2003:1–4. [Google Scholar]
  13. Guadalupe Z., Martinez L., Ayestaran B. Yeast mannoproteins in red winemaking: Effect on polysaccharide, polyphenolic, and color composition. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2010;61:191–200. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hernández T., Estrella I., Pérez-Gordo M., Alegría E.G., Tenorio C., Ruiz-Larrea F., Moreno-Arribas M.V. Contribution of malolactic fermentation by Oenococcus oeni and Lactobacillus plantarum to the changes in the nonanthocyanin polyphenolic composition of red wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2007;55:5260–5266. doi: 10.1021/jf063638o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hranilovic A., Li S., Boss K., Bindon R., Ristic R., Grbin P.R.…Jiranek V. Chemical and sensory profiling of Shiraz wines co-fermented with commercial non-Saccharomyces inocula. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 2017;24:166–180. [Google Scholar]
  16. Izquierdo-Cañas P.M., Garcia-Romero E., Mena-Morales A., Gómez-Alonso S. Effect of malolactic fermentation on colour stability and phenolic composition of Petit Verdot red wines. Wine Studies. 2016;5:1–6. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jolly N.P., Varela C., Pretorius I.S. Not your ordinary yeast: Non-Saccharomyces yeast in wine production uncovered. FEMS-Yeast Research. 2014;14:215–237. doi: 10.1111/1567-1364.12111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kwaw E., Ma Y., Tchabo W., Apaliya M.T., Wu M., Sackey A.S.…Tahir E. Effect of Lactobacillus strains on phenolic profile, colour attributes and antioxidant activities of lactic-acid fermented mulberry juice. Food Chemistry. 2018;250:148–154. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. López R., López-Alfaro I., Gutiérrez A.R., Tenorio C., Garijo P., González-Arenzana I., Santamaria P. Malolactic fermentation of Tempranillo wine: Contribution of the lactic acid bacteria inoculation to sensory quality and chemical composition. International Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2011;46:2373–2381. [Google Scholar]
  20. Medina K., Boido E., Dellacassa E., Carrau F. Effects of non-Saccharomyces yeasts on colour, anthocyanins and anthocyanin-derived pigments of Tannat grapes during fermentation. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2018;69:148–156. [Google Scholar]
  21. Medina K., Boido E., Fariña L., Gioia O., Gomez M.E., Barquet M. Increased flavour diversity of Chardonnay wines by spontaneous fermentation and co-fermentation with Hanseniaspora vineae. Food Chemistry. 2013;141:2513–2521. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mendoza L.M., Merín M.G., Morata V.I., Farías M.E. Characterization of wines produced by mixed cultures of autochthonous yeasts and Oenococcus oeni from the northwest region of Argentina. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. 2011;38:1777–1785. doi: 10.1007/s10295-011-0964-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Minnaar P.P., Du Plessis H.W., Paulsen V., Ntushelo N., Jolly N.P., du Toit M. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, non-Saccharomyces yeast and lactic acid bacteria in sequential fermentations: Effect on phenolics and sensory attributes of South African Syrah wines. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2017;38:237–244. [Google Scholar]
  24. Minnaar P.P., Ntushelo N.S., Ngqumba Z., Van Breda V., Jolly N.P. Effect of Torulaspora delbrueckii yeast on the anthocyanin and flavanol concentrations of Cabernet Franc and Pinotage wines. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2015;36:50–58. [Google Scholar]
  25. Morales M.L., Fierro-Risco J., Ríos-Reina R., Ubeda C., Paneque P. Influence of Saccharomyces and Lachancea thermotolerans co-inoculation on volatile profile in fermentations of a must with a high sugar content. Food Chemistry. 2019;276:427–435. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.10.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Morata A., Gomez-Cordoves J., Suberviola B., Bartolome B., Saurez J.A. Adsorption of anthocyanins by yeast cell walls during the fermentation of red wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003;51:4084–4088. doi: 10.1021/jf021134u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Pérez-Martín F., Seseña S., Izquierdo P.M., Palop M.L. Esterase activity of lactic acid bacteria isolated from malolactic fermentation of red wines. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2013;163:153–158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Puertas B., Jimenez-Hierro M.J., Cantos-Villar E., Marrufo-Curtido A., Carbu M., Cuevas F.J., Moreno-Rojas J.M., Gonzálex-Rodriuez, Cantoral J.M., Ruiz-Moreno M.J. The influence of yeast on chemical and sensory properties of dry white wines. Food Chemistry. 2018;253:227–235. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.01.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ribéreau-Gayon P., Glories Y., Maujean A., Du Bourdieu D., editors. Handbook of enology: The chemistry of wine stabilisation and treatment. John Wiley and Sons Inc; New York: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rodriguez-Montealegre R., Romero-Peces R., Chacón-Vozmediano J.L., Martinez-Gascueña J., García-Romero E. Phenolic compounds in skins and seeds of ten grape Vitis vinifera varieties grown in a warm climate. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2006;19:687–693. [Google Scholar]
  31. Romboli Y., Mangani S., Buscioni G.L., Granchi L., Vincenzini M. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiea and Candida zemplinina on quercetin, Vitisin A and hydrozytyrosol content in Sangiovese wines. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2015;31:1137–1145. doi: 10.1007/s11274-015-1863-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. SAS Institute Inc., SAS software (Version 9.4), Cary, NC, USA.
  33. Suriano S., Ceci G., Tamborra P. Impact of different winemaking techniques on polyphenolic compounds of Nero di Troia wine. Italian Food Beverage Technology. 2012;70:5–15. [Google Scholar]
  34. Suriano S., Savino M., Basile T., Tarricone L., Di Gennario D. Management of malolactic fermentation and influence on chemical composition of Aglianico red wines. Italian Journal of Food Science. 2015;27:310–319. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tristezza M., Tufariello M., Capozzi V., Spano G., Mita G., Grieco F. The oenological potential of Hanseniaspora uvarum in simultaneous and sequential co-inoculation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for industrial wine production. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016;7:1–4. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Varela C., Barker A., Tran T., Borneman A., Curtin C. Sensory profile and volatile aroma composition of reduced alcohol Merlot wines fermented with Metschnikowia pulcherrima and Saccharomyces uvarum. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2017;252:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Viana F., Belloch C., Vallés S., Manzanares P. Monitoring a mixed starter of Hanseniaspora vineae-Saccharomyces cerevisiae in natural must: Impact on 2-phenylethyl acetate production. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;151:235–240. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Waterhouse A.L., Price S.F., McCord J.D. Reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography methods for analysis of wine polyphenols. Methods in Enzymology. 1999;299:113–122. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Chemistry: X are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES