Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 May 26;15(5):e0233285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233285

Investigations of the mechanisms of interactions between four non-conventional species with Saccharomyces cerevisiae in oenological conditions

Oliver Harlé 1, Judith Legrand 2, Catherine Tesnière 3, Martine Pradal 3, Jean-Roch Mouret 3, Thibault Nidelet 3,*
Editor: Yoshikazu Ohya4
PMCID: PMC7250438  PMID: 32453779

Abstract

Fermentation by microorganisms is a key step in the production of traditional food products such as bread, cheese, beer and wine. In these fermentative ecosystems, microorganisms interact in various ways, namely competition, predation, commensalism and mutualism. Traditional wine fermentation is a complex microbial process performed by Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces (NS) yeast species. To better understand the different interactions occurring within wine fermentation, isolated yeast cultures were compared with mixed co-cultures of one reference strain of S. cerevisiae with one strain of four NS yeast species (Metschnikowia pulcherrima, M. fructicola, Hanseniaspora opuntiae and H. uvarum). In each case, we studied population dynamics, resource consumed and metabolites produced from central carbon metabolism. This phenotyping of competition kinetics allowed us to confirm the main mechanisms of interaction between strains of four NS species. S. cerevisiae competed with H. uvarum and H. opuntiae for resources although both Hanseniaspora species were characterized by a strong mortality either in mono or mixed fermentations. M. pulcherrima and M. fructicola displayed a negative interaction with the S. cerevisiae strain tested, with a decrease in viability in co-culture. Overall, this work highlights the importance of measuring specific cell populations in mixed cultures and their metabolite kinetics to understand yeast-yeast interactions. These results are a first step towards ecological engineering and the rational design of optimal multi-species starter consortia using modeling tools. In particular the originality of this paper is for the first times to highlight the joint-effect of different species population dynamics on glycerol production and also to discuss on the putative role of lipid uptake on the limitation of some non-conventional species growth although interaction processes.

1. Introduction

In natural or anthropized environments, microbial species are part of an ecosystem and interact positively or negatively, forming a complex network. Until recently, process optimization in agriculture or food processing was mostly based on the selection of single strains. However, this paradigm is now being challenged and the scientific community is increasingly seeking to exploit and optimize consortia of several strains and/or species. Indeed, many studies have shown that more diverse anthropized environments have many advantages in terms of resilience, disease resistance or yield. Efforts are now being made to design optimal consortia of various species and strains whose interactions will be exploited to maximize given criteria such as fermentation quality, aromatic complexity or other organoleptic characteristics.

Wine fermentation is both an economically and societally important food ecosystem, where the addition of fermentation ‘starters’ composed of selected yeasts at the beginning of the fermentation process is common. In fact, around 80% of oenological fermentations worldwide are conducted with starters [1,2]. Most often, these “starters” are only composed of a single Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. c.) strain selected for its ability to complete fermentation. Indeed, numerous experiments have shown that S. cerevisiae, with an initially low population, most often becomes the predominant species at the end of the fermentation, demonstrating its superior fermentative abilities [36]. However, in recent years, multi-species starters have emerged, aimed at increasing the aromatic complexity of wines. They most often combine one strain of S. cerevisiae allowing to complete fermentation and another species, often from a different genus, contributing to a greater variety of flavors [3,4,6,7].

Indeed, there are numerous experiments and even industrial products making use of such mixed starters to improve wine’s organoleptic qualities [4,8,9]. The non-Saccharomyces (NS) strains used in these experiments are very diverse, with more than 23 different species including Torulaspora delbrueckii, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Metschnikowia fructicola, Hanseniaspora opuntiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum. Species in the Metschnikowia genus ferment poorly in oenological conditions but can have interesting attributes: in conjunction with S. cerevisiae, a strain of M. pulcherrima could reduce ethanol concentrations [6,10], increase ‘citrus/grape fruit’ and ‘pear’ attributes [11], as well as allow the persistence of ‘smoky’ and ‘flowery’ characteristics [12]. M. pulcherrima also has an amensalism effect on S. cerevisiae through iron depletion via the production of pulcherriminic acid [13]. M. fructicola has been less studied and never in conjunction with S. cerevisiae although it presents the interesting ability to inhibit Botrytis growth [14]. Last, the Hanseniaspora genus, studied in sequential or simultaneous fermentation with S. cerevisiae, has been shown to increase volatile compound production during winemaking [6]. It notably increased the ‘tropical fruit’, ‘berry’, ‘floral’ and ‘nut aroma’ characters [15], that were linked to higher concentrations of acetate esters, esters of MCFAs, isoamyl alcohol, 2-phenylethanol and α-terpineol [16].

Despite these various studies, the composition and protocol of inoculation of these multi-strains starters are still very empirical and only based on the input/output balance, without considering the dynamics of the microbial populations or their interactions. This lack of knowledge about yeast-yeast interactions prevents implementing a rational design of multi-strain starters [17]. To address this problem, we decided to focus our study on population dynamics and metabolites produced during oenological fermentations performed in isolated or mixed yeast cultures. Since our goal was not to obtain optimal mixes but to understand the mechanism of microbial interaction, we chose to compare the population dynamics and yields between monocultures of strains from five species (one S. cerevisiae and four NS) and four corresponding mixed cultures always including the S. cerevisiae strain as reference. We were thus able to identify key microbial interaction mechanisms that are further discussed.

2. Results

In this work, we compared in winemaking conditions, the performance of single cell cultures of five different strains from five yeast species (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Metschnikowia fructicola, Hanseniaspora opuntiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum) and mixed co-cultures combining each of the four NS species with one GFP-labelled S. cerevisiae strain representing 10% of the initial inoculate. We chose to stop the monitoring of fermentation at a given time, even if the sugar supply was not completely exhausted. Thus, for all fermentation with the S. cerevisiae reference strain, sugars were exhausted after around 200–220 h while in fermentations with single NS strains, the sugar supply was still not exhausted after 400h. Here, we focused on the first 300 hours of fermentation.

By comparing the output of single strain and mixed strain cultures, we evaluated the intensity of yeast-yeast interactions and/or their consequences on ecosystem service production.

2.1. CO2 kinetics

We first investigated the influence of species and co-culture on the dynamics of CO2 production (proportional to sugar consumption), which is a good indicator of the fermentation progress. Indeed, CO2 production is easy to monitor (based on weight measurement) and is directly proportional to ethanol synthesis and sugar consumption. The values of the maximum rate of CO2 production (Vmax, Fig 1A) and of the maximum CO2 produced were estimated (CO2max, Fig 1B). Vmax was highly dependent on the species (p.value < 0.001): S. cerevisiae cultures (Sc) displayed the highest value (VmaxSc = 0.99 ± 0.02 g.L-1.h-1), followed by both Hanseniaspora species (VmaxHu = 0.33 ± 0.04 g.L-1.h-1, and VmaxHo = 0.42 ± 0.02 g.L-1.h-1) and finally both Metschnikowia species (VmaxMp = 0.165 ± 0.02 g.L-1.h-1and VmaxMf = 0.17 ± 0.04 g.L-1.h-1). The four mixed cultures had intermediate Vmax values between those of Sc and the highest Vmax of all NS cultures (Fig 1A). Mixed cultures containing Metschnikowia species had significantly higher Vmax values than those containing Hanseniaspora species (Fig 1A). Although we did not monitor all cultures until the exhaustion of glucose and fructose, it was however possible to estimate the capacity of a given species to complete fermentation by estimating the amount of CO2 produced during the first 300 hours. Sc fermentations finished after around 220 hours with a CO2maxSc = 88.2 ± 2.2 g.L-1, all other fermentations did not complete it within 300 h. After 300 h, all mixed cultures are producing CO2 and produced more than 80g CO2.L-1 (90% of Sc maximum) while both Hanseniaspora (CO2maxHu = 30 ± 0.4 g.L-1, and CO2maxHo = 46 ± 0.6 g.L-1) and Metschnikowia (CO2maxMp = 22 ± 0.4 g.L-1 and CO2maxMf = 20 ± 1 g.L-1) monocultures stop producing CO2 at 300 h and will never finish the fermentation.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Maximum rate of CO2 production, Vmax (A) and total CO2 produced (B) in function of the single or mixed species driving each fermentation. Values correspond to average ± standard deviation. The small letters indicate the statistical groups from a Tukey analysis.

2.2. Population kinetics

We also looked at population dynamics in each culture (Fig 2) and determined the maximum growth rate of the population (μ), the maximum population size, also termed carrying capacity (K) and the relative abundance (by cytometry) of each species after 300 hours of mixed culture, corresponding in our case to the end of the monitoring period (S1 Table). Fermentations with S. cerevisiae alone went through an exponential growth rate (μSc = 0.15 ± 0.02 h-1) and reached a maximum population of around 1.5*108cells.mL-1 (KSc = 1.55 ± 0.15 108cells.mL-1) that remained constant until the end of the fermentation. Fermentations with either Hanseniaspora species alone had a growth dynamic like Sc at the beginning of the fermentation but a higher growth rate (μHo = 0.19 ± 0.03 h-1, μHu = 0.62 ± 0.18 h-1). In contrast, their stationary phase was quite different from that of Sc and characterized by a higher cell mortality with a population drop of about 70% by the end of the process. Fermentations performed by Metschnikowia species in monocultures had growth dynamics mostly similar to Sc fermentations: a similar growth rate (μMp = 0.18 ± 0.03 h-1, μMf = 0.17 ± 0.2 h-1), no mortality during the stationary phase but a much reduced maximum population (KMp = 0.57 ± 0.01 106cells.mL-1, KMf = 0.8 ± 0.05 106cells.mL-1). In most cases, mixed cultures displayed an intermediate pattern between the two corresponding monocultures (Fig 2). However, mixed or monocultures with Metschnikowia displayed different cell mortality rates during the stationary phase: in the case of ScvsMp fermentations, only the S. cerevisiae population decreased significantly during the stationary phase, while in ScvsMf fermentations, both subpopulations significantly decreased. As a measure of fitness, we also followed the variations of S. cerevisiae frequency along the fermentation. In all mixed cultures, S. cerevisiae was found dominant (frequency > 50%) in the end, increasing significantly during fermentation from 10% initially to frequencies varying between 50% (ScvsMp) and 96% (ScvsMf) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Global monitoring of the kinetics of the total living population (left), and sub-population in the mixed cultures (right) across fermentation.

Fig 2

Each population was detected by flow cytometry as indicated in the Material and Methods section. Each point represents a sample (average ± standard error). Full lines are for total population and dashed lines for the two sub populations in mixed cultures. At the end of dashed lines, the final proportion of both sub-populations in mixed cultures is indicated. The light colors represent monocultures of ‘non-Saccharomyces’ species and dark ones to the corresponding culture in competition with S. cerevisiae. The single strand cultures of S. cerevisiae are represented in black.

2.3. Sugar and nitrogen assimilable source consumption

We then looked at the final concentration of resources: sugars (fructose and glucose) and nitrogen assimilable source (NAS) i.e. ammonium and amino-acids (Fig 3). In Sc fermentations, less than 0.1% of the initial concentration of both sugars remained (Fig 3A). As seen in the paragraph concerning CO2 production, NS species in monocultures did not complete fermentation in the 300 h period and left respectively 45% of sugars for Ho, 67% for Hu, 68% for Mf and 71% for Mp. Furthermore, all species except H. opuntiae preferentially consumed glucose (S1 Fig). Sugar consumption was higher in mixed cultures than in single NS species cultures (Fig 3A). However, it was still lower than in Sc species cultures, also with a preference for glucose. This indicates the major impact of S. cerevisiae on sugar consumption (consistent with the CO2 production observed), compared to the other NS species studied.

Fig 3. Consumption of sugars and nitrogen assimilable sources (NAS) for each type of fermentation.

Fig 3

A) Final concentration of sugar (average ± standard deviation). B) Final concentration of NAS (average ± standard deviation). C) Percentage of consumption of each NAS in each type of fermentation represented as a color gradient from green (<75%) to red (> 75%).

The consumption of NAS displayed the same pattern (Fig 3b). NAS were almost entirely consumed both in Sc monocultures and in all co-cultures. In NS monocultures the consumption of NAS varied between 84% and 94%. However, the preference for different nitrogen sources varied with each NS species (Fig 3c). Both Hanseniaspora species had similar behaviors, consuming only half of the available ammonium, 90% of histidine and 89% or 79% of arginine (Fig 3C). Metschnikowia species presented a similar pattern. It was possible to classify these NS species preferences for the various NAS. The resulting ranking by order of preference was glutamine, methionine, glutamate, valine, threonine, serine, tryptophan, alanine, histidine, arginine, aspartate, glycine and, surprisingly last, ammonium.

2.4. Metabolite production

In parallel with must resources consumption monitoring, we also investigated the production of metabolites from Central Carbon Metabolism (CCM): ethanol, glycerol, succinate, pyruvate, acetate and alpha-ketoglutarate (Fig 4). These measurements of metabolite production were taken after 300 hours when sugars consumptions were quite different from one culture to another depending on their dynamics. To allow figures comparison, we computed the production yield (total production / sugar consumption) for each culture and, from these data, we then estimated this yield relatively to that of Sc in single strain culture (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Yield of carbon metabolite production relative to the yield of production of single S. cerevisiae.

Fig 4

Average Yield are given with standard deviations for acetate, alpha-ketoglutarate, ethanol, glycerol, pyruvate and succinate and each type of fermentation.

In the case of ethanol, only Mf fermentations had a relative yield significantly inferior (-32%) to 0 (0 being Sc yield). For glycerol, all NS monocultures had a greater yield than Sc and mixed fermentations were intermediate between (but not significantly different from) the corresponding monocultures. For acetate, only Hanseniaspora species displayed a higher yield (Fig 4).

Finally, all mixed cultures seemed to have a lower succinate yield than both corresponding monocultures (but not significantly after correction for multiple tests).

For each fermentation, the total production of metabolites resulted from the combination of species yields, total sugar consumption and respective population dynamics during fermentation. Therefore, differences observed in the total productions of mixed cultures were the consequences of additive or subtractive effects observed for these 3 components. Considering ethanol, its total production was directly linked to the consumption of resources and all mixed cultures were equivalent to Sc fermentations (S2 Fig). The case of glycerol was more interesting. Indeed, even if the average sugar consumption was lower in ScvsHu and ScvsMp mixed cultures than in single strain Sc culture, the total production of glycerol was significantly higher than that of the corresponding monocultures (GlycerolSCvsMp = 6.1±0.1 g.L-1, GlycerolSc = 5.3±0.4 g.L-1, GlycerolMp = 3.7±0.2 g.L-1). This resulted from the positive combination of the greater glycerol yield by Hanseniaspora and Metschnikowia and their population dynamics. For acetate, Hanseniaspora species have a higher production in monoculture compared to S. cerevisiae and mixed cultures, whereas it was the converse for Metschnikowia species. For all other metabolites, the total production of mixed cultures was not significantly different from the corresponding monocultures (S1 Table).

3. Discussion

This study presents one of the first works focusing on the population dynamics and kinetics of yeast-yeast interactions between two species (S.C. and NS) during the alcoholic fermentative process [18]. The counterpart of this deep phenotyping is two limitations: the monitoring time and the number of strains by species. Due to experiment constraints, we followed the fermentations during 300 hours and until sugar exhaustion. Sc fermentations consume all sugars and therefore finish the fermentation in around 200h, while Metschnikowia and Hanseniaspora monocultures are enabled to finish it (consuming around a quarter of available sugars). However, it is not clear if the mixed cultures are able to finish it. At the end of our experiment all mixed cultures were still producing CO2 and produced more than 80g CO2.L-1 (90% of Sc maximum) and still have a high viable population. Although without kinetic tracking, these mixed cultures have already been tested under similar conditions [16,19]. In most of the cases they were able to finish the fermentation. Therefore, it is reasonable to make the hypothesis that all our mixed cultures will finish the fermentation in more than 300 hours. Another limitation is that we only used one strain by species. Indeed, here we studied a limited sample of species and strains that raises the question of the genericity of interactions. This question can be found in other similar papers and is difficult to address as increasing the number of species or strains increase exponentially the number of mixed cultures to be tested. In our cases we have tested 5 mixed cultures in triplicate. To test all possible mixed cultures (including NS-NS mixed) represent 25 fermentations. With for example 3 strains for each species tested in this study, it would represents 15 strains and 225 mixed fermentations. It is very difficult if not impossible to follow experimentally the kinetics of so much fermentation.

Despite the small number of species and strains, it is important to note that a deep phenotyping was performed in the current work, making it possible a better understanding of the interactions between two yeast strains. Indeed, the following parameters were measured for every experiment: fermentation kinetics, cell growth, cell viability, percentage of non-saccharomyces yeast, concentration of metabolites of central carbon metabolism, nitrogen compounds.

A notable observation is that monocultures studied here can be grouped by genus as respectively Metschnikowia and Hanseniaspora are more similar between them than across them (S3 Fig). Of course, this observation has to be confirmed with further investigations.

Even though Metschnikowia maintains a high viability throughout fermentation, the medium resources (sugars and nitrogen) were not entirely consumed. The reason why the cells stopped growing despite the availability of these resources remains unclear. A possible explanation could be linked to oxygen availability. Our hypothesis is that Metschnikowia is not able to import lipid from the extracellular medium and that this species stops growing when oxygen content in the must is equal to zero. For all yeast, lipid synthesis requires oxygen and is therefore impossible in anaerobic conditions [20]. With the progress of fermentation, ensuing oxygen limitation and ethanol accumulation yeast should import lipids to survive [21]. If not, it stops to multiply [22,23]. Metschnikowia species growth (studied in this work) depends thus on their initial (internal) lipid content and lipid synthesis from initial concentration of oxygen (see S1 Fig).

Interestingly, even though S. cerevisiae, M. pulcherrima and M. fructicola mortality rates were low in monocultures, the corresponding mixed cultures (ScvsMp and ScvsMf) presented 30% mortality (after 200 hours of fermentation). Moreover, this mortality seemed to impact species differently. In the mixed ScvsMp culture, only S. cerevisiae cells eventually died, whereas in ScvsMf both species were negatively affected. The survival of M. pulcherrima cells compared to S. cerevisiae cells could be explained by the production of pulcherriminic acid by M. pulcherrima [24]. Indeed, pulcherriminic acid is known to deplete iron from the medium, which has a lethal effect on S. cerevisiae cells [13,25,26]. In ScvsMf cultures, the mortality observed in both species suggests a more complex mechanism of interaction (although it is not clear whether M. fructicola also produces pulcherriminic acid [14]. To explain these results, we could hypothesize the conjunction of two different mechanisms of interaction. It could be that M. fructicola synthesized a metabolite (pulcherriminic acid?) impacting the viability of S. cerevisiae cells (through iron depletion?), with M. fructicola cells dying thereafter for another reason such as sensitivity to ethanol. Indeed, the production of ethanol was almost four times higher in mixed cultures than in single strain Metschnikowia fermentations. Under such hypothesis, the reason why no loss of viability was observed for M. pulcherrima in mixed culture with S. cerevisiae could probably be related to a better tolerance of M. pulcherrima to ethanol stress compared to M. fructicola.

Mixed population dynamics were all characterized by similar growth rate (reaching a maximum population like S. cerevisiae single strain culture), followed by a long phase with decreasing viability (NS viability dropped to 30% in accordance with [16,27]). Moreover, their yield and total production of CCM metabolites were very similar. For almost all these characteristics, mixed cultures presented intermediate phenotypes compared to the corresponding monocultures. However, there is a remarkable exception considering the total production of glycerol that is superior in mixed cultures whereas their sugar consumption was inferior (Fig 4). This point is characteristic of a transgressive interaction (often referred to as over-yielding), i.e. a situation in which the ecosystem performance is higher than the best-yielding species performance in monoculture. This glycerol overproduction in mixed cultures has already been observed in previous works [16,28] but seems to depend on the species and experimental conditions [27]. In the present study, the glycerol and sugar consumption observed in mixed cultures can be explained without any change of individual behavior but by the synergic effects of population dynamics (S. cerevisiae slowly dominating the population), resource consumptions (the NS fermentation leaving ⅔ of sugars) and the glycerol yields of NS species that were two to three times higher that of S. cerevisiae. These overproductions of glycerol is clear example of how mixing species can produce a better result of any monoculture. Thus exploiting specific yield, population dynamics and inoculation protocol could lead to high-performance fermentations. As overproduction appears to be highly dependent of population dynamics it will be interesting to test different inoculation protocols. Decreasing the frequency of S. cerevisiae at t0 (0.01, 0.001, 0.0001) could increase the transgressive interaction and lead to higher glycerol and thus eventually lower ethanol.

So far we only discussed transgressive interactions when mixed cultures over-produced (or under-produced) a given metabolite. Indeed, it was very difficult to identify interactions when the productions of mixed fermentations were within the range of monocultures productions. As the relative frequency of both species in mixed cultures evolved during fermentation, it was difficult to link the final mix to the contributions of each species. It was even more difficult to assess whether these contributions combined additively or with interaction. New statistical developments or dual transcriptomics will be needed to answer this question [2931].

To discuss more generally the mechanisms of interactions of Metschnikowia and Hanseniaspora cultures mixed with S. cerevisiae, we could not observe any major antagonistic phenomena. For almost all assays, mixed cultures performance stood always between that of the corresponding monocultures (Figs 1, 2 and 3), except for the total production of glycerol. Moreover, despite the differences in yield and interactions between species, the rapid dominance of S. cerevisiae (increasing from 10% to at least 50% during the fermentation) resulted in mixed cultures that were overall not different from S. cerevisiae monocultures. This result is in agreement with the good adaptation of S. cerevisiae to winemaking conditions [46,32] but could be different with a different set of species. This result is important in the context of ecological engineering. In fact, our results confirmed that S. cerevisiae has a much better fitness than the NS species studied in this paper. Therefore, if we want mixed culture behavior to deviate from that of S. cerevisiae single strain culture, it must be ensured that NS cells dominate the culture as soon as possible. To achieve this, two conceivable options are currently tested: either to reduce the proportion of S. cerevisiae at t0 or to perform a sequential inoculation [16]: first the NS species and then the S. cerevisiae strain in a second time. These two options could be equivalent depending on the type of interaction(s) that occurs. If strain behaviors in single strain or mixed cultures are identical, then all interactions are mediated by the medium through the competition for resources and the production of constitutive toxins such as ethanol (producing a toxin only in mixed fermentation would be a behavior change) and could be qualified as “indirect”.

In the case of indirect interaction, mathematical models could be designed from data on monocultures to predict the mixed cultures. This would allow simulating numerous mixes of species with various initial conditions and identify optimal strategies depending on one or several given criteria. Using these approaches could limit the number of necessary tests, potentially saving a lot of time and money and opening the way to a more methodical ecological engineering. The development of such mathematical models will only be possible thanks to a deep tracking of population dynamics to understand underlying mechanisms of growth and mortality. Obviously, it is also critical to validate this approach by i) first extending the number of species co-cultured with S. cerevisiae, ii) investigating intra-specific variability and strain-strain interactions between species, iii) investigating the impact of the environment of culture (temperature, grape variety, nutrient availability, etc.).

4. Mat & met

4.1. Strains

In this work, we used one strain of 5 different species (one strain per species): Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc), Metschnikowia pulcherrima (Mp), M. fructicola (Mf), Hanseniaspora uvarum (Hu) and H. opuntiae (Ho). The S. cerevisiae strain is a haploid strain from EC1118 labelled with GFP (59A-GFP, [1]). The Hanseniaspora uvarum (CLIB 3221) H. opuntiae (CLIB 3093) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (CLIB 3235) species originated from the yeast CIRM (https://www6.inrae.fr/cirm_eng/Yeasts/Strain-catalogue) and were isolated from grape musts. The Metschnikowia fructicola strain was from the Lallemand collection.

For each strain, 3 replicates of monocultures were performed (except for S. cerevisiae that had a total of 8 replicates in different blocks). In addition, for each NS strain, 3 replicates of a mixed culture with the Sc strain were performed. In all mixed fermentations, the starting proportion of S. cerevisiae cells was set at 10%. In this text, fermentations were referred to by the species that performed them, i.e. monocultures were referred to as: Sc, Mp, Mf, Hu and Ho and mixed strain cultures as ScvsMp, ScvsMf, ScvsHu and ScvsHo.

4.2. Medium

Initial cultures (12 h, in 50 ml YPD medium, 28°C) were used to inoculate fermentation media at a total density of 106 cells/mL; therefore, for mixed culture the S. cerevisiae cells density was 0.1x106 /mL and the NS cells density was 0.9x106 /mL. Fermentations were carried out in a synthetic medium (SM) mimicking standard grape juice [33]. The SM used in this study contained 200 g/L of sugar (100 g glucose and 100 g fructose per liter) and 200 mg/L of assimilable nitrogen (as a mix of ammonium chloride and amino acids). The concentrations of weak acids, salts and vitamins were identical to those described by [34]. The pH of the medium was adjusted to 3.3 with 10M NaOH. The SM medium was first saturated with bubbling air for 40 minutes, then it was supplemented with 5 mg/L phytosterols (85451, Sigma Aldrich) solubilized in Tween 80 to fulfill the lipid requirements (sterols and fatty acids) of yeast cells during anaerobic growth.

4.3. Measurements

Fermentation took place in 1.1-liter fermentors equipped with fermentation locks to maintain anaerobiosis, at 20°C, with continuous magnetic stirring (500 rpm) during approximately 300h. CO2 release was followed by automatic measurements of fermentor weight loss every 20 min. The amount of CO2 released allowed us to monitor the progress of the fermentation and evaluate the maximum of released CO2 (CO2max) as well as the maximum rate of CO2 released (Vmax). Samples were harvested after 6h, 12h and 24h, then every 12h during the first week and every 24h during the second week of fermentation. For each sample, the population density cells were determined using a BD Accuri™ C6 Plus flow cytometer as described in [35]. Viability was determined using propidium iodide staining and BD Accuri™ C6 Plus flow cytometer adapted from [36]. Proportions of S. cerevisiae in mixed-culture was established thanks to the green fluorescence produced by the S. cerevisiae 59A-GFP, the forward and side scatters from the BD Accuri™ C6 Plus flow cytometer and machine learning using the caret package in R [37]. From these population densities (without taking into account viability), we fitted a growth population model (with the growthcurver package in R, [38], and determined the carrying capacity (K) and maximum growth rate (mu) for each fermentation.

The final concentrations of carbon metabolites in the medium (acetate, succinate, glycerol, alpha-ketoglutarate, pyruvate, ethanol, glucose and fructose) were determined with high-pressure liquid chromatography [39]. From these metabolite concentrations, we first calculated the consumed sugar concentration as the difference between the final and the initial concentration of either glucose or fructose. Then we calculated the yield of metabolite production by dividing the final concentration by the corresponding consumed sugar concentration. Finally, we compared these yields to the yield of S. cerevisiae monocultures considered as reference.

Finally, the ammonium concentration after 100h of fermentation was determined enzymatically with R-Biopharm (Darmstadt, Germany) and the free amino acid content of the must was estimated through cation exchange chromatography with post-column ninhydrin derivatization [40].

4.4. Statistical analysis

The experimental work was performed in 5 different blocks. Each block was composed of three replicates of NS fermentations (for example Hu), three replicates of the corresponding mixed fermentations with S. cerevisiae (for example ScvsHu) and one or two fermentations of single strain S. cerevisiae cells (Sc). The block effect was evaluated on the parameters of the Sc fermentation. For most studied parameters, the block effect was not significant. For those parameters where a block effect was observed (mu and K), a statistical correction for block effect did not modify our results. Therefore, for simplification purposes, we compared all fermentations without any correction for the block effect parameter. For each measured parameter, an ANOVA was performed to evaluate the type of fermentation (Sc, Mp, Mf, Hu, Ho, ScvsTd, ScvsMp, ScvsMf, ScvsHu and ScvsHo) effect and then a Tukey t-test was performed to determine statistical groups and two-by-two statistical differences. All statistical analyses were performed using R [41] and Rstudio [42]. All data, analysis and figures scripts can be found in this github address: https://github.com/tnidelet/Git-Harle-et-al-2019.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Glucose and Fructose consumption kinetics in function of different strains.

Each point represents a sample (average ± standard deviation).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Total production of carbon metabolite in function of the strains driving the fermentation.

Average production are given with standard deviations for acetate, alpha-ketoglutarate, ethanol, glycerol, pyruvate and succinate.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Principal component analysis of carbon metabolites and growth parameter of monocultures.

The mixed cultures are a second time projected on the plan determiner by only monocultures. In the top right is represented the circle of variables.

(TIF)

S4 Fig

Serial tenfold dilutions of two Metschnikovia pulcherrima strains (A and B) spotted onto various synthetic standard agar media (SM425, 425 mg/l assimilable nitrogen) with Tween 80, (Tw, 0.06%), supplemented or not with phytosterol (Phyto, 20 mg/L), in the presence or not of fluconazole (FLC, 256 μg/mL). Plates were incubated at 28°C for five days in air or in anaerobiosis

(TIF)

S1 Table. Growth parameter values for each type of fermentation.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the CIRM, the Lallemand company, Jean-Luc Legras, Virginie Galeote and Jean-Nicolas Jasmin for providing the species used in this study. We thank also Christian Picou, Marc Perez, Faiza Macna for technical assistance and Delphine Sicard for advices.

Data Availability

All data files for: Kinetic analysis of yeast-yeast interactions in oenological conditions files are available from the Mendeley database (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/wmhcznvgf4/draft?a=c8b0813a-d27a-45c3-88e0-3f6fe5110130, doi: 10.17632/wmhcznvgf4.1).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Marsit S, Dequin S. Diversity and adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces wine yeast: a review. FEMS Yeast Research. 2015;15: fov067. 10.1093/femsyr/fov067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sablayrolles J. Fermented beverages: the example of winemaking. Advances in Fermentation Technology New Delhi: Asiatech Publishers. 2008; 322–47.
  • 3.García-Ríos E, Gutiérrez A, Salvadó Z, Arroyo-López FN, Guillamon JM. The Fitness Advantage of Commercial Wine Yeasts in Relation to the Nitrogen Concentration, Temperature, and Ethanol Content under Microvinification Conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80: 704–713. 10.1128/AEM.03405-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jolly NP, Varela C, Pretorius IS. Not your ordinary yeast: non‐Saccharomyces yeasts in wine production uncovered. Fems Yeast Res. 2014;14: 215–237. 10.1111/1567-1364.12111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pinto C, Pinho D, Cardoso R, Custódio V, Fernandes J, Sousa S, et al. Wine fermentation microbiome: a landscape from different Portuguese wine appellations. 2015;6: 905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Varela C. The impact of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in the production of alcoholic beverages. Appl Microbiol Biot. 2016;100: 9861–9874. 10.1007/s00253-016-7941-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ivey M, Massel M, Phister TG. Microbial Interactions in Food Fermentations. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. 2013;4: 141–162. 10.1146/annurev-food-022811-101219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sadineni V, Kondapalli N, Obulam V. Effect of co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii or Metschnikowia pulcherrima on the aroma and sensory properties of mango wine. Ann Microbiol. 2012;62: 1353–1360. 10.1007/s13213-011-0383-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.P H-O, Cersosimo M, Loscos N, Cacho J, E G-M, Ferreira V. The development of varietal aroma from non-floral grapes by yeasts of different genera. Food Chem. 2008;107: 1064–1077. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.09.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Contreras A, Hidalgo C, Henschke PA, Chambers PJ, Curtin C, Varela C. Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts for the Reduction of Alcohol Content in Wine. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80: 1670–1678. 10.1128/AEM.03780-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Belda I, Navascués E, Marquina D, Santos A, Calderon F, Benito S. Dynamic analysis of physiological properties of Torulaspora delbrueckii in wine fermentations and its incidence on wine quality. Appl Microbiol Biot. 2015;99: 1911–1922. 10.1007/s00253-014-6197-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Elena G-R, Pascual O, Kontoudakis N, Esteruelas M, Braulio E-Z, Mas A, et al. Oenological consequences of sequential inoculation with non-Saccharomyces yeasts (Torulaspora delbrueckii or Metschnikowia pulcherrima) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in base wine for sparkling wine production. Eur Food Res Technol. 2015;240: 999–1012. 10.1007/s00217-014-2404-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oro L, Ciani M, Comitini F. Antimicrobial activity of Metschnikowia pulcherrima on wine yeasts. J Appl Microbiol. 2014;116: 1209–1217. 10.1111/jam.12446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kurtzman CP, Droby S. Metschnikowia fructicola, a New Ascosporic Yeast with Potential for Biocontrol of Postharvest Fruit Rots. Systematic and Applied Microbiology. 2001;24: 395–399. 10.1078/0723-2020-00045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hu K, Qin Y, Tao Y-S, Zhu X-L, Peng C-T, Ullah N. Potential of Glycosidase from Non-Saccharomyces Isolates for Enhancement of Wine Aroma. Journal of Food Science. 81: M935–M943. 10.1111/1750-3841.13253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.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 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Song H-S, Cannon WR, Beliaev AS, Konopka A. Mathematical Modeling of Microbial Community Dynamics: A Methodological Review. Processes. 2014;2: 711–752. 10.3390/pr2040711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang C, Mas A, Esteve-Zarzoso B. The Interaction between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Non-Saccharomyces Yeast during Alcoholic Fermentation Is Species and Strain Specific. Front Microbiol. 2016;7 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhang B-Q, Shen J-Y, Duan C-Q, Yan G-L. Use of Indigenous Hanseniaspora vineae and Metschnikowia pulcherrima Co-fermentation With Saccharomyces cerevisiae to Improve the Aroma Diversity of Vidal Blanc Icewine. Front Microbiol. 2018;9 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Valero E, Millán C, Ortega José M. Influence of oxygen addition during growth phase on the biosynthesis of lipids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (M330-9) in enological fermentations. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering. 2001;92: 33–38. 10.1263/jbb.92.33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pina C, Santos C, Couto JA, Hogg T. Ethanol tolerance of five non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts in comparison with a strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae—influence of different culture conditions. Food Microbiology. 2004;21: 439–447. 10.1016/j.fm.2003.10.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.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. 10.1007/s00253-014-6321-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shekhawat K, Bauer FF, Setati ME. Impact of oxygenation on the performance of three non-Saccharomyces yeasts in co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101: 2479–2491. 10.1007/s00253-016-8001-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.MacDonald. Biosynthesis of pulcherriminic acid. Biochem J. 1965;96: 533–8. 10.1042/bj0960533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sipiczki M. Metschnikowia Strains Isolated from Botrytized Grapes Antagonize Fungal and Bacterial Growth by Iron Depletion. Appl Environ Microb. 2006;72: 6716–6724. 10.1128/aem.01275-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Türkel S, C E-B. Isolation and characterization of new Metschnikowia pulcherrima strains as producers of the antimicrobial pigment pulcherrimin. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C. 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Moreira N, Mendes F, de Pinho P, journal of … H-T. Heavy sulphur compounds, higher alcohols and esters production profile of Hanseniaspora uvarum and Hanseniaspora guilliermondii grown as pure and …. International journal of …. 2008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 28.Ciani M, Ferraro L. Enhanced Glycerol Content in Wines Made with Immobilized Candida stellata Cells. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996;62: 128–132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Barot S, Allard V, Cantarel A, Enjalbert J, Gauffreteau A, Goldringer I, et al. Designing mixtures of varieties for multifunctional agriculture with the help of ecology. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2017;37: 13 10.1007/s13593-017-0418-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Finckh MR (International RRI, Mundt CC. Stripe rust, yield, and plant competition in wheat cultivar mixtures. Phytopathology (USA). 1992. [cited 17 Jan 2019]. Available: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US9307396 [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wolf T, Kämmer P, Brunke S, Linde J. Two’s company: studying interspecies relationships with dual RNA-seq. Current Opinion in Microbiology. 2018;42: 7–12. 10.1016/j.mib.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.García M, Braulio E-Z, Arroyo T. Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts: Biotechnological Role for Wine Production. 2016. 10.5772/64957 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bely M, Sablayrolles JM, Barre P. Description of Alcoholic Fermentation Kinetics: Its Variability and Significance. Am J Enol Vitic. 1990;41: 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Seguinot P, SANCHEZ I, Bloem A, Ortiz-Julien A, Camarasa C. Impact of nitrogen sources on the fermentative kinetic of non—Saccharomyces yeasts. 2017. Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01604146
  • 35.Delobel P, Pradal M, Blondin B, Tesniere C. A ‘fragile cell’ sub-population revealed during cytometric assessment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae viability in lipid-limited alcoholic fermentation. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 55: 338–344. 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2012.03301.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Riccardi C, Nicoletti I. Analysis of apoptosis by propidium iodide staining and flow cytometry. Nat Protoc. 2006;1: 1458–1461. 10.1038/nprot.2006.238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kuhn M. Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2008;28: 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v028.i07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sprouffske K, Wagner A. Growthcurver: an R package for obtaining interpretable metrics from microbial growth curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17: 172 10.1186/s12859-016-1016-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Camarasa C, Sanchez I, Brial P, Bigey F, Dequin S. Phenotypic landscape of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during wine fermentation: evidence for origin-dependent metabolic traits. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e25147 10.1371/journal.pone.0025147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Crépin L, Nidelet T, Sanchez I, Dequin S, Camarasa C. Sequential Use of Nitrogen Compounds by Saccharomyces cerevisiae during Wine Fermentation: a Model Based on Kinetic and Regulation Characteristics of Nitrogen Permeases. 2012;78: 8102–8111. 10.1128/AEM.02294-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: URL https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.RStudio (2012). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 0.96.122) [Computer software]. Boston, MA. Retrieved May 20, 2012. Available from http://www.rstudio.org/.

Decision Letter 0

Yoshikazu Ohya

10 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-31984

Investigations of the mechanisms of interactions between four non-conventional species with Saccharomyces cerevisiae in oenological conditions.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Nidelet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. First of all, we are sorry that it took long time to review your manuscript. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Especially, the reviewer #1 raised several concerns. Please address these points one by one.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yoshikazu Ohya, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors made the following assumption : « all cultures that produced more than 80g CO2.L-1 (90% of Sc maximum) within 300 hours will be able to complete fermentation »

This assumption is not supported by any scientific evidence. The authors should have followed the entire fermentation kinetics in order to interpret the data correctly.

In the summary the authors stated : » M. pulcherrima and M. fructicola displayed a negative interaction with the S. cerevisiae strain tested, with a decrease in viability in co-culture, probably due to iron depletion via the production of pulcherriminic acid.

The authors suggest iron depletion to be responsible for viability decrease, however, no results presented in this paper support this hypothesis, already reported.

Summary is not the place for such assumption.

The first part of the discussion is redundant with the result.

One of the conclusion is : Meanwhile NS fermentations present similarities, it was possible to group the NS strains performance according to their genus.

This is an overinterpretation, taking into account the small number of tested genus and tested strains.

The overall discussion is quite poor with very few references to support the comments.

For example, regarding the role of lipids that could play a role in the interactions, there is no reference, while some works do exist.

CO2 should be written CO2 in legend

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is concise and easy to follow. The authors have evaluated the interactions between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and four non-Saccharomyces species with focus on metabolic interactions in particular nutrient resource utilization. A couple of different interaction mechanisms could be identified. One limitation to this study is that only single strains were used for each species, and the authors should at least acknowledge the fact that there might be strain variability and briefly discuss this. Overall, the study set-up is sound but would have benefited from multiple strains per species.

Some minor corrections in text are necessary to improve the quality of the paper. These are as follows:

Throughout the document, replace “isolated cultures” with either ‘single cultures’ or ‘monocultures’

The use of “strain” in this manuscript is confusing since only single strains were used for each species. Perhaps the authors should rather consider just referring to the species.

All the images used for the figures are poor quality and no easy to read through

Page 2 line 8: “and” should not be in italics

Page 3 line 6: “aiming” should be aimed

Page 4 line 75: “smocky” should be smoky

Page 5 line 101: “choose” should be chose

Page 6 line 135: “corresponds” should be correspond

Page 7 line 147: change “on the opposite” to Conversely or In contrast

Page 7 line 151: “µm” should be µM

Page 8 line 178: insert space between 300 and h

Page 8 line 185-186: the part of the sentence starting with “whereas” does not make sense

Page 9 line 217: change “isolated” to monoculture

Page 9-10 line 217-219: the author indicates no significant difference between mixed cultures and their corresponding mono cultures, but this is not true for the Hu and Mp cultures.

Page 11 line 252: “decreasing” is in a different font type from the rest of the text

Page 12 line 275: which PCA and Figure 5 is the author referring to?

Page 12 line 280: remove “nevertheless” and start the sentence with “Despite”

Page 12 line 286 – 290: the authors should refer to studies that have been done on oxygen e.g. Shekhawat et al. 2017 and 2018, Morales et al., 2015

Page 14 line 320: replace “evidence” with observe

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 26;15(5):e0233285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233285.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Mar 2020

Reviewer #1: The authors made the following assumption : « all cultures that produced more than 80g CO2.L-1 (90% of Sc maximum) within 300 hours will be able to complete fermentation »

This assumption is not supported by any scientific evidence. The authors should have followed the entire fermentation kinetics in order to interpret the data correctly.

This part was not clearly described, thus the sentence has been completely rewrote to clarify the point and data concerning the maximum level of CO2 produced have been given. See lines 125-130. Moreover, this point has been discussed in the discussion section (see lines 251-264 with reference added).

In the summary the authors stated : » M. pulcherrima and M. fructicola displayed a negative interaction with the S. cerevisiae strain tested, with a decrease in viability in co-culture, probably due to iron depletion via the production of pulcherriminic acid.

The authors suggest iron depletion to be responsible for viability decrease, however, no results presented in this paper support this hypothesis, already reported.

Summary is not the place for such assumption.

The sentence “probably due to iron depletion via the production of pulcherriminic acid” has been removed from the abstract (see lines 35-36).

The first part of the discussion is redundant with the result.

This part has been rewrote to take this remark into account (see lines 244-365 with reference added).

One of the conclusion is : Meanwhile NS fermentations present similarities, it was possible to group the NS strains performance according to their genus.

This is an overinterpretation, taking into account the small number of tested genus and tested strains. This point has been discussed lines 257-270.

The overall discussion is quite poor with very few references to support the comments. Numerous changes have been performed in particular with the addition of new references to support our comments (lines 244-365).

For example, regarding the role of lipids that could play a role in the interactions, there is no reference, while some works do exist. References have been added (see paragraph 285-302).

CO2 should be written CO2 in legend (done)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is concise and easy to follow. The authors have evaluated the interactions between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and four non-Saccharomyces species with focus on metabolic interactions in particular nutrient resource utilization. A couple of different interaction mechanisms could be identified. One limitation to this study is that only single strains were used for each species, and the authors should at least acknowledge the fact that there might be strain variability and briefly discuss this. Overall, the study set-up is sound but would have benefited from multiple strains per species.

Some minor corrections in text are necessary to improve the quality of the paper. These are as follows:

Throughout the document, replace “isolated cultures” with either ‘single cultures’ or ‘monocultures’ “Isolated cultures” has been replaced by “Monocultures” lines 94, 161 and throughout the paper.

The use of “strain” in this manuscript is confusing since only single strains were used for each species. Perhaps the authors should rather consider just referring to the species. This has been done throughout the paper.

All the images used for the figures are poor quality and no easy to read through

Page 2 line 8: “and” should not be in italics. (This has been done line 28.)

Page 3 line 6: “aiming” should be aimed (done line 64)

Page 4 line 75: “smocky” should be smoky (done line 74)

Page 5 line 101: “choose” should be chose (done line 100)

Page 6 line 135: “corresponds” should be correspond (done line 134)

Page 7 line 147: change “on the opposite” to Conversely or In contrast (done lines 147)

Page 7 line 151: “µm” should be µM (done line 151)

Page 8 line 178: insert space between 300 and h (done line 179)

Page 8 line 185-186: the part of the sentence starting with “whereas” does not make sense (sentence changed lines 187-188)

Page 9 line 217: change “isolated” to monoculture (done line 210)

Page 9-10 line 217-219: the author indicates no significant difference between mixed cultures and their corresponding mono cultures, but this is not true for the Hu and Mp cultures. (This has been clarified lines 218-220)

Page 11 line 252: “decreasing” is in a different font type from the rest of the text OK

Page 12 line 275: which PCA and Figure 5 is the author referring to? The paragraph has been removed.

Page 12 line 280: remove “nevertheless” and start the sentence with “Despite” The paragraph has been removed.

Page 12 line 286 – 290: the authors should refer to studies that have been done on oxygen e.g. Shekhawat et al. 2017 and 2018, Morales et al., 2015 (references added line 297)

Page 14 line 320: replace “evidence” with observe (OK)

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_8b108.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yoshikazu Ohya

4 May 2020

Investigations of the mechanisms of interactions between four non-conventional species with Saccharomyces cerevisiae in oenological conditions.

PONE-D-19-31984R1

Dear Dr. Nidelet,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Yoshikazu Ohya, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors have adequately addressed reviewer's comments, and the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Yoshikazu Ohya

12 May 2020

PONE-D-19-31984R1

Investigations of the mechanisms of interactions between four non-conventional species with Saccharomyces cerevisiae in oenological conditions.

Dear Dr. Nidelet:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yoshikazu Ohya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Glucose and Fructose consumption kinetics in function of different strains.

    Each point represents a sample (average ± standard deviation).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Total production of carbon metabolite in function of the strains driving the fermentation.

    Average production are given with standard deviations for acetate, alpha-ketoglutarate, ethanol, glycerol, pyruvate and succinate.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Principal component analysis of carbon metabolites and growth parameter of monocultures.

    The mixed cultures are a second time projected on the plan determiner by only monocultures. In the top right is represented the circle of variables.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig

    Serial tenfold dilutions of two Metschnikovia pulcherrima strains (A and B) spotted onto various synthetic standard agar media (SM425, 425 mg/l assimilable nitrogen) with Tween 80, (Tw, 0.06%), supplemented or not with phytosterol (Phyto, 20 mg/L), in the presence or not of fluconazole (FLC, 256 μg/mL). Plates were incubated at 28°C for five days in air or in anaerobiosis

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Growth parameter values for each type of fermentation.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_8b108.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files for: Kinetic analysis of yeast-yeast interactions in oenological conditions files are available from the Mendeley database (https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/wmhcznvgf4/draft?a=c8b0813a-d27a-45c3-88e0-3f6fe5110130, doi: 10.17632/wmhcznvgf4.1).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES