4.6 Article

Biodiversity among Brettanomyces bruxellensis Strains Isolated from Different Wine Regions of Chile: Key Factors Revealed about Its Tolerance to Sulphite

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8040557

关键词

Brettanomyces bruxellensis; sulphur dioxide; p-coumaric acid; spoilage microorganisms

资金

  1. Universidad de Santiago de Chile [DICYT 081871GM]
  2. Facultad Tecnologica of the Universidad de Santiago de Chile
  3. CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel)
  4. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brettanomyces bruxellensis is regarded as the main spoilage microorganism in the wine industry, owing to its production of off-flavours. It is difficult to eradicate owing to its high tolerance of adverse environmental conditions, such as low nutrient availability, low pH, and high levels of ethanol and SO2. In this study, the production of volatile phenols and the growth kinetics of isolates from various regions of Chile were evaluated under stressful conditions. Through randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis, 15 strains were identified. These were grown in the presence of p-coumaric acid, a natural antimicrobial and the main precursor of off-flavours, and molecular sulfur dioxide (mSO(2)), an antimicrobial synthetic used in the wine industry. When both compounds were used simultaneously, there were clear signs of an improvement in the fitness of most of the isolates, which showed an antagonistic interaction in which p-coumaric acid mitigates the effects of SO2. Fourteen strains were able to produce 4-vinylphenol, which showed signs of phenylacrylic acid decarboxylase activity, and most of them produced 4-ethylphenol as a result of active vinylphenol reductase. These results demonstrate for the first time the serious implications of using p-coumaric acid, not only for the production of off-flavours, but also for its protective action against the toxic effects of SO2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据