Abstract
From a technological point of view, yeast resistance to sulfite is of great interest and represents an important technological character for winemaking. Several mechanisms are involved, and strain-dependent strategies to obtain SO2 resistance can deeply influence wine quality, although this choice is less relevant in determining the technological performance of the strain during fermentation. In this study, to better understand the strain-specific mechanisms of resistance, 11 Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains, whose genomes have been previously sequenced, were selected. Their attitude towards sulfites, in terms of resistance and production, was evaluated, and RNA-sequencing of four selected strains was performed during fermentation process in synthetic grape must in the presence of SO2. Results demonstrated that at molecular level, the physical effect of SO2 triggered multiple stress responses in the cell and high tolerance to general enological stressing condition increased SO2 resistance. Adaptation mechanism due to high basal gene expression level rather than specific gene induction in the presence of sulfite seemed to be responsible in modulating strain resistance. This mechanism involved higher basal gene expression level of specific cell wall proteins, enzymes for lipid biosynthesis, and enzymes directly involved in SO2 assimilation pathway and efflux.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aranda A, Jimenez-Marti E, Orozco H, Matallana E, Del Olmo M (2006) Sulfur and adenine metabolisms are linked, and both modulate sulfite resistance in wine yeast. J Agric Food Chem 54:5839–5846
Avram D, Bakalinsky AT (1997) SSU1 encodes a plasma membrane protein with a central role in a network of proteins conferring sulfite tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 179:5971–5974
Bely L, Sablayrolles J, Barre P (1990) Description of alcoholic fermentation kinetics: its variability and significance. Am J Enol Viticult 40:319–324
Borneman AR, Forgan AH, Pretorius IS, Chambers PJ (2008) Comparative genome analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine strain. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1185–1195
Borneman AR, Desany BA, Riches D, Affourtit JP, Forgan AH, Pretorius IS, Egholm M, Chambers PJ (2011) Whole-genome comparison reveals novel genetic elements that characterize the genome of industrial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS Genet 7(2):e1001287
Campagna D, Albiero A, Bilardi A, Caniato E, Forcato C, Manavski S, Vitulo N, Valle G (2009) PASS: a program to align short sequences. Bioinformatics 25(7):967–968
Casalone E, Colella CM, Daly S, Gallori E, Moriani L, Polsinelli M (1992) Mechanism of resistance to sulfite in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet 22:435–440
Cherest H, Davidian JC, Thomas D, Benes V, Ansorge W, Surdin-Kerjan Y (1997) Molecular characterization of two high affinity sulfate transporters in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 145(3):627–635
Delfini C, Formica JV (2001) Isolation selection and purification of wine yeasts. In: Wine microbiology: science and technology. Dekker, New York, US, pp. 193–218
Divol B, Miot-Sertier C, Lonvaud-Funel A (2006) Genetic characterization of strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae responsible for ‘refermentation’ in Botrytis-affected wines. J Appl Microbiol 100:516–526
Divol B, du Toit M, Duckitt E (2012) Surviving in the presence of sulphur dioxide: strategies developed by wine yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 95:601–613
Fugelsang KC, Edwards CG (2007) Wine microbiology. Practical applications and procedures. Springer, New York, USA
Galeote V, Novo M, Salema-Oom M, Brion C, Valério E, Gonçalves P, Dequin S (2010) FSY1, a horizontally transferred gene in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC1118 wine yeast strain, encodes a high-affinity fructose/H+ symporter. Microbiology 156(Pt12):3754–3761. doi:10.1099/mic.0.041673-0
Goffeau A, Barrell BG, Bussey H, Davis RW, Dujon B, Feldmann H, Galibert F, Hoheisel JD, Jacq C, Johnston M, Louis EJ, Mewes HW, Murakami Y, Philippsen P, Tettelin H, Oliver SG (1996) Life with 6000 genes. Science 274(5287):546–567
Goto-Yamamoto N, Kitano K, Shiki K, Yoshida Y, Suzuki T, Iwata T, Yamane Y, Hara S (1998) SSU1-R, a sulfite resistance gene of wine yeast, is an allele of SSU1 with a different upstream sequence. J Ferment Bioeng 86:427–433
Herrero M, Garcia LA, Diaz M (2003) The effect of SO2 on the production of ethanol, acetaldehyde, organic acids and flavor volatiles during industrial cider fermentation. J Agric Food Chem 51:3455–3459
Hinze H, Holzer H (1986) Analysis of the energy metabolism after incubation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with sulfite or nitrite. Arch Microbiol 145:27–31
Jazwinski SM (1999) Molecular mechanisms of yeast longevity. Trends Microbiol 7:247–252
Liu S-Q, Pilone GJ (2000) An overview of formation and roles of acetaldehyde in winemaking with emphasis on microbiological implications. Int J Food Sci Technol 35:49–61
Lopes CA, Rodriguez ME, Querol A, Bramardi S, Caballero AC (2006) Relationship between molecular and enological features of Patagonian wine yeasts: relevance in selection protocols. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22:827–833
Marks VD, Ho Sui SJ, Erasmus D, van der Merwe GK, Brumm J, Wasserman WW, Bryan J, van Vuuren HJ (2008) Dynamics of the yeast transcriptome during wine fermentation reveals a novel fermentation stress response. FEMS Yeast Res 8:35–52
Meng ZQ, Qin GH, Zhang B, Bai JL (2004) DNA damaging effects of sulfur dioxide derivatives in cells from various organs of mice. Mutagenesis 19:465–468
Mortazavi A, Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L, Wold B (2008) Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods 5(7):621–628
Nardi T, Corich V, Giacomini A, Blondin B (2010) A sulphite inducible form of the sulphite efflux gene SSU1 in a Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast. Microbiology 156:1686–1696
Neta P, Huie RE (1985) Free-radical chemistry of sulfite. Environ Health Perspect 64:209–217
Novo M, Bigey F, Beyne E, Galeote V, Gavory F, Mallet S, Cambon B, Legras J, Wincker P, Casaregola S, Dequin S (2009) Eukaryote-to-eukaryote gene transfer events revealed by the genome sequence of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC1118. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(38):16333–16338
Park H, Bakalinsky AT (2000) SSU1 mediates sulphite efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 16:881–888
Park H, Hwang YS (2008) Genome-wide transcriptional responses to sulfite in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Microbiol 46:542–548
Perez-Ortin JE, Querol A, Puig S, Barrio E (2002) Molecular characterization of a chromosomal rearrangement involved in the adaptive evolution of yeast strains. Genome Res 12:1533–1539
Pilkington BJ, Rose AH (1988) Reaction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Zygosaccharomyces bailii to sulfite. J Gen Microbiol 134:2823–2830
Ribereau-Gayon P, Dubourdieu D, Doneche B, Lonvaud A (2006) Handbook of enology. Vol. 1. The microbiology of wine and vinifications, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY
Romano P, Suzzi G (1993) Sulphur dioxide and wine microorganisms. In: Fleet GH (ed) Wine microbiology and biotechnology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, pp. 373–393
Rossignol T, Dulau L, Julien A, Blondin B (2003) Genome-wide monitoring of wine yeast gene expression during alcoholic fermentation. Yeast 20:1369–1385
Saeed AI, Bhagabati NK, Braisted JC, Liang W, Sharov V, Howe EA, Li J, Thiagarajan M, White JA, Quackenbush J (2006) TM4 microarray software suite. Methods Enzymol 411:134–193
Salma M, Rousseaux S, Sequeira-Le Grand A, Divol B, Alexandre H (2013) Characterization of the viable but nonculturable (VBNC) state in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS One 8(10):e77600. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077600
Sardu A, Treu L, Campanaro S (2014) Transcriptome structure variability in Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains determined with a newly developed assembly software. BMC Genomics 15:1045
Schimz K-L (1980) The effect of sulfite on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Arch Microbiol 125:89–95
Schimz K-L, Holzer H (1979) Rapid decrease of ATP content in intact cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae after incubation with low concentrations of sulfite. Arch Microbiol 121:225–229
Swiegers JH, Bartowsky EJ, Henschke PA, Pretorius IS (2005) Yeast and bacterial modulation of wine aroma and flavour. Australian J Grape Wine Res 11:139–173
Thomas D, Surdin-Kerjan Y (1997) Metabolism of sulfur amino acids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61:503–532
Treu L, Toniolo C, Nadai C, Sardu A, Giacomini A, Corich V, Campanaro S (2014a) A) the impact of genomic variability on gene expression in environmental Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Env Microbiol 16:1378–1397. doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12327
Treu L, Campanaro S, Nadai C, Toniolo C, Nardi T, Giacomini A, Valle G, Blondin B, Corich V (2014b) b) oxidative stress response and nitrogen utilization are strongly variable in Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine strains with different fermentation performances. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98(9):4119–4135. doi:10.1007/s00253-014-5679-6
van der Vaart JM, Caro LH, Chapman JW, Klis FM, Verrips CT (1995) Identification of three mannoproteins in the cell wall of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 177(11):3104–3110
Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2009) RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet 10(1):57–63
Xu X, Wightman JD, Geller BL, Avram D, Bakalinsky AT (1994) Isolation and characterization of sulfite mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet 25:488–496
Zeeberg BR, Feng W, Wang G, Wang MD, Fojo AT, Sunshine M, Narasimhan S, Kane DW, Reinhold WC, Lababidi S, Bussey KJ, Riss J, Barrett JC, Weinstein JN (2003) GoMiner: a resource for biological interpretation of genomic and proteomic data. Genome Biol 4(4):R28
Zhao S, Fung-Leung WP, Bittner A, Ngo K, Liu X (2014) Comparison of RNA-seq and microarray in transcriptome profiling of activated T cells. PLoS ONE 9(1):e78644. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078644 eCollection 2014
Zimmer A, Durand C, Loira N, Durrens P, Sherman DJ, Marullo P (2014) QTL dissection of lag phase in wine fermentation reveals a new translocation responsible for Saccharomyces cerevisiae adaptation to sulfite. PLoS ONE 9(1):e86298. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086298 eCollection 2014
Acknowledgments
This study has been funded in part by POR “Competitività regionale e occupazione” - parte FESR 2007/2013 Azione 1.1.1. Progetto “RISIB” SMUPR n. 4145 “Potenziamento della rete di infrastrutture a supporto dell’innovazione biotecnologica” and by MIUR (ex-60 % Grant).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal studies
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 266 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nadai, C., Treu, L., Campanaro, S. et al. Different mechanisms of resistance modulate sulfite tolerance in wine yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100, 797–813 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7169-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7169-x