Upload
phamdan
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transcription profiling of sparkling wine second fermentation
Vanessa Penachoa, Eva Valerob and Ramon Gonzaleza*
a Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (CSIC-UR-CAR), 26006 Logroño, La
Rioja, Spain .
b Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Departamento de Biología Molecular e
Ingeniería Bioquímica, 41013 Sevilla, Spain.
*Corresponding autor:
Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (CSIC-UR-CAR)
C. Madre de Dios, 51
26006 Logroño, La Rioja
Spain
Phone: +34 941 299684
Fax: +34 941 299608
e-mail: [email protected]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Abstract
There is a specific set of stress factors that yeast cells must overcome under
second fermentation conditions, during the production of sparkling wines by the
traditional (Champegnoise) method. Some of them are the same as those of the
primary fermentation of still wines, although perhaps with a different intensity
(high ethanol concentration, low pH, nitrogen starvation) while others are more
specific to second fermentation (low temperature, CO2 overpressure). The
transcription profile of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during primary wine
fermentation has been studied by several research groups, but this is the first
report on yeast transcriptome under second fermentation conditions. Our results
indicate that the main pathways affected by these particular conditions are
related to aerobic respiration, but genes related to vacuolar and peroxisomal
functions were also highlighted in this study. A parallelism between the
transcription profile of wine yeast during primary and second fermentation is
appreciated, with ethanol appearing as the main factor driving gene
transcription during second fermentation. Low temperature seems to also
influence yeast transcription profile under these particular winemaking
conditions.
Keywords: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; sparkling wine; transcriptome; ethanol; low-
temperature; stress response
2
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1. Introduction
The production of sparkling wines by the traditional method involves two major
and differentiated fermentative steps. The primary fermentation converts grape
juice into a base wine, similar to most high quality white wines. The second
fermentation is induced by the addition of yeast, sucrose, and a small amount of
bentonite. It is followed by a prolonged period of aging in contact with yeast
lees. Second fermentation and aging take place in closed bottles at low
temperatures (12-16 ºC). The whole process is known by the French term "prise
de mousse". At the end of the aging period yeast lees are removed from the
bottles by disgorging. Dosage is added in order to compensate for wine loss
during disgorging as well as to give each wine its own distinctive finish
(Carrascosa et al., 2011).
Yeast contributes to the properties of sparkling wines in two ways during the
"prise de mousse" process. Initially, second fermentation results in increased
ethanol content and carbon dioxide overpressure. Afterwards, during wine
aging, yeast cells release mannoproteins and other molecules, including
precursors of aroma compounds, through autolysis and other mechanisms.
Most of these compounds contribute positively to the aroma, taste and foaming
properties of sparkling wines (Charpentier and Feuillat, 1993; Martinez-
Rodriguez et al., 2001; Troton et al., 1989).
Under second fermentation conditions yeast growth and metabolism are
affected by several stress factors, either common to all winemaking styles or
specific to second fermentation. This includes high ethanol content of the base
3
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
wine, nitrogen starvation, low pH, or low growth temperature. In spite of the
procedures implemented by winemakers to adapt yeast to the high ethanol
content of the base wine, there is always a lag phase after inoculation, which is
followed by a short cell proliferation step. The second fermentation step usually
lasts for 15-20 days. Afterwards cell viability decays quickly, and almost no
viable cells are detected after 60 days.
Adaptation of yeast to alcoholic fermentation of wine must has been studied by
several approaches, including transcription profiles during the fermentation of
synthetic or grape must by wine yeast strains (Beltran et al., 2004; Marks et al.,
2008; Rossignol et al., 2003; Varela et al., 2005; Zuzuarregui et al., 2006); the
effect of winemaking related stress factors on gene expression for either
laboratory strains (Alexandre et al., 2001; Tai et al., 2007) or wine yeast strains
(Rossignol et al., 2006); as well as the phenotypic characterization of genome
scale yeast knock-out deletion collections concerning survival to ethanol stress
(Fujita et al., 2006; Teixeira et al., 2009). Among other findings, these studies
have revealed or confirmed the impact of increasing ethanol content and
nitrogen starvation on yeast survival and physiology, or the requirement for
mitochondrial function and oxidative stress response, as well as vacuolar and
peroxisomal functions, to cope with industrial fermentation conditions. A
fermentation stress response (FSR), characterized by the induction of a set of
223 genes under fermentation conditions, was recently defined (Marks et al.,
2008).
4
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
In order to better understand the main factors that influence yeast physiology
during second fermentation we have performed a genome-wide expression
analysis of an industrial wine yeast strain under real second fermentation
conditions, and tried to identify the main factors affecting gene transcription
under these conditions, as well as similarities and differences with
transcriptional responses under standard winemaking conditions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Strains
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae industrial wine strain employed in this study
was EC1118, provided by Lallemand Inc. (Montreal, Canada).
2.2. Media
A standardized commercial “cava” base wine was used for the second
fermentation experiments (Cavas Freixenet, Sant Sadurní D’Anoia, Spain). It is
a balanced blend of Macabeo, Parellada and Xarel·lo varietal wines. A chemical
analysis report on this base wine is shown in supplementary table S1.
Adaptation medium contained 0.08 g/L diammonium phosphate, 2.4 g/L tartaric
acid, 20 g/L sucrose, and 482 mL/L base wine. Pre-cultures were grown on
YPD: 1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, and 2% glucose; 2% agar was added for
YPD plates.
2.3. Second fermentation experiments
5
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
Second fermentation assays were performed as described by Cebollero and
Gonzalez (2006). Pre-cultures were grown on YPD at 28 ºC and 150 rpm for 48
h. Yeasts were then inoculated into adaptation medium at 106 cells/mL and
incubated for 4 to 5 days at 28 ºC and 150 rpm. Adapted cells were inoculated
at 106 cells/mL into base wine containing 20g/L sucrose, and bottled in
commercial sparkling wine bottles. Bottles (about 60 per batch) were incubated
at 16 ºC for about 40 days. Three different batches were prepared at different
times of the year in order to obtain three independent biological replicates.
Every 2-4 days three bottles were opened for ethanol quantification. Cells were
washed once with water and frozen at -80 ºC. Cells from three time points
(SP1-3) were selected for transcription studies, as described below. A sample
corresponding to exponential growth phase (OD600 about 0.2) under unstressed
conditions (YPD at 28 ºC) was prepared as external reference (SP0).
2.4. RNA isolation
Total RNA was extracted from 1x109 yeast cells using Trizol® (Gibco BRL,
Invitrogen, Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) as described by
Chomczynski and Sacchi (1987). Total RNA was subsequently purified using
the RNeasy Mini Kit-RNA Cleanup from Qiagen (Hilden, Germany) according to
the manufacturer's instructions. Concentration of total RNA was measured at
260 nm in a ND-1000 Spectrophotometer (Nanodrop, Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc, Wilmington, DE, USA) and sample quality was checked using RNA Nano
Labchips in a Bioanalyzer 6000 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).
{Cebollero, 2006 #48}
2.5. Microarray analysis of differential gene expression
6
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
Three independent RNA preparations were obtained; one from each biological
replicate, for each of the four sample points (SP0-3). Double stranded cDNA
was synthesized from 5 μg of total RNA using “Onecycle cDNA Synthesis Kit”
(Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA). After cDNA purification using the
“GeneChip Sample Cleanup Module” (Affymetrix), this DNA was used as
template for the in vitro transcription using the “3' IVT Express Labeling Kit”
(Affymetrix) to obtain the biotin labelled cRNA. Its size profile was evaluated
with Bioanalyzer 6000 (Agilent Technologies). Fifteen µg of cRNA were
fragmented and hybridized to the Affymetrix GeneChip® Yeast Genome 2.0.
Array in “GeneChip® Hybridization Oven 640” for 16 h at 45 °C. Hybridized
microarrays were washed and stained with a streptavidin-phycoerythrin
conjugate (SAPE) in a “GeneChip® Fluidics Station 450”. All these procedures
were carried out as suggested by the manufacturer. Hybridized cRNA was
finally identified by the fluorescence signal in a “GeneChip® 3000” scanner. The
.CEL files generated from the scanning were converted to gene expression
signals using the RMA (Robust Microarray Analysis) software (Bolstad et al.,
2003; Irizarry et al., 2003a, 2003b ). Normalized results from this algorithm gave
rise to absolute expression values in logarithmic scale (Log2). Subsequently,
differentially expressed genes were identified trough SAM algorithm
(Significance Analysis of Microarrays) between microarrays from the 4-sample
point studied: SP0-3. All p-values were calculated using Student's t-test and
adjusted by FDR (False Discovery Rate) (q-values or FDR adjusted p-values)
(Benjamini et al., 1995).
7
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
Pairwise comparisons, involving the three sample points taken during the
second fermentation process (SP1, SP2 and SP3) as well as the reference
sample point (SP0) resulted in a total of six comparisons. The signal log2 ratio
for each gene was obtained as the mean of the signal log2 ratio in the
replicates. Genes with a FDR adjusted p-value < 0.1, and fold-change > 2 or <
0.5 in each comparison, were considered as statistically significant and
differentially expressed genes. An ontological analysis of these genes was
performed using GENECODIS software (Gene Annotation Co-ocurrence
Discovery; http://genecodis.dacya.ucm.es) (Carmona-Saez et al., 2007;
Nogales-Cadenas et al., 2009) in order to integrate biological process according
to GENE ONTOLOGY terms (GOGO; http://www.geneontology.org/)
(Ashburner et al., 2000) and pathway maps according to KEGG (Kyoto
Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; http://www.genome.jp/kegg/) (Kanehisa
y Goto, 2000; Kanehisa et al., 2006). An hypergeometric distribution was
employed to determinate p-value of each annotation; FDR method was used to
adjust p-values (statistically significant clasification: FDR adjusted p-value <
0.05). Clustering and visualization of the data, and PCA (Principal Component
Analysis) were performed using MeV software (TIGR) (Saeed et al., 2003).
Overlapping probability between gene sets from transcriptomic comparisons
were calculated using Fisher's exact test, package integrated in R software
(http://www.r-project.org) (Ihaka y Gentleman, 1996). The data discussed in
this publication have been deposited in NCBI's Gene Expression Omnibus
(Edgar et al., 2002) and are accessible through GEO Series accession number
GSE29273 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE29273).
8
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
2.6. qRT-PCR assays
First-strand cDNAs were synthesized from 1 µg of total RNA in 20 µl final
volume, using the High Capacity cDNA Archive kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster
City, CA, USA) following the recommendations of the manufacturer. As control
for genomic contamination, the same reactions were performed in the absence
of reverse transcriptase. Real-time qPCR assays were carried out in an ABI
7900HT Fast Real-Time PCR instrument (Applied Biosystems) using standard
PCR conditions. Probes and primers were designed at the ‘Universal
ProbeLibrary Assay Design Center’ (Roche Applied Sciences) using gene
sequences obtained from SGD (http://www.yeastgenome.org/). Quantification of
ATG8, COX4, MCR1, SDH4, NUP85, RPL18B and RDN18-1 (18S rRNA)
transcripts was performed using respectively probes #18, #159, #11, #86, #57,
#21, #29, and #40, from the Universal Probe Library and the ‘TaqMan Universal
PCR Master Mix No AmpErase UNG’ kit (Applied Biosystems). Primer
sequences will be provided upon request. All quantifications were performed in
triplicate. The expression of each gene was estimated by the "Comparative Ct
Method" with respect to SP0 and with 18S ribosomal RNA as reference.
3. Results and Discussion
Second fermentation assays were carried out as described in Materials and
Methods. The evolution of ethanol content and cell numbers is shown in Figure
1. Samples from days 7, 15 and 19 (sample points SP1, SP2 and SP3),
representing respectively the end of the lag phase, the maximum ethanol
production rate and the first obvious inflexion point after maximal fermentation
rate, were selected for transcription analysis. Comparisons involving SP1, SP2
9
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
and SP3 as well as reference sample point (SP0), were performed as described
in Materials and Methods, in order to identify differential steady state mRNA
levels that would be indicative of the transcriptional response of yeast cells to
industrial second fermentation conditions. For each comparison, only genes
showing a differential expression with p-value < 0.05, FDR adjusted-p-value <
0.1, and fold expression changes above 2.0 or below 0.5 were considered for
further data analysis. During the time course of second fermentation,
expression of 348 genes was simultaneously up-regulated in sample points
SP1-3, while 125 genes were down-regulated in all three sampling points.
There was high similarity in gene expression profiles in the three sample points
during second fermentation, confirmed by pairwise comparison of gene
expression between them, as well as clustering and PCA analyses (data not
shown).
We have analyzed the biological annotations that are significantly associated
with genes in the lists of genes that have been up-regulated or down-regulated
in all sample points during second fermentation by using the GENECODIS tool.
Transcripts encoding products involved in aerobic respiration, autophagy,
peroxisomal and vacuolar function were significantly overrepresented
throughout second fermentation (Table 1), while transcripts encoding products
involved in protein synthesis and cell growth were underrepresented (Table 2).
This is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
3.1. Effect of ethanol
10
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
Several categories in Table 1 are clearly related to aerobic respiration in S.
cerevisiae, including GO biological processes such as "mitochondrial electron
transport", "oxidation-reduction process", "aerobic respiration", and "cellular
response to oxidative stress"; or the KEGG pathways "oxidative
phosphorylation" and "TCA cycle". At first sight this was surprising, since cells in
the SP0 sample were growing in the presence of oxygen, while those in
samples SP1-3 came from closed bottles, almost full of wine; and depending on
the time point, saturated with CO2. Some representative genes were chosen in
order to verify, by quantitative real-time PCR, the induction during second
fermentation of genes related to aerobic respiration. These were COX4, coding
for a subunit of cytochrome c oxidase, part of the mitochondrial inner membrane
electron transport chain; MCR1, coding for mitochondrial NADH-cytochrome b5
reductase, involved in ergosterol biosynthesis; and SDH4, coding for a subunit
of succinate dehydrogenase, involved in the TCA cycle and the mitochondrial
respiratory chain. All of them showed induction patterns similar to those seen by
microarray analysis (Figure 2). Also Rossignol et al. (2003) found indications of
response to oxidative stress in a time-course transcriptomic analysis of the
fermentation of a synthetic must, based on the expression of AAD genes,
encoding putative aryl-alcohol dehydrogenases (Delneri et al.,1999; Dickinson
et al., 2003). Several AAD genes showed increased expression troughout
second fermentation (Supplementary tables S2-S4). Also, among other stress
factors, Zuzuarregui and del Olmo (2004) found a positive correlation between
resistance to oxidative stress in several wine yeast strains and their
fermentation performance. High expression levels of genes coding for
mitochondrial proteins and respiration functions seem to be characteristic of S.
11
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
cerevisiae in other industrial fermentation processes, like brewing (James et al.,
2003).
The ethanol content of the base wine is probably the main environmental factor
responsible for the transcription pattern observed under second fermentation
conditions. There is growing evidence for the involvement of genes related to
mitochondrial function and oxidative metabolism in ethanol stress tolerance.
Tolerance to ethanol had already been related to the properties of the
mitochondrial genome by Jimenez and Benitez (1988). Accordingly, Teixeira et
al. (2009) found 30 genes encoding for mitochondrial proteins as determinants
of resistance to high concentrations of ethanol. Those genes were mainly
involved in mitochondrial protein synthesis, respiration and maintenance of the
mitochondrial genome. In a recent review, Stanley et al. (2010a) analyzed
results from several genome-wide studies on yeast adaptation to ethanol stress.
They also identified mitochondrial function as a common motif involved in
ethanol stress response and tolerance by S. cerevisiae, with aerobic respiration
among the most relevant GO terms. The same researchers found evidence
relating differences in ethanol tolerance by different yeast strains with different
mitochondrial and NADH oxidation activities.
The KEGG pathway “peroxisome” is also enriched among genes up-regulated
during second fermentation. Similar to above, the main environmental factor
that would explain this expression pattern seems to be the ethanol content of
the base wine. The MIPS functional category “peroxisomal transport” was
identified in the study by Yoshikawa et al. (2009) as being relevant for ethanol
12
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
tolerance; and Teixeira et al. (2009), with a similar approach, reached the same
conclusion concerning the peroxisome protein import machinery.
Overexpression of genes involved in peroxisomal function has also been
observed for wine yeast strains under winemaking conditions (see below).
The related categories “CVT pathway” and "autophagic vacuole assembly" are
also overrepresented in all three sample points. This would be in agreement
with our previous results, showing that autophagy takes place during second
fermentation of sparkling wines, even before sugar was exhausted (Cebollero et
al., 2005; Cebollero and Gonzalez, 2006). The expression pattern of ATG8 was
analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR, and this confirmed the expression
pattern found for ATG genes by microarray analysis (Figure 2). Once again, this
result would pinpoint ethanol as the main condition affecting transcriptional
adaptation to second fermentation conditions, since vacuolar function is a
recurrent motif arising from several studies of the adaptation of S. cerevisiae to
high ethanol media (see for example Teixeira et al., 2009; Yoshikawa et al.,
2009).
We also explored the relevance of the ethanol response for the transcription
profile of EC1118 under second fermentation conditions by comparing our
results with genes induced in S. cerevisiae in response to ethanol challenges
(Alexandre et al., 2001; Stanley et al. 2010b), or with genes relevant to survive
ethanol stress identified by genome-wide screenings of yeast deletion mutants
(Teixeira et al., 2009; Yoshikawa et al., 2009) . In all cases we found statistically
13
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
significant coincidences (Fisher's exact test; p-value < 0.05) with two or all three
sample points during second fermentation (data not shown).
Enhanced expression of genes involved in biosynthesis of tryptophan has also
been related to ethanol stress tolerance (Hirasawa et al., 2007), and
"metabolism of tryptophan" appeared as the main category in a systematic
analysis of deletion strains for ethanol sensitivity (Yoshikawa et al., 2009).
However, we did not find a significant overexpression of TRP genes under
second fermentation conditions.
3.2. Effect of other environmental factors
Apart from the stress induced by ethanol, other environmental factors
characteristic of second fermentation might also be responsible for the
observed transcription profile. One prominent environmental constraint
characteristic of second fermentation is low temperature. Tai et al. (2007)
identified genes consistently up-regulated (91 genes) or down-regulated (48
genes) in data sets from three different studies of temperature shift from 30 ºC
to 4 ºC or 10 ºC, by Murata et al. (2006), Sahara et al. (2002) and Schade et al.
(2004). By comparing our data to these two gene sets we found a good
correspondence with the expression profile in SP1 and SP2 (Figure 3) with
respectively 32 and 37 of the induced genes included among the 91 genes
induced by cold according to Tai et al. (2007), and 8 and 6 of the repressed
genes among the 48 repressed by cold. The correspondence was not as good,
according to the Fisher's exact test (p-value < 0.05), for SP3 (Figure 3).
14
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
Similar to Tai et al. (2007), we found little overlap between our data and those
by Beltran et al. (2006), who compared gene expression during grape must
fermentation at 25 ºC or 13 ºC, either focusing on the “cold sensitivity” cluster
identified by them, or considering comparison between sample points at both
temperatures, or the time course of gene expression at 13 ºC. Tai et al. (2007)
suggested that these differences would be due to must composition and
physicochemical properties, including pH, sugar composition and concentration,
or drift from aerobic to anaerobic conditions. Even though some properties of
the growth medium (pH or sugar composition) in second fermentation (base
wine) are close to those by Beltran et al. (2006), our experimental set up is
more closely related to those by the other authors, and would explain the
proximity of our results to theirs.
Most of the genes down-regulated during second fermentation are related to
cell growth, including general metabolic functions required for the biosynthesis
of nucleic acids and proteins, and gene expression (Table 2). The expression
pattern of NUP85 and RPL18B related to cell cycle and ribosomal biogenesis,
respectively, was analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR. Both genes were
repressed in the three sample points (Figure 2). The most obvious explanation
for down regulation of genes in these categories is growth rate, since it is
notably different between the control condition and any time point along the
second fermentation process. Reduced expression of genes involved in energy
demanding growth related processes also appeared as a common trait of
studies on ethanol tolerance (reviewed by Stanley et al., 2010a).
15
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
Since nitrogen availability is poor in the base wine, nitrogen starvation would
also contribute to explain the expression pattern during second fermentation.
Backhus et al. (2001) showed increased expression of genes involved in
oxidative carbon metabolism for a wine yeast strain under low nitrogen
conditions. According to that, in addition to the effect of ethanol discussed
above, nitrogen starvation would somehow contribute to the observed induction
of genes related to aerobic respiration. Indeed, Mendes-Ferreira et al. (2010)
found increased ROS, Sod2p and Cat1p activities, following nitrogen limitation
under winemaking conditions. Up-regulation of autophagy, and specifically of
ATG8 (which is induced in all three sample points during second fermentation),
could also be related to nitrogen limitation, since nitrogen starvation was one of
the first conditions identified to induce autophagy (Takeshige et al., 1992); and
ATG8 overexpression was related to nitrogen limited alcoholic fermentation by
Mendes-Ferreira et al. (2010).
Finally, Dirmeier et al. (2002) found transient oxidative stress to be induced by a
shift of yeast cells to anoxia, as indicated by protein carbonylation, DNA
modification, and the expression level of SOD1. And Landolfo et al. (2008)
showed oxidative damage to different cell structures during the fermentation of
media containing 24% sugars under hypoxic conditions. However, this oxidative
stress response was apparently also related to ethanol accumulation, and
induced a response involving SOD activity, trehalose accumulation and protein
turnover. Overexpression of genes related to aerobic respiration and TCA cycle
was also found for S. cerevisiae cells growing under low oxygen levels (0.5% to
2.8%) as compared to fully aerobic or fully anaerobic conditions (Rintala et al.,
16
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
2009). However, it is doubtful that equivalent oxygen levels were still present in
the sparkling wine bottles, especially for late sample points.
3.3. Comparison with transcription profiles during primary wine fermentation.
Our study comes after the publication of several others on transcriptome
dynamics during the fermentation of grape or synthetic musts, including time-
course experiments and/or comparison between different strains or
fermentation conditions. Rossignol et al. (2003) suggested a specific response
to ethanol as an important component of the transcriptional adaptation of wine
yeast to the fermentation of a synthetic must, which is also in agreement with
the increased expression of genes involved in aerobic respiration, peroxisomal
functions or autophagy found during second fermentation, as discussed above.
We have found a significant overlapping between genes expressed in all
sample points during second fermentation and those overexpressed in each
stage of the primary fermentation as shown by Rossignol et al. (2003) (Figure
4A). The similarity is not so striking in the case of repressed genes, but it is still
significant for stages 3 to 6 (Figure 4B). One indication of the relevance of this
observation, in addition to statistic analysis, is that the extent of overlapping is
similar to the one we found by comparing the FSR genes described for primary
wine fermentation and genes in the different stages of the Rossignol et al.
(2003) study (Figure 4C). On the other hand, we have compared genes induced
during second fermentation of sparkling wine with the 223 FSR genes from this
later study. About 38 % (84 genes) of the FSR genes were induced in at least
one sample point during second fermentation experiments, and 31 of them were
17
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
induced in all sample points (Supplementary table S5). Induction of FSR genes
was statistically significant for all sample points. Based on their transcriptomic
results Marks et al. (2008) also pointed to ethanol, rather than nutrient
depletion, as the main factor leading to the entry of yeast cells into stationary
phase. The transcriptional response of EC1118 under second fermentation
conditions is thus similar to the one previously described for primary wine
fermentation (Rossignol et al. 2003) and consistent with the activation of a
fermentation stress response resembling that proposed by Marks et al. (2008).
3.4. Conclusions.
The transcription profile during the second fermentation of sparkling wines
described in this work shares many traits with the response to primary
fermentation conditions previously described (Marks et al., 2008; Rossignol et
al., 2003). Common themes arising from the comparison of time course
transcriptome analyses of must fermentation (Marks et al., 2008; Rossignol et
al., 2003) and the transcriptome profiling of second fermentation, include
expression of genes involved in respiratory metabolism, oxidative stress
response, autophagy, or peroxisomal function. This expression pattern is
consistent with ethanol being the main environmental factor influencing
transcriptional responses to winemaking conditions. Other traits of the
transcription pattern described in this work would be better explained in terms of
low fermentation temperature and reduced growth rate, and to a lesser extent
by low nitrogen availability. This transcription profile did not point out other
putative stress factors, like low pH or CO2 overpressure, as relevant constraints
18
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
for the adaptation of wine yeast cells to sparkling wine production. Probably
specific responses to most other stress factors would have been masked by the
strong transcriptional response elicited by ethanol.
In addition to improving our understanding of yeast adaptation to second
fermentation conditions, this study would be a useful source of information for
the development of biotechnological tools specific to second fermentation wine
yeast strains (for example by guiding the choice of promoters for controlled
expression of transgenic constructs).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a fellowship from INIA for V. P. (grant 18-BOE208
31-08-2006) and the project RTA2005-00169-00-00 from the Spanish
Government. The authors are grateful to José M. Barcenilla (CIAL-CSIC) for
help on sparkling wine production; Jesús García-Cantalejo (Unidad de
Genómica-Parque Científico de Madrid) for microarray experiments, qRT-PCR
assays, and data analysis; Jérôme Grimplet (ICVV) for advice on bioinformatics.
References
Alexandre, H., Ansanay-Galeote, V., Dequin, S., and Blondin, B., 2001. Global
gene expression during short-term ethanol stress in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. FEBS letters 498, 98-103.
Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M.,
Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T., Harris, M.A., Hill, D.P.,
Issel-Tarver, L., Kasarskis, A., Lewis, S., Matese, J.C., Richardson, J.E.,
19
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
Ringwald, M., Rubin, G.M., Sherlock, G., 2000. Gene Ontology: tool for the
unification of biology. Nat. Genet. 25(1), 25–29.
Backhus, L. E., DeRisi, J., Brown, P.O., and Bisson, L.F., 2001. Functional
genomic analysis of a commercial wine strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
under differing nitrogen conditions. FEMS Yeast Research 1, 111-125.
Beltran, G., Novo, M., Leberre, V., Sokol, S., Labourdette, D., Guillamon, J.M.,
Mas, A., François, J., and Rozes, N., 2006. Integration of transcriptomic and
metabolic analyses for understanding the global responses of low-
temperature winemaking fermentations. FEMS Yeast Research 6, 1167-
1183.
Beltran, G., Novo, M., Rozès, N., Mas, A., and Guillamón, J.M., 2004. Nitrogen
catabolite repression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae during wine
fermentations. FEMS Yeast Research 4, 625-632.
Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y., 1995. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A
Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testin. J. Royal Stat. Soc. Series
B (Methodological) 57(1), 289-300.
Bolstad, B.M., Irizarry, R.A., Astrand, M., and Speed, T.P., 2003. A comparison
of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based
on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19, 185-193.
Carmona-Saez, P., Chagoyen, M., Tirado, F., Carazo, J.M., Pascual-Montano,
A., 2007. GENECODIS: A web-based tool for finding significant concurrent
annotations in gene lists. Genome Biol. 8(1), R3.
Carrascosa, A.V., Martinez-Rodriguez, A., Cebollero, E., Gonzalez, R., 2011.
Saccharomyces yeast II: Secondary fermentation. In: Carrascosa, A.V.,
20
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
Muñoz, R., Gonzalez, R. (Ed.), Molecular wine microbiology. Elsevier
Academic Press, London, pp. 33-49.
Cebollero, E., Carrascosa, A.V., and Gonzalez, R., 2005. Evidence for yeast
autophagy during simulation of sparkling wine aging: A reappraisal of the
mechanism of yeast autolysis in wine. Biotechnology Program 21, 614-616.
Cebollero, E., and Gonzalez, R., 2006. Induction of autophagy by second
fermentation yeasts during elaboration of sparkling wines. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 72, 4121-4127.
Charpentier, C., and Feuillat, M., 1993. Yeast autolysis. In: Fleet, G.H. (Eds.),
Wine microbiology and biotechnology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur
[Switzerland], New York, pp. 225-242.
Chomczynski, P., and Sacchi, N., 1987. Single-step method of RNA isolation by
acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction. Analytical
Biochemistry 162, 156-159.
Delneri, D., Gardner, D.C., and Oliver, S.G., 1999. Analysis of the seven-
member AAD gene set demonstrates that genetic redundancy in yeast may
be more apparent than real. Genetics 153, 1591-1600.
Dickinson, J.R., Salgado, L.E.J., and Hewlins, M.J.E., 2003. The catabolism of
amino acids to long chain and complex alcohols in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 278, 8028-8034.
Dirmeier, R., O’Brien, K.M., Engle, M., Dodd, A., Spears, E., and Poyton, R.O.,
2002. Exposure of yest cells to anoxia induces transient oxidative stress. The
Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 34773-34784.
21
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
Edgar, R., Domrachev, M., and Lash, A.E., 2002. Gene Expression Omnibus:
NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids
Research 30, 207-210.
Fujita, K., Matsuyama, A., Kobayashi, Y., and Iwahashi, H., 2006. The genome-
wide screening of yeast deletion mutants to identify the genes required for
tolerance to ethanol and other alcohols. FEMS Yeast Research 6, 744-750
Hirasawa, T., Yoshikawa, K., Nakakura, Y., Nagahisa, K., Furasawa, C.,
Katakura, Y., Shimizu, H., and Shioya, S., 2007. Identification of target genes
conferring ethanol stress tolerance to Saccharomyces cerevisiae based on
DNA microarray data analysis. Journal of Biotechnology 131, 34-44.
Ihaka,R., Gentleman, R., 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics . J.
Comput. Graph. Statist. 5, 299-314.
Irizarry, R.A., Bolstad, B.M., Collin, F., Cope, L.M., Hobbs, B., Speed, T.P.,
2003b Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids
Res 31, e15.
Irizarry, R.A., Hobbs, B., Colin, F., Beazer-Barclay, Y.D., Antonellis, K.J.,
Scherf, U., Speed, T.P., 2003a. Exploration, normalization and summaries of
high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4, 49-264.
James, T.C., Campbell, S., Donnelly, D., and Bond, U., 2003. Transcriton profile
of brewery yeast under fermentation conditions. Journal of Applied
Microbiology 94, 432-448.
Jimenez, J., and Benitez, T., 1988. Yeast cell viability under conditions of high
temperature and ethanol concentration depends on the mitochondrial
genome. Current Genetics 13, 461-469.
22
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
Kanehisa, M., Goto, S., 2000. KEGG: Kyto Encyclopedia of Genes and
Genomes. Nucl. Acids Res. 28, 27-30.
Kanehisa, M., Goto, S., Hattori, M., Aoki-Kinoshita, K.F., Itoh, M., Kawashima,
S., Katayama, T., Araki, M., Hirakawa, M., 2006. From genomics to chemical
genomics: new developments in KEGG. Nucl. Acids Res. 34, D354-D357.
Landolfo, S., Politi, H., Angelozzi, D., and Mannazzu, I., 2008. ROS
accumulation and oxidative damage to cell structures in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae wine strains during fermentation of high-sugar-containing medium.
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1780, 892-898.
Marks, V.D., Ho Sui, S.J., Erasmus, D., van der Merwe, G.K., Brumm, J.,
Wasserman, W.W., Bryan, J., and van Vuuren, H.J.J., 2008. Dynamics of the
yeast transcriptome during wine fermentation reveals a novel fermentation
stress response. FEMS Yeast Research 8, 35-52.
Martinez-Rodriguez, A.J., Carrascosa, A.V., and Polo, M.C., 2001. Release of
nitrogen compounds to the extracellular medium by three strains of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae during induced autolysis in a model wine system
International Journal of Food Microbiology 68, 155-160.
Mendes-Ferreira, A., Sampaio-Marques, B., Barbosa, C., Rodrigues, F., Costa,
V., Mendes-Faia, A., Ludovico, P., and Leao, C., 2010. Accumulation of non-
superoxide aninon reactive oxygen species mediates nitrogen-limited
alcoholic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 76, 7918-7924.
Murata, Y., Homma, T., Kitagawa, E., Momose, Y., Sato, M.S., Odani, M.,
Shimizu, H., Hasegawa-Mizusawa, M., Matsumoto, R., Mizukami, S., Fujita,
K., Parveen, M., Komatsu, Y., and Iwahashi, H., 2006. Genome-wide
23
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
expression analysis of yeast response during exposure to 4 degrees C.
Extremophiles 10, 117-128.
Nogales-Cadenas, R., Carmona-Saez, P., Vazquez, M., Vicente, C., Yang, X.,
Tirado, F., Carazo, J.M., Pascual-Montano, A., 2009. GeneCodis: interpreting
gene lists through enrichment analysis and integration of diverse biological
information. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, W317-22.
Rintala, E., Toivari, M., Pitkanen, J.P., Wiebe, M., Ruohonen, L., and Penttila,
M., 2009. Low oxygen levels as a trigger for enhancement of respiratory
metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BMC Genomics 10, 461.
Rossignol, T., Dulau, L., Julien, A., and Blondin, B., 2003. Genome-wide
monitoring of wine yeast gene expression during alcoholic fermentation.
Yeast 20, 1369-1385.
Rossignol, T., Postaire, O., Storaï, J., and Blondin, B., 2006. Analysis of the
genomic response of a wine yeast to rehydration and inoculation. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology 71, 699-712.
Saeed, A. I., Sharov, V., White, J., Li, J., Liang, W., Bhagabati, N., Braisted, J.,
Klapa, M., Currier, T., Thiagarajan, M., Sturn, A., Snuffin, M., Rezantsev, A.,
Popov, D., Ryltsov, A., Kostukovich, E., Borisovsky, I., Liu, Z., Vinsavich, A.,
Trush, V., and Quackenbush, J., 2003. TM4: a free, open-source system for
microarray data management and analysis. BioTechniques 34, 374-378.
Sahara, T., Goda, T., and Ohgiya, S., 2002. Comprehensive expression
analysis of time-dependent genetic responses in yeast cells to low
temperature. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277, 50015-50021.
24
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
Schade, B., Jansen, G., Whiteway, M., Entian, K.D., and Thomas, D.Y., 2004.
Cold adaptation in budding yeast. Molecular Biology of the Cell 15, 5492-
5502.
Stanley, D., Bandara, A., Fraser, S., Chambers, P.J., and Stanley, G.A., 2010a.
The ethanol stress response and ethanol tolerance of Saccharomyces
cerevisiae. Journal of Applied Microbiology 109, 13-24.
Stanley, D., Chambers, P.J., Stanley, G.A., Borneman, A., and Fraser, S.,
2010b. Transcriptional changes associated with ethanol tolerance in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 88, 231-
239.
Tai, S.L., Daran-Lapujade, P., Walsh, M.C., Pronk, J.T., and Daran, J.M., 2007.
Acclimation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to low temperature: a chemostat-
based transcriptome analysis. Molecular Biology of the Cell 18, 5100-5112.
Takeshige, K., Baba, M., Tsuboi, S., Noda, T., and Ohsumi, Y., 1992.
Autophagy in yeast demonstrated with proteinase-deficient mutants and
conditions for its induction. Journal of Cell Biology 119, 301-311.
Teixeira, M.C., Raposo, L.R., Mira, N.P., Lourenço, A.B., and Sa-Correia, I.,
2009. Genome-wide identification of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes
required for maximal tolerance to ethanol. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 75, 5761-5772.
Troton, D., Charpentier, M., Robillard, B., Calvayrac, R., and Duteurtre, B.,
1989. Evolution of the lipid contents of Champagne wine during the second
fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 40, 175–182.
25
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
Varela, C., Cárdenas, J., Melo, F., and Agosin, E., 2005. Quantitative analysis
of wine yeast gene expression profiles under winemaking conditions. Yeast
22, 369-383.
Yoshikawa, K., Tanaka, T., Furasawa, C., Nagahisa, K., Hirasawa, T., and H.,
S., 2009. Comprehensive phenotypic analysis for identification of genes
affecting growth under ethanol stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS
Yeast Research 9, 32-44.
Zuzuarregui, A., and del Olmo, M., 2004. Analyses of stress resistance under
laboratory conditions constitute a suitable criterion for wine yeast selection.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 85, 271-280.
Zuzuarregui, A., Monteoliva, L., Gil, C., and del Olmo, M., 2006. Transcriptomic
and proteomic approach for understanding the molecular basis of adaptation
of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to wine fermentation. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 72, 836-847.
26
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
Web references
Gene Annotation Co-ocurrence Discovery (Genecodis2)
http://genecodis.dacya.ucm.es (last accessed October 20th 2011)
GENE ONTOLOGY terms (GOGO) http://www.geneontology.org (last accessed
October 20th 2011)
GEO Series accession number GSE29273.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE29273/ (last
accessed October 20th 2011)
Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)
http://www.genome.jp/kegg(last accessed October 20th 2011)
R software. http://www.r-project.org (last accessed October 20th 2011)
Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD) http://www.yeastgenome.org/ (last
accessed October 20th 2011)
27
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
Figure legends
Figure 1. Evolution of ethanol content (open circles) and cell population (closed
circles) during the second fermentation of a base wine with EC1118.
Figure 2. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of the expression of some
representative genes in the strain EC1118 during second fermentation
experiments. A) overexpressed genes. B) underexpressed genes. Expression
data are relative to 18S rRNA in SP0.
Figure 3. Overlapping between genes up- or down-regulated in EC1118 during
second fermentation experiments and genes involved in yeast transcriptional
adaptation to low temperature according to Tai et al. (2007).
Figure 4. A) Comparison between genes overexpressed throughout second
fermentation (SP1-3) and genes overexpressed in each stage of primary wine
fermentation. B) Comparison between genes underexpressed throughout
second fermentation (SP1-3) and genes underexpressed in each stage of
primary wine fermentation. C) Comparison between FSR-Fermentation Stress
Response genes as described by Marks et al. (2008) and genes overexpressed
in each stage of primary wine fermentation. Complete bars indicate the number
of genes induced or repressed in each stage of primary wine fermentation
according to Rossignol et al. (2003). Black bars indicate the number of
overlapping genes. Significant overlap is indicated by an asterisk (FDR adjusted
p-values < 0.05).
28
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661