The “wine code”: Will wineries soon be able to predict fermentation like the weather forecasts?
Articles
By: Lucija Batistić (DC11)
24/06/2026
Wine fermentation may look like a familiar process, but it is never entirely predictable. It can develop smoothly, or it can suddenly slow down, change direction, and put wine quality at risk. By the time the warning signs are clear, the best moment for intervention may already have passed.
Now imagine if part of that uncertainty could be avoided. What if the grapes themselves could offer an early clue, showing whether fermentation is likely to remain stable or whether there is a higher risk of spoilage?
Such a scenario may sound futuristic today, but the tools are beginning to catch up with the idea. Just as meteorologists use large amounts of data to predict whether a storm might develop, future winemaking could use data available in the vineyard to anticipate how the wine production process may unfold even before the grapes are harvested.
The invisible architecture of flavour
Before fermentation begins, grapes already carry microbial communities from the vineyard into the cellar. Once grapes are crushed, these microorganisms enter the must (the fresh grape juice that will ferment into wine), and some of them can become active. Yeasts drive alcoholic fermentation, converting sugars into alcohol, while certain bacteria can contribute to malolactic fermentation, a process that transforms sharper acids into softer ones. Together, their complex interactions can influence aroma development, stability, and the final quality of wine. This is why spontaneous fermentations driven by native microflora are mostly valued, especially when producers aim to preserve the authentic character of wine.1
However, the same microbial activity can also have an undesirable side. Certain microorganisms can increase the risk of stuck fermentation, the development of unwanted aromas, or visible defects such as cloudiness, sediment and surface film.2 Relying on natural microflora therefore also requires caution. The challenge is to preserve microbial contribution to complexity without losing control over the process.
This is the difficult part: the same microbial life that can make a wine more distinctive can also push it toward spoilage. Microorganisms are not simply good or bad. Their effect depends on which species are present, when they become active, and under what fermentation conditions they develop.
Seeing the uncultivable
Microbiological monitoring of must and wine relied for decades on cultivation methods, which involve isolating and growing microorganisms in the laboratory. Yet many microorganisms do not grow easily under laboratory conditions.3 Traditional (cultivation-based) analyses therefore provide only a fragment of the picture, missing many microorganisms that may still be viable, active, and relevant for fermentation.
This limitation has changed the way we look at microbial life in wine. Instead of focusing only on what can be cultivated, contemporary molecular methods can detect microorganisms directly, by reading their genetic information. In the Eco2Wine project, we focus on metagenomic analysis, which enables the direct reading of genetic code from grapes, soil, must, or fermenting wine, capturing the DNA of all organisms present at once and allowing their identification. Beyond revealing who is present, metagenomic analysis can provide a broader picture: how the microbial community changes during different stages of processing and what potential roles individual microbial groups may play within that community and across the winemaking process.4,5
Preparing samples for metagenomic analysis (Photo: Eco2Wine project archive)
From analysis to forecasting
Alongside classical parameters such as temperature, sugar concentration, acidity, and pH, winemakers could soon gain access to another layer of data: the microbial profile of the grapevine and wine. If microorganisms do not appear randomly, but certain communities recur depending on terroir, grape health, and vineyard management, they become more than a list of microorganisms present in a sample — they become a source of information.6,7 Studies linking vineyard-associated microbiomes with fermentation behaviour and wine characteristics suggest that these patterns may reveal both the conditions in which grapes developed and the potential they carry into the cellar.8
Once microbial communities begin to be recognised as recurring patterns, they could be tracked and interpreted. If we are able to do so, we could better understand quality potential, fermentation development, and the conditions under which wine retains its desired authenticity and character.
Quality control in the age of big data
Today, metagenomics is still more common in research than in the everyday practice of wineries, but its potential is clear: it could become a tool for routine production monitoring, similar to the chemical analyses and sensory evaluation already used today.9 The difference is that metagenomics can capture a signal earlier, before the problem fully develops. Its potential is becoming increasingly interesting and realistic as sequencing continues to improve, with analyses becoming faster, more efficient, and more financially accessible.
Scientists are now turning to AI technologies to identify patterns that humans would struggle to detect on their own. Machine learning algorithms, capable of analysing genetic data, could uncover patterns in microbial shifts, predict potential contamination events, and recommend real-time interventions.10 In the future, such systems could suggest targeted adjustments to temperature, pH, sulphur dioxide, and nutrient levels to inhibit spoilage microorganisms while promoting the activity of beneficial ones.
More sustainable winemaking begins with better understanding
The future of winemaking will not be about outsmarting nature, but about learning to read it more carefully. If we know which microbial communities are associated with healthy grapes, stable fermentation, or a lower risk of spoilage, we can decide more precisely when to intervene and when not to.
This could mean fewer unnecessary treatments, more optimised fermentation, greater assurance of wine quality and better preservation of distinctive character. Microbiome management could therefore become one of the foundations of more sustainable production, connecting winemakers’ experience, chemical analyses, sensory evaluation, metagenomic data, and models capable of recognising patterns in those data.
In this context, checking the microbial forecast before fermentation may become as normal as checking the weather before harvest. And when that happens, the most important question may no longer be only what is happening in the tank, but what the grapes were already telling us before fermentation began.

Preparing samples for metagenomic analysis (Photo: Eco2Wine project archive)
References
- Francesca, N., Gaglio, R., Alfonzo, A., Settanni, L., Corona, O., Mazzei, P., Romano, R., Piccolo, A., & Moschetti, G. (2016). The wine: Typicality or mere diversity? The effect of spontaneous fermentations and biotic factors on the characteristics of wine. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 769–773. doi: 10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.064
- du Toit, M.; Pretorius, I. S. (2000). Microbial spoilage and preservation of wine: Using weapons from nature’s own arsenal — A review. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 21. doi: 10.21548/21-1-3559
- Stewart, E. J. (2012). Growing unculturable bacteria. Journal of Bacteriology, 194(16), 4151–4160. doi: 10.1128/JB.00345-12
- Morgan, H. H.; du Toit, M.; Setati, M. E. (2017). The grapevine and wine microbiome: Insights from high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 820. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00820
- Zeman, M.; Böhmer, M.; Rusňáková, D.; Sedláčková, T.; Ženišová, K.; Pangallo, D.; Kuchta, T.; Budiš, J.; Szemes, T. (2023). Microbiome composition and dynamics while grapes turn to wine. BIO Web of Conferences, 68, 02034. doi: 10.1051/bioconf/20236802034
- Bokulich, N. A.; Thorngate, J. H.; Richardson, P. M.; Mills, D. A. (2014). Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(1), E139–E148. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317377110
- Flörl, L.; Schönenberger, P.; Rienth, M.; Bokulich, N. A. (2026). Grape expectations: disentangling environmental drivers of microbiome establishment in winegrowing ecosystems. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes, 12. doi: 10.1038/s41522-026-00915-x
- Bokulich, N. A.; Collins, T. S.; Masarweh, C.; Allen, G.; Heymann, H.; Ebeler, S. E.; Mills, D. A. (2016). Associations among wine grape microbiome, metabolome, and fermentation behavior suggest microbial contribution to regional wine characteristics. mBio, 7(3), e00631-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00631-16
- Kioroglou, D.; Lleixà, J.; Mas, A.; Portillo, M. D. C. (2018). Massive sequencing: A new tool for the control of alcoholic fermentation in wine? Fermentation, 4(1), 7. doi: 10.3390/fermentation4010007
- Izquierdo-Bueno, I.; Moraga, J.; Cantoral, J. M.; Carbú, M.; Garrido, C.; González-Rodríguez, V. E. (2024). Smart viniculture: Applying artificial intelligence for improved winemaking and risk management. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10277. doi: 10.3390/app142210277
Integrating science communication in a natural sciences project: Reflections from Eco2Wine
Articles
By: Katherine Rabik
12/10/2025
Katherine Rabik wrote an article about Eco2Wine for the Marie Curie Alumni Association Newsletter special edition about science communication in December 2025. She shared some reflections about the successes and challenges we’ve faced integrating science communication training and practice into a natural sciences project. Eco2Wine can serve as a valuable case study for other MSCA-DN projects looking to adopt a similar model
Underground Allies: Microbes can Help Grapevines Fight Drought
Articles
By: Shamin Bhandari (DC4)
02/10/2025
The deep ruby liquid swirls in your glass, yet the parent vines stand parched, their roots reaching through cracked soil. There is wine everywhere, but the grapevines themselves thirst under the grip of drought.
Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) is one of the most valuable crops. For centuries in Europe, drinking and producing wine has been an integral part of cultural heritage, a significant economic driver, and an inspiration for scientific exploration and environmental adaptation. The European wine legacy has shaped the global wine landscape. Even now, viticulture continues to connect tradition with innovation, influencing culture, science, and sustainability around the world.
These grapevines are traditionally non-irrigated and constitute a significant percentage of existing agricultural land in semi-arid and dry regions¹. To cope with and thrive in water-scarce environments, grapevines have evolved special adaptations that enable them to survive. However, prolonged water deprivation still poses serious challenges to their growth and productivity.
One of the key ways to cope with drought in grapevines is the long and highly branched root system, which enables access to water reserves deep beneath the soil surface2. In addition, grapevines regulate water loss through precise stomatal control, the small pores on the surface of leaves, by reducing transpiration during periods of water scarcity3. These physiological traits contribute significantly to their resilience in dry conditions.
However, the rising temperature of the Earth’s surface, driven by extreme climatic conditions, is leading to the depletion of groundwater reserves, which is a worldwide threat to agriculture. Classical viticultural areas in Europe that are at the limit for optimum grapevine growth may be particularly affected and become unsuitable for high-quality grape production due to excessive drought and more frequent heatwaves resulting from climate change. Even with their natural drought coping mechanisms, grapevines can still suffer from stress-induced poor growth and reduced grape quality. Water resources are becoming scarce, and traditional irrigation methods are unsustainable. Therefore, with the increased frequency of situations like drought, the age-old practice of viticulture is at risk. This has prompted scientists and growers to seek eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives to improve drought resilience4,5.
Yet, hope lies beneath the soil surface – literally. A diverse and sought-after group of microorganisms inhabits the rhizosphere6, the thin zone of soil surrounding plant roots, along with the microbes that inhabit the interface of the root cells known as endophytes7. These endophytes and other root-associated microbial communities are being investigated for their potential to be vital allies of plants in the fight against drought.
When drought strikes, plants struggle to absorb sufficient water to sustain themselves, leading to stress. This is where microbes step in. These tiny organisms have the potential to enhance water uptake, modulate stress responses by mimicking or triggering plant hormones to alleviate stress, and make the plants more resistant to extreme environments8.
Recent research has highlighted the significant role of certain microbes in supporting plant health under drought conditions. For instance, bacteria from the phylum Actinomycetota have been linked with improved drought tolerance in grapevines6. These microbes can modulate levels of abscisic acid (ABA), a crucial plant hormone that regulates water retention by inducing stomatal closure and modifying root architecture9.
With the decrease in soil moisture, plants sense the drop in their internal water status, triggering the release of ABA, which signals the stomata to close, reducing water loss through transpiration. Beneficial microbes enhance the stress response and stimulate other physiological changes such as osmotic regulation, root system development, antioxidant defence, and the activation of genes conferring drought resiliance7.
Among the most well-studied microbial species associated with grapevines are arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). The mycorrhizal fungi form a dense hyphal network that penetrates plant roots and extends deep into the soil, acting as a secondary root system to reach the depleted water levels. These extensions facilitate the uptake of water and essential nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, to the plant. The mycorrhizal fungi also engage in symbiotic interactions with other soil microbes, improving soil structure, enhancing water and nutrient availability, and producing metabolites that promote plant growth10.
In essence, these underground allies can be a game-changer by helping grapevines stay hydrated and healthy, even under challenging conditions. Healthier, more resilient vines produce better-quality grapes and, ultimately, better wine.
Therefore, a deeper understanding of specific microbes that contribute to drought tolerance can empower viticulture. Through the application of these microbial consortia as bio-inoculants, dependence on irrigation can be reduced, and adopting these sustainable viticultural practices represents an essential step in adapting to climate change.
At Eco2Wine, the research focuses on identifying and characterising these microbial communities, addressing questions about who they are, how they work, and how they interact with grapevines under drought conditions. This will lead to the identification of specific microorganisms that can help the grapevine cope with drought. By unlocking the secrets of these microscopic partners, the aim is to develop nature-based solutions that ensure the future of sustainable viticulture.
So, the next time you sip your favourite wine, remember: it’s not just the vine or the grape that made it possible, as it’s also the invisible helpers working beneath the soil.

Root-associated microbiome: the microbial community
- Alston, J.M., Sambucci, O., 2019. Grapes in the World Economy, in: Cantu, D., Walker, M.A. (Eds.), The Grape Genome, Compendium of Plant Genomes. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18601-2_1
- Zufferey, V., Spring, J.-L., Verdenal, T., Dienes, A., Belcher, S., Lorenzini, F., Koestel, C., Rösti, J., Gindro, K., Spangenberg, J., Viret, O., 2017. The influence of water stress on plant hydraulics, gas exchange, berry composition and quality of Pinot Noir wines in Switzerland. OENO One 51. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.1.1314
- Tombesi, S., Nardini, A., Frioni, T., Soccolini, M., Zadra, Claudia., Farinelli, D., Poni, S., Palliotti, A., 2015. Stomatal closure is induced by hydraulic signals and maintained by ABA in drought-stressed grapevine. Sci Rep5, 12449. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12449
- Gambetta, G.A., Herrera, J.C., Dayer, S., Feng, Q., Hochberg, U., Castellarin, S.D., 2020b. The physiology of drought stress in grapevine: towards an integrative definition of drought tolerance. Journal of Experimental Botany 71, 4658–4676. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa245
- Droulia, F., Charalampopoulos, I., 2022. A Review on the Observed Climate Change in Europe and Its Impacts on Viticulture. Atmosphere 13, 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050837
- Zarraonaindia, I., Owens, S.M., Weisenhorn, P., West, K., Hampton-Marcell, J., Lax, S., Bokulich, N.A., Mills, D.A., Martin, G., Taghavi, S., Van Der Lelie, D., Gilbert, J.A., 2015. The Soil Microbiome Influences Grapevine-Associated Microbiota. mBio 6, e02527-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02527-14
- Pacifico, D., Squartini, A., Crucitti, D., Barizza, E., Lo Schiavo, F., Muresu, R., Carimi, F., Zottini, M., 2019. The Role of the Endophytic Microbiome in the Grapevine Response to Environmental Triggers. Front. Plant Sci. 10, 1256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01256
- Gontia-Mishra, I., Sapre, S., Deshmukh, R., Sikdar, S., Tiwari, S., 2020. Microbe-Mediated Drought Tolerance in Plants: Current Developments and Future Challenges, in: Yadav, A.N., Singh, J., Rastegari, A.A., Yadav, N. (Eds.), Plant Microbiomes for Sustainable Agriculture, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38453-1_12
- Carreiras, J., Cruz-Silva, A., Fonseca, B., Carvalho, R.C., Cunha, J.P., Proença Pereira, J., Paiva-Silva, C., A. Santos, S., Janeiro Sequeira, R., Mateos-Naranjo, E., Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D., Pajuelo, E., Redondo-Gómez, S., Matos, A.R., Mesa-Marín, J., Figueiredo, A., Duarte, B., 2023. Improving Grapevine Heat Stress Resilience with Marine Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Consortia. Microorganisms 11, 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11040856
- Moukarzel, R., Ridgway, H.J., Waller, L., Guerin-Laguette, A., Cripps-Guazzone, N., Jones, E.E., 2023. Soil Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities Differentially Affect Growth and Nutrient Uptake by Grapevine Rootstocks. Microb Ecol 86, 1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-022-02160-z
Understanding How Yeasts Communicate During Wine Fermentation
Articles
By: Virgile Rose and José Padilla
24/07/2025
Winemaking isn’t just a craft; it’s a living process powered by some of nature’s smallest yet most essential workers: yeasts. They work together to shape the final taste and aroma of wine. The most well-known yeast used in fermentation is Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but in recent years, other yeast species such as Torulaspora delbrueckii, Lachancea thermotolerans, Hanseniaspora uvarum, and Metschnikowia pulcherrima have gained interest. But what’s truly fascinating is how these yeasts “talk” to each other during fermentation: sending signals, cooperating, and sometimes even competing[1]. By understanding this microbial communication, we open doors for new possibilities in winemaking, enhancing flavour complexity and adding a touch of magic to every bottle[2].
However, there exists one potential yeast communication method that warrants further research to deepen our understanding: tiny structures known as extracellular vesicles (EVs). These vesicles carry proteins, lipids, and genetic materials, allowing cells to transmit signals to one another[3]. Might they be impacting yeast behaviour during fermentation?
Extracellular Vesicles: A New Way for Yeasts to Talk?
Recent research has shown that several wine yeast species, including S. cerevisiae, T. delbrueckii, and L. thermotolerans, release EVs into their environment when fermenting grape juice. One of the main proteins found in these vesicles is an enzyme called exo-1,3-β-glucanase, which is used for yeast wall metabolism. However, scientists discovered that this enzyme isn’t responsible for the way T. delbrueckii affects other yeasts’growth[2].
This raises an interesting question: if this enzyme isn’t the key factor, what else in the vesicles could be influencing yeast interactions? One possibility is that EVs carry other molecules that help yeasts compete, cooperate, or adapt to stress during fermentation.
How Do Yeasts Detect and React to EVs?
Yeasts interact in diverse ways: competing for resources or cooperating through nutrient sharing, but recent findings suggest that some species can specifically recognize signals from others. For instance, researchers observed that S. cerevisiae altered its gene expression after exposure to extracellular vesicles (EVs) from M. pulcherrima, even in the absence of living cells, highlighting the signalling potential of EVs. This evidence supports the idea that EVs act as important biochemical messengers that influence yeast metabolism and behaviour[4].
On the other hand, an example of interactions with an impact on specific metabolites, although the communication signals remain unidentified, is the co-inoculation of S. cerevisiae and Saccharomyces uvarum to explore their molecular interactions during fermentation. Through proteomic and metabolomic analyses, significant changes were observed in key metabolic pathways, such as tryptophan metabolism (Figure 1). Additionally, it has been proposed that interspecies interactions stimulate biosynthetic routes like the shikimate pathway and indole production, which showed a natural enrichment in metabolites of the aromatic amino acid biosynthesis pathway[5].

Interactions between Saccharomyces and Non-Saccharomyces yeasts: a pathway to wine aroma and quality (Image created with bioRender).
What Does This Mean for Winemaking?
The discovery that yeasts may communicate through EVs opens up exciting new possibilities for winemaking. If we understand how these vesicles work, winemakers might be able to control fermentation more precisely. Could EVs be used to speed up fermentation, create specific aromas, or prevent unwanted microbes from taking over? Future research may lead to innovative ways to fine-tune the winemaking process and create unique and high-quality wines.
As scientists continue to uncover the hidden ways yeasts communicate, one thing is clear: these tiny vesicles might hold the secret to unlocking new flavours and improving winemaking techniques.
References:
[1] Zilelidou, E. A., & Nisiotou, A. (2021). Understanding wine through yeast interactions. In Microorganisms (Vol. 9, Issue 8). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9081620
[2] Mencher, A., Morales, P., Valero, E., Tronchoni, J., Patil, K. R., & Gonzalez, R. (2020). Proteomic characterization of extracellular vesicles produced by several wine yeast species. Microbial Biotechnology, 13(5), 1581–1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.13614
[3] Mencher, A., Morales, P., Tronchoni, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2021). Mechanisms Involved in Interspecific Communication between Wine Yeasts. Foods, 10(8), 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081734
[4] Mejias‐Ortiz, M., Mencher, A., Morales, P., Tronchoni, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2023). Saccharomyces cerevisiae responds similarly to co‐culture or to a fraction enriched in Metschnikowia pulcherrima extracellular vesicles. Microbial Biotechnology, 16(5), 1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14240
[5] Planells‐Cárcel, A., Quintas, G., Pardo, J., Garcia‐Rios, E., & Guillamón, J. M. (2025). Exploring Proteomic and Metabolomic Interactions in a Yeast Consortium Designed to Enhance Bioactive Compounds in Wine Fermentations. Food Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1002/fft2.70018
Engineering the future of winemaking: A visit to Parsec
Articles
By: Katherine Rabik
24/07/2025
In a quiet industrial park on the outskirts of Florence lies the unassuming headquarters of Parsec, a company that blends engineering with oenology and serves as an Associated Partner of Eco2Wine. Katherine Rabik, one of the Eco2Wine doctoral candidates, recently spent two weeks at Parsec, where she met with their head engineer and consulting oenologists, toured their facilities, and visited wineries using Parsec’s systems in real-world settings. What Parsec does may seem technical at first glance, but the underlying goal is simple: to give winemakers greater precision, more control, and the space to let fermentations and wine aging unfold properly.

Parsec’s central headquarters are located in Florence, Italy.
From Sensors to Cellars
Parsec’s core focus is automation and process control in winemaking. They design systems that monitor and adjust fermentation conditions in real-time (temperature, gas levels, fermentation kinetics, etc.) while also building the hardware needed to apply those changes: pumps, valves, injectors, mixers, and thermal regulators.
However, Parsec’s solutions are not a one-size-fits-all approach. They work with winemakers to design tailormade systems customised to their unique needs. This approach was clearly highlighted by CEO Giuseppe Floridia: “We aren’t here to sell you things. We are here to understand your problems and help you solve them with technology”.
Support, Not Substitution
A scientific and technological approach to winemaking can sometimes put Parsec at odds with winemakers who are resistant to the new approach and changes. For older winemakers, software may be a challenge, which is why Parsec has developed an intuitive and easy to use platform.
Parsec’s team was clear that their products can never replace the expertise and skill of a winemaker, and they aren’t intended to. Instead, they can allow winemakers to have more control over the winemaking process, preventing problems before they arise.

An example monitoring station set up at a winery. The winemaker can select any tank to view real time data and make adjustments as needed.
IT Manager Georgia De Cicco demonstrated the capabilities of their bespoke software that can manage all aspects of winemaking and allows winemakers to create specific recipes for each of their products. For example, automatically adjusting temperature based on sugar levels can support more efficient fermentation which is both more cost effective and uses less energy. Ultimately, the goal isn’t to replace hands-on knowledge, but to support it with tools that respond to the winemaker’s decisions. The technology is designed to support winemakers.
Real Wineries, Real Results
One of the highlights of the visit was getting out of the lab and into the vineyards. Katherine was able to join Parsec oenologist Mathieu de Basquiat and some prospective clients as they saw Parsec’s technology in action at both their own experimental winery and another producer in the Chianti Classico area. In each case, the winemakers spoke about how the technology had changed their workflow: fewer manual interventions, more consistent fermentations and controlled wine aging with no surprises in the tank. One winemaker demonstrated how they could now track fermentation progress remotely, adjusting variables with the same ease as tweaking a thermostat.
This was not flashy innovation for its own sake, but rather practical support that enables wineries to stay focused on quality. For many, this also means cutting down on unnecessary energy use, limiting additives, and getting cleaner, more expressive wines. That’s directly aligned with what Eco2Wine is aiming for: lower-input, microbiologically diverse winemaking that’s sustainable for both the planet and the producer.

Left: Fermentation tanks at Cantina Tuscania, Parsec’s experimental winery. Right: A bespoke micro-oxygenation system installed at a winery in the Chianti Classico area.
From Tuscany to the World
Parsec recognises the importance of understanding the different cultural and economic contexts across the countries in which they operate. Oenologist Andrea Uliva, recently returned from a trip to the USA, highlighted how they frame the benefits of their technology differently depending on the country. For example, he noted that highlighting improved control over the winemaking process resonates more with European clients, while in the U.S., emphasizing cost savings, along with the advantages of automated control, tends to be more effective.
This sensitivity to context mirrors the communication challenges within the Eco2Wine project itself. With partners spread across seven countries, each with its own winemaking history, traditions, and culture, the way research is communicated and received can vary widely. Supporting dialogue between wine producers and wine scientists is not just about translating language but about tuning in to local mindsets. Whether it’s presenting microbial research to winemakers in Slovenia or engaging wine scientists in South Africa, the techniques and messaging has to adapt. Just like Parsec customises its engineering, Eco2Wine has to tailor its communication.
Collaboration Over Transactions
What sets Parsec apart, beyond their technology, is their approach. As an Associated Partner of Eco2Wine, they’re contributing time, expertise, and resources without financial compensation, simply because they believe in the value of the work. Their team thrives on collaboration with universities and research institutions, and they’re hosting several of the project’s Doctoral Candidates, opening the door to hands-on experimentation and honest dialogue between industry and science.
This spirit of open, mutual exchange is what makes them such a strong fit for a project like Eco2Wine. Like the researchers involved, they recognise that meaningful innovation can’t be copied and pasted across borders. It takes flexibility, context awareness, and a willingness to listen. Parsec’s systems may be high-tech, but their success depends on human relationships – engineers learning from winemakers, winemakers trusting scientists, and everyone involved working toward smarter, more sustainable wine.
Learn more about Parsec and their technology by visiting https://parsecsrl.net/en/
Cold Temperature Application in Oenology: Enhancing Wine Quality and Preserving Winemaking Yeasts
Articles
By: Aubrey Lee and María Vazquez Fernandez
30/06/2025
In recent years, cold temperature technology has gained growing relevance in modern winemaking due to its positive impact on the aromatic profile and sensory attributes of wines – improving the overall wine quality in terms of its colour, aroma and final taste. This technology can be strategically implemented at different stages of the enological process to optimize both chemical and sensory attributes1. Additionally, cold temperatures in the form of cryopreservation can be used to preserve communities of microorganisms for long periods of time. Within the Eco2Wine project, we aim to preserve the microbial consortia as untouched as possible as a “time-capsule” of biodiversity for future use of winemakers.
In this article, we will explore why cryopreservation is necessary for the preservation of wine microbial consortia, as well as the benefits of using cold temperature technology during maceration and fermentation to improve wine quality.
Cryopreservation
The use of low-temperature technologies in oenology extends beyond the processing of grapes to cryopreservation, a biological application using ultra-low temperature (below 0℃) for the long-term preservation of microorganisms.
At ultra-low temperatures, microorganisms are mostly inactivated from evolution, hence maintaining their genetic stability. Although sometimes chemical changes within cells could happen due to free radical formation and ionizing radiation1, cryopreservation is still considered a good option for long term preservation. It does not involve routine manipulation which reduces the risk of contamination and human errors.
Why is cryopreservation necessary in oenology?
In oenology, the concept of terroir refers to the combination of environmental factors contributing to the wine quality. These environmental factors shape the microbial diversity present in the vineyard2. This being said, each vineyard has its own unique microbial consortia that contribute to the unique taste and aroma of wine produced in the region. Thus, cryopreservation becomes necessary with the increasing interest in indigenous yeast strains and their application to small and specific wine production.
Problems in preservation of indigenous strains
However, the preservation of indigenous yeasts presents some problems. First, only a small percentage of yeasts can be actively dried. In the past, yeasts were preserved with traditional methods, using agar and liquid culture; it only preserved less than 1% of the total microbial population3. Furthermore, some yeasts exist in a viable but non-culturable state (VBNC); a phenomenon where the yeasts are alive but unable to grow and form colonies on media4. With the traditional methods, they are unable to be isolated and stored.
Secondly, there is an increasing interest in preserving microbial consortia – a community of two or more microorganisms. The cryopreservation of microbial consortia is not straightforward – it requires time and research for the protocol optimization. Different yeast species will have different biological responses to the cryopreservation condition5, making the optimization process complex.
Optimization of cryopreservation protocol
Today, the optimal cryopreservation protocol for winemaking yeasts is still not well-defined yet, especially for microbial consortia. One of the research aims of Eco2Wine is to come up with a protocol that ensures the highest quality of cryopreserved indigenous yeasts. This will support the overall project goal of developing techniques for more natural wine production.
Impact on grape aroma compounds and sensory properties of wine
Cold temperature technology can also be applied during maceration and fermentation to improve the wine quality. Studies have shown that the use of cold temperature technology during maceration enhances the aromatic profile of wines6,7. These methods involve freezing grape berries to facilitate the extraction of aroma compounds, leading to wines with more intense and stable aromas. Freezing grapes before winemaking significantly affects their chemical composition. Research conducted by Carillo et al.8 found that phenolic acids (such as gallic and caffeic acid) and polyphenols differ between wines made from fresh and frozen grapes.
Similarly, freezing also impacts acetaldehyde levels and volatile compounds, with frozen grape juice having a different aroma profile compared to fresh juice9. The effects of freezing vary depending on the grape variety and the specific freezing method used. While fresh juice is preferable for analyzing volatile compounds, long-term storage at -80°C or in liquid nitrogen is recommended to minimize biochemical changes10. Additionally, freezing reduces anthocyanins, total phenolics, and terpenic alcohols, which are important for wine color and aroma8.
Apart from that, wines made from grapes treated with liquid CO₂ (inertized wine) had better color and phenol concentration compared to untreated wines. Additionally, non-trained judges preferred these wines, suggesting they align with consumer tastes8. Cold pre-fermentation maceration also enhances aroma compounds (terpenes, thiols, esters, and phenols) by increasing their extraction from the grape skin. This process can modify the nutrient composition of the grape must, leading to wines with improved aromatic complexity and overall quality11. Overall, research suggests that the application of cold temperature technology enhances aroma intensity, making them a valuable tool for improving wine quality12.

References
[1] Grout, B., Morris, J., & McLellan, M. (1990). Cryopreservation and the maintenance of cell lines. Trends in Biotechnology, 8(C), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7799(90)90201-8
[2] Franco, G. C., Leiva, J., Nand, S., Lee, D. M., Hajkowski, M., Dick, K., Withers, B., Soto, L., Mingoa, B.-R., Acholonu, M., Hutchins, A., Neely, L., & Anand, A. (2024). Soil Microbial Communities and Wine Terroir: Research Gaps and Data Needs. Foods, 13(16), 2475. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13162475
[3] Kobayashi K, Aoyagi H. 2019. Microbial community structure analysis in Acer palmatum bark and isolation of novel bacteria IAD-21 of the phylum Abditibacteriota (former candidate division FBP) PeerJ 7:e7876https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7876
[4] Pazos-Rojas, L. A., Cuellar-Sánchez, A., Romero-Cerón, A. L., Rivera-Urbalejo, A., Van Dillewijn, P., Luna-Vital, D. A., Muñoz-Rojas, J., Morales-García, Y. E., & Bustillos-Cristales, M. d. R. (2024). The Viable but Non-Culturable (VBNC) State, a Poorly Explored Aspect of Beneficial Bacteria. Microorganisms, 12(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12010039
[5] Cabrera, E., Welch, L. C., Robinson, M. R., Sturgeon, C. M., Crow, M. M., & Segarra, V. A. (2020). Cryopreservation and the Freeze-Thaw Stress Response in Yeast. Genes, 11(8), 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11080835
[6] Pedrosa-López, C., Aragón-García, F., Ruíz-Rodríguez, A., Piñeiro, Z., Durán-Guerrero, E., Palma, M. (2022). Effects from the freezing of either whole or crushed grapes on the volatile compounds contents in Muscat wines. Foods, 11(12), 1782. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11121782
[7] Alti-Palacios, L., Martínez, J., Teixeira, J. A., Câmara, J. S., & Perestrelo, R. (2023). Influence of cold pre-fermentation maceration on the volatilomic pattern and aroma of white wines. Foods, 12(6), 1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061135
[8] Carillo, M., Formato, A., Fabiani, A., Scaglione, G., Pucillo, G. An inertizing and cooling process for grapes cryomaceration (2011). Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 14, 2–14. https://doi.org/10.2225/vol14-issue6-fulltext-10
[9] van Breda, V.., van Jaarsveld, F., and van Wyk, J. (2024). Pre-Fermentative Cryogenic Treatments: The Effect on Aroma Compounds and Sensory Properties of Sauvignon Blanc and Chenin Blanc Wine—A Review (2024). Applied Sciences, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041483
[10] Ouellet, É., Pedneault, K. Impact of frozen storage on the free volatile compound profile of grape berries (2016). American Journal of Enology and viticulture, 67, 239–244. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2015.15087
[11] Alti-Palacios, L,; Martínez, J., Teixeira, J., Câmara, J.S., Perestrelo, R. Influence of cold pre-fermentation maceration on the volatilomic pattern and aroma of white wines (2023). Foods, 12(6), 1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061135
[12] Ruiz-Rodríguez, A., Durán-Guerrero, E., Natera, R., Palma, M., Barroso, C. Influence of two different cryoextraction procedures on the quality of wine produced from muscat grapes (2020). Foods, 9(11), 1529. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111529
Aubrey Lee with a Master’s in Agricultural Science (Crop Production), and Maria with a Master’s in Food Engineering, are both Doctoral Candidates in the prestigious Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action, part of the Horizon Europe Doctoral Network. Their work is funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement 101119480, within the project: “NATURAL MICROBIAL INTERACTIONS IN WINEMAKING-ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS AS A TOOL TO FOSTER WINE INNOVATION (Eco2Wine).”
Aubrey works with Prof. Gianluigi Cardinali at University of Perugia in Italy. Within the “Winemaking-associated Ecosystems: Mapping and Assessment”, she will map and compare the microbial community between organic and conventional vineyards across some EU regions and south Africa as well as optimise the cryopreservation protocol for wine microbes. María works with Prof. Hervé Alexandre and Chloé Roullier-Gall at the University of Burgundy, focusing on yeast interactions through a metabolomics approach. In this project, she will unravel the nature of yeast interactions during wine fermentation.
The Silent Revolution in the Vineyard: Where Nature’s Diversity and Biocontrol Cultivate Healthier Harvests
Articles
By Aubrey Lee and Elena Palencia Mulero
16/06/2025

The journey of winemaking begins in the vineyard. Behind the vibrant green vine leaves and juicy firm grape berries, hides an unseen ecosystem – a rich and dynamic microbial ecosystem. These microorganisms are an integral part of viticulture and oenology, albeit often unseen. They are sources of biodiversity and play important roles in various functions and balances, including nutrient cycling and maintaining the health of grapevines.1 In winemaking, a diverse microbial ecosystem enhances fermentation efficiency and stability.2 Apart from that, these site-specific microorganisms contribute to the terroir concept in winemaking – where the environment such as soil, topography, climate, and landscape characteristics influence the complexity of wine aromas and flavour profiles.3 They act as silent sculptors, crafting the character in each bottle of wine in a subtle yet distinctive way. These tiny microorganisms work silently, interacting from the vineyard to the winery, to produce a unique wine.
What shapes the microbial diversity in vineyards?
Microbiomes of vineyards – those on soil and directly associated with grapevines- are shaped by many factors including climate, topography, and viticultural practices.3 Climate, strongly influenced by topography, is a key factor shaping microbial diversity in vineyards.4 Studies have shown that vineyards that practice organic and biodynamic management have higher microbial diversity present, including during spontaneous fermentation where the must was found to have higher yeast species richness and diversity.4
From lab to vineyard: how biocontrol agents are transforming sustainable winemaking
Synthetic chemicals can be used to suppress harmful pathogens in the vineyard. However, upon application, some beneficial microorganisms are also harmed due to the toxicity of chemical compounds found in synthetic pesticides5. Therefore, research into biocontrol agents – a natural alternative – is on the rise to limit or replace synthetic chemicals to combat diseases in the vineyard. Biocontrol agents (BCAs), which include beneficial fungi, bacteria, and yeasts, are playing an increasingly important role in transforming viticulture. By offering natural protection against diseases such as Botrytis cinerea (grey mold), Plasmopara viticola (downy mildew), and Erysiphe necator (powdery mildew), these microbial allies are steering winemaking toward a more sustainable future. 6 Their use aims not only to reduce the dependence on synthetic chemicals but also to protect and enhance the natural microbial diversity vital for healthy vine ecosystems.
The power of microorganisms
Specific microorganisms have shown remarkable effectiveness in vineyard protection. Species like Aureobasidium pullulans, Bacillus spp., and Trichoderma spp. suppress pathogenic fungi by competing for nutrients and space, producing antimicrobial compounds, and stimulating the vine’s natural defenses. 6,7 For instance, A. pullulans, has demonstrated efficacy against B. cinerea by occupying ecological niches that would otherwise be exploited by the pathogen. Similarly, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens produce a range of bioactive molecules that inhibit pathogen development and enhance plant immunity. Fungal agents like Trichoderma atroviride are particularly valuable for controlling grapevine trunk diseases, contributing to long-term vineyard health and resilience.
The biocontrol sector is experiencing rapid growth. The global market for biological control products exceeded USD 6.6 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach USD 13.7 billion by 2027, reflecting increasing demand for sustainable alternatives, particularly in the European viticulture sector. 8
A symbiotic relationship: biocontrol and biodiversity
By choosing beneficial microorganisms instead of chemical pesticides, winegrowers are not just safeguarding their vines, they’re potentially nurturing and boosting the microbial communities in their vineyards. This shift toward biocontrol plays a critical role in preserving biodiversity, promoting healthier soils, and enhancing vineyard resilience against future disease outbreaks and climate challenges. 1,6,9
A greener path for winemaking
The future of winemaking is turning greener, with biocontrol agents as part of this transformation. By working with nature instead of against it, winegrowers protect their vines, preserve terroir, and maintain the natural balance of their vineyards. This approach helps safeguard the richness of the soils, the resilience of the plants, and the unique character of the grapes. Each harvest reflects the quiet work of the invisible life that supports healthy vines and contributes to the authentic expression of the land. 3,4, 9
References
[1] Colautti A, Civilini M, Contin M, Celotti E and Iacumin L (2023) Organic vs. conventional: impact of cultivation treatments on the soil microbiota in the vineyard. Front. Microbiol. 14:1242267. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1242267
[2] Sant’Ana AS and Lemos Junior WJF (2024) Microbial synergies and their impact on economic and quality innovation in sustainable winemaking: Yeast and lactic acid bacteria interconnections. Food Biosci. 62:105238. doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.105238.
[3] Griggs RG, Steenwerth KL, Mills DA, Cantu D and Bokulich NA (2021) Sources and Assembly of Microbial Communities in Vineyards as a Functional Component of Winegrowing. Front. Microbiol. 12:673810. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.673810
[4] Liu D, Zhang P, Chen D and Howell K (2019) From the Vineyard to the Winery: How Microbial Ecology Drives Regional Distinctiveness of Wine. Front. Microbiol. 10:2679. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02679
[5] Ayogu, P., Martins, V., & Gerós, H. (2024). Grape berry native yeast microbiota: advancing trends in the development of sustainable vineyard pathogen biocontrol strategies. OENO One, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2024.58.1.7678
[6] García-Izquierdo, I., Colino-Rabanal, V. J., Tamame, M., & Rodríguez-López, F. (2024). Microbiota Ecosystem Services in Vineyards and Wine: A Review. Agronomy, 14(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14010131
[7] Altieri, V., Rossi, V., & Fedele, G. (2023). Efficacy of preharvest application of biocontrol agents against gray mold in grapevine. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14, 1154370. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1154370
[8] MarketsandMarkets. (2024). Biological Control Market by Crop Type, Mode of Application and Region – Global Forecast to 2027. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/07/29/2920350/0/en/Biocontrol-Market-Size-Share-Global-Industry-Trends-Analysis-and-Forecast-to-2027.html
[9] Visconti, F., López, R., & Olego, M. Á. (2024). The Health of Vineyard Soils: Towards a Sustainable Viticulture. Horticulturae, 10(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10020154
About the authors:
Elena Palencia Mulero, with a Master’s in Microbiology & Health, and Aubrey Lee, with a Master’s in Agricultural Science (Crop production), are both Doctoral Candidates in the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action, part of the Horizon Europe Doctoral Network. Their work is funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement 101119480, within the project: “NATURAL MICROBIAL INTERACTIONS IN WINEMAKING-ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS AS A TOOL TO FOSTER WINE INNOVATION (Eco2Wine).” Elena is a member of Prof. Ileana Vigentini’s team at the University of Milan (Italy), where Prof. Vigentini also leads the Eco2Wine Project. Meanwhile, Aubrey collaborates with Prof. Gianluigi Cardinali at the University of Perugia (Italy). They are actively involved in the “Grapevine and Grape Biocontrol” and “Winemaking-associated Ecosystems: Mapping and Assessment” Work Packages, respectively.
Sipping Science: The challenges of communicating wine microbiomics
Articles
By Capucine Dentraygues and Katherine Rabik -
11/12/2024

Image generated by DALL-E, using the prompt “challenges of communicating wine microbiomics.”
The study of microorganisms and their interactions in the winemaking process—known as wine microbiomics—is an exciting yet complex field of science. Most technological interventions, both in vineyards (e.g. the use of pesticides) and cellars (e.g. the use of additions such as sulphur dioxide), are primarily focused on managing microbial growth¹. As researchers deepen their understanding of interactions between yeasts, bacteria, and fungi, the potential for using natural microbiological processes to respond to major environmental, economic and societal challenges becomes increasingly viable. However, communicating this emerging science to winemakers and consumers poses several challenges, ranging from scientific complexity to cultural resistance and market confusion. This article will examine these challenges in more depth as they will guide our research over the next few years.
Complex science, clear communication
Capturing the scientific complexity of wine microbiomics within communication materials targeted at winemakers or consumers while maintaining accessibility for a non-specialist reader presents a unique challenge. Many winemakers, although experts in their field, may find the vocabulary associated with microbiomics, such as ‘metagenomics’ or ‘microbial consortia’, off-putting. However, oversimplifying research results could also render them useless to winemakers as the intricacies of the new techniques could be lost. Winemaking is highly contextual. Science communication that is either difficult to read or overly simplified and not specific to their region will not be useful to winemakers. ²
On the consumer side, there is a limited understanding of wine sciences, making the wine world challenging to navigate. Effective communication in the wine industry is often based on the emotionalisation of the product, and the introduction of complex terminology or science may cause further confusion. Furthermore, cultural variations among different consumers can lead to varying levels of interest in and understanding of wine sciences, making it complex to convey a clear message while maintaining consistency.
Wines promoting sustainability are gaining popularity and represent a fast-growing category, but most consumers seem already disoriented between different subsets of wine (organic, biodynamic, eco-friendly wines, etc.) 3. This confusion is further reinforced by the perception that wine is inherently ‘natural,’ ⁴ – a view partially due to the historically insufficient labelling information provided to consumers – notably the ingredients added in winemaking (e.g., sulphur dioxide, tartaric acid, carboxymethyl cellulose, etc.).
How can these communication challenges be overcome? Rather than focusing on specific attributes, consumers objectify wine consumption in moderation as part of a healthy and sustainable lifestyle. To find simple cues for the consumer, the communication could centre around the broad concept of ‘natural’ as the exploitation of wine microbiomics aims to support the intrinsic naturalness of wine through farming practices and vinification process while better reflecting its territorial origin and unique taste.⁵ However, there is a big debate around the concept of ‘natural wine’ as there is no official definition nor precise regulation behind it.⁶ Therefore, we must explore alternative approaches to effectively communicate the benefits of wine microbiomics. However, this requires a deeper understanding of the psychological mechanisms that shape consumer preferences toward these types of wine. This will serve as the foundation for creating a simpler, more emotionally engaging approach.
Resistance to change
Another significant challenge in introducing microbiomics to the wine industry is overcoming resistance to change. On one hand, winemaking is steeped in tradition, and many winemakers rely on time-honoured techniques passed down through generations. Their craft is often guided by intuition and a deep connection to the land. While the scientific data provided by microbiomics may be interesting, the technological and experimental nature of this new research can clash with these traditional values.
On the other hand, many growers and winemakers rely on modern technologies such as fungicides and fertilisers in the vineyard and processing aids and additives in the cellar. In some cases, the use of modern technologies prioritises short-term economic gains over sustainable practices. Such practitioners might be concerned about the financial implications of adopting microbiomic approaches, particularly if they are uncertain about the return on their investment.
Convincing grape growers and winemakers to adopt microbiomics-driven approaches likely requires demonstrating tangible benefits, such as greater soil and vine health, enhanced wine complexity, and long-term profitability. But even then, cultural inertia can be difficult to overcome, and the balance between tradition and innovation must be carefully navigated.
Translating research into practical applications
Microbiomic data can show which microorganisms are present at different stages of fermentation, but understanding how to manipulate or harness these microbes to produce consistent results is a different challenge. Some winemakers may question how to use this information to influence wine production predictably. Addressing these questions requires bridging the gap between scientific research and practical winemaking strategies. Previous research has identified ‘perceived usefulness’ as the main driver behind adopting new technologies or processes in winemaking. ⁷ Therefore, communication materials related to wine microbiomics should be framed with practical applications in mind.
Regulatory and ethical concerns
Ethical communication necessitates transparency about the role of microbiomics in wine production. Misrepresenting the science, overselling benefits or conveying unverified claims about the benefits of microbiomics can be considered dishonest, damage consumer trust and result in legal repercussions. It is essential to consider how information may be perceived to ensure that consumers have adequate background knowledge to understand the content, minimising the risk of self-interpretation.
Conclusion
The science of wine microbiomics offers the potential to transform winemaking through the harnessing of natural microbial ecosystems. However, communicating this science presents significant challenges, particularly when it comes to bridging the gap between scientific complexity, industry tradition, and consumer understanding. As we move forward, the key to success will lie in finding clear, accessible ways to share the benefits of microbiomics while respecting the deep-rooted traditions that continue to define the world of wine.
References
[1] Berbegal, C., Spano, G., Tristezza, M., Grieco, F. & Capozzi, V. 2017. Microbial Resources and innovation in the wine production sector. South African Journal of Enology & Viticulture. 38(2):156-166. DOI: 10.21548/38-2-1333
[2] Szymanski, E.A. & Davis, L.S. 2015. Wine science in the Wild West: Information-seeking behaviors and attitudes among Washington state winemakers and growers. Journal of Wine Research. 26(4):270–286. DOI: 10.1080/09571264.2015.1083954
[3]Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. & Dillard, J. 2010. Sustainability practices in food supply chains: How is wine different? Journal of Wine Research. 21(1):35–56. DOI: 10.1080/09571264.2010.495853
[4] Moscovici, D. & Reed, A. 2018. Comparing wine sustainability certifications around the world: History, status and opportunity. Journal of Wine Research. 29(1):1–25. DOI: 10.1080/09571264.2018.1433138
[5] Capitello, R. & Sirieix, L. 2019. Consumers’ perceptions of sustainable wine: An exploratory study in France and Italy. Economies. 7(2):33. DOI: 10.3390/economies7020033
[6] Vigentini, I., Maghradze, D., Petrozziello, M., Bonello, F., Mezzapelle, V., Valdetara, F., Failla, O. & Foschino, R. 2016. Indigenous Georgian wine-associated yeasts and grape cultivars to edit the wine quality in a precision oenology perspective. Frontiers in Microbiology. 7.
[7] Galati, A., Schifani, G., Crescimanno, M. & Migliore, G. 2019. “Natural wine” consumers and interest in label information: An analysis of willingness to pay in a new Italian wine market segment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 227:405–413. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.219
[8] Hill, M., Hathaway, S., Wilkinson, R., Barr, N., Cowey, G., & Krstic, M. 2015. Adoption of grape and wine R&D outputs: Who, what, and why? Final report to Australian Grape and Wine Authority. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.
[9] Lu, L., Rahman, I. & Chi, C.G.-Q. 2016. Ready to embrace genetically modified wines? The role of knowledge exposure and intrinsic wine attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. 58(1):23–38. DOI: 10.1177/1938965516629775.
About the authors:
Capucine Dentraygues, with a first Master’s in Wine Management and a second in
Viticulture and Oenology, and Katherine Rabik, with a Master’s in Science
Communication and Public Engagement, are both Doctoral Candidates in the
prestigious Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action, part of the Horizon Europe Doctoral
Network. Their work is funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement
101119480, within the project: “NATURAL MICROBIAL INTERACTIONS IN
WINEMAKING-ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS AS A TOOL TO FOSTER WINE
INNOVATION (Eco2Wine).”
Capucine works with Prof. Dr. Habil Jon Hanf at the Hochschule Geisenheim University in Germany. Within the “Wine Business” work package, her aim is to explore the preferences towards “Natural” and “Biotechnological” wines of consumers with various cultural backgrounds. This will provide a reliable basis for generating target groups and proposing effective marketing strategies. Katherine works with Prof. Marina Joubert at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Within the “Wine Science Communication” work package, she will be exploring the most effective approaches to creating dialogue around wine microbiomics with different relevant audiences.
Biocontrol in viticulture
Articles
José L. Padilla Agudelo and Elena Palencia Mulero
Introduction
Various strategies have been and are still being explored to manage diseases in viticulture effectively. These include cultural practices, selection of resistant cultivars, chemical control (fungicides and bactericides), and biocontrol. But what do we know about this last strategy, and why is it important for viticulture?
Biocontrol refers to using living organisms, mainly microorganisms called biocontrol agents (BCAs), to manage and reduce pests, diseases, and invasive species. This environmentally friendly approach is an integral part of control strategies and offers an alternative to chemical pesticides, which can negatively affect the environment and human health.1 Different countries’ and regions’ policies aim to reduce synthetic pesticide use and ensure responsible consumption and production, life on land, and clean water.2,3 However, implementing BCAs requires in-depth studies on the complex interactions in plant-microbe-environment interplay.
Among the characteristics of BCAs is their ability to compete effectively for nutrients and space, which are involved in suppressing pathogen growth. They also produce volatile and non-volatile compounds in a process called antibiosis. Finally, BCAs can directly parasitise pathogens. Nowadays, using BCAs with combined approaches (especially those that operate by different mechanisms of action) is useful because it forces a pathogen to overcome several hurdles instead of just one to establish and develop an infection. Additionally, combinations of approaches may have additive or synergic effects.
How can BCAs be useful?
Using BCAs as a preharvest and postharvest treatment to control diseases caused by pathogens has many advantages:
- They can persist on the fruit surface for an extended period.
- They are generally safer for human health than many chemical agents.
- They are eco-friendly.
- They maintain ecological balance and promote biodiversity.
- They can protect the product from reinfection due to their persistent viability.
- They have a lower potential for pathogens to develop resistance.
- Products treated with BCAs potentially open more export opportunities.2
Finding effective BCAs
In the fight for sustainable disease management, finding effective biological control agents within a diverse microbial landscape – bacteria, yeasts and filamentous fungi – is essential but challenging. Vineyards, which host a remarkable diversity of microbial communities, serve as a natural reservoir of potential BCAs. In vitro assays and in vivo studies are crucial in evaluating their inhibitory activity against target pathogens.4
However, this search goes beyond finding a single effective agent. The possibility of combining several BCAs should be explored not only to achieve a greater impact but also to reduce the emergence of new resistances. This raises some interesting questions.
Friends or foes?
How do these BCAs interact with each other and with the target pathogen? Will they work together as a team or hinder? If the target pathogen is successfully eliminated, could others take advantage?
Researchers are figuring this out by studying how BCAs interact with each other, with the target pathogen, the host plant and other microorganisms. By unravelling these complex microbial relationships, they are paving the way for a future where we can assemble the ultimate BCA consortium: a powerful, well-coordinated force for sustainable fungal disease control in the vineyard.
How do you unlock the secrets of BCAs?
The widespread adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques has revolutionised the field of biocontrol. These techniques, which include whole genome sequencing, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, allow the identification of the molecular pathways and essential genes that play key roles in biocontrol.5
Have any BCAs been approved?
Yes, but despite their growing potential, BCAs currently represent a small fraction (1%) of the agricultural control market compared to the dominance of synthetic pesticides (15%) 6. This limited adoption can be attributed to several factors:
- Efficacy: Sometimes, BCAs may not provide the same level of immediate and predictable disease control as synthetic fungicides.
- Knowledge gap: Commercialising biopesticides often involves proprietary formulations, limiting publicly available information on successful production and application methods.
- Registration and patenting: This can be complex and time-consuming, particularly in certain regions (e.g., Europe).
- Farmer adoption: Financial incentives for farmers to switch from conventional fungicides to BCAs might be limited, especially if they are unaware of and have no experience with this approach. 7
Challenges aside, there is a strong trend to use microbial biocontrol agents for plant disease management. Therefore, research in this field is expected to continue to attract increasing attention, opening new highways toward an environmentally sustainable future.

Fig 1. Flow diagram describing the activities necessary to characterise microbial interactions and produce bioproducts of high biotechnological interest.
References
1. Stenberg JA, Sundh I, Becher PG, et al. When is it biological control? A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and classifications. J Pest Sci (2004). 2021;94(3):665-676. doi:10.1007/s10340-021-01354-7
2. Zhang H, Godana EA, Sui Y, Yang Q, Zhang X, Zhao L. Biological control as an alternative to synthetic fungicides for the management of grey and blue mould diseases of table grapes: a review. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2020;46(4):450-462. doi:10.1080/1040841X.2020.1794793
3. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals.; 2015.
4. Cordero-Bueso G, Mangieri N, Maghradze D, et al. Wild grape-associated yeasts as promising biocontrol agents against Vitis vinifera fungal pathogens. Front Microbiol. 2017;8(NOV). doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.02025
5. Palmieri D, Ianiri G, Del Grosso C, et al. Advances and Perspectives in the Use of Biocontrol Agents against Fungal Plant Diseases. Horticulturae. 2022;8(7). doi:10.3390/horticulturae8070577
6. Lahlali R, Ezrari S, Radouane N, et al. Biological Control of Plant Pathogens: A Global Perspective. Microorganisms. 2022;10(3). doi:10.3390/microorganisms10030596
7. Ayaz M, Li CH, Ali Q, et al. Bacterial and Fungal Biocontrol Agents for Plant Disease Protection: Journey from Lab to Field, Current Status, Challenges, and Global Perspectives. Molecules. 2023;28(18). doi:10.3390/molecules28186735
About the authors:
José L. Padilla Agudelo, with a Master’s in Microbiology, and Elena Palencia Mulero, with a Master’s in Microbiology & Health, are both Doctoral Candidates in the prestigious Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action, part of the Horizon Europe Doctoral Network. Their work is funded by the European Union under Grant Agreement 101119480, within the project: “NATURAL MICROBIAL INTERACTIONS IN WINEMAKING-ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEMS AS A TOOL TO FOSTER WINE INNOVATION (Eco2Wine).”
José is part of Prof. Gustavo A. Cordero Bueso’s team at the University of Cádiz in Spain, while Elena works with Prof. Ileana Vigentini at the University of Milan in Italy, who also coordinates the Eco2Wine Project. Together, they are diving into the “Grapevine and Grape Biocontrol” Work Package, aiming to uncover and explain the molecular mechanisms behind new biocontrol agents that combat the harmful fungus Botrytis cinerea, a major threat to vineyards.
Main Contacts:
elena.palencia@unimi.it
joseluis.padillaagudelo@alum.uca.es
gustavo.cordero@uca.es
ileana.vigentini@unimi.it
What is a ‘microbiome’, and how does it relate to wine?
What is a ‘microbiome’, and how does it relate to wine?
Karien O’Kennedy
Have you ever wondered what gives your favorite bottle of wine its distinct character? Part of the answer lies in a world invisible to the naked eye but crucially helping to shape the taste and quality of wines: the microbiome.
But hold on, what exactly is a microbiome?
The terms ‘microbiome’ and ‘microbiota’ are often used interchangeably, but they actually refer to different aspects of microbial communities within a particular environment, such as the human body or vineyard soil. Microbiota refers to the collection of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, yeasts and viruses inhabiting a specific ecological niche. It focuses on the organisms themselves rather than their genetic material.
On the other hand, microbiome refers to the collective genetic material of all microorganisms present in a particular environment. It encompasses not only the microorganisms themselves but also their genes and their interactions with each other in their host environment. The microbiome provides a more holistic view of microbial communities, incorporating their genetic diversity and ecological functions.
Microbiomics, the newest kid on the microbiology block, is the science of collectively characterising and quantifying molecules responsible for a microbial community’s structure, function, and dynamics.1 Microbiomics employs multiple techniques, including high-throughput sequencing, bioinformatics, and systems biology approaches, to investigate microbial communities and their interactions with their hosts and environments. The field has broad applications in human health, agriculture, environmental science, biotechnology, and beyond, with implications for understanding disease mechanisms and ecosystem dynamics and developing novel therapies and interventions.
Now, how does this relate to wine?
The vineyard microbiome plays a crucial role in shaping the unique characteristics of wines.2 The microbiome of the vineyard soil, grapevine, and grapes influences the health and growth of the grapevine and the composition of the grapes. The grape microbiome determines the fermentation microbiome (if no commercial yeast inoculation occurs) and the character of what finally ends up in your glass.
Vineyard soils, the foundation of wine character
Soils harbour some of the most diverse microbiomes on earth. Observations from studies suggest that different vineyard soil microbiomes can contribute to variations in grape and wine composition and the wine’s terroir. This happens through the vines’ response to the soil microbiome or through the soil microbiome affecting the grape microbiome and, thus, fermentation.3 An example is an Australian study that demonstrated that distinct differences in the bacterial and fungal communities in different zones within the same vineyard are associated with high and low rotundone concentrations in grape berries. Rotundone is an impact aroma compound with a ‘peppery character’ commonly found in cool climate Shiraz from Australia.
Various abiotic factors, such as geographical origin, climatic conditions, soil composition, and cultivation, can influence the vineyard soil microbiome. Interestingly, biotic factors can also play a significant role, with certain soil fungi that can impose a strong selection on bacteria by producing antimicrobial (antibiotic) compounds.4
Soil health is of utmost importance, not only for viticulture but for all agricultural systems. The soil microbiome forms a critical component of soil health. Understanding how agricultural systems, including viticulture, impact the soil microbiome is crucial to ensuring more sustainable agriculture and food for future generations.
Grapevines, the guardians of wine character
Various factors can influence the microbiome of vines. Vineyard location, farming systems (conventional, organic, biodynamic), viticultural practices and even grape variety are among these factors. A study on Cabernet Sauvignon grapes in four countries with different climates and viticultural traditions using the same experimental layout suggested that grape varieties can have unique microbial fingerprints.2
The different parts of the vine can host various pathogenic and beneficial microorganisms. Beneficial microorganisms can help promote vine health by suppressing the growth of pathogenic organisms and enhancing the plant’s resistance to diseases.5 Studying these interactions can pave the way for eco-friendly biological control of grapevine diseases instead of chemical control. Studying the microbiome in vineyards also holds the potential to improve grapevine adaptation to climate change and boost overall sustainability.
Fermentation, where the magic happens
Microorganisms present on grape surfaces can contribute to the initial stages of fermentation by inoculating grape must with indigenous yeast and bacteria. These native microorganisms initiate spontaneous fermentation, which can influence the chemical composition of the wine, such as its acidity, alcohol content and phenolic profile. Additionally, the microbial communities present during fermentation can lead to the development of complex flavours, aromas and textures in the resulting wine.
Any given species’ contribution to the wine’s final character depends on its numbers and persistence during fermentation. Many factors can influence these two aspects, including interspecies ecological interactions, as shown by South African and Italian researchers.6 Studying the grape juice and fermentation microbiome and the factors that influence it can give winemakers the tools to steer the fermentation in a positive direction for wine quality. It can also help prevent fermentation problems such as stuck fermentations and the formation of off-odours.
Biodiversity for a sustainable future
In the coming decades, the agricultural sector will face major challenges in providing food for a growing world population, but intensive cropping, based on mineral fertilisers and agrochemicals, will continue to impact biodiversity and ecosystems negatively.7 Wine production is no exception to these environmental problems. The study of microorganisms in vineyards and wine production reveals the essential contribution of these invisible communities to the functioning and sustainability of viticultural systems. Microorganisms are vital players in achieving optimal outcomes with diverse influences, from soil health and vine vitality to fermentation and the sensorial profile of a wine. Their complex and symbiotic interaction with the viticultural environment triggers a range of benefits, including the enhancement of final product quality and vineyard resilience against adverse factors. Understanding the factors that impact microbiome distribution and microbial diversity is essential to better harness natural ecosystems for quality wine production.
References
[1] Kumar PS. Microbiomics: Were we all wrong before? Periodontol 2000. 2021;85(1). doi:10.1111/prd.12373
[2] Tronchoni J, Setati ME, Fracassetti D, Valdetara F, Maghradze D, Foschino R, et al. Identifying the Main Drivers in Microbial Diversity for Cabernet Sauvignon Cultivars from Europe to South Africa: Evidence for a Cultivar-Specific Microbial Fingerprint. Journal of Fungi. 2022;8(10). doi:10.3390/jof8101034
[3] Gupta VVSR, Bramley RGV, Greenfield P, Yu J, Herderich MJ. Vineyard soil microbiome composition related to rotundone concentration in Australian cool climate “peppery” Shiraz grapes. Front Microbiol. 2019;10(JULY). doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01607
[4] Bahram M, Hildebrand F, Forslund SK, Anderson JL, Soudzilovskaia NA, Bodegom PM, et al. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature. 2018;560(7717). doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0386-6
[5] Cobos R, Ibañez A, Diez-Galán A, Calvo-Peña C, Ghoreshizadeh S, Coque JJR. The Grapevine Microbiome to the Rescue: Implications for the Biocontrol of Trunk Diseases. Plants. 2022;11(7). doi:10.3390/plants11070840
[6] Bagheri B, Bauer FF, Cardinali G, Setati ME. Ecological interactions are a primary driver of population dynamics in wine yeast microbiota during fermentation. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61690-z
[7] García-Izquierdo I, Colino-Rabanal VJ, Tamame M, Rodríguez-López F. Microbiota Ecosystem Services in Vineyards and Wine: A Review. Agronomy 2024, Vol 14, Page 131. 2024;14(1):131. doi:10.3390/AGRONOMY14010131
About the author:
Dr Karien O’Kennedy is the Knowledge Transfer Manager for South Africa Wine, an Associated Partner of the Eco2Wine project (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101119480). She holds an MSc in Microbiology and a PhD in Science and Technology Studies from Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Her areas of expertise include wine microbiology and academic knowledge production, transfer, and uptake.


