Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A. Agricola Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, December 2005, p. 8954-8957, Vol. 71, No. 12
0099-2240/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.71.12.8954-8957.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

SHORT REPORT

Differential Real-Time PCR Assay for Enumeration of Lactic Acid Bacteria in Wine

Ezekiel T. Neeley, Trevor G. Phister, and David A. Mills^*

Department of Viticulture & Enology, University of California, Davis, California 95616

Received 15 April 2005/ Accepted 15 August 2005

Top Abstract Introduction References

 
Oenococcus oeni is often employed to perform the malolactic fermentation in wine production, while nonoenococcal lactic acid bacteria often contribute to wine spoilage. Two real-time PCR assays were developed to enumerate the total, and nonoenococcal, lactic acid bacterial populations in wine. Used together, these assays can assess the spoilage risk of juice or wine from lactic acid bacteria.

Top Abstract Introduction References

 
The lactic acid bacteria (LAB) found in wine are comprised primarily of species in the genera Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and Oenococcus (formerly Leuconostoc oenos) (3, 12, 17). LAB are a constant concern to winemakers as they can impact the quality of wine negatively, by acting as spoilage organisms, or positively, by conducting malolactic fermentation (2). While the LAB population in wines with pH values below 3.5 tends to be mostly Oenococcus oeni, higher-pH wines often harbor species of Lactobacillus and Pediococcus during and after fermentation (4, 6, 10). Nonoenococcal LAB in wine often contribute undesirable aromas and flavors (12). Conversely, O. oeni is the inoculum of choice for performing the malolactic fermentation due to its greater tolerance to wine conditions (a pH of <3.5 and >10% ethanol) and because it is less prone to off-flavor production than other wine-related LAB (18).

The traditional methods for enumerating LAB in wine involve time-consuming plating techniques (9). Real-time or quantitative PCR (QPCR) methods have been developed to enumerate several species of LAB, including those found in wine (5, 8, 16); however, no QPCR methods that quantify wine-related LAB as a group have been developed. In an earlier work, we examined various primer sets for analysis of LAB populations in wine by using PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (13, 20). Previous database analysis of the WLAB1-WLAB2 (WLAB1-2) (13) primer set indicated that this set describes 75% of the Bacillus-Lactobacillus-Streptococcus subgroup (including 90% of the Lactobacillus subgroup) but did not describe the Proteobacteria subgroup (including wine-related acetic acid bacteria). Walter et al. (20) previously characterized the Lac1-Lac2 (Lac1-2) primer set as group specific for Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, and Weisella species; however, when empirically tested, we noted that the primer set did not amplify O. oeni (13).

In this work, QPCR assays were generated with both the WLAB1-2 and Lac1-2 primer sets. By comparing the results of the two QPCR assays, an estimate of the percentage of nonoenococcal LAB present is obtained, thereby allowing a rapid assessment of the spoilage potential of the LAB population in juices or wines.

QPCR was performed on an Applied Biosystems Prism 7700 sequence detection system. Primer concentrations and PCR conditions were optimized for 25-µl reaction mixtures in a 96-well plate. The final reagent concentrations were 1x SYBR green master mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), 9.5 µl of 10-fold-diluted DNA, and 600 nM for each primer. All reactions were run for 40 cycles, and the cycle threshold (C_T) value was set automatically using Sequence Detection Software (version 1.7; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). QPCR thermal cycler conditions for both primer sets were 40 cycles at 95°C (melting) for 60 seconds, 63°C (annealing) for 30 seconds, and 72°C (extension) for 60 seconds. Melting curve analysis was performed to assess the specificities of the amplicons.

The target and nontarget LAB strains examined were cultivated at 30°C in MRS medium (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD) or, in the case of O. oeni UCD21 (PSU-1), in MRS-MF (MRS with the addition of 5 g/liter fructose and 1 g/liter malic acid). Saccharomyces cerevisiae UCD522 was cultivated in yeast malt broth (Becton Dickinson). DNA was purified from the cell pellet by using an Epicentre MasterPure gram-positive DNA purification kit (Epicentre, Madison, WI) as per the manufacturer's instructions except for the inclusion of 5 units per µl of mutanolysin (Sigma-Aldrich) with the lysozyme incubation.

As indicated in Table 1, the WLAB1-2 primer set readily amplifies Lactobacillus plantarum UCD1 and O. oeni at low cell densities but did not amplify S. cerevisiae at high cell densities. WLAB1-2 minimally amplified acetic acid bacteria (Gluconobacter oxydans UCD217 and Acetobacter aceti UCD114) at high cell densities; however, the C_T values were quite high, and melting curve analysis indicated that these amplicons were false positives. The Lac1-2 primer set was a bit more selective—there was no significant amplification of yeast or acetic acid bacterial DNA.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Specificities of WLAB1-2 and Lac1-2 primersa

Significant amounts of nontarget DNA can interfere with endpoint PCR by nonspecific binding of primers and PCR reagents (1, 11, 13). While both QPCR assays did not significantly amplify nontarget DNA known to be in wine, it was necessary to determine if the accuracy of the target QPCR assay was impacted by the presence of high concentrations of nontarget DNA. To examine this, target LAB cells were serially diluted in sterilely filtered red wine (2003 Mourvedre, pH 3.56, 13.6% [vol/vol] ethanol) or the same wine containing either 10⁸ CFU per ml of S. cerevisiae or 10⁸ CFU per ml of an acetic acid bacterium (A. aceti or G. oxydans). The serially diluted target LAB cells were then plated for CFU enumeration, and DNA was purified for QPCR. DNA purification was similar to that described above except that zirconium hydroxide (7 g/liter) was added to facilitate pelleting of the bacteria in wine (14).

QPCR results for both assays of different target LAB species exhibited good correlations with the plating results (Fig. 1) and were not altered by the presence of the 10,000-fold-greater cell concentration of S. cerevisiae, G. oxydans, or A. aceti. The relationship between the number of CFU per ml and the C_T value changed slightly between different species of LAB (Fig. 1). This change could be due to a variation in the number of 16S rRNA gene copies between bacterial species (7, 15) or to a slight heterogeneity in the 16S rRNA gene sequences between target organisms or even among 16S rRNA gene copies within the same organism (19). Moreover, differential lysis of gram-positive cells during the DNA purification procedure may contribute to differences in DNA extraction efficiency.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 1. Determination of the specificity of WLAB1-2 (A) and Lac1-2 (B) primer sets on the amplification of DNA purified from wine containing LAB species with or without the presence of nontarget microbes. The strains used were L. plantarum UCD1 (•), L. plantarum UCD1 plus 108/ml A. aceti UCD114 (), L. plantarum UCD1 plus 108/ml O. oeni UCD21 (), Lactobillus brevis ATCC 14869 (), L. brevis plus 108/ml G. oxydans (), O. oeni UCD21 plus 108/ml S. cerevisiae UCD522 (), and Pediococcus pentasaceus ATCC 25745 plus 108/ml S. cerevisiae (). Negative controls were DNA of the nontarget DNA in wine alone: G. oxydans UCD217 (+), A. aceti UCD114 (x), S. cerevisiae UCD522 (–), and O. oeni UCD21 (). Correlations of CT value to numbers of CFU/ml of the plating data were an R2 of 0.912 (WLAB1-2) and an R2 of 0.815 (Lac1-2).

To further examine these assays, DNA was purified from 11 spoiled wines, and the LAB population was determined by plating and by QPCR using a standard curve generated with L. plantarum (Fig. 2). QPCR consistently gave larger estimations of LAB populations than the plating results (Table 2). This is likely due to the fact that QPCR will amplify DNA from all cells in wine, be they living, metabolically active but nonculturable, or dead. For the majority of wines displaying cell growth on a plate, the colony morphotypes were identical, and microscopic examination of the wine revealed the cells to be an apparent monoculture. In an effort to identify the dominant population, the end product amplicon generated in the QPCR was sequenced. The WLAB1-2 amplicon sequence identification correlated well with the QPCR prediction of whether or not O. oeni was the dominant LAB (Table 2). Moreover, the morphology of the dominant bacterial population corresponded with the genera obtained by WLAB1-2 sequence identification (i.e., lactobacilli [rods], pediococci [cocci often in tetrads], or oenococci [small cocci often in chains]). The sequences of Lac1-2 amplicons revealed the nonoenococcal LAB populations in these wines (Table 2). In some cases where the Lac1-2-derived population was less than 0.1% of that obtained with the WLAB1-2 assay, the sequence analysis indicated O. oeni. However, other samples with similar ratios revealed other LAB species, suggesting that minimal amplification of O. oeni does occur in the Lac1-2 assay, but the presence of a low number (0.1%) of a non-LAB species is still readily detected.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 2. QPCR standard curve of L. plantarum cells serially diluted in wine. The WLAB1-2 primer set () had an R2 of 0.996, and the Lac1-2 primer set () had an R2 of 0.995. CT values are averages of results from three replicates.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 2. Enumeration by plating and QPCR of lactic acid bacteria in spoiled winesa

Interestingly, both assays recorded LAB populations at the lower threshold (<10³ cells per ml) in Mourvedre and Syrah wines that had been passed through a 0.2-µm filter (Table 2). In both cases the QPCR results for the unfiltered wine were higher (1.5 log in the case of Mourvedre and 4 log in the case of Syrah). Since "free" DNA in the wine would pass through the filter unhindered, this finding suggests that the majority of DNA in wine is cell associated.

During wine production it is useful to know (i) if the total LAB concentration is high enough to start significant malolactic conversion and (ii) whether or not that LAB population is O. oeni. The differential QPCR assays developed here—which can be run in the same QPCR plate using the same thermal cycler conditions—allow for a rapid and quantitative determination of the concentration of total LAB and non-O. oeni LAB in a wine and thereby facilitate wine-processing decisions.

 
E.T.N. was supported by the Haskell F. Norman Wine & Food Scholarship, the Adolf L. and Richie C. Heck Research Fellowship, the David E. Gallo Educational Enhancement Award, The Knights of the Vine Scholarship, and the Jastro-Shields Graduate Research Scholarship. T.G.P. was supported by USDA grant 2003-35503-15416. Additional funding was obtained from the American Vineyard Foundation and the California Competitive Grants Program for Research in Viticulture and Enology.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616. Phone: (530) 754-7821. Fax: (530) 752-0382. E-mail: damills{at}ucdavis.edu.

Present address: Bonny Doon Vineyards, Santa Cruz, Calif.

Present address: Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa.

Top Abstract Introduction References

 

1
1. Alvarez, A. J., M. P. Buttner, and L. D. Stetzenbach. 1995. PCR for bioaerosol monitoring: sensitivity and environmental interference. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61:3639-3644.[Abstract]
2
2. Amerine, M. A., and E. B. Roessler. 1983. Wines—their sensory evaluation, 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif.
3
3. Boulton, R. B., V. L. Singleton, L. F. Bisson, and R. Kunkee. 1998. Principles and practices of winemaking. Chapman & Hall, New York, N.Y.
4
4. Davis, C. R., D. J. Wibowo, T. H. Lee, and G. H. Fleet. 1986. Growth and metabolism of lactic acid bacteria during and after malolactic fermentation of wines at different pH. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51:539-545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5
5. Delaherche, A., O. Claisse, and A. Lonvaud-Funel. 2004. Detection and quantification of Brettanomyces bruxellensis and ‘ropy’ Pediococcus damnosus strains in wine by real-time polymerase chain reaction. J. Appl. Microbiol. 97:910-915.[CrossRef][Medline]
6
6. Fleet, G. H. 1998. The microbiology of alcoholic beverages, p. 215-262. In B. J. B. Wood (ed.), Microbiology of fermented foods, 2nd ed., vol. 1. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, United Kingdom.
7
7. Fogel, G. B., C. R. Collins, J. Li, and C. F. Brunk. 1999. Prokaryotic genome size and SSU rDNA copy number: estimation of microbial relative abundance from a mixed population. Microb. Ecol. 38:93-113.[CrossRef][Medline]
8
8. Furet, J. P., P. Quenee, and P. Tailliez. 2004. Molecular quantification of lactic acid bacteria in fermented milk products using real-time quantitative PCR. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 97:197-207.[CrossRef][Medline]
9
9. Gueimonde, M., and S. Salminen. 2004. Methods of analyzing gut microbiota, p. 365-374. In S. Salminen, A. von Wright, and A. Ouwehand (ed.), Lactic acid bacteria: microbiological and functional aspects, 3rd ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y.
10
10. Hennick-Kling, T. 1994. Malolactic fermentation, p. 289-326. In G. H. Fleet (ed.), Wine microbiology and biotechnology, vol. 1. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.
11
11. Lienert, K., and J. C. Fowler. 1992. Analysis of mixed human/microbial DNA samples: a validation study of two PCR AMP-FLP typing methods. BioTechniques 13:276-281.[Medline]
12
12. Lonvaud-Funel, A. 1999. Lactic acid bacteria in the quality improvement and depreciation of wine. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 76:317-331.
13
13. Lopez, I., F. Ruiz-Larrea, L. Cocolin, E. Orr, T. Phister, M. Marshall, J. VanderGheynst, and D. A. Mills. 2003. Design and evaluation of PCR primers for analysis of bacterial populations in wine by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69:6801-6807.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14
14. Lucore, L. A., M. A. Cullison, and L.-A. Jaykus. 2000. Immobilization with metal hydroxides as a means to concentrate food-borne bacteria for detection by cultural and molecular methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:1769-1776.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15
15. Nadkarni, M. A., F. E. Martin, N. A. Jacques, and N. Hunter. 2002. Determination of bacterial load by real-time PCR using a broad-range (universal) probe and primers set. Microbiology 148:257-266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16
16. Pinzani, P., L. Bonciani, M. Pazzagli, C. Orlando, S. Guerrini, and L. Granchi. 2004. Rapid detection of Oenococcus oeni in wine by real-time quantitative PCR. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 38:118-124.[CrossRef][Medline]
17
17. Sponholz, W.-R. 1994. Wine spoilage by microorganisms, p. 395-420. In G. H. Fleet (ed.), Wine microbiology and biotechnology, vol. 1. Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.
18
18. Versari, A., G. P. Parpinello, and M. Cattaneo. 1999. Leuconostoc oenos and malolactic fermentation in wine: a review. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 23:447-455.
19
19. von Wintzingerode, F., U. B. Gobel, and E. Stackebrandt. 1997. Determination of microbial diversity in environmental samples: pitfalls of PCR-based rRNA analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 21:213-229.[CrossRef][Medline]
20
20. Walter, J., C. Hertel, G. W. Tannock, C. M. Lis, K. Munro, and W. P. Hammes. 2001. Detection of Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella species in human feces by using group-specific PCR primers and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:2578-2585.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

---

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, December 2005, p. 8954-8957, Vol. 71, No. 12
0099-2240/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.71.12.8954-8957.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lucas, P. M., Claisse, O., Lonvaud-Funel, A. (2008). High Frequency of Histamine-Producing Bacteria in the Enological Environment and Instability of the Histidine Decarboxylase Production Phenotype. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 811-817 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Phister, T. G., Rawsthorne, H., Joseph, C.M. L., Mills, D. A. (2007). Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection and Enumeration of Hanseniaspora Species from Wine and Juice. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58: 229-233 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A. Agricola Articles by Neeley, E. T. Articles by Mills, D. A.