Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Genomics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Differential adaptation to multi-stressed conditions of wine fermentation revealed by variations in yeast regulatory networks

Christian Brion123, Chloé Ambroset123, Isabelle Sanchez123, Jean-Luc Legras123 and Bruno Blondin123*

Author Affiliations

1 INRA, UMR1083 Science pour l’Œnologie, 2 Place Viala, Montpellier F-34060, France

2 Montpellier SupAgro, UMR1083 Science pour l’Œnologie, 2 Place Viala, Montpellier F-34060, France

3 Université Montpellier 1, UMR1083 Science pour l’Œnologie, 2 Place Viala, Montpellier F-34060, France

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Genomics 2013, 14:681  doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-681

Published: 4 October 2013

Abstract

Background

Variation of gene expression can lead to phenotypic variation and have therefore been assumed to contribute the diversity of wine yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) properties. However, the molecular bases of this variation of gene expression are unknown. We addressed these questions by carrying out an integrated genetical-genomic study in fermentation conditions. We report here quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping based on expression profiling in a segregating population generated by a cross between a derivative of the popular wine strain EC1118 and the laboratory strain S288c.

Results

Most of the fermentation traits studied appeared to be under multi-allelic control. We mapped five phenotypic QTLs and 1465 expression QTLs. Several expression QTLs overlapped in hotspots. Among the linkages unraveled here, several were associated with metabolic processes essential for wine fermentation such as glucose sensing or nitrogen and vitamin metabolism. Variations affecting the regulation of drug detoxification and export (TPO1, PDR12 or QDR2) were linked to variation in four genes encoding transcription factors (PDR8, WAR1, YRR1 and HAP1). We demonstrated that the allelic variation of WAR1 and TPO1 affected sorbic and octanoic acid resistance, respectively. Moreover, analysis of the transcription factors phylogeny suggests they evolved with a specific adaptation of the strains to wine fermentation conditions. Unexpectedly, we found that the variation of fermentation rates was associated with a partial disomy of chromosome 16. This disomy resulted from the well known 8–16 translocation.

Conclusions

This large data set made it possible to decipher the effects of genetic variation on gene expression during fermentation and certain wine fermentation properties. Our findings shed a new light on the adaptation mechanisms required by yeast to cope with the multiple stresses generated by wine fermentation. In this context, the detoxification and export systems appear to be of particular importance, probably due to nitrogen starvation. Furthermore, we show that the well characterized 8–16 translocation located in SSU1, which is associated with sulfite resistance, can lead to a partial chromosomic amplification in the progeny of strains that carry it, greatly improving fermentation kinetics. This amplification has been detected among other wine yeasts.

Keywords:
Wine yeast; Fermentation; QTL; Transcriptome; Partial disomy; Detoxification