Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26388852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2015

Wine fermentation microbiome: a landscape from different Portuguese wine appellations.

Cátia Pinto, Diogo Pinho, Remy Cardoso, Valéria Custódio, Joana Fernandes, Susana Sousa, Miguel Pinheiro, Conceição Egas, Ana C Gomes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Effect of the vintage year on strontium isotopic ratio (Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Basidiomycete Yeasts of Wine Grapes and Their Potential Applications in Winemaking.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Contributions ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Cátia PintoGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Diogo PinhoGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Remy CardosoGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Valéria CustódioGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Joana FernandesGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Susana SousaGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Miguel PinheiroGenoInSeq Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Conceição EgasGenoInSeq Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.
Ana C GomesGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grapes and wine musts harbor a complex microbiome, which plays a crucial role in wine fermentation as it impacts on wine flavour and, consequently, on its final quality and value. Unveiling the microbiome and its dynamics, and understanding the ecological factors that explain such biodiversity, has been a challenge to oenology. In this work, we tackle this using a metagenomics approach to describe the natural microbial communities, both fungal and bacterial microorganisms, associated with spontaneous wine fermentations. For this, the wine microbiome, from six Portuguese wine appellations, was fully characterized as regards to three stages of fermentation - Initial Musts (IM), and Start and End of alcoholic fermentations (SF and EF, respectively). The wine fermentation process revealed a higher impact on fungal populations when compared with bacterial communities, and the fermentation evolution clearly caused a loss of the environmental microorganisms. Furthermore, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the fungal populations between IM, SF, and EF, and in the bacterial population between IM and SF. Fungal communities were characterized by either the presence of environmental microorganisms and phytopathogens in the IM, or yeasts associated with alcoholic fermentations in wine must samples as Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeasts (as Lachancea, Metschnikowia, Hanseniaspora, Hyphopichia, Sporothrix, Candida, and Schizosaccharomyces). Among bacterial communities, the most abundant family was Enterobacteriaceae; though families of species associated with the production of lactic acid (Lactobacillaceae, Leuconostocaceae) and acetic acid (Acetobacteriaceae) were also detected. Interestingly, a biogeographical correlation for both fungal and bacterial communities was identified between wine appellations at IM suggesting that each wine region contains specific and embedded microbial communities which may contribute to the uniqueness of regional wines.

Indexed as

grape microbiologyindustrial metagenomicswine spontaneous fermentation microbiome

Identifiers

PMID26388852
PMCPMC4555975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.