The excessive use of sulphur dioxide and other chemical preservatives in wine, beer and other fermented food and beverage products to prevent the growth of unwanted microbes holds various disadvantages for the quality of the end‐products and is confronted by mounting consumer resistance. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of controlling spoilage bacteria during yeast‐based fermentations by engineering bactericidal strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. To test this novel concept, we have successfully expressed a bacteriocin gene in yeast. The pediocin operon of Pediococcus acidilactici PAC1·0 consists of four clustered genes, namely pedA (encoding a 62 amino acid precursor of the PA‐1 pediocin), pedB (encoding an immunity factor), pedC (encoding a PA‐1 transport protein) and pedD (encoding a protein involved in the transport and processing of PA‐1). The pedA gene was inserted into a yeast expression/secretion cassette and introduced as a multicopy episomal plasmid into a laboratory strain (Y294) of S. cerevisiae. Northern blot analysis confirmed that the pedA structural gene in this construct (ADH1P‐MFα1S‐pedA‐ADH1T, designated PED1), was efficiently expressed under the control of the yeast alcohol dehydrogenase I gene promoter (ADH1P) and terminator (ADH1T). Secretion of the PED1‐encoded pediocin PA‐1 was directed by the yeast mating pheromone α‐factor's secretion signal (MFα1S). The presence of biologically active antimicrobial peptides produced by the yeast transformants was indicated by agar diffusion assays against sensitive indicator bacteria (e.g. Listeria monocytogenes B73). Protein analysis indicated the secreted heterologous peptide to be approximately 4·6 kDa, which conforms to the expected size. The heterologous peptide was present at relatively low levels in the yeast supernatant but pediocin activity was readily detected when intact yeast colonies were used in sensitive strain overlays. This study could lead to the development of bactericidal yeast strains where S. cerevisiae starter cultures not only conduct the fermentations in the wine, brewing and baking industries but also act as biological control agents to inhibit the growth of spoilage bacteria. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The use of gene technology to modify the genome of wine yeasts belonging to the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae began in the early 1990s. From a purely scientific point of view, many yeast constructs [genetically modified organisms (GMO)] have been made so far, covering more or less all stages of the wine making process in which microorganisms or commercial enzymes play a key role. The range of theoretical applications is summarised in this report. So far, only two wine-producing countries worldwide allow the use of engineered wine yeasts; the changing situation in Germany regarding consumers' attitudes towards gene technology, and foodstuffs thus produced, will be outlined here. Experiments at the Geisenheim Research Center have highlighted the essential stages of the wine making process where yeasts are involved by using engineered wine yeasts in comparison with non-engineered yeast strains. Greenhouse simulations revealed the persistence of genetically modified (gm) yeasts when these were used as fertilizers, as vintners do with yeast lees after the fermentation process. Furthermore, the persistence of engineered yeast was also monitored in fermentations, after bottling, and after biological treatment of winery waste water. It turned out that engineered wine yeast strains behave like nonengineered wine yeasts. They also persist in the winery interior and installations as well as becoming part of the yeast flora on grape vines in a vineyard with annual fluctuations in the composition of the yeast populations.

This is one of very few studies that isolated Enterococcus species from wine. It is, however, the first to report presence of bacteriocin-producing Enterococcus in wine fermentation.

The use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is an issue of intense public concern and, in the case of food and beverages, products containing GMOs or products thereof carry the risk of consumer rejection. The recent commercialization of 2 GM wine yeasts in the United States and Canada has made research and development of risk assessments for GM microorganisms a priority. The purpose of this study was to take a first step in establishing a risk-assessment process for future use and potential release of GM wine yeasts into the environment. The behaviour and spread of a GM wine yeast was monitored in saturated sand columns, saturated sand flow cells, and conventional flow cells. A widely used commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast, VIN13, a VIN13 transgenic strain (LKA1, which carries the LKA1 alpha-amylase gene of Lipomyces kononenkoae), a soil bacterium (Dyadobacter fermentens), and a nonwine soil-borne yeast (Cryptococcus laurentii) were compared in laboratory-scale microcosm systems designed to monitor microbial mobility behaviour, survival, and attachment to surfaces. It was found that LKA1 cells survived in saturated sand columns, but showed little mobility in the porous matrix, suggesting that the cells attached with high efficiency to sand. There was no significant difference between the mobility patterns of LKA1 and VIN13. All 3 yeasts (VIN13, LKA1, and C. laurentii) were shown to form stable biofilms; the 2 S. cerevisiae strains either had no difference in biofilm density or the LKA1 biofilm was less dense than that of VIN13. When co-inoculated with C. laurentii, LKA1 had no negative influence on the breakthrough of the Cryptococcus yeast in a sand column or on its ability to form biofilms. In addition, LKA1 did not successfully integrate into a stable mixed-biofilm community, nor did it disrupt the biofilm community. Overall, it was concluded that the LKA1 transgenic yeast had the same reproductive success as VIN13 in these 3 microcosms and had no selective advantage over the untransformed parental strain.