Correction: Pinu et al. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759
by
,
Farhana R. Pinu
1,*
,
Lily Stuart
2,
Taylan Topal
2,3,
Abby Albright
2,
Damian Martin
2 and
Claire Grose
2 1
Biological Chemistry and Bioactives Group, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Auckland 1025, New Zealand
2
Viticulture and Oenology Group, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Blenheim 7201, New Zealand
3
Marine Products Team, The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Nelson 7010, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2024, 10(5), 244; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10050244
Submission received: 8 April 2024
/
Accepted: 9 April 2024
/
Published: 6 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Fermentation for Food and Beverages)
There was a technical error in the calculation of yeast cell concentrations from cell numbers in the original publication [1].
Text Correction
We have now made corrections throughout the whole manuscript including abstract, methods (Sections 2.2.1, 2.3 and 2.4), results and discussion (Sections 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6) and conclusion.
In abstract: we modified the sentence “We also determined the effect of different numbers of yeast cells inoculation (varying from 1 × 106 to 1 × 1012 cells/mL) and successive inoculation on fermentation and end-product formation. The yeast inoculation method and number of cells significantly affected the fermentation time.” to “We also determined the effect of different numbers of yeast cells inoculation (varying from 1 × 106 to 1 × 109 cells/mL) and successive inoculation on fermentation and end-product formation. The yeast inoculation method and different inoculation levels significantly affected the fermentation time”.
In Section 2.2.1: we changed “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations”.
In Section 2.3: we changed “1 × 1012” to “1 × 109”.
In Section 2.4: we changed the sentence “namely 1 × 108 (n = 3), 1 × 1010 (n = 3) and 1 × 1012 (n = 3) in the must” to “namely 1 × 107 (n = 3), 1 × 108 (n = 3) and 1 × 109 (n = 3) in the must”.
In Section 3: we changed “yeast cell numbers” to “yeast inoculum size” in the first paragraph.
In Section 3.3: We changed “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations”. We changed the sentence “we also investigated if inoculated yeast cell numbers had any impact on the metabolite composition of the resulting wines” to “we also investigated if different inoculation size had any impact on the metabolite composition of the resulting wines”. We also changed this sentence “while other ferments were inoculated with higher cells numbers ranging from 108 to 1012 cells/mL” to “while other ferments were inoculated with higher concentration of cells ranging from 107 to 109 cells/mL”.
In Section 3.5: We changed all “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations”. We changed “cell numbers used as inoculum” to “cells used as inoculum” in the first paragraph, and changed “while cell numbers should also be considered” to “while inoculum size should also be considered” in the second paragraph.
In Section 3.6: we changed “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations” in the first paragraph.
In Conclusions: we changed the sentence “we provided some insights on how differences in inoculated cell numbers also affect the production of different classes of aroma compounds” to “we provided some insights on how differences in inoculum size also affect the production of different classes of aroma compounds”.
Error in Figure and Legend
We have updated Figures 1 and 4–6 by correcting the cell concentrations: 1 × 108 to 1 × 107, 1 × 1010 to 1 × 108 and 1 × 1012 to 1 × 109. We changed “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations” in the caption of Figure 4. The corrected figures appear below.
Figure 1.
Two yeast inoculation preparation methods and winemaking experimental design used in this study. Yeast cells were counted as cells/mL in must.
Figure 1.
Two yeast inoculation preparation methods and winemaking experimental design used in this study. Yeast cells were counted as cells/mL in must.
Figure 4.
Two-dimensional projection of principal component analysis (PCA) score plots based on primary and secondary metabolites, showing the effect of inoculated cell concentrations during Sauvignon blanc fermentation by commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. ADY, active dry yeasts.
Figure 4.
Two-dimensional projection of principal component analysis (PCA) score plots based on primary and secondary metabolites, showing the effect of inoculated cell concentrations during Sauvignon blanc fermentation by commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. ADY, active dry yeasts.
Figure 5.
Heatmaps showing the concentrations of primary metabolites in different Sauvignon blanc wines produced by using commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. Two different inoculation methods were used: pre-inoculum prepared in rich media (noted as PI), and rehydrated active dry yeasts (noted as RY). Inoculated cell concentrations (cells/mL) are also shown as: Cells 106 (control wines); Cells 107; Cells 108; Cells 109.
Figure 5.
Heatmaps showing the concentrations of primary metabolites in different Sauvignon blanc wines produced by using commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. Two different inoculation methods were used: pre-inoculum prepared in rich media (noted as PI), and rehydrated active dry yeasts (noted as RY). Inoculated cell concentrations (cells/mL) are also shown as: Cells 106 (control wines); Cells 107; Cells 108; Cells 109.
Figure 6.
Heatmaps showing the concentrations of secondary metabolites in different Sauvignon blanc wines produced by using commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. Two different inoculation methods were used: pre-inoculum prepared in rich media (noted as PI), and rehydrated active dry yeasts (noted as RY)). Inoculated cell concentrations (cells/mL) are also shown as: Cells 106 (control wines); Cells 107; Cells 108; Cells 109.
Figure 6.
Heatmaps showing the concentrations of secondary metabolites in different Sauvignon blanc wines produced by using commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae X5. Two different inoculation methods were used: pre-inoculum prepared in rich media (noted as PI), and rehydrated active dry yeasts (noted as RY)). Inoculated cell concentrations (cells/mL) are also shown as: Cells 106 (control wines); Cells 107; Cells 108; Cells 109.
Error in Table
Similarly, we also updated Tables 1, 2 and S1 by correcting the cell concentrations: 1 × 108 to 1 × 107, 1 × 1010 to 1 × 108 and 1 × 1012 to 11 × 109. In Table 1, the title of the second column was changed from “Inoculated Yeast Cells” to “Inoculated Yeast Cells (cells/mL)” and, also in the footnote, we corrected “cell numbers” to “cell concentrations”. In Table 2, the title of the second column was changed from “No of Inoculated Yeast Cells” to “Inoculated Yeast Cells (cells/mL)” and, also in the footnote, we corrected “cell numbers” to “cell concentration”. In Table S1, we also made the following corrections: 107 to 106, 109 to 107, 1011 to 108, The corrected tables appear below.
Table 1.
Fermentation completion time and basic oenological properties of all experimental wines.
| Wine | Inoculated Yeast Cells (cells/mL) | Completion Time | Alcohol (%v/v) | pH | Titratable Acidity (g/L) | Glucose (g/L) | Fructose (g/L) | Total Residual Sugar (g/L) | Phenolics (mg Gallic Acid/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rehydrated ADY | |||||||||
| Control RY | 1 × 106 | 13 | 11.81 (0.01) | 3.20 (0.01) | 8.46 (0.13) | 0.03 (0.01) | 0.60 (0.28) | 0.63 (0.27) | 207.62 (6.50) |
| RY 1 | 1 × 107 | 12 | 11.76 (0.00) | 3.21 (0.01) | 8.41 (0.06) | 0.05 (0.01) | 1.09 (0.03) a | 1.14 (0.03) | 210.41 (3.38) |
| RY2 | 1 × 108 | 11 | 11.65 (0.01) | 3.19 (0.01) | 9.52 (0.17) | 0.00 | 1.62 (0.32) a | 1.62 (0.32) | 201.19 (2.50) |
| RY3 | 1 × 109 | 11 | 11.64 (0.02) | 3.19 (0.01) | 9.51 (0.09) | 0.00 b | 0.87 (0.10) b | 0.87 (0.10) b | 204.95 (1.17) |
| SI RY 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 14 * | 11.86 (0.03) | 3.28 (0.01) | 8.48 (0.04) | 0.00 | 0.04 (0.03) a | 0.04 (0.03) | 207.93 (4.47) |
| SI RY 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 14 * | 11.91 (0.00) | 3.24 (0.01) | 8.38 (0.11) | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.02) a | 0.05 (0.06) | 211.37 (0.61) |
| Pre-inoculum | |||||||||
| Control PI | 1 × 106 | 17 | 11.91 (0.02) | 3.24 (0.02) | 9.01 (0.16) | 0.05 (0.05) | 0.87 (0.28) | 0.92 (0.28) | 209.82 (3.55) |
| PI 1 | 1 × 107 | 16 | 11.80 (0.08) | 3.20 (0.02) | 8.68 (0.10) | 0.04 (0.01) | 1.73 (0.74) | 1.77 (0.74) | 212.81 (2.83) |
| PI 2 | 1 × 108 | 17 | 11.83 (0.03) | 3.24 (0.02) | 8.56 (0.13) | 0.01 (0.01) | 1.05 (0.37) | 1.06 (0.37) | 209.70 (2.80) |
| PI 3 | 1 × 109 | 16 | 11.79 (0.01) | 3.19 (0.04) | 8.41 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.02) b | 1.54 (0.24) b | 1.62 (0.21) b | 212.64 (4.27) |
| SI PI 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 17 * | 11.90 (0.00) | 3.28 (0.02) | 8.29 (0.04) | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.06 (0.02) a | 0.08 (0.02) | 212.04 (2.73) |
| SI PI 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 17 * | 11.92 (0.01) | 3.26 (0.02) | 8.29 (0.10) | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.02 (0.01) a | 0.04 (0.01) | 206.93 (4.61) |
Here, ADY, active dry yeast; RY, rehydrated yeast; SI, successive inoculation; PI, pre-inoculum. * denotes the ferments whose fermentation was not stopped although the residual sugar was below 2 g/L. a indicates the statistically significant differences in comparison to control (p < 0.05); b indicates the statistical differences between RY and PI when comparison was made with the same inoculated cell concentrations.
Table 2.
Three major varietal thiols in Sauvignon blanc wines made after different yeast fermentations.
Table 2.
Three major varietal thiols in Sauvignon blanc wines made after different yeast fermentations.
| Wine | Inoculated Yeast Cells (cells/mL) | 3MH (ng/L) | 3MHA (ng/L) | 4MMP (ng/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inoculation of rehydrated ADY | ||||
| Control RY | 1 × 106 | 11,498 (2717) | 3242 (843) | 62 (41) |
| RY 1 | 1 × 107 | 12,657 (1414) a | 3197 (250) | 69 (14) |
| RY2 | 1 × 108 | 14,217 (829) b | 3146 (175) | 105 (15) a |
| RY3 | 1 × 109 | 14,066 (742) b | 2943 (77) | 157 (59) b |
| SI RY 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 13,947 (1210) a | 3588 (492) | 29 (5) b |
| SI RY 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 14,626 (636) b | 4037 (131) a | 27 (9) b |
| Inoculation of pre-inoculum | ||||
| Control PI | 1 × 106 | 14,382 (802) | 3147 (335) | 20 (8) |
| PI 1 | 1 × 107 | 15,573 (596) a | 3131 (216) | 25 (2) |
| PI 2 | 1 × 108 | 14,502 (2010) | 3095 (301) | 21 (8) |
| PI 3 | 1 × 109 | 15,914 (692) a | 3078 (117) | 38 (8) b |
| SI PI 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 13,879 (2846) | 3091 (522) | 17 (5) |
| SI PI 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 15,679 (859) a | 3382 (305) | 24 (4) |
p-values are shown as superscripts that were calculated by comparing with respective control wines; a < 0.05 and b < 0.01. ADY, active dry yeast; RY, rehydrated yeast; SI, successive inoculation; PI, pre-inoculum; 3MH, 3-mercaptohexanol; 3MHA, 3-mercaptohexylacetate; 4MMP, 4-methyl-4-mercaptopentan-2-one. Standard deviations of replicates in each treatment and control wines are shown within brackets. Numbers shown in italics indicate the statistical differences when comparison was made between RY and PI with same inoculated cell concentration (RY vs. PI).
Table S1.
Viability testing carried out for each ferments and treatments using Neubauer hemocytometer and methylene blue (0.1%) dye.
Table S1.
Viability testing carried out for each ferments and treatments using Neubauer hemocytometer and methylene blue (0.1%) dye.
| Wine | Approximate Total Cell Concentration/mL | Approximate Viable Cell Concentration/mL | % of Viable Cells |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rehydrated ADY | |||
| Control RY | 1 × 106 | 7.5 × 105 | 75 |
| RY 1 | 1 × 107 | 7.4 × 106 | 74 |
| RY2 | 1 × 108 | 7.4 × 107 | 74 |
| RY3 | 1 × 109 | 7.6 × 108 | 76 |
| SI RY 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 7.3 × 105; 7.0 × 105; 6.3 × 105 | 73%, 70%, 63% |
| SI RY 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 7.3 × 105; 6.0 × 105 | 73%, 60% |
| Pre-Inoculum | |||
| Control PI | 1 × 106 | 7.4 × 105 | 74 |
| PI 1 | 1 × 107 | 7.51 × 106 | 75 |
| PI 2 | 1 × 108 | 7.4 × 107 | 74 |
| PI 3 | 1 × 109 | 7.6 × 109 | 76 |
| SI PI 1 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 10 and 0 °Brix | 7.4 × 105; 7.1 × 105; 6.2 × 105 | 74%, 71%, 62% |
| SI PI 2 | 1 × 106, then 1 × 106 at 0 °Brix | 7.5 × 105; 61 × 105 | 75%, 61% |
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Pinu, F.R.; Stuart, L.; Topal, T.; Albright, A.; Martin, D.; Grose, C. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Pinu, F.R.; Stuart, L.; Topal, T.; Albright, A.; Martin, D.; Grose, C. Correction: Pinu et al. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759. Fermentation 2024, 10, 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10050244
AMA Style
Pinu FR, Stuart L, Topal T, Albright A, Martin D, Grose C. Correction: Pinu et al. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759. Fermentation. 2024; 10(5):244. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10050244
Chicago/Turabian StylePinu, Farhana R., Lily Stuart, Taylan Topal, Abby Albright, Damian Martin, and Claire Grose. 2024. "Correction: Pinu et al. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759" Fermentation 10, no. 5: 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10050244
APA StylePinu, F. R., Stuart, L., Topal, T., Albright, A., Martin, D., & Grose, C. (2024). Correction: Pinu et al. The Effect of Yeast Inoculation Methods on the Metabolite Composition of Sauvignon Blanc Wines. Fermentation 2023, 9, 759. Fermentation, 10(5), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10050244
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
