Unveiling Wine's Complexity: A Multi-Omics Data Integration Framework for Profiling from Vine to Gut

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of multi-omics data integration strategies for the holistic profiling of wine, a complex biochemical matrix. It explores the foundational principles of wine's molecular 'dark matter,' including its diverse polyphenols, volatile compounds, and microbial ecosystems. We detail methodological approaches for integrating data from genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics to decode relationships between grape variety, terroir, fermentation processes, and the resulting wine attributes, including flavor and potential gut health impacts. The article further addresses common computational challenges in data integration, offers optimization strategies, and discusses validation techniques to ensure biological relevance. Aimed at researchers and scientists in biotechnology and precision nutrition, this review serves as a guide for leveraging multi-omics to advance enology, functional food development, and translational research.

Deconstructing the Wine Matrix: From Bioactive Compounds to Microbial Ecosystems

The "French Paradox" – the observation of relatively low cardiovascular disease (CVD) rates in the French population despite a diet high in saturated fats and cholesterol – historically directed scientific attention to wine's cardioprotective effects, often attributed to resveratrol [1] [2] [3]. Contemporary research, however, suggests that the health impacts of moderate wine consumption extend well beyond CVD, significantly influencing intestinal physiology and gut microbial diversity and function [1] [3]. Wine contains a complex array of bioactive compounds, including polyphenols, organic acids, and oligosaccharides, which interact with the gut microbiota. This interplay alters microbial communities and promotes the metabolism of wine-derived compounds into a diverse range of xenometabolites, which exert local and systemic effects on the host [1] [3].

Advancements in multi-omics technologies—including metabolomics, proteomics, lipidomics, and glycomics—are now revolutionizing our ability to characterize wine's molecular "dark matter," the thousands of understudied compounds that constitute its complex food matrix [4]. This framework is crucial for moving beyond a reductionist view of single compounds and towards a holistic understanding of how the entire matrix of wine, especially when consumed with food, influences human physiology [3] [4]. This application note details the protocols and analytical frameworks for leveraging multi-omics to decode the relationships between wine consumption, food matrices, and gut health.

Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol: Multi-omics Analysis of Wine-Food-Gut Axis Interactions

This protocol outlines a comprehensive approach for studying the impact of wine and food co-consumption on the gut microbiome and host metabolism.

1. Study Design and Sample Collection:

• Design: A randomized, controlled, crossover intervention study is recommended. Participants should undergo different phases (e.g., red wine consumption, white wine consumption, a washout period, and a control phase with no alcohol).
• Dosage: Moderate consumption, defined as 250-272 mL of wine per day for a period of 4 weeks, based on established clinical studies [3].
• Food Co-consumption: To reflect real-world intake, the study design should standardize or carefully monitor food intake, particularly meals typically paired with wine.
• Sample Collection: Collect multiple biospecimens at baseline and post-intervention:
  • Blood: For plasma/serum metabolome and lipidome analysis (e.g., targeting TMAO, inflammatory markers) [3].
  • Feces: For DNA extraction (microbiome sequencing), metatranscriptomics (microbial gene expression), and metabolomics (microbial metabolites like SCFAs, phenolic acids) [3].
  • Urine: For non-targeted metabolomics to capture excreted metabolites.

2. Multi-omics Data Generation:

• Microbiome Analysis:
  • DNA Extraction: Use commercial kits like the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen) [5].
  • Sequencing: Perform 16S rRNA gene sequencing (for bacterial diversity) and/or shotgun metagenomic sequencing (for functional gene analysis) on the collected fecal samples. Target the ITS2 region for fungal community assessment using primers like ITS2_fITS7 and ITS4 [5].
• Metabolomics Analysis:
  • Preparation: Prepare fecal, plasma, and urine samples using protein precipitation (e.g., with methanol).
  • Platform: Employ ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) in both positive and negative ionization modes for non-targeted metabolomics [6].
  • Standards: Use internal standards for quantification and quality control.
• Meta-transcriptomics:
  • RNA Extraction: Extract total RNA from fecal samples or fermenting microbial communities.
  • Sequencing: Perform RNA-Seq to profile the active functional genes of the gut microbiota or fermenting yeast communities [5].

3. Data Integration and Bioinformatics:

• Pre-processing: Process raw sequencing data with standard pipelines (QIIME 2, mothur) for amplicon data and bioinformatics tools (XCMS, MZmine) for metabolomics data.
• Integration: Use multi-omics data integration strategies such as:
  • Pathway Analysis (PA): Map metabolites and microbial genes to biochemical pathways using databases like KEGG [6].
  • Network Models (NMs): Construct correlation networks to identify relationships between specific microbial taxa, their expressed genes, and metabolite levels [7].
  • Machine Learning/AI: Apply multivariate statistical models and AI to identify key molecular and microbial features that predict host physiological responses to wine consumption [4].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages of this multi-omics analysis:

Protocol: In Vitro Fermentation Metabolomics for Wine Analysis

This protocol is adapted from studies on fruit wine fermentation to analyze metabolite dynamics [6] [5].

1. Fermentation Setup:

• Substrate: Prepare pomegranate-grape composite must or synthetic grape must (SGM) to standardize initial conditions [6] [5].
• Conditions: Ferment in sterile glass bottles at controlled temperatures (e.g., 18°C or 25°C). Test different conditions: control, low temperature, nutrient supplementation (e.g., 300 mg/L diammonium phosphate), and SO₂ addition (e.g., 100 mg/L potassium metabisulfite) [5].
• Sampling: Collect samples at critical time points (e.g., 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 hours) to capture dynamic changes [6].

2. Physicochemical and Metabolomic Analysis:

• Physicochemical Parameters: Monitor pH, titratable acidity, ethanol content (% vol), total phenolic content, and total flavonoid content at each time point.
• Metabolite Profiling: Use UHPLC-MS/MS for non-targeted metabolomics. Analyze organic acids, amino acids, carbohydrates, and secondary metabolites like flavonoids.
• Data Analysis: Perform multivariate statistical analysis (PCA, OPLS-DA) to identify significantly changing metabolites. Use clustering analysis (e.g., HCA) to define fermentation stages. Enrichment analysis via KEGG database identifies key impacted pathways (e.g., starch/sucrose metabolism, amino acid metabolism, flavonoid biosynthesis) [6].

Table 1: Key Metabolomic Changes During Fruit Wine Fermentation

Data adapted from a study on pomegranate-grape composite wine, showing core metabolic shifts applicable to wine fermentation research [6].

Parameter	Baseline (0h)	Early Stage (0-24h)	Late Stage (24-60h)	Key Metabolic Pathways Involved
Total Phenolics	High	Remains Stable at High Levels	Remains Stable at High Levels	Flavonoid Biosynthesis, Phenylpropanoid Biosynthesis
Total Flavonoids	High	Remains Stable at High Levels	Remains Stable at High Levels	Flavonoid Biosynthesis
Ethanol (% vol)	0	Increases Steadily	Peaks (~8%)	Glycolysis, Pyruvate Metabolism
Dominant Metabolites	Simple Sugars (Sucrose, Glucose)	Organic Acids, Initial Amino Acids	Complex Amino Acids, Secondary Metabolites	Starch & Sucrose Metabolism; Amino Acid Metabolism
pH / Acidity	Determined by Must	Dynamic Shift	Stabilizes	Organic Acid Metabolism

Table 2: Impact of Wine Consumption on Gut Microbiota in Human Studies

Summary of findings from clinical interventions on red wine consumption and gut microbiome modulation [3].

Microbial Taxa / Metric	Observed Change with Moderate Red Wine Consumption	Potential Health Correlation
Bifidobacterium	↑ Significant Increase	Improved Metabolic Syndrome Markers [3]
Prevotella	↑ Significant Increase	Reduced blood LPS concentrations [3]
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (Butyrate-producer)	↑ Significant Increase	Gut barrier integrity, anti-inflammation [3]
Bacteroides	↑ Increase in some species	Increased microbial β-diversity [3]
Clostridium genera	↓ Decrease	Not Specified
Escherichia coli (LPS-producer)	↓ Decrease	Improved Metabolic Syndrome Markers [3]
Gut Microbial α-Diversity	↑ Increased (in some cohorts)	Marker of gut ecosystem health
Gut Microbial β-Diversity	↑ Significant Increase / Homogenization	Distinct microbial community structure [3]

Pathway Diagrams & Molecular Mechanisms

The following diagram summarizes the key molecular pathways through which wine-derived compounds are metabolized and impact host physiology via the gut microbiome.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Wine-Gut Multi-omics Studies

Item	Function / Application	Example Product / Specification
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit	High-quality DNA extraction from complex samples like feces and grape must for microbiome sequencing.	Qiagen
ITS & 16S rRNA Primers	Amplification of fungal (ITS) and bacterial (16S) genomic regions for amplicon sequencing.	ITS2_fITS7 / ITS4 [5]
Synthetic Grape Must	Standardized medium for in vitro fermentation studies, controlling for variability in natural must.	Defined chemical composition [5]
UHPLC-MS/MS System	High-resolution separation and detection of thousands of metabolites in non-targeted metabolomics.	e.g., Thermo Fisher Scientific, Agilent
Potassium Metabisulfite	Wine preservative used in experimental fermentations to test its effect on microbial communities.	Laboratory Grade
Diammonium Sulfate/Phosphate	Nitrogen source added to fermentation must to study its impact on yeast performance and metabolite profile.	Laboratory Grade
KEGG Database	Bioinformatics resource for pathway mapping and functional interpretation of omics data.	https://www.genome.jp/kegg/

The comprehensive profiling of wine, a complex biochemical matrix, necessitates an integrated multi-omics approach to fully elucidate the relationships between its molecular composition, microbial ecosystems, and sensory attributes. Modern enology leverages metagenomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics to decipher the intricate interactions from vineyard to bottle [3] [1]. This holistic framework moves beyond traditional single-marker analysis, enabling researchers to characterize wine's extensive "dark matter"—the vast array of understudied compounds and biological interactions that ultimately define wine quality, typicity, and physiological impact [3]. The integration of these omics layers provides unprecedented insights into the molecular basis of terroir, fermentation dynamics, and the mechanisms behind wine's potential health benefits, particularly through interactions with the gut microbiome [3] [1]. This protocol outlines the application of these core omics technologies in wine profiling research, providing detailed methodologies for generating and integrating data across biological scales.

Metabolomics: Deciphering Wine's Chemical Fingerprint

Metabolomics serves as a cornerstone in wine profiling, providing a comprehensive snapshot of its chemical composition. This approach identifies and quantifies both volatile and non-volatile compounds that directly influence sensory properties, stability, and potential bioactivity.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy

Protocol: Sample Preparation and Acquisition for NMR-based Wine Metabolomics

• Equipment & Reagents: NMR spectrometer (400-700 MHz), 5 mm NMR tubes, deuterated buffer (pH 4.4) containing 0.1% TSP (sodium 3-(trimethylsilyl)propionate-2,2,3,3-d4) as a chemical shift reference and 0.05% NaN₃ in D₂O, 85% H₃PO₄ for pH adjustment, automatic titrator [8] [9].
• Sample Preparation:
  • Dilute 495 µL of wine sample with 55 µL of deuterated buffer.
  • Adjust the pH to 3.10 using an automatic titrator with 85% H₃PO₄ to ensure consistent chemical shifts, particularly for organic acids [8].
  • Transfer the prepared solution to a 5 mm NMR tube.
• 1D ¹H NMR Acquisition:
  • Perform experiments at 300.0 ± 0.1 K.
  • Use a standard water suppression pulse sequence (e.g., zgcppr).
  • Set acquisition parameters: spectral width of 13.2 ppm, acquisition time of 4 seconds, relaxation delay of 4 seconds, and 256 scans [8].
• Data Processing and Profiling:
  • Process Free Induction Decays (FIDs) through Fourier transformation, phase correction, baseline optimization, and chemical shift referencing to TSP (δ 0.0 ppm).
  • Employ automated profiling software such as MagMet-W (https://www.magmet.ca), which contains a library of 70 reference wine compounds, for high-throughput identification and quantification [9].
  • For statistical analysis, use Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) to differentiate wines based on age, variety, or production method [8].

Table 1: Key Metabolites Quantifiable in Wine via ¹H NMR and Their Sensory Correlates

Compound Class	Specific Compounds	Sensory / Functional Attribute	Reported Concentration Range
Alcohols	Ethanol, Glycerol, 2,3-Butanediol, 2-Phenylethanol	Mouthfeel/Body, Viscosity, Creamy, Floral	Glycerol: 2.21 - 9.89 g/L [8]
Organic Acids	Tartaric, Malic, Lactic, Succinic, Citric, Shikimic	Acidity, Tartness	Lactic acid: 0.07 - 2.32 g/L [8]
Sugars	Glucose, Fructose	Sweetness, Dryness	Fructose: 0.15 - 65.8 g/L [9]
Amino Acids	Proline, Alanine	Sweetness, Umami	Proline: 0.10 - 1.61 g/L [8] [9]

Sensor Technologies and Chemometrics

Protocol: Predictive Aroma Modeling Using E-nose and Chemometrics

• Equipment: Electronic nose (E-nose) and/or Electronic tongue (E-tongue), Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) for validation [10].
• Workflow:
  • Data Acquisition: Analyze wine samples using E-nose/E-tongue to obtain raw sensor response data. In parallel, perform descriptive sensory analysis with a trained panel to generate reference scores for key aroma attributes (e.g., fruity, floral) [10].
  • Data Fusion and Pre-processing: Fuse the pre-processed sensor outputs from multiple modalities (e.g., E-nose combined with E-tongue) into a single dataset. Normalize and standardize the data [10].
  • Predictive Model Building: Apply multivariate algorithms like Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) or Support Vector Machines (SVM) to build models that correlate sensor data with sensory panel scores [10].
  • Validation: Validate model accuracy by predicting sensory attributes of a blind test set and comparing them to expert panel assessments.

Transcriptomics: Unraveling Gene Expression in Wine Ecosystems

Transcriptomic analysis reveals the functional activity of microorganisms, primarily yeast during fermentation, and the grapevine's response to its environment, providing a link between genotype and phenotype.

Yeast Transcriptomics During Fermentation

Protocol: Investigating Gene Expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Under High-Sugar Stress

• Experimental Design:
  • Strain: Saccharomyces cerevisiae LFE1225.
  • Conditions: Fermentations in chemically defined media (CDM) with varying sugar concentrations (e.g., 200, 240, 280 g/L) at 25°C [11].
  • Sampling Strategy: Collect yeast cells at key fermentation phases (early: 24h, mid: 72h, late: 360h) by centrifugation (9000 rpm, 30s, 4°C). Wash cell pellets with PBS, flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen, and store at -80°C until RNA extraction [11].
• RNA Sequencing:
  • Total RNA Extraction: Use TRIzol reagent kit following manufacturer's protocol. Assess RNA quality using an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and agarose gel electrophoresis [11].
  • Library Preparation & Sequencing: Enrich eukaryotic mRNA using oligo(dT) beads. Fragment mRNA, reverse-transcribe to cDNA, and prepare libraries with Illumina adapters. Sequence on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform [11].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Read Mapping and Quantification: Map quality-filtered reads to the S. cerevisiae reference genome. Generate counts of reads mapped to each gene.
  • Differential Expression: Identify Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) between conditions (e.g., high vs. normal sugar) using tools like DESeq2, with a threshold of |log2FoldChange| > 1 and adjusted p-value < 0.05.
  • Functional Enrichment: Perform Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis on DEG lists to identify biological processes affected by fermentation conditions.

Table 2: Key Transcriptomic Findings in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Under High-Sugar Fermentation Conditions

Functional Category	Gene/Metabolic Pathway	Expression Change / Function	Impact on Wine
Higher Alcohol Synthesis	GRE3 gene (Knockout)	17.76% decrease in higher alcohols at 240 g/L sugar [11]	Reduced risk of undesirable "spicy/bitter" off-flavors and headache-causing compounds.
Higher Alcohol Synthesis	Harris Pathway (Glucose metabolism)	Upregulated under high sugar stress [11]	Increased production of fusel alcohols.
Ester & Aroma Formation	ARO9, ARO10 genes	Downregulation reduces higher alcohol synthesis [11]	Directly modulates aroma profile.
Ester & Aroma Formation	ALDH, acetyl-CoA	Upregulation promotes ester accumulation [11]	Enhances fruity aroma notes.

Grapevine Transcriptomics for Viticultural Improvement

Protocol: RNA-seq of Grapevines for Studying Trunk Disease Resistance

• Plant Material: Select spur samples from symptomatic and asymptomatic grapevines of cultivars with differing susceptibilities to GTDs (e.g., susceptible 'Alicante Bouschet' vs. tolerant 'Trincadeira') under natural field conditions [12].
• Sampling: Collect 10 cm long, fully lignified spurs. Remove the rhytidome and grind cortical scrapings to a powder in liquid nitrogen. Store at -80°C [12].
• RNA Extraction and Sequencing:
  • Extract total RNA from ~200 mg of powdered tissue using a TRIzol-based method [12].
  • Construct RNA-seq libraries and sequence on an appropriate Illumina platform.
• Data Analysis:
  • Identify DEGs between symptomatic and asymptomatic plants, and between cultivars.
  • Focus on defense-related pathways, such as secondary and hormonal metabolism, and specific genes like peroxidase PER42, which was highlighted for its role in inhibiting GTDs symptoms [12].
  • These candidate genes provide targets for breeding programs aimed at enhancing disease tolerance.

Metagenomics: Profiling the Microbial Terroir

Metagenomics characterizes the entire microbial community (bacteria, fungi, archaea) throughout the wine production chain, defining the "microbial terroir" that contributes to regional wine characteristics.

Protocol: Tracking Microbial Population Dynamics

• Sample Collection: Collect samples from multiple stages of production (e.g., grapes, must, during fermentation, finished wine) [13].
• DNA Extraction and Quantification:
  • Extract total genomic DNA from samples. DNA extraction from wine is challenging due to inhibitors and low biomass.
  • Quantify microbial DNA using digital PCR (dPCR). This method was found to be more sensitive and accurate than quantitative PCR (qPCR) for this complex matrix, allowing for absolute quantification without a standard curve [13].
• Sequencing and Analysis:
  • Perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing or 16S/ITS amplicon sequencing on the extracted DNA.
  • Process sequences using bioinformatic pipelines (QIIME 2, MOTHUR) to assign taxonomic units and determine relative abundances.
  • Statistical analysis reveals that the major microbial taxonomic groups are affected more by sampling time (fermentation stage) than by geographic location, illustrating the dynamic succession of the microbial consortium [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Wine Omics Profiling

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example Use Case
Triple M Chemically Defined Media (CDM)	Provides a standardized, defined medium for fermenting yeast in transcriptomics studies, eliminating variability from complex media.	Investigating the effect of specific factors (e.g., high sugar) on S. cerevisiae gene expression [11].
Deuterated Buffer with TSP	Serves as an internal standard for chemical shift referencing (δ 0.0 ppm) and locking in NMR spectroscopy; sodium azide (NaN₃) prevents microbial growth.	Essential for reproducible sample preparation and quantification in NMR-based wine metabolomics [8] [9].
TRIzol Reagent	A monophasic solution of phenol and guanidine isothiocyanate for the effective denaturation of proteins and isolation of high-quality total RNA.	RNA extraction from yeast pellets or grapevine tissues for transcriptome sequencing [11] [12].
MagMet-W Software	A web-based, automated NMR profiling tool with a library of 70 wine compounds for high-throughput identification and quantification.	Rapid, reproducible analysis of wine metabolome, quantifying compounds from alcohols to amino acids [9].
Digital PCR (dPCR) Assays	Provides absolute quantification of target DNA molecules without a standard curve, offering high sensitivity and precision for low-biomass samples.	Quantifying bacterial and yeast DNA fractions in wine for metagenomic studies [13].

The power of modern wine profiling lies in the integration of metagenomic, metabolomic, and transcriptomic data. This multi-omics framework allows researchers to move from simple correlation to causation, connecting microbial community structure and gene function with metabolite output and final wine quality [3] [14] [13]. For instance, transcriptomic data explaining yeast stress response under high sugar conditions can be directly correlated with metabolomic data showing increased higher alcohol production [11]. Furthermore, this integrated approach is unlocking new frontiers, such as understanding how wine polyphenols interact with the gut microbiome to influence human physiology—a compelling example of how omics technologies can bridge dietary intake and host health [3] [1]. The protocols detailed herein provide a roadmap for implementing this powerful, multi-faceted approach in enological research.

The microbial communities present in grape must, the freshly crushed grape juice, are the initial drivers of wine fermentation, shaping the metabolic trajectory and final sensory properties of wine [15] [16]. These complex consortia of yeasts and bacteria are not random assemblages; their composition and structure are determined by a combination of biogeography—the geographical origin of the grapes—and viticultural practices, particularly the farming system employed [5] [17]. Understanding these influences is paramount for predicting fermentation outcomes and harnessing microbial potential. Within the broader context of multi-omics data integration for wine profiling, this field moves beyond simple taxonomic cataloging. It seeks to establish a functional link between the genomic capacity of the microbiome (metagenomics), its expressed activities (transcriptomics), and the resulting metabolite profile (metabolomics) of the wine [5] [18]. This application note details the key experimental findings and protocols for researchers investigating how biogeography and farming shape the fermentation potential of grape must microbiomes.

Key Quantitative Findings on Microbial Community Influences

Research across global wine regions has quantitatively demonstrated how microbial communities vary. The tables below summarize core findings on the effects of biogeography and farming practices.

Table 1: Biogeographical Variation in Must Microbiomes

Region of Study	Key Biogeographical Finding	Experimental Method	Citation
Portuguese Appellations (e.g., Minho, Douro)	Fungal and bacterial communities in initial musts (IM) were significantly distinct between appellations.	Metagenomics (ITS & 16S rRNA sequencing)	[15]
Napa & Sonoma, California, USA	Must microbiomes distinguished individual American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) and specific vineyards within them.	High-throughput marker gene sequencing	[19]
Spanish Appellations (e.g., La Rioja, Valdepeñas)	Fungal community composition and structure in grape must were shaped by the wine appellation.	ITS amplicon sequencing	[5]

Table 2: Impact of Farming Practices on Must and Wine Microbiomes

Farming Practice	Impact on Microbiome	Experimental Method	Citation
Organic vs. Conventional	The farming system was a significant factor shaping the initial fungal community composition in grape must.	ITS amplicon sequencing	[5]
Under-vine Management (Natural Vegetation vs. Herbicide)	Significantly altered the fungal and bacterial community composition in the vineyard soil.	ITS & 16S rRNA sequencing	[17]
Spontaneous Vinification (Organic)	Revealed a succession from diverse wild yeasts to a dominance of diverse Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains and specific Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB).	Culture-dependent counts, MALDI-TOF MS, 16S rRNA sequencing	[20]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides methodologies for key experiments cited in the literature, enabling replication and further investigation.

Protocol: Amplicon Sequencing for Microbial Community Profiling

This protocol, adapted from Pinto et al. (2015) and Bokulich et al. (2016), details the standard method for characterizing the fungal and bacterial composition of grape must [15] [19].

3.1.1. Sample Collection and DNA Extraction

• Grape Must Sampling: Aseptically collect 50 mL of grape must at the desired fermentation stage (e.g., initial must, start of alcoholic fermentation). For regional studies, collect samples from multiple vineyards and appellations [15] [5].
• Cell Pellet Formation: Centrifuge the must at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes. Discard the supernatant and wash the microbial pellet twice with 0.9% NaCl [15].
• DNA Extraction: Use a commercial DNA extraction kit, such as the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen), following the manufacturer's instructions. A prior mechanical lysis step using a Tissue Lyser with glass beads is recommended to ensure complete microbial cell disruption [15] [5].

3.1.2. Library Preparation and Sequencing

• Target Genes:
  • Fungi: Amplify the Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 (ITS2) region using primers such as ITS2_fITS7 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′) and ITS4 (5′-GTGARTCATCGAATCTTTG-3′) [5].
  • Bacteria: Amplify the V6 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene using primers V6F (5′-ATGCAACGCGAAGAACCT-3′) and V6R (5′-TAGCGATTCCGACTTCA-3′) [15].
• PCR Amplification: Perform PCR under standardized conditions to create amplicon libraries.
• High-Throughput Sequencing: Sequence the libraries on an Illumina MiSeq or comparable platform [19] [5].

3.1.3. Bioinformatic Analysis

• Processing: Use pipelines (e.g., QIIME 2) for demultiplexing, quality filtering, merging paired-end reads, and chimera removal to generate Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) or Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs).
• Analysis: Calculate alpha-diversity (richness, Shannon index) and beta-diversity (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, UniFrac distance). Use PERMANOVA to test for significant differences based on biogeography or farming practices [19] [17].

Protocol: Laboratory-Scale Spontaneous Fermentation

This protocol, based on the work of Pinto et al. (2015) and the multi-omics study by Ruiz et al. (2024), outlines how to track microbial dynamics during fermentation [15] [5].

3.2.1. Fermentation Setup

• Must Preparation: Crush and destem grapes under sterile conditions. For red wines, macerate with skins and pomace; for white wines, press immediately for clarified juice [15] [19].
• Fermentation Vessels: Dispense 200-250 mL of must into sterile glass bottles.
• Conditions: Acclimatize vessels at a controlled temperature (e.g., 21°C or 25°C). To test the effect of fermentation conditions, set up parallel batches with modifications:
  • Control: 25°C, no additions.
  • Low Temperature: 18°C.
  • Nitrogen Supplementation: Add 300 mg/L diammonium phosphate.
  • Sulfite Addition: Add 100 mg/L potassium metabisulfite [5].
• Monitoring: Monitor fermentation progress by daily weight loss (due to CO₂ release). Define stages for sampling: Initial Must (IM), Start of Fermentation (SF, ~5 g/L sugar consumed), End of Fermentation (EF, ~70 g/L sugar consumed) [15].

3.2.2. Sampling and Downstream Analysis

• Longitudinal Sampling: Collect samples at defined fermentation stages for DNA extraction (community profiling) and metabolite analysis.
• Metabolite Profiling: Use techniques like UHPLC/Q-TOF Mass Spectrometry for non-targeted metabolite profiling of finished wines to correlate microbial patterns with chemical composition [19] [5].

Visualizing the Multi-Omics Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated multi-omics approach for linking grape must microbiomes to wine fermentation outcomes.

Multi-Omics Workflow for Grape Must Analysis

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Grape Must Microbiome Research

Item	Function/Application	Example Specifics
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen)	Standardized DNA extraction from complex must and soil samples, removing PCR inhibitors.	Used in [5] for DNA extraction from grape musts.
ITS & 16S rRNA Primers	Amplification of fungal (ITS2) and bacterial (16S V6) marker genes for community sequencing.	ITS2fITS7/ITS4 [5]; V6F/V6_R [15].
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Defined medium for controlled, reproducible fermentation experiments, free of native microflora.	Used in [5] to assay fermenting yeast communities.
MRS & M17 Agar (acidified)	Selective culture media for the enumeration and isolation of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB).	Used with cycloheximide to inhibit fungi [20].
Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) / Wort Agar	General media for the cultivation and enumeration of yeasts and molds from grape must.	Used in [20] for yeast and mold counts.
Potassium Metabisulfite (K₂S₂O₅)	Source of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) in experiments testing its impact on microbial selection during fermentation.	Added at 100 mg/L in experimental conditions [5].
Diammonium Sulfate ((NH₄)₂SO₄)	Nitrogen source used in experiments to assess the impact of nutrient supplementation on fermentation kinetics and microbial dominance.	Added at 300 mg/L in experimental conditions [5].

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) represent the fundamental chemical entities that underpin the sensory profile of wines, serving as the critical link between chemical composition and perceived aroma and flavor. In wine, over 1,000 VOCs have been identified, though only a fraction occur at concentrations above their odor thresholds to significantly influence sensory perception [21]. These compounds range in concentration from nanograms per liter to milligrams per liter, creating a complex chemical matrix that defines the aromatic complexity, balance, and finish of wine [22] [21]. Understanding VOCs is paramount for wine quality control, product development, and market positioning, as their specific combinations and concentrations ultimately differentiate wine quality and character [22]. Within the framework of multi-omics data integration for wine profiling, VOCs constitute the final metabolomic output of complex interactions between the grape's genome, environmental factors, and microbial activity during fermentation [7] [5]. This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols for the comprehensive analysis of wine VOCs, with emphasis on integrating resulting data with other omics layers to advance predictive modeling of wine sensory attributes.

Analytical Techniques for VOC Profiling

Advanced analytical technologies enable comprehensive characterization of the wine volatilome. Each technique offers distinct advantages and sensitivities, making them complementary for full VOC profiling.

Table 1: Analytical Techniques for Wine VOC Profiling

Technique	Principle	Sensitivity & Coverage	Key Applications	Advantages
HS-SPME-GC-MS	Headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry	Identifies 70+ compounds; highly sensitive to alcohols (52.56–68.75% of detected compounds) [22]	Identification and quantitative analysis of a broad range of VOCs; untargeted profiling [22]	Broad detection range; comprehensive NIST library for unknown compound identification [22]
HS-GC-IMS	Headspace gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry	Identifies 36+ compounds; higher sensitivity for esters (35.58–42.05% of detected compounds) [22]	Detection of trace VOCs; differentiation of similar samples; quality control screening [22] [23]	No sample enrichment needed; high sensitivity; easy operation; high-level data visualization [22]
Electronic Nose (E-nose)	Array of metal oxide sensors with partial specificity	Rapid detection of aroma profiles; sensor-specific responses (e.g., W2S, W2W, W5S) [22]	Rapid fingerprinting; quality screening; prediction of specific VOCs (e.g., isoamyl acetate) [22]	Fast, non-destructive, low cost; mimics human olfactory system [22]
GC-DMS	Gas chromatography-differential ion mobility spectrometry	Detection below human olfactory threshold for compounds like geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol [23]	Targeted analysis of natural contaminants and off-flavors [23]	Miniaturization potential for in-situ screening; trace detection in complex mixtures [23]

Technique Selection Considerations

The complementary nature of these techniques is evident in their differential sensitivity to chemical classes. HS-SPME-GC-MS excels in identifying alcohols, while HS-GC-IMS shows superior sensitivity for esters [22]. This orthogonal coverage enables more comprehensive VOC profiling when used in combination. For rapid quality control screening, E-nose provides efficient fingerprinting, with specific sensors correlating with key differential VOCs—W2S, W2W, and W5S sensors have demonstrated particular utility for predicting levels of 2-methylbutyl acetate, 3-methyl-butanoic acid, and isoamyl acetate [22]. The integration of multiple analytical approaches provides a more complete understanding of wine flavor chemistry than any single method alone.

Experimental Protocols for VOC Analysis

Protocol: HS-SPME-GC-MS Analysis of Wine VOCs

Principle: Volatile compounds are extracted from the wine headspace using solid-phase microextraction, separated by gas chromatography, and identified by mass spectrometry.

Materials and Reagents:

• SPME fiber (e.g., 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS)
• Internal standard solution: 4-methyl-2-pentanol (chromatographic grade, ≥99% purity) [22]
• Reference standards of aroma compounds (alcohols, esters, acids, ketones, phenols, aldehydes, terpenes)
• n-ketones (C4–C9) for retention index calibration
• Chromatographic grade ethanol (≥99.7% purity)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Transfer 5 mL of wine sample into a 20 mL headspace vial. Add 10 μL of internal standard solution (4-methyl-2-pentanol, concentration adjusted to yield appropriate response factor).
• Equilibration: Incubate sample at 40°C for 10 minutes with agitation (250 rpm).
• SPME Extraction: Expose SPME fiber to the sample headspace for 30 minutes at 40°C without agitation.
• Thermal Desorption: Desorb extracted compounds into GC injector port at 250°C for 5 minutes in splitless mode.
• GC Separation: Use a DB-WAX capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness). Employ temperature program: 40°C (hold 5 min), ramp to 240°C at 3°C/min (hold 10 min). Helium carrier gas at 1.0 mL/min constant flow.
• MS Detection: Operate MS in electron ionization mode at 70 eV, mass range m/z 35-350, source temperature 230°C.
• Data Analysis: Identify compounds by comparison with NIST library, authentic standards, and retention indices. Quantify using internal standard method with response factors determined from calibration curves [22].

Protocol: HS-GC-IMS Analysis of Wine VOCs

Principle: Volatile compounds are separated by gas chromatography followed by ion mobility spectrometry for detection based on collision cross-section.

Materials and Reagents:

• GC-IMS instrument equipped with autosampler
• Flavorspec or similar GC-IMS system
• HPLC grade water and solvents for cleaning
• Compressed air or nitrogen (≥99.999% purity) as drift gas

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Dilute wine sample 1:10 with ultrapure water. Transfer 500 μL to 20 mL headspace vial.
• Headspace Injection: Incubate at 60°C for 15 minutes. Inject 200 μL headspace at 85°C using heated syringe (90°C).
• GC Separation: Use FS-SE-54-CB-1 capillary column (15 m × 0.53 mm i.d.). Temperature program: 40°C (hold 2 min), ramp to 120°C at 8°C/min.
• IMS Detection: Operate IMS at 45°C with drift gas flow 150 mL/min. Positive ionization mode with tritium source.
• Data Analysis: Use instrument software for 2D topographic plot generation (retention time vs. drift time). Identify compounds by comparing drift times and retention indices to GC-IMS library [22].

Protocol: Electronic Nose Analysis

Principle: An array of semi-specific metal oxide sensors responds to volatile compounds, creating unique fingerprint patterns for different samples.

Materials and Reagents:

• PEN3-Plus E-nose or equivalent
• Synthetic air or nitrogen as carrier gas
• Standard alcohol solutions for sensor calibration

Procedure:

• Instrument Calibration: Calibrate sensors daily using standard alcohol solutions according to manufacturer instructions.
• Sample Measurement: Transfer 10 mL wine sample into 50 mL glass vial. Incubate at 25°C for 10 minutes.
• Data Acquisition: Insert sampling needle into headspace. Acquire data for 60 seconds at flow rate of 400 mL/min. Record sensor responses at steady-state (typically 55-60 seconds).
• Sensor Array: The PEN3 system includes 10 sensors: W1C (aromatic compounds), W5S (nitrogen oxides), W3C (ammonia, aromatic molecules), W6S (hydrogen), W5C (short-chain alkanes, aromatic molecules), W1S (broad-range methane), W1W (sulfur compounds), W2S (alcohols, partially aromatic compounds), W2W (aromatic compounds, sulfur-organic compounds), W3S (long-chain alkanes) [22].
• Data Analysis: Use principal component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of sensor response patterns to differentiate samples [22].

Table 2: Key Differential VOCs in Wine and Their Sensory Impact

Volatile Compound	Chemical Class	Aroma Descriptor	Approximate Threshold	Contribution to Wine Aroma
3-Methyl-1-butanol	Alcohol	Fusel, nail polish	~300 μg/L [21]	Contributes to complexity at low levels; undesirable at high concentrations
Ethyl hexanoate	Ester	Green apple, fruit	~1-14 μg/L [21]	Positive impact; enhances fruity character
Isoamyl acetate	Ester	Banana, fruit	~30 μg/L [21]	Key compound for fruity notes in young wines
2-Methylbutyl acetate	Ester	Banana, sweet	Varies by wine type	Enhances fruity complexity
Geosmin	Terpene	Earthy, musty	~10-20 ng/L [23]	Off-flavor at low concentrations; indicates contamination
4-Ethylguaiacol	Phenol	Spicy, smoky	~100 μg/L [24]	Contributes to complexity in red wines; off-flavor when excessive
Guaiacol	Phenol	Smoke, medicinal	~10-20 μg/L [24]	Marker for smoke taint; undesirable in most styles
β-Damascenone	Terpene	Floral, cooked apple	~2 μg/L [21]	Enhances fruity perception; important for aroma complexity

Multi-Omics Integration for Wine Profiling

The integration of VOC data with other omics layers enables a systems biology approach to understanding wine quality and character. Multi-omics integration reduces the gap between data generation and biological understanding by constructing predictive models of complex traits and phenotypes [7].

Data Integration Workflow

Figure 1: Multi-Omics Integration Workflow for Wine Profiling

Case Study: Predictive Modeling of Smoke Taint

Integrating VOC data with machine learning enables predictive modeling of wine defects such as smoke taint. A recent study demonstrated this approach using concentrations of 20 VOCs in 48 grape samples and 56 corresponding wine samples [24].

Protocol: Predictive Modeling of Smoke Taint Index

• VOC Quantification: Measure target VOCs (guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol, o-cresol, phenol, 4-ethylguaiacol, p-cresol, and syringol derivatives) in grapes and wines using GC-MS/MS with internal standards [24].
• Sensory Evaluation: Establish smoke taint index through trained panel evaluation (0-100 scale), with samples >25 considered smoke-tainted [24].
• Data Preprocessing: Apply log transformation to VOC concentration data to normalize distribution.
• Model Building: Implement random forest regression using both grape and wine VOC concentrations as predictors of smoke taint index.
• Model Validation: Validate using cross-validation; reported performance: Pearson Correlation Coefficient = 0.82; R² = 0.68 [24].

This approach demonstrates how VOC data integrated with computational models can predict sensory outcomes, enabling early detection of quality issues before fermentation completion.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Wine VOC Analysis

Reagent/Material	Specifications	Application	Critical Function
SPME Fibers	50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS, 2 cm length	VOC extraction for GC-MS	Efficient adsorption of broad range of volatile compounds; minimal carryover
Internal Standards	4-methyl-2-pentanol (≥99%), deuterated compounds (d3-guaiacol, d7-o-cresol, etc.)	Quantification by GC-MS/MS	Correction for extraction and injection variability; improved quantification accuracy
Reference Standards	Alcohols, esters, acids, ketones, phenols, aldehydes, terpenes (≥99% purity)	Compound identification and calibration	Positive identification; creation of calibration curves for quantification
n-Ketones Series	C4–C9 (chromatographic grade)	Retention index calibration	Standardized compound identification across laboratories and instruments
Deuterated Surrogates	d3-guaiacol, d3-4-methylguaiacol, d7-o-cresol, d7-p-cresol, d7-m-cresol, d5-4-ethylguaiacol, d4-4-ethylphenol, d6-syringol	Smoke taint compound quantification	Compensation for matrix effects in complex samples; improved analytical precision
Synthetic Grape Must	Defined composition: sugars, acids, nitrogen sources, minerals	Controlled fermentation studies	Eliminates matrix variability between natural samples; enables reproducible experiments
GC Columns	DB-WAX (polyethylene glycol), 60m × 0.25mm × 0.25μm	VOC separation	High-resolution separation of polar volatile compounds; optimal for oxygenated compounds
Ion Mobility Spectrometry Drift Gas	Compressed air or nitrogen (≥99.999% purity)	HS-GC-IMS analysis	Maintains stable drift tube conditions; enables reproducible ion separation

Volatile Organic Compounds represent the critical chemical interface between wine composition and sensory experience. Through advanced analytical techniques including HS-SPME-GC-MS, HS-GC-IMS, and E-nose, researchers can comprehensively characterize the volatile profile of wines. The integration of VOC data with other omics layers—genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics—enables a systems biology approach to understanding and predicting wine quality attributes. The experimental protocols and application notes detailed herein provide researchers with robust methodologies for VOC analysis and data integration, supporting advances in wine quality control, product development, and fundamental research on the molecular determinants of wine flavor and aroma. As multi-omics approaches continue to evolve, the ability to connect molecular composition with sensory outcomes will transform wine science from largely empirical practice to predictive, knowledge-based discipline.

The quality and typicity of wine are the direct result of a complex interplay between a genetically defined grape variety, a specific terroir, and a chosen vinification protocol. In modern wine science, understanding this system is paramount for predicting wine style and quality. The concept of terroir, which encompasses the environmental conditions of a vineyard—including climate, soil, and topography—interacts with the grapevine's genotype to determine the raw material's potential [25] [26]. Subsequent vinification practices then act as a final filter, modulating the expression of this potential in the finished wine. The integration of multi-omics data (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics) provides an unprecedented opportunity to deconstruct this system into measurable molecular components, moving from a descriptive to a predictive understanding of wine profiling [5] [27]. These application notes outline standardized protocols for investigating this interplay, designed for researchers aiming to generate robust, interoperable data for systems-level analysis.

Core Components of the System

The Terroir Unit: A Quantifiable Framework

Terroir should not be treated as a black box but rather as a set of quantifiable parameters that directly influence vine physiology and grape composition [27]. The major components are decomposed as follows:

• Climate: Measured via air temperature (mean, minima, maxima), solar radiation (insolation), and rainfall patterns. Temperature is a primary driver of phenology and ripening, while radiation impacts the synthesis of secondary metabolites like tannins and aromas [28] [27].
• Soil: Its influence is primarily mediated through vine water status and nitrogen availability. Water status results from the balance between rainfall, irrigation, soil water-holding capacity, and evapotranspiration [26] [27].

Table 1: Key Quantitative Terroir Parameters and Their Measurable Impacts on Grape Composition

Terroir Parameter	Measurement Tools/Methods	Primary Influence on Grape Metabolites
Air Temperature	Weather stations, data loggers	Cool temps favor IBMP (bell pepper) and (-)-rotundone (pepper). Warm temps favor TDN (kerosene in Riesling) and can reduce volatile thiols [27].
Solar Radiation	Pyranometers, satellite data	High radiation decreases IBMP; enhances (-)-rotundone, monoterpenes, volatile thiols (3-SH), and TDN [27].
Vine Water Status	Predawn leaf water potential, stem water potential, δ13C	Water deficit reduces IBMP, increases monoterpenes, C13-norisoprenoids, and volatile thiols. Severe stress can promote cooked fruit aromas [27].
Vine Nitrogen Status	N-Tester, leaf blade analysis, YAN in must	High nitrogen status enhances precursors for volatile thiols and esters, increases DMS potential, and reduces TDN and AAP (atypical ageing) [27].

Grape Variety: The Genetic Template

The grape variety provides the genetic blueprint that dictates the fundamental metabolic pathways and potential sensory profile. Different varieties possess distinct ripening needs and sensitivities, making the match between variety and terroir essential for balanced ripening [25]. For instance, Pinot Noir and Riesling are well-suited to cooler, prolonged seasons, while Syrah and Cabernet Sauvignon achieve optimal expression in warmer climates [25] [28]. The genetic identity determines the enzyme repertoire available for the synthesis of variety-specific aroma precursors and phenolics.

Vinification: The Modulation of Expression

Vinification is the process through which the potential of the grape must is actualized into wine. Techniques such as cap management (pump-over, pneumatic punching), fermentation temperature, and yeast strain selection directly impact the extraction and transformation of compounds, thereby modulating the final wine's aroma, color, and structure [29]. The choice of fermentation strategy—spontaneous versus inoculated—also significantly shapes the microbial metabolic landscape and the resulting wine metabolite profile [5].

Experimental Protocols for System Deconstruction

Protocol 1: Assessing the Site-Specific Terroir Effect on Grape Metabolites

Application: To quantitatively link variations in key terroir parameters to the pre-fermentation composition of grapes from different vineyard plots.

Materials:

• Vitis vinifera L. grapes (e.g., Cabernet Sauvignon) from multiple distinct plots.
• Weather stations for climate data logging.
• Pressure chamber for plant water potential measurement.
• N-Tester or equipment for leaf nitrogen analysis.
• HPLC-MS/MS for targeted analysis of key aroma precursors (e.g., IBMP, rotundone, volatile thiol precursors).

Methodology:

• Site Selection: Identify multiple vineyard plots with varying soils, aspects, or water availability but planted with the same variety and rootstock.
• Environmental Monitoring:
  • Install weather stations at each site to record temperature, humidity, and rainfall throughout the growing season.
  • Measure vine water status (e.g., stem water potential) at key phenological stages: fruit set, veraison, and harvest.
  • Assess vine nitrogen status at veraison via leaf blade analysis or directly measure Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN) in the must at harvest.
• Sampling: At technological and phenolic maturity, collect a representative grape sample from each plot (e.g., 200 berries from random vines).
• Metabolite Analysis: Perform targeted metabolomic analysis on the grape must/marc to quantify concentrations of key terroir-marker compounds (refer to Table 1).

Protocol 2: A Multi-Omics Framework for Fermentation Performance

Application: To decipher the molecular determinants of fermentation performance and metabolite production in complex yeast communities, linking community composition to function [5].

Materials:

• Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) [5].
• DNA/RNA extraction kits (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit).
• Illumina sequencing platform for ITS amplicon, metagenomic, and RNA-Seq libraries.
• GC-MS for wine volatile compound analysis.

Methodology:

• Sample Collection & Community Inoculation: Survey yeast communities on grapes from different appellations and farming systems. Use these communities to inoculate fermentations in SGM under controlled conditions (Control, Low Temperature, NH4 addition, SO2 addition) [5].
• Multi-Omics Sampling:
  • DNA: Collect samples at tumultuous fermentation stage for ITS amplicon sequencing to profile community composition.
  • RNA: Collect parallel samples for meta-transcriptomic sequencing to assess gene expression of the fermenting community.
  • Metabolites: Analyze the final wine using GC-MS to define the volatile profile.
• Data Integration: Correlate dominant yeast species (from DNA data) with transcriptional profiles (RNA data) and the final wine metabolite output to identify species-specific molecular functions that drive wine flavor.

Figure 1: A multi-omics workflow for connecting microbial ecology to wine metabolite output.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Wine Profiling Studies

Item	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Provides a chemically defined, reproducible medium for fermentation experiments, eliminating the variability of natural musts [5].	Studying the specific metabolic contribution of individual yeast strains or defined communities under controlled conditions [5].
DNA/RNA Extraction Kits	High-quality nucleic acid isolation from complex matrices like grape must or fermenting lees for subsequent sequencing.	Assessing initial microbial diversity on grapes (DNA) and tracking functional gene expression during fermentation (RNA) [5].
ITS & 16S rRNA Primers	For amplicon sequencing to profile fungal and bacterial community composition, respectively.	Tracking population dynamics during spontaneous fermentation from start to finish [5].
Diammonium Sulfate ((NH4)2SO4)	Nitrogen supplementation to control yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) levels in fermentations.	Investigating the effect of nitrogen on the synthesis of esters and volatile thiols, and the prevention of hydrogen sulfide off-odors [27].
Potassium Metabisulfite (K2S2O5)	Source of sulfur dioxide (SO2) for antimicrobial and antioxidant activity.	Studying its selective effect on inhibiting wild microbial populations and its impact on the oxidative stability of aroma compounds [5].

Visualizing the Terroir-Aroma Pathway

The influence of terroir on wine aroma can be conceptualized as a signaling pathway where environmental parameters trigger molecular responses in the grape berry, leading to the accumulation of specific aroma compounds.

Figure 2: A simplified model of how key terroir parameters influence specific wine aroma compounds.

The system defined by grape variety, terroir, and vinification is a highly tractable model for studying gene-environment-processing interactions in an agricultural product. The protocols and frameworks provided here offer a standardized approach for researchers to collect quantitative data on each component. The integration of this data, particularly through a multi-omics lens, is the key to unlocking a predictive, molecular-level understanding of wine quality and typicity. This will not only advance fundamental knowledge but also empower precise viticultural and oenological interventions for targeted wine profiling.

From Data to Flavor: Methodologies for Integrating Multi-Omics in Enology

Experimental Designs for Capturing Wine Fermentation Dynamics

Understanding wine fermentation dynamics is fundamental to controlling product quality and outcome. This complex process involves a succession of microbial communities, primarily yeasts, which drive the biochemical conversion of grape must into wine, producing a wide array of metabolites that define the wine's chemical and sensory profile [30]. The integration of multi-omics data—including metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, and metabolomics—provides a powerful, holistic framework for deciphering the molecular determinants of fermentation performance and final wine characteristics [5]. This Application Note details standardized protocols and experimental designs for capturing these dynamics, enabling researchers to generate reproducible, high-quality data suitable for integrated multi-omics analysis. The focus is on methodologies that bridge the gap between microbial community composition and functional output, which is essential for advancing predictive models in wine profiling research [5] [7].

Core Experimental Frameworks

Two primary experimental approaches are employed to study wine fermentation dynamics: controlled inoculated fermentations and spontaneous fermentations. Each framework offers distinct advantages for investigating specific research questions related to microbial succession and metabolite production.

Inoculated Fermentation with Standardized Strains

This design uses a defined starter culture, typically a commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain, to initiate fermentation under controlled conditions. It reduces biological variability and is ideal for studying the specific contributions of selected yeast strains or consortia.

• Protocol for Synthetic Must Fermentation [31]:
  • Must Preparation: Prepare synthetic must according to OIV-OENO 370-2012 resolution, containing 200 mg/L of assimilable nitrogen and 230 g/L of sugar. Sterilize the medium by 0.2-μm membrane filtration.
  • Yeast Rehydration: Weigh 1 g of active dry yeast (ADY). Rehydrate in 100 ml of a sterile 5% sucrose solution at 36–40°C for 20 minutes. Homogenize and perform a viable cell count using a Thoma counting chamber with methylene blue staining.
  • Inoculation: Inoculate the sterile synthetic must at a standard density of 2 × 10^6 cells/mL.
  • Fermentation Conditions: Conduct fermentation in 500-mL Erlenmeyer flasks containing 350 mL of must, sealed with Muller valves. Incubate at 25 ± 2°C under static conditions for 15 days.
  • Monitoring: Monitor fermentation progress by measuring weight loss daily after manually shaking the flasks for one minute.
  • Sampling: At fermentation end-point, centrifuge samples at 3,000 × g for 5 minutes. Collect the supernatant for downstream chemical and metabolomic analyses.

Spontaneous Fermentation

This approach relies on the indigenous microbiota present on grape berries to conduct fermentation. It is crucial for studying the natural diversity and functional capacity of wild microbial communities and their impact on regional wine characteristics (terroir) [5] [30].

• Protocol for Spontaneous Fermentation in Grape Must [5]:
  • Grape Processing: Collect at least 3 kg of grape bunches from multiple vines to create a composite sample. Press grapes under sterile conditions and macerate with skins and pomace for 2 hours. Remove solid parts to obtain the must.
  • Fermentation Setup: Dispense 200 mL of must into 250-mL sterile glass bottles. Do not inoculate with commercial yeast.
  • Fermentation Conditions: Incubate bottles at a controlled temperature (e.g., 25°C). Define fermentation completion when daily weight loss remains below 0.01 g for two consecutive days.
  • Sampling for Multi-omics:
    • Initial Timepoint: Collect must immediately after processing for DNA extraction (microbiome baseline) and metabolomic analysis.
    • During Fermentation: Sample at tumultuous stage (e.g., 23-45% sugar consumption) for DNA (community dynamics), RNA (meta-transcriptomics), and metabolites.
    • Final Timepoint: Collect samples at fermentation endpoint for final DNA and metabolite profiles.

Comparative Experimental Designs

The choice between spontaneous and inoculated fermentation significantly impacts the microbial and metabolic trajectory of the wine. The table below summarizes key differences and research applications of these core frameworks.

Table 1: Comparison of Spontaneous and Inoculated Fermentation Designs

Feature	Spontaneous Fermentation	Inoculated Fermentation
Microbial Source	Indigenous grape berry microbiota [5]	Defined starter culture (e.g., S. cerevisiae EC 1118) [31]
Community Complexity	High; diverse succession of yeasts (e.g., Hanseniaspora, Pichia) and bacteria [32] [30]	Low; dominated by the inoculated strain [31]
Primary Research Application	Studying terroir, microbial ecology, and origin-specific metabolites [5] [7]	Characterizing strain-specific performance and metabolite yields under standardized conditions [31]
Data Variability	Higher due to biological and environmental factors	Lower, enhancing reproducibility [31]
Key Metabolite Findings	Higher aromatic complexity; increased resveratrol with specific non-Saccharomyces [32] [33]	Predictable metabolite profile; lower volatile compound diversity [31]

Multi-Omics Data Acquisition and Integration

A multi-omics approach is critical for linking microbial community structure and function to the final wine metabolite profile. The following workflow outlines the steps for integrated data generation and analysis.

Workflow for Multi-Omics Integration

The diagram below illustrates the comprehensive workflow from experimental design to data integration, which is detailed in the subsequent sections.

Omics Data Generation Protocols

1. Microbial Community Profiling (Amplicon Sequencing)

• DNA Extraction: Use commercial kits (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit, Qiagen) following manufacturer's instructions [5].
• Amplification & Sequencing:
  • Fungi: Amplify the ITS2 region using primers ITS2_fITS7 (TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC) and ITS4 (GTGARTCATCGAATCTTTG) [5].
  • Bacteria: Amplify the 16S rRNA V3-V4 region using primers 338F (ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG) and 806R (GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT) [30].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw sequences with tools like QIIME2 or DADA2 for quality filtering, denoising, and amplicon sequence variant (ASV) calling. Assign taxonomy using reference databases (e.g., UNITE for ITS, SILVA for 16S) [5].

2. Metatranscriptomic Analysis

• RNA Extraction: Extract total RNA from fermenting must samples collected during the tumultuous phase of fermentation.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Deplete ribosomal RNA, then prepare stranded RNA-Seq libraries for sequencing on platforms such as Illumina [5].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Perform quality control, then map reads to a custom pangenome or non-redundant gene catalog from dominant yeast species (e.g., S. cerevisiae, H. uvarum, S. bacillaris). Conduct differential expression analysis to identify active metabolic pathways [5].

3. Metabolomic Profiling

• Volatile Compound Analysis: Use Headspace-Solid Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME/GC-MS). Internal standards are recommended for quantification [30].
• Non-Volatile Metabolite Analysis: Use Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) or LC-MS for organic acids (e.g., citric, malic, succinic), glycerol, and residual sugars [30].
• Data Preprocessing: Perform peak picking, alignment, and annotation using mass spectral libraries (e.g., NIST, MassBank) [7].

Data Integration and Analysis

Integrated analysis is the final, critical step for deriving meaningful biological insights.

• Correlation Analysis: Construct correlation networks (e.g., Spearman correlations) to identify robust associations between dominant microbial genera and key volatile flavor compounds [30].
• Functional Inference: Map meta-transcriptomic data and differentially abundant microbial genes to metabolic pathways (e.g., using MetaCyc database) to predict relative metabolic turnover (PRMT) and infer the functional potential of the community [5] [34].
• Multi-Omic Integration Models: Use multivariate statistical methods (e.g., MOFA) or network models to simultaneously analyze datasets from transcriptomics, metabolomics, and microbiome to identify multi-omics signatures that define specific fermentation outcomes or terroir [7].

Quantitative Data from Representative Studies

The following table summarizes quantitative findings from key studies, illustrating how different experimental parameters influence fermentation outcomes and measurable data.

Table 2: Quantitative Metabolite and Microbial Data from Fermentation Studies

Experimental Variable	Key Measured Outcomes	Research Implication
Yeast Strain (S. cerevisiae EC1118 vs AWRI796) in Synthetic Must [31]	Standardized yields (per g sugar consumed) of ethanol, acetic acid, glycerol, higher alcohols. Metabolomic fingerprint by FTIR.	Enables direct, reproducible comparison of strain-specific metabolic traits.
Fermentation Type (Spontaneous vs Inoculated) in Tangerine Wine [30]	SF: Dominated by Lactobacillus and Hanseniaspora. IF: Dominated by Acetobacter and S. cerevisiae. Distinct volatile flavor profiles.	Links microbial succession patterns to final product aroma and composition.
Scale (Lab vs 25,000 L) with H. uvarum [33]	Increased resveratrol concentration in wine at industrial scale confirmed lab-scale potential of the non-Saccharomyces strain.	Validates scale-up viability of lab-selected strains for target functional outputs.
Circulation System (Pump-over vs Pneumatic) in Red Must [29]	Pneumatic: Faster vinification, lower energy use. Pump-over: Superior analytical profile in resulting wine.	Informs equipment choice based on trade-offs between efficiency and wine quality.

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section details essential reagents and materials required for the experiments and analyses described in this protocol.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Specification / Example	Primary Function in Protocol
Synthetic Grape Must	OIV-OENO 370-2012 composition: 200 mg/L assimilable nitrogen, 230 g/L sugar [31].	Provides a standardized, reproducible medium for controlled fermentations.
Commercial Yeast Strains	Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC 1118 (Lallemand), AWRI796 (Maurivin) [31].	Serves as a defined inoculum for studying strain performance in inoculated fermentations.
DNA Extraction Kit	DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen) [5].	High-quality genomic DNA extraction from must/pomace for microbiome sequencing.
Sequencing Primers	ITS2_fITS7/ITS4 (fungal ITS2) [5]; 338F/806R (bacterial 16S V3-V4) [30].	Amplification of taxonomic marker genes for microbial community profiling.
Chromatography System	GC-MS system (e.g., Agilent) with DB-FFAP column; UPLC system with C18 column [30].	Separation, identification, and quantification of volatile and non-volatile metabolites.
Bioinformatic Tools	QIIME2 (amplicon analysis); DESeq2 (differential expression/abundance) [5] [34].	Processing and statistical analysis of sequencing and omics data.

The experimental frameworks and detailed protocols provided herein offer researchers a robust foundation for systematically capturing the complex dynamics of wine fermentation. The standardized protocols for both inoculated and spontaneous fermentations ensure the generation of reproducible and comparable data. Furthermore, the structured multi-omics workflow enables a holistic investigation, linking microbial identity and function to the final wine's chemical composition. By applying these integrated experimental designs, scientists can significantly advance our understanding of the molecular basis of fermentation performance, ultimately contributing to the targeted improvement and innovation in wine production.

The field of wine science has evolved beyond traditional chemical analysis to embrace multi-omics approaches that can comprehensively characterize wine's complex biochemical composition. Modern oenology research requires integrating diverse data modalities—including metabolomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and microbiome data—to understand how wine composition interacts with human health, particularly through the gut microbiome [3]. The "dark matter" of wine, consisting of thousands of uncharacterized compounds, presents both a challenge and opportunity for researchers seeking to understand its biological effects [4]. Multi-omics integration frameworks provide the computational foundation necessary to decode these complex interactions by simultaneously analyzing multiple molecular layers.

Advanced integration tools have become essential for wine research because they enable scientists to move beyond reductionist approaches that focus on single compounds like resveratrol. Instead, these tools facilitate a systems-level understanding of how the entire chemical matrix of wine interacts with biological systems [3] [4]. This is particularly relevant for studying the French paradox—the observation of relatively lower cardiovascular disease rates in the French population despite high dietary cholesterol and saturated fat intake—where multi-omics approaches can reveal how wine components interact with food matrices to influence gut physiology and systemic health [3]. The integration of multi-omics data represents a paradigm shift in nutritional science, allowing researchers to capture the complexity of real-world consumption patterns where wine is nearly always consumed with food [4].

Multi-Omics Integration Tools: Principles and Applications

Multi-omics data integration strategies can be broadly categorized into vertical, horizontal, and mixed integration approaches. Vertical integration, also called multivariate integration, combines different omics data types measured on the same set of samples. Horizontal integration combines the same type of omics data across different sample sets or conditions. Mixed integration approaches combine aspects of both vertical and horizontal integration to address complex biological questions. The choice of integration strategy depends on the experimental design, the biological question, and the nature of the available data [35].

Statistical frameworks for multi-omics integration must account for the high dimensionality, noise, and heterogeneous scales inherent in omics datasets. Successful integration methods must also handle the distinct statistical properties of different data types while extracting biologically meaningful patterns. The most effective tools provide intuitive visualization capabilities that enable researchers to interpret complex multivariate relationships and generate testable hypotheses about underlying biological mechanisms [36].

Key Computational Tools for Multi-Omics Integration

Table 1: Multi-Omics Integration Tools and Their Applications in Wine Research

Tool	Primary Approach	Data Types Supported	Wine Research Applications
MOFA+	Statistical framework for comprehensive integration	Multi-modal single-cell data, bulk omics	Identifying latent factors driving wine composition variations [36] [37]
Seurat	Weighted Nearest Neighbors (WNN)	Single-cell multimodal omics (CITE-seq, multiome)	Cell type classification and surface protein analysis in microbiome studies [35] [38]
mixOmics	Multivariate dimensionality reduction	LC-HRMS, 1H NMR, other omics datasets	Wine classification based on withering time and yeast strain [39]

Experimental Protocols for Multi-Omics Wine Profiling

Protocol 1: Integrated Metabolomic Profiling of Wine Using mixOmics

Objective: To classify Amarone wines based on grape withering time and yeast strain using fused LC-HRMS and 1H NMR metabolomic data [39].

Sample Preparation:

• Collect 80 Amarone wine samples representing different withering times and yeast strains.
• Prepare samples for LC-HRMS analysis using appropriate dilution and filtration protocols.
• Prepare samples for 1H NMR analysis by mixing wine with deuterated solvent and internal standards.

Data Acquisition:

• Perform LC-HRMS analysis using reversed-phase chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry with electrospray ionization in both positive and negative modes.
• Acquire 1H NMR spectra using standard one-dimensional pulse sequences with water suppression.
• Pre-process raw data: for LC-HRMS, perform peak picking, alignment, and gap filling; for NMR, perform Fourier transformation, phase correction, baseline correction, and binning.

Data Integration with mixOmics:

• Use unsupervised Multi-Block Principal Component Analysis (MB-PCA) through Multiple Co-inertia Analysis (MCIA) for exploratory data analysis.
• Apply supervised integration using sparse Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) to classify wines based on withering time and yeast strain.
• Identify key discriminant metabolites by examining loadings plots and Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) scores.
• Validate model performance using cross-validation and permutation tests.

Expected Outcomes: The data fusion approach should provide superior classification accuracy compared to individual techniques, with significant variations observed in amino acids, monosaccharides, and polyphenolic compounds across withering times [39].

Protocol 2: Analyzing Wine-Gut Microbiome Interactions Using MOFA+

Objective: To identify latent factors underlying the relationship between wine consumption, gut microbiome composition, and host physiological responses [3] [36].

Sample Collection and Data Generation:

• Recruit human participants following controlled intervention studies with standardized wine consumption protocols.
• Collect fecal samples for microbiome analysis (16S rRNA sequencing or shotgun metagenomics).
• Collect blood samples for plasma metabolomics (LC-MS) and inflammatory markers.
• Record clinical parameters including blood pressure, lipid profiles, and markers of glucose metabolism.

Data Preprocessing:

• Process microbiome data to obtain taxonomic abundance profiles and functional annotations.
• Pre-process metabolomics data using standard peak detection, alignment, and normalization pipelines.
• Normalize and scale all data modalities to make them comparable.

Multi-Omics Integration with MOFA+:

• Set up the MOFA+ model with multiple views: microbiome abundance, plasma metabolomics, and clinical parameters.
• Train the model using stochastic variational inference to handle the high-dimensional data efficiently.
• Determine the optimal number of factors using the automatic relevance determination (ARD) prior and model selection criteria.
• Interpret the resulting factors by examining the weights for each data modality and linking them to experimental variables (e.g., wine consumption level).

Downstream Analysis:

• Perform variance decomposition to quantify the proportion of variance explained by each factor in each data modality.
• Associate factors with experimental conditions and participant characteristics.
• Identify key features driving each factor for biological interpretation.
• Build regulatory networks linking microbiome composition with host metabolic responses.

Application Insight: This approach can reveal how specific wine components (e.g., polyphenols) interact with gut microbial communities to produce metabolites that influence host physiology, potentially explaining cardioprotective effects [3].

Protocol 3: Single-Cell Analysis of Wine-Modulated Immune Responses Using Seurat

Objective: To characterize the effects of wine consumption on immune cell populations using single-cell multimodal omics data [37] [38].

Experimental Design:

• Isolate peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from participants before and after wine consumption interventions.
• Perform CITE-seq (Cellular Indexing of Transcriptomes and Epitopes by Sequencing) to simultaneously measure gene expression and surface protein levels.
• Include hashtag oligos (HTOs) for sample multiplexing to minimize batch effects.

Data Preprocessing with Seurat:

• Create a Seurat object containing both RNA and ADT (antibody-derived tag) assays.
• Perform quality control on each modality separately: remove cells with low RNA counts, high mitochondrial percentage, or extreme ADT counts.
• Normalize RNA data using log normalization and identify highly variable features.
• Normalize ADT data using centered log ratio (CLR) transformation.

Multimodal Integration and Analysis:

• Use the Weighted Nearest Neighbors (WNN) approach to integrate RNA and protein data for simultaneous clustering.
• Perform dimension reduction on the WNN graph to visualize cells in a shared multimodal space.
• Identify cell populations that show significant changes in abundance or state following wine consumption.
• Find differentially expressed genes and surface proteins between conditions within each cell type.

Biological Validation:

• Validate key findings using flow cytometry on independent samples.
• Perform functional enrichment analysis on gene modules associated with wine consumption.
• Correlate cellular changes with clinical parameters to identify potential mechanisms.

Utility in Wine Research: This approach can identify specific immune cell subsets modulated by wine consumption, potentially revealing anti-inflammatory mechanisms [37].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Multi-Omics Wine Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Application in Wine Multi-Omics
Separation Materials	C18 columns for LC-MS, Deuterated solvents for NMR	Metabolite separation and detection in wine profiling [39]
DNA Barcoded Antibodies	CITE-seq antibodies (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD14, CD19, etc.)	Immune cell profiling in wine intervention studies [38]
Single-Cell Reagents	10x Multiome kits, Cell Hashing antibodies	Multiplexing samples in microbiome-immune interaction studies [40]
Standards for Metabolomics	Stable isotope-labeled internal standards, Chemical reference compounds	Quantification of wine metabolites and microbial-derived metabolites [39]

Workflow Visualization

Multi-Omics Wine Study Workflow

Comparative Analysis of Integration Tools

Table 3: Performance Characteristics of Multi-Omics Integration Tools

Feature	MOFA+	Seurat	mixOmics
Optimal Data Type	Multi-group, multi-modal data	Single-cell multimodal data	Bulk omics data fusion
Scalability	~1,000,000 cells (with GPU acceleration)	~1,000,000 cells	~10,000 samples
Key Strengths	Identifies latent factors; handles sample groups	Cell type classification; multimodal clustering	Supervised classification; variable selection
Wine-Specific Applications	Uncovering wine-microbiome-host interactions	Immune cell profiling in intervention studies	Wine authentication and classification

The integration of mixOmics, MOFA+, and Seurat provides a comprehensive toolbox for advancing wine science through multi-omics approaches. These complementary tools enable researchers to address different aspects of the complex relationships between wine composition, gut microbiome, and human health. mixOmics offers powerful supervised classification for wine authentication and quality control, MOFA+ excels at discovering latent factors in complex intervention studies, and Seurat enables detailed characterization of cellular responses to wine consumption at single-cell resolution [39] [36] [38].

Future developments in multi-omics integration will likely focus on combining these tools with artificial intelligence approaches to model the complex, non-linear interactions along the wine-food-gut health axis [4]. The integration of multi-omics with AI represents a paradigm shift in nutritional science, moving beyond simplistic correlations to establish causal mechanisms and develop personalized nutrition strategies [41] [4]. As these technologies mature, they will enable a more nuanced understanding of how moderate wine consumption as part of a complex diet influences human health, potentially leading to evidence-based dietary recommendations and functional food innovations derived from wine's molecular components [3].

Connecting microbial community composition to functional outputs remains a central challenge in microbial biotechnology. Wine fermentation serves as an ideal model system for addressing this challenge, as the diversity and activity of fermenting yeast species directly determine the flavor, aroma, and quality of the final product [42]. This application note presents a integrated framework for linking yeast community transcriptomics to wine metabolite production, enabling researchers to decipher the molecular determinants of fermentation performance.

Multi-omics approaches are particularly valuable for unraveling the complex interactions in wine ecosystems. While ribosomal DNA amplicon sequencing can identify microbial community composition, it often fails to accurately predict metabolic activity during fermentation [43]. Transcriptomic analysis addresses this limitation by revealing the actively expressed genetic pathways that directly shape the wine metabolite profile [42] [11]. This protocol provides comprehensive methodologies for capturing these functional relationships through coordinated transcriptomic and metabolomic profiling.

Experimental Design and Workflow

The experimental framework encompasses both observational studies of natural fermentations and controlled laboratory fermentations (Figure 1). This dual approach enables researchers to first identify patterns in natural systems and then establish causality under controlled conditions.

Figure 1. Overall Workflow for Linking Yeast Transcriptomics to Metabolite Production

Sampling Strategy and Time Points

Comprehensive sampling at critical fermentation stages is essential for capturing dynamic changes in gene expression and metabolite production (Table 1).

Table 1. Critical Sampling Time Points for Multi-omics Analysis

Fermentation Stage	Timing	Sampling Purpose	Analytical Methods
Initial Community	Pre-fermentation (0h)	Baseline microbial community	ITS amplicon sequencing, Must composition analysis
Tumultuous Phase	5-50% sugars consumed	Active fermentation community	Meta-transcriptomics (RNA-seq), ITS sequencing, Sugar monitoring
Fermentation Endpoint	Weight loss <0.01g/day	Final metabolite profile	Metabolite profiling (GC-MS, HPLC), Residual sugar analysis

The tumultuous phase (approximately 24-72 hours in controlled fermentations) represents a particularly critical window for transcriptomic sampling, as this is when dominant yeast species establish control and key flavor compounds begin to accumulate [11] [44].

Detailed Methodologies

Must Preparation and Fermentation Conditions

Grape Must Collection and Processing:

• Collect grapes from multiple vineyard plants (minimum 5) to create composite samples
• Press under sterile conditions and dispense must into sterile bottles
• For controlled experiments, use Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) with defined composition:
  • Sugar concentrations: 200-280 g/L (adjust glucose:fructose ratio to 1:1) [11]
  • Triple M chemically defined media (CDM) formulation
  • Initial pH adjusted to 3.2 using tartaric acid
  • Filter sterilize using 0.22 µm membranes

Fermentation Setup:

• Use 500 mL conical flasks with 300 mL working volume
• Seal flask necks with gas-permeable sealing film
• Maintain temperature at 25°C in stationary incubators
• Monitor fermentation progress through daily CO₂ weight loss measurements
• Consider fermentation complete when CO₂ weight loss remains consistently below 0.01g per day [44]

RNA Extraction and Transcriptomic Analysis

Cell Harvesting and RNA Extraction:

• Centrifuge 50 mL must samples at 9,000 rpm for 30 seconds at 4°C
• Wash cell pellets with 1.5 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
• Flash-freeze pellets in liquid nitrogen and store at -80°C until extraction
• Extract total RNA using TRIzol reagent kit following manufacturer's protocol
• Assess RNA quality using Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and verify integrity via RNase-free agarose gel electrophoresis [11]

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Enrich eukaryotic mRNA using oligo(dT) beads
• Fragment mRNA using fragmentation buffer
• Perform reverse transcription with random primers
• Synthesize second-strand cDNA using DNA polymerase I, RNase H, dNTPs, and buffer
• Purify cDNA fragments using QiaQuick PCR extraction kit
• Prepare Illumina sequencing libraries with end-repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation
• Size-select ligation products by agarose gel electrophoresis
• PCR-amplify and sequence using Illumina NovaSeq 600 platform [11]

Metabolite Analysis

Higher Alcohol Analysis by GC-MS:

• Sample preparation: Dilute wine samples 1:3 with purified water
• Vortex for 30 seconds and filter through 0.22 μm membrane
• Analyze using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry with appropriate standards
• Identify compounds based on retention times and mass spectra [11]

Organic Acid and Sugar Analysis by HPLC:

• Utilize HPX-87H hydrogen ion column (300 mm × 7.8 mm)
• Mobile phase: 5 mM H₂SO₄ aqueous solution at 0.6 mL/min flow rate
• Column temperature: 60°C
• Detection wavelengths: 210 nm and 254 nm
• Injection volume: 20 μL
• Quantify using external standard curves [11]

Key Findings and Data Integration

Transcriptomic Determinants of Metabolic Outcomes

Integrated analysis reveals specific genetic signatures associated with metabolite production (Table 2). Both yeast community composition and environmental conditions significantly impact gene expression patterns that ultimately determine wine chemical profiles.

Table 2. Key Transcriptomic-Metabolite Relationships in Wine Fermentation

Gene/Pathway	Expression Pattern	Metabolite Impact	Experimental Conditions
GRE3	Upregulated at high sugar (240-280 g/L)	17-24% increase in higher alcohols	High-sugar fermentations (240 g/L) [11]
ARO9, ARO10	Downregulated during alcoholic fermentation	Reduced synthesis of higher alcohols	Standard wine fermentation conditions [11]
Iron/Copper Acquisition Genes	Upregulated in mixed cultures	Altered trace element availability	Mixed S. cerevisiae/L. thermotolerans [45]
Cell Wall Integrity Genes	Modified in interspecies competition	Physical cell-cell interactions	Mixed culture fermentations [45]
VviWRKY24 Regulatory Module	Activates VviNCED1 expression	Increased β-damascenone (floral aromas)	Grape berry development [46]

Impact of Fermentation Conditions on Gene Expression

Environmental parameters significantly influence transcriptomic profiles and subsequent metabolite production:

Sugar Concentration Effects:

• High sugar conditions (240-280 g/L) increase expression of GRE3, aldehyde reductase gene
• GRE3 knockout reduces higher alcohol yield by 17.76% at 240 g/L sugar [11]
• Transcriptome analysis identifies differentially expressed genes across fermentation phases

Mixed Culture Interactions:

• Co-cultivation creates more competitive environment than monocultures
• Species-specific transcriptomic profiles reveal different molecular functioning strategies
• Ortholog analysis identifies modules associated with dominance of specific yeast species [42]
• Physical cell-wall adjustments and trace element competition drive interspecies interactions [45]

Signaling Pathways and Regulatory Networks

Figure 2. Molecular Regulation of Aroma Compound Biosynthesis

The regulatory network illustrated in Figure 2 demonstrates how transcription factors like VviWRKY24 activate downstream aroma compound biosynthesis through hormonal signaling [46]. In parallel, yeast metabolic pathways respond to environmental conditions to produce key metabolites that define wine sensory properties.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3. Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Yeast Transcriptomics

Category	Specific Product/Kit	Application	Key Features
RNA Extraction	TRIzol Reagent Kit	Total RNA isolation from yeast communities	Maintains RNA integrity, effective for difficult samples
RNA Quality Control	Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer	RNA integrity assessment	Provides RIN scores, detects degradation
Library Preparation	Illumina Stranded mRNA Prep	RNA-seq library construction	Maintains strand specificity, high efficiency
Sequencing	Illumina NovaSeq 6000	High-throughput sequencing	High coverage depth for meta-transcriptomics
Growth Media	Triple M Chemically Defined Media	Controlled fermentations	Defined composition, reproducible results
Metabolite Analysis	HPX-87H HPLC Column	Organic acid separation	Specific for wine metabolites, high resolution
Gene Expression Analysis	DESeq2 / EdgeR	Differential expression analysis	Handles complex designs, multiple comparisons

This application note provides a comprehensive framework for linking yeast community transcriptomics to wine metabolite production through integrated multi-omics approaches. The methodologies outlined enable researchers to move beyond correlation to establish causal relationships between gene expression patterns and fermentation outcomes. By implementing these standardized protocols for sampling, RNA sequencing, and data integration, scientists can identify key molecular determinants of wine quality and develop strategies for producing tailored, high-quality wines through targeted manipulation of yeast communities and fermentation conditions.

Within the framework of multi-omics data integration for wine profiling, predictive sensory modeling represents a paradigm shift from subjective quality assessment to objective, data-driven forecasting. Wine quality and typicity are ultimately determined by sensory attributes—aroma, taste, and mouthfeel—which are influenced by a complex interplay of grape variety, terroir, and vinification practices [10]. Traditionally, sensory evaluation has relied on trained expert panels, methods that are invaluable but often time-consuming, resource-intensive, and subject to individual variability [10]. The integration of intelligent sensors (E-nose, E-tongue) with multi-omics platforms (metabolomics, transcriptomics) creates a powerful synergy. This sensor fusion approach captures holistic sensory profiles and marries them with deep molecular-level data, enabling the development of predictive models that can accurately forecast sensory outcomes based on chemical composition or production parameters [47] [10]. This Application Note details the protocols and data integration strategies for implementing this cutting-edge methodology in wine research.

Research Reagent Solutions & Essential Materials

Table 1: Key research reagents, sensors, and platforms essential for sensor fusion and omics studies in wine profiling.

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Colorimetric E-nose Sensor Array	Detection of complex Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) via optical dye changes.	Porphyrins, metalloporphyrins, pH indicators, Nile red printed on C2 reverse phase silica gel plates [48].
Voltammetric E-tongue	Assessment of taste profiles by measuring electrochemical properties.	Six metallic working electrodes: Platinum (Pt), Gold (Au), Palladium (Pd), Tungsten (W), Titanium (Ti), Silver (Ag) [48].
SERS Substrates	Highly sensitive detection of trace non-volatile molecules via enhanced Raman scattering.	Lab-synthesized Silver Nanoparticles (Ag NPs); Gold (Au) or Copper (Cu) nanostructures [49].
GC-MS & HS-SPME	Separation, identification, and quantification of volatile metabolites.	Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) coupled with Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction for VOC concentration [47] [50].
LC-MS	Identification and quantification of non-volatile metabolites.	Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) for polar and semi-polar compounds like lipids, phenylpropanoids, and organic acids [47].
NMR Spectroscopy	Comprehensive, untargeted profiling of major non-volatile metabolites.	^1H-NMR for identifying and quantifying amino acids, organic acids, carbohydrates, and alcohols [50].

Experimental Protocols for Data Acquisition

Protocol: Intelligent Sensory Analysis (E-nose & E-tongue)

This protocol outlines the simultaneous use of E-nose and E-tongue to obtain a holistic sensory fingerprint of wine samples.

• Sample Preparation:

  • For E-nose analysis, transfer 5 mL of wine into a 10 mL glass vial. Seal the vial with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)/silicone septum cap. Equilibrate the sample at 40°C for 10 minutes in an automated sampler to allow volatile release into the headspace [47].
  • For E-tongue analysis, no specific sample preparation is typically required. Ensure the wine sample is at room temperature and free of particulate matter by simple centrifugation if necessary [48].

• E-nose Data Acquisition:

  • Inject the headspace gas from the sample vial into the E-nose chamber using an inert carrier gas (e.g., purified air or nitrogen).
  • For a colorimetric E-nose, capture an image of the sensor array before and after exposure. The difference in the RGB values or grayscale intensity of each dye spot constitutes the response vector [48].
  • For a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) E-nose, record the change in electrical resistance (or conductance) of each sensor in the array upon exposure to the wine's headspace.

• E-tongue Data Acquisition:

  • Immerse the sensor electrodes directly into a 15-50 mL aliquot of the wine sample.
  • Apply a voltammetric pulse sequence (e.g., a multi-frequency waveform) across the working electrodes and record the current response.
  • Rinse the electrode system thoroughly with a suitable buffer (e.g., deionized water or a mild acid/base) between samples to prevent carry-over effects [48].

• Data Preprocessing:

  • For both E-nose and E-tongue, normalize the raw sensor data (e.g., to a baseline or a reference standard) to account for sensor drift.
  • Reduce the dimensionality of the multi-sensor data using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to generate a manageable set of principal component scores that will be used for subsequent fusion and modeling [48].

Protocol: Multi-Omics Metabolite Profiling

This protocol describes the comprehensive analysis of both volatile and non-volatile metabolites in wine.

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Analysis via HS-SPME-GC-MS:

  • Extraction: Introduce a pre-conditioned SPME fiber (e.g., 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS) into the headspace of a wine sample in a sealed vial. Expose the fiber for a defined period (e.g., 30-50 min) at a controlled temperature (e.g., 40-60°C) with constant agitation [47].
  • Separation & Identification: Desorb the trapped VOCs from the fiber into the GC inlet. Separate them on a non-polar or mid-polar capillary column (e.g., DB-5MS) using a optimized temperature program. Detect and identify compounds using a Mass Spectrometer with electron impact ionization. Match mass spectra against standard reference libraries (e.g., NIST) [47] [50].
  • Quantification: Use internal standards (e.g., 2-octanol) for semi-quantification. Calculate the Relative Odor Activity Value (ROAV) to identify key aroma contributors: ROAV = (C_i / T_i) / (C_max / T_max) * 100, where C is concentration and T is odor threshold [47].

• Non-Volatile Metabolites Analysis via LC-MS and NMR:

  • LC-MS Profiling:
    • Sample Prep: Dilute wine samples 1:10 with a solvent compatible with the LC mobile phase (e.g., water/methanol). Centrifuge and filter (0.22 μm) prior to injection.
    • Analysis: Separate metabolites on a reversed-phase column (e.g., C18) using a water/acetonitrile gradient with 0.1% formic acid. Operate the mass spectrometer in both positive and negative ionization modes for broad coverage. Identify compounds using authentic standards or high-resolution MS/MS libraries [47].
  • NMR Profiling:
    • Sample Prep: Mix 540 μL of wine with 60 μL of a D₂O-based buffer (e.g., phosphate buffer, pH 7.0) containing a known concentration of a chemical shift reference (e.g., TSP, trimethylsilylpropanoic acid).
    • Analysis: Acquire ¹H-NMR spectra using a standard one-dimensional pulse sequence with water suppression (e.g., NOESYPRESAT). Identify and quantify metabolites by integrating characteristic signals and comparing them to databases or pure compound spectra [50].

Data Integration & Predictive Modeling Workflow

The core of this approach lies in the multi-level fusion of heterogeneous data streams to build robust predictive models. The schematic workflow below illustrates this integrative process.

Protocol: Multi-Omics Data Fusion and Model Building

• Data Fusion and Feature Engineering:

  • Multi-Block Integration: Fuse the preprocessed datasets (E-nose PCA scores, E-tongue PCA scores, VOC abundances, non-volatile metabolite levels) using multiblock data analysis methods such as Multiblock PLS or Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA). These methods preserve the structure of each data block while extracting latent variables that explain the maximum covariance between blocks [10] [7].
  • Incorporate Auxiliary Data: Integrate geographical factors (longitude, latitude, altitude) as explanatory variables in the model, as these have been shown to be key drivers of metabolite variation (e.g., via Mantel test analysis) [47].

• Predictive Model Training:

  • Algorithm Selection:
    • For classification tasks (e.g., origin or brand identification), use Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) for spectral data or Support Vector Machines (SVM) for tabular data [49].
    • For regression tasks (e.g., predicting sensory panel scores), use Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) or Variable-length Long Short-Term Memory (V-LSTM) networks, the latter being particularly effective for modeling time-series fermentation data [10] [51].
  • Model Validation: Strictly validate models using held-out test sets or k-fold cross-validation. Report performance metrics such as classification accuracy, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and the coefficient of determination (R²).

Application in Practice: Representative Experimental Results

The following tables summarize quantitative findings from seminal studies, demonstrating the power of the sensor fusion approach.

Table 2: Key differential volatile compounds identified in a multi-omics study of regional Goji berry wines using GC-MS. Data adapted from [47].

Volatile Compound	Chemical Class	Impact (ROAV >1)	Regional Dominance
Isoamyl acetate	Ester	Yes (Fruity, banana)	Qinghai (QHGW)
Ethyl caprylate	Ester	Yes (Fruity, wine)	Qinghai (QHGW)
Ethyl caprate	Ester	Yes (Fruity, creamy)	Qinghai (QHGW)
Nonanal	Aldehyde	Yes (Citrus, fatty)	Xinjiang (XJGW)
Ethyl hexanoate	Ester	Not Specified	Widespread
1-Hexanol	Alcohol	Not Specified	Widespread

Table 3: Performance comparison of different machine learning models for wine classification and prediction tasks, as reported in recent literature.

Analytical Technique	Model/Method	Application	Performance	Source
SERS + Machine Learning	1D-CNN	Red Wine Brand Identification	99.27% Accuracy	[49]
SERS + Machine Learning	Support Vector Machine (SVM)	Red Wine Brand Identification	95.66% Accuracy	[49]
E-nose + E-tongue + ELM	Extreme Learning Machine (ELM)	Red Wine Origin, Brand, Variety	100% Recognition Rate	[48]
IoT Sensors + Deep Learning	V-LSTM	Fermentation Forecasting	45% RMSE Reduction vs. benchmarks	[51]
Sensor Fusion + Chemometrics	Multi-omics PCA Fusion	Regional Differentiation of Goji Wines	Complete separation of 4 regions	[47]

The integration of electronic senses (E-nose, E-tongue) with multi-omics platforms constitutes a robust and transformative framework for predictive sensory modeling in oenological research. The detailed protocols outlined herein provide a clear roadmap for acquiring, fusing, and modeling complex, multi-modal data. As demonstrated by the representative results, this approach enables unprecedented accuracy in product differentiation, traceability, and quality prediction. By translating molecular composition into foreseeable sensory outcomes, it empowers researchers and the industry to harness the full potential of multi-omics data for tailored, high-quality wine production.

The application of multi-omics data integration is revolutionizing wine science by providing a comprehensive framework to understand, predict, and control the complex biochemical processes that define wine quality. Multi-omics leverages high-throughput analytical technologies to characterize and quantify pools of biological molecules, integrating datasets from genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics [1] [52]. This systematic approach moves beyond traditional single-factor analysis to capture the intricate interactions between microbial communities, grape composition, process parameters, and the final sensory profile of wine [53] [52]. For researchers and industry professionals, multi-omics provides powerful tools to deconvolute the "dark matter" of wine—the vast array of undocumented molecular interactions that ultimately determine aromatic complexity, flavor development, and product consistency [1]. This document presents specific application notes and experimental protocols for leveraging multi-omics approaches to predict aroma profiles, control fermentation dynamics, and strategically tailor wine quality attributes, thereby bridging the gap between empirical winemaking and predictive, data-driven enology.

Application Note 1: Predicting Wine Aroma through Volatile Compound Profiling and Sensor Technologies

Background and Principle

Wine aroma is a primary determinant of consumer preference and perceived quality, resulting from a complex interplay of hundreds of volatile compounds including esters, alcohols, terpenes, and volatile phenols [10]. The concentration and interaction of these compounds are influenced by grape variety, yeast selection, and fermentation conditions. Traditional sensory evaluation by trained panels, while valuable, is inherently subjective, time-consuming, and susceptible to individual variability [54] [55]. Modern predictive approaches integrate chemical analysis with advanced sensor technologies and machine learning to establish quantitative relationships between volatile compound profiles and perceived aroma, enabling objective, rapid, and reproducible aroma assessment [10] [55].

Protocol: Electronic Nose (E-Nose) Configuration for Odorant Series Prediction

Principle: This protocol utilizes an E-nose equipped with Quartz Microbalance (QMB) sensors to capture the volatile fingerprint of wines. The system is trained and validated using quantitative data from Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detection and Mass Spectrometry (GC-FID/GC-MSD) to predict odorant series based on Odor Activity Values (OAVs) [55].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Electronic nose with array of 12 QMB sensors
  • GC-FID/GC-MSD system
  • Headspace vials and autosampler
  • Standard solutions of volatile compounds for calibration
  • Wine samples (stabilized at 20°C)

• Procedure:

  • Sample Preparation: Dilute wine samples 1:1 with saturated NaCl solution in headspace vials to reduce ethanol interference. Perform all analyses in triplicate.
  • GC-MS Reference Analysis:
    • Separate and quantify volatile compounds using a standard GC-MS method (e.g., DB-WAX column, temperature ramp from 40°C to 240°C).
    • Calculate Odor Activity Values (OAV) for each compound: OAV = Concentration / Odor Threshold.
    • Group compounds into odorant series (e.g., fruity, floral, spicy) by summing the OAVs of all compounds sharing a primary odor descriptor [55].
  • E-Nose Analysis:
    • Incubate headspace vials at 30°C for 15 minutes with agitation.
    • Expose the E-nose sensor array to the headspace, recording the frequency shift (ΔF) for each sensor.
    • Ensure a constant flush with synthetic air between samples to reset the sensors.
  • Data Integration and Model Building:
    • Construct a data matrix with E-nose sensor responses (predictor variables) and GC-MS-derived odorant series OAVs (response variables).
    • Apply Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) to differentiate wine types based on their E-nose profiles.
    • Develop a Principal Component Regression (PCR) or Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) model to predict the intensity of each odorant series from the E-nose data alone [10] [55].
  • Model Validation: Validate the predictive model using a separate test set of wines. The model should explain >90% of the variability in the odorant series, providing a rapid, non-destructive alternative to full chemical analysis [55].

• Data Interpretation: The PLS-DA model should show clear clustering of wines fermented with different yeasts (e.g., Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Lachancea thermotolerans, Metschnikowia pulcherrima), demonstrating the E-nose's ability to distinguish aromatic profiles resulting from different fermentation strategies [55].

Table 1: Key Volatile Compounds and Their Sensory Impact in Wine

Compound Class	Example Compounds	Aroma Descriptor	Typical Origin
Esters	Ethyl acetate, Isoamyl acetate	Fruity (pear, banana), Floral	Yeast metabolism during fermentation [10]
Terpenes	Linalool, Geraniol	Floral, Citrus, Spicy	Grape varietal (e.g., Muscat, Gewürztraminer) [10]
Volatile Phenols	Eugenol, Guaiacol	Spicy, Smoky, Clove	Oak aging or microbial activity [10]
Volatile Sulfur Compounds	4-mercapto-4-methylpentan-2-one	Tropical fruit, Citrus	Specific yeast strains (e.g., in Sauvignon Blanc) [10]
Higher Alcohols	Phenylethyl alcohol	Floral, Rose-like	Yeast metabolism [10]

Workflow Diagram: E-Nose Aroma Prediction

Aroma Prediction via E-Nose and Chemometrics

Application Note 2: Controlling Fermentation via Microbial Community and Metabolic Engineering

Background and Principle

Fermentation is the core process where yeast metabolism transforms grape must into wine. The dominance and metabolic activity of specific yeast species, particularly Saccharomyces cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces yeasts, are the primary determinants of fermentation kinetics and the metabolite profile of the final wine [52]. Multi-omics analyses have demonstrated that the dominating yeast species defines the fermentation performance and metabolite profile, an effect more pronounced than that of the fermentation conditions themselves [52]. Controlling fermentation therefore requires managing the yeast community structure and its metabolic output through targeted interventions.

Protocol: Managing Temperature for Fermentation Control

Principle: Temperature is one of the most effective tools for a winemaker to influence the fermentation process, impacting both microbial growth and the chemical composition of the wine [56].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Temperature-controlled fermentation tanks
  • Stainless steel probe thermometer or surface-mounted thermometer
  • Data logger for continuous temperature monitoring

• Procedure:

  • Temperature Monitoring:
    • For white wines: Monitor temperature at a single point in the juice.
    • For red wines: Take measurements both below the cap and in the mixed must post-punchdown, at least twice daily to track trends [56].
  • Temperature Regime Application:
    • White Wines: Maintain between 18-20°C (64-68°F) to preserve volatile aroma compounds. Temperatures below this range risk sluggish or stuck fermentation; temperatures above (~75°F/24°C) cause excessive loss of delicate aromas [56].
    • Red Wines: Maintain between 26-30°C (79-86°F) to optimize extraction of color and tannins from skins. Allowing the must to reach at least 32°C (90°F) once during fermentation enhances extraction. Temperatures exceeding 38°C (100°F) risk yeast stress and death [56].
  • Corrective Actions:
    • For Overheating: Apply cooling promptly but gradually to avoid thermal shock that can cause yeast to flocculate.
    • For Over-cooling: Warm the must gradually. For a sluggish fermentation, rouse the yeast by vigorous mixing. If fermentation does not resume, consider reinoculation with a robust yeast strain [56].

Table 2: Fermentation Temperature Parameters for Different Wine Styles

Wine Style	Target Temperature Range	Primary Objective	Risks of Deviation
Aromatic White Wines	18-20°C (64-68°F) [56]	Preservation of volatile terpenes and thiols	>24°C: Aroma loss; <18°C: Stuck fermentation [56]
Full-bodied White Wines	20-25°C (68-77°F)	Balance of aroma and texture	Potential for reduced aromatic finesse
Light-bodied Red Wines	26-28°C (79-82°F) [56]	Moderate color and tannin extraction	Lighter color, simpler structure if too cold [56]
Full-bodied Red Wines	28-30°C (82-86°F) [56]	Maximum color and tannin extraction	>38°C: Yeast death and stuck fermentation [56]

Protocol: Inoculation Strategies for Microbial Community Control

Principle: The choice between spontaneous and inoculated fermentations, and the timing of inoculation, directly shape the yeast community and its metabolic output, which can be tracked via meta-transcriptomics [57] [52].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Commercial Active Dry Yeast (ADY) or amplified indigenous starter culture
  • Sterile water for rehydration
  • Nutrients (e.g., diammonium phosphate, yeast hulls)

• Procedure:

  • Inoculation Strategy Selection:
    • Inoculated Fermentation: Use for predictability and reliability. Rehydrate ADY according to manufacturer's instructions, potentially with nutrients, to achieve a population of ~10⁶ cells/mL [57].
    • Uninoculated (Spontaneous) Fermentation: Use to enhance complexity from native microbial flora. Requires close monitoring.
    • Delayed Inoculation: A hybrid approach. Allow the native flora (including non-Saccharomyces yeasts) to develop for 1-3 days before inoculating with S. cerevisiae to ensure completion. This boosts the contribution of indigenous flora while maintaining control [57].
  • Yeast Strain Selection: Choose strains based on:
    • Ethanol tolerance exceeding the projected wine alcohol level.
    • Nitrogen requirements matching the juice nutrition.
    • Temperature tolerance aligned with the planned regime.
    • Desired aroma compound production (e.g., ester-producing strains for fruity styles) [57].
  • Monitoring and Intervention:
    • Monitor fermentation kinetics (Brix drop, CO₂ evolution).
    • If sluggishness is detected, rouse the yeast or reinoculate with a more robust strain.
    • For multi-omics studies, sample at key stages (early, tumultuous, end) for metagenomic (DNA) and meta-transcriptomic (RNA) analysis to link microbial succession and gene expression to metabolite profiles [52].

Workflow Diagram: Fermentation Management

Fermentation Management and Monitoring Workflow

Application Note 3: Tailoring Wine Quality through Multi-Omics Data Integration

Background and Principle

Tailoring wine quality requires a predictive understanding of how process inputs (grape must, microbes, fermentation conditions) translate into sensory outputs. A multi-omics framework integrates data from different molecular levels to build this understanding [1] [52]. For instance, metagenomics identifies the microbial community, meta-transcriptomics reveals its active functions, and metabolomics characterizes the resulting chemical profile, creating a causal chain from species to genes to flavor [53] [52].

Protocol: A Multi-Omics Workflow for Linking Yeast Dominance to Flavor

Principle: This protocol outlines an experimental design to decipher the individual contribution of yeast species to wine flavor by correlating community composition, gene expression, and metabolite production under different fermentation conditions [52].

• Materials and Equipment:

  • Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) for experimental reproducibility
  • DNA/RNA extraction kits
  • Next-generation sequencing platform (for ITS amplicon sequencing and RNA-Seq)
  • GC-MS and LC-MS systems for metabolite profiling

• Procedure:

  • Experimental Design:
    • Source grape musts from different vineyards (varying geography, farming practices) to capture initial microbial diversity [52].
    • Subject musts to controlled fermentation conditions (e.g., Control: 25°C; Low-T: 18°C; +NH₄; +SO₂) in triplicate [52].
  • Sample Collection for Multi-Omics:
    • Initial Must: Collect for metagenomic (DNA) and metabolomic (LC-MS/GC-MS) baseline data.
    • Tumultuous Fermentation Stage: Collect fermenting must for:
      • DNA: To assess community composition via ITS sequencing.
      • RNA: For meta-transcriptomic analysis of community-wide gene expression.
      • Metabolites: For volatile and non-volatile compound profiling [52].
  • Data Generation and Integration:
    • Metagenomics: Sequence the ITS region to taxonomically classify the fungal community.
    • Meta-transcriptomics: Sequence total RNA to quantify gene expression. Map reads to a custom database of yeast genomes to assign transcripts to species.
    • Metabolomics: Quantify key flavor compounds (volatiles by GC-MS, polyphenols by LC-MS) and calculate OAVs where applicable.
  • Data Analysis and Network Construction:
    • Identify the dominant yeast species in each condition (e.g., Saccharomyces, Hanseniaspora, Pichia) [53] [52].
    • Perform differential gene expression analysis to identify yeast-specific transcriptomic profiles and orthologs (e.g., genes for ester synthesis, sulfur metabolism) [52].
    • Construct a correlation network linking dominant species -> upregulated gene modules -> key flavor metabolites.
    • Validate the model by inoculating SGM with specific yeast consortia and predicting the resulting metabolite profile.

• Data Interpretation: The analysis will reveal that the dominating yeast species defines the meta-transcriptome and metabolite profile more strongly than the fermentation conditions. This allows researchers to identify a "functional array of orthologs" that can be used to predict the flavor contribution of any yeast species or community [52].

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Omics Wine Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example Use in Protocol
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Standardized medium for reproducible experimental fermentations, free of uncontrolled microbial and chemical variables.	Used in controlled fermentations to precisely assess the impact of single factors on yeast function and metabolite production [52].
Active Dry Yeast (ADY) Strains	Defined, reliable inocula for inoculated fermentations. Includes both Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces species.	Used to test the specific metabolic and sensory impact of individual yeast strains or designed consortia [57] [55].
ITS/16S rRNA Primers	For amplicon sequencing of the Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) region for fungi or 16S rRNA for bacteria.	Used in metagenomic analysis to profile the taxonomic composition of the microbial community in must and during fermentation [52].
RNA Stabilization and Extraction Kits	To preserve and extract high-quality total RNA from fermenting must for transcriptomic studies.	Essential for meta-transcriptomic analysis to capture the functional activity (gene expression) of the microbial community [52].
Odor Activity Value (OAV) Calculation	A quantitative measure to determine the sensory impact of a volatile compound. OAV = Concentration / Odor Threshold.	Used to filter GC-MS data and identify which volatiles are truly responsible for the wine's aroma, guiding the interpretation of sensory results [55].

Workflow Diagram: Multi-Omics Integration

Multi-Omics Data Integration Workflow

Navigating the Pitfalls: A Guide to Robust Multi-Omics Data Integration

Design Your Resource from the User's Perspective, Not the Curator's

In multi-omics data integration, the gap between data curation and biological insight is vast. A resource designed from a curator's perspective often prioritizes data completeness and archival structure. In contrast, a user-centric resource is engineered for actionable discovery, enabling researchers to move seamlessly from raw, heterogeneous data to validated biological conclusions. This principle is critical in applied fields like wine profiling, where the goal is to connect microbial community composition directly to fermentative performance and final wine quality [5]. This document provides a structured protocol for building such user-focused multi-omics resources.

Multi-Omics in Wine Profiling: A Case Study

Wine fermentation is a model system for microbiome function. The transition from spontaneous fermentations driven by native yeast communities to standardized inoculations highlights the need to understand the molecular determinants of fermentation performance [5]. A user's goal is to harness diverse yeast functionalities to produce tailored, high-quality wines.

Key Biological Questions from a User's Perspective:

• How do initial yeast communities in grape must determine the dominant fermenting species?
• How do different fermentation conditions (e.g., temperature, nutrient addition) affect the meta-transcriptome of yeast communities?
• What are the specific orthologs and molecular pathways in different yeast species that contribute to distinct wine metabolite profiles? [5]

Experimental Protocol: From Grape Must to Multi-Omics Data

The following workflow provides a detailed methodology for a multi-omics analysis of fermenting yeast communities, designed to answer the above questions.

Step 1: Sample Collection and Experimental Design

• Collection: Collect grape bunches from multiple plants to create a composite sample. Ensure no visible damage or fungal rot is present.
• Experimental Factors: Design the experiment to account for key variables such as:
  • Biogeography: Sample from different wine appellations and locations.
  • Vineyard Management: Include both conventional and organic farming practices.
  • Grape Variety: Control for variety (e.g., use Tempranillo) where possible to isolate other effects. [5]

Step 2: Grape Processing and Fermentation Setup

• Press grapes under sterile conditions and macerate with skins and pomace for 2 hours.
• Remove solid parts and dispense the resulting grape must into sterile glass bottles.
• Subject the bottles to different fermentation conditions to test the impact of environmental factors:
  • Control: 25°C, no supplements.
  • Low Temperature: 18°C, no supplements.
  • NH₄ Supplement: 25°C, supplemented with 300 mg/L diammonium phosphate.
  • SO₂ Addition: 25°C, with 100 mg/L of potassium metabisulfite. [5]
• Define the fermentation endpoint when weight loss remains below 0.01 g/day for two consecutive days.

Step 3: Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) Validation To precisely control conditions and enable robust meta-transcriptomics, replicate fermentations using SGM.

• Inoculum Preparation: At the tumultuous fermentation stage (23-45% of sugars consumed), collect samples from control fermentations.
• Standardization: Freeze, thaw, centrifuge, and resuspend the pellet. Standardize the optical density (OD₆₀₀ₙₘ) of the inoculum.
• Inoculation: Use the standardized inoculum to seed fresh SGM in quadruplicate under the same four fermentation conditions. [5]

Step 4: Multi-Omics Data Generation

• DNA Extraction & Sequencing: Use a commercial kit (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit) for DNA extraction from fresh and fermented must. Perform ITS2 amplicon sequencing (e.g., using primers ITS2_fITS7 and ITS4 on an Illumina MiSeq platform) to assess fungal community composition and dynamics. [5]
• RNA Extraction & Meta-transcriptomics: Collect samples at the tumultuous stage in SGM fermentations for RNA extraction. Perform RNA-Seq to reveal the transcriptional profile of the active fermenting yeast community. [5]
• Metabolite Profiling: Analyze the final wine using LC-MS/MS to determine the metabolite profiles resulting from different yeast communities and conditions. [5] [58]

Data Integration and Analysis Workflow

The data generated requires an integrated analysis workflow to connect community structure to function.

Results and Data Presentation

Table 1: Impact of Fermentation Conditions on Dominant Yeast Species and Key Metabolites This table summarizes how different conditions can shift the microbial landscape and final product, providing users with actionable insights for process control.

Fermentation Condition	Dominant Yeast Species	Key Metabolites Altered (vs. Control)	Proposed Molecular Determinants
Control (25°C)	Saccharomyces cerevisiae	Baseline profile	Standard metabolic activity
Low Temperature (18°C)	Lachancea thermotolerans	Increased lactic acid; Higher ester content	Upregulation of lactate dehydrogenase and aroma synthesis orthologs
NH₄ Supplement	S. cerevisiae (accelerated growth)	Reduced higher alcohols; Faster fermentation rate	Nitrogen sensing pathways (e.g., TOR signaling) leading to altered metabolic flux
SO₂ Addition	More diverse community; Torulaspora delbrueckii	Unique thiol compounds; Altered aroma spectrum	Sulfur assimilation pathways and stress response mechanisms

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Omics Wine Profiling A user-focused resource provides a clear toolkit for replicating or adapting the study.

Research Reagent	Function & Application in Protocol
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit	DNA extraction from complex grape must and fermentation samples for subsequent ITS amplicon sequencing.
ITS2_fITS7 / ITS4 Primers	Target the ITS2 region for high-resolution profiling of fungal community composition and diversity.
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Provides a chemically defined medium for controlled, reproducible experimental fermentations, removing variability inherent in natural must.
Diammonium Phosphate	Nitrogen source used in the NH₄ condition to test the effect of nutrient supplementation on yeast growth and community dynamics.
Potassium Metabisulfite	Source of SO₂, used to test the impact of this common winemaking additive on microbial selection and metabolic output.
Ratio-Based Reference Materials	Common references (e.g., from a single sample like D6) used to scale absolute feature values, enabling reproducible and comparable data across batches and omics types. [58]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Integration Methods

To transform multi-omics data into insight, users need access to different integration algorithms. The choice depends on the biological question.

Table 3: Multi-Omics Data Integration Methods for Biological Discovery

Integration Method	Type	Key Principle	Ideal Use Case in Wine Profiling
MOFA [59]	Unsupervised	Infers latent factors that capture major sources of variation across all omics datasets.	Identify hidden, system-level drivers of fermentation performance (e.g., a factor linking a specific yeast taxon, its gene expression, and a metabolite).
DIABLO [59]	Supervised	Integrates datasets to maximize separation between pre-defined sample groups (e.g., conditions).	Build a predictive model of fermentation outcome (e.g., "high-quality" vs. "stuck") based on initial multi-omics data.
SNF [59]	Network-based	Fuses sample-similarity networks from each omics layer into a single network.	Cluster different grape must samples based on integrated multi-omics to discover novel community types.
Ratio-Based Profiling [58]	Quantitative	Scales feature values of study samples relative to a common reference sample to minimize batch effects.	Integrate data from fermentations conducted in different labs or across vintages for a robust, combined analysis.

Discussion: From Integrated Data to Actionable Knowledge

The user-centric framework concludes by translating results into a mechanistic understanding. The analysis should reveal yeast-specific transcriptomic profiles and modules of orthologs responsible for metabolite production [5]. This allows for the construction of a molecular array that defines the contribution of each yeast species to the ecosystem, moving beyond correlation to causation.

In multi-omics research for wine profiling, the journey from raw sample to biological insight is fraught with technical challenges. Data preprocessing serves as the critical foundation that determines the ultimate success and reliability of any integrative analysis. In wine studies, where researchers aim to connect complex molecular signatures—from transcriptomics of fermenting yeast to the metabolomics of the final wine—with traits like flavor, quality, and provenance, the need for robust preprocessing is paramount. Technical variations, known as batch effects, can easily obscure true biological signals, leading to irreproducible results and misleading conclusions [60]. This article details the essential protocols for standardizing, harmonizing, and correcting multi-omics data, with specific application notes for wine profiling research. By providing structured workflows, comparative analyses of methods, and a curated toolkit, we empower researchers to enhance data quality and unlock the full potential of their multi-omics investigations.

Core Concepts and Their Importance in Multi-Omics Wine Profiling

The Data Preprocessing Trifecta

• Standardization establishes consistent procedures for data collection, annotation, and formatting. In wine omics, this includes using standard ontologies to describe samples (e.g., grape variety, fermentation condition) and adhering to minimum information guidelines like MIAME (for transcriptomics) or MIAPE (for proteomics) to ensure experimental reproducibility [61].
• Harmonization goes a step further, aligning data from different omics platforms, labs, or measurement technologies to make them comparable. This is crucial for integrating, for example, NMR-based metabolomics data with LC-MS proteomics data from the same wine sample [62].
• Batch Effect Correction actively removes non-biological, technical variations introduced when samples are processed in different batches, by different operators, or on different instruments. These effects are notoriously common in omics data and, if left uncorrected, can result in false positives and misleading outcomes [60] [63].

Impact on Wine Research

The complex nature of wine, a matrix rich in metabolites, proteins, and other biomolecules, makes its profiling particularly susceptible to technical noise. For instance, an NMR-based metabolomics study might seek to authenticate a Sherry wine's geographical origin by its unique "terroir fingerprint" [64]. Without proper batch-effect correction, signal variations from instrument drift or different reagent lots could be misinterpreted as meaningful geographical differences, compromising the authentication model. Furthermore, in functional studies of yeast communities during fermentation, confounded batch effects can obscure the true transcriptomic drivers of fermentation performance and metabolite production [5]. Thus, rigorous preprocessing is not merely a best practice but an imperative for generating reliable, biologically relevant insights.

Quantitative Comparison of Batch Effect Correction Strategies

Performance Metrics for Benchmarking

Evaluating the success of a batch-effect correction strategy requires a set of quantitative metrics that assess both the removal of technical noise and the preservation of biological signal. Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for Batch Effect Correction

Metric	Formula/Description	Interpretation
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)	Quantifies the separation between distinct biological groups after integration [60].	A higher SNR indicates better resolution of biological groups.
Average Silhouette Width (ASW)	( ASW={\sum }{i=1}^{N}\frac{{b}{i}-{a}{i}}{\max ({a}{i},{b}{i})}, \quad ASW\in [-1,1] )Where (ai) is mean intra-cluster distance and (b_i) is mean nearest-cluster distance for sample (i) [65].	Measures clustering quality. A value close to 1 indicates samples are well-clustered by biological condition, not by batch.
Relative Correlation (RC)	Correlation coefficient between a dataset and a reference dataset in terms of fold changes [60].	Measures data accuracy and preservation of true biological effect sizes.
Coefficient of Variation (CV)	Standard deviation divided by the mean for technical replicates [63].	A lower CV within replicates indicates higher precision and successful reduction of technical noise.
Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)	A balanced measure for the quality of binary classifications (e.g., identifying differentially expressed features) [63].	A value of 1 indicates perfect agreement with the truth; useful for simulated data with known answers.

Comparative Analysis of BECAs and Data-Level Strategies

A comprehensive benchmark study using multi-omics reference materials (the Quartet Project) provides critical insights into the performance of various Batch Effect Correction Algorithms (BECAs). The following table summarizes the findings, which are highly applicable to wine omics studies. Table 2: Comparison of Batch-Effect Correction Algorithms and Data-Level Strategies

Algorithm	Principle	Pros	Cons	Recommended Scenario in Wine Profiling
Ratio-based (Ratio-G)	Scales feature values of study samples relative to a concurrently profiled reference material [60].	Highly effective in confounded scenarios; simple and broadly applicable.	Requires running reference samples in each batch.	Ideal for longitudinal studies of fermentation or multi-lab wine metabolite comparisons.
ComBat	Empirical Bayesian method to modify mean and variance shifts across batches [60] [63].	Powerful for mean and variance stabilization; widely used.	Can over-correct in severely confounded designs.	Use in balanced designs where biological groups are evenly distributed across batches.
Harmony	Iterative clustering based on PCA to compute cluster-specific correction factors [60] [63].	Effective for complex, non-linear batch effects.	Performance may vary across omics types.	Useful for integrating single-cell transcriptomic data of yeast populations.
RUV-series	Uses linear models and control features to estimate and remove unwanted variation [60].	Flexible; can use negative controls or replicate samples.	Requires careful selection of control features.	Applicable when internal controls are available.
Protein-level Correction	Applies BECAs after peptide intensities have been aggregated into protein-level quantities [63].	Most robust strategy in MS-based proteomics; retains more data.	Does not correct noise in upstream peptide/precursor data.	Recommended default for proteomic studies of wine or yeast.

A key finding from recent proteomics research is that the stage of data correction is as important as the choice of algorithm. Protein-level batch-effect correction consistently outperforms precursor- or peptide-level strategies in terms of robustness and data retention when integrating multi-batch data [63]. For wine studies involving proteomics, applying BECAs at the protein level after quantification with methods like MaxLFQ is a recommended best practice.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Ratio-Based Batch Correction Using Reference Materials

This protocol is essential for studies where batch effects are completely confounded with biological factors of interest, a common challenge in wine research.

I. Materials and Reagents

• Universal Reference Material (e.g., Quartet reference materials for multi-omics; a pooled wine sample or standard yeast extract for targeted wine studies) [60]
• Study samples (e.g., wine or fermenting must samples)
• Appropriate omics profiling platform (e.g., NMR, LC-MS, RNA-seq)

II. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Experimental Design: For each processing batch, include a set of technical replicates of the universal reference material. The number of reference replicates should be sufficient to establish a stable baseline (e.g., triplicates) [60].
• Data Generation: Profile all study samples and reference material replicates concurrently within the same batch using your chosen omics platform.
• Data Extraction: Obtain raw or normalized feature intensities (e.g., metabolite peak areas, protein abundances, gene counts) for all samples and reference replicates.
• Ratio Calculation: For each feature (e.g., a specific metabolite) in every study sample within a batch, calculate the ratio value: Ratio_value_study = Absolute_value_study / Median_absolute_value_reference where Median_absolute_value_reference is the median intensity of that feature across all reference replicates within the same batch [60].
• Data Integration: The resulting ratio-based values for each study sample are now comparable across different batches and can be integrated for downstream analysis.

Protocol 2: NMR-Based Metabolomic Profiling of Wine with MagMet-W

This protocol details the use of automated software for standardized and high-throughput metabolomic profiling of wine, which inherently reduces technical variation.

I. Materials and Reagents

• Wine samples
• NMR buffer: 100 mM potassium phosphate buffer, pH 3.0, in D2O containing 0.5 mM DSS-d6 (chemical shift reference) and 0.5 mM CPCA (phasing standard) [9]
• Filtration units: 3 kDa molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) filters
• 700 MHz NMR spectrometer (or comparable field strength)

II. Step-by-Step Procedure

• Sample Preparation: a. Mix 270 µL of wine sample with 330 µL of NMR buffer. b. Vortex the mixture and centrifugate it through a 3 kDa MWCO filter at 14,000 × g for 15 minutes to remove macromolecules and pigments. c. Transfer 550 µL of the filtrate into a 3 mm NMR tube [9].
• NMR Data Acquisition: a. Insert the sample into the NMR spectrometer, set to a temperature of 300 K. b. Acquire 1D 1H NMR spectra using a standard NOESY-presaturation pulse sequence to suppress the water signal [9].
• Automated Data Processing and Profiling with MagMet-W: a. Upload the acquired NMR spectra (FID files) to the MagMet-W web server (https://www.magmet.ca). b. The software automatically performs Fourier transformation, phase correction, baseline optimization, and chemical shift referencing. c. MagMet-W then uses its internal library of 70+ wine compound spectra to automatically identify and quantify metabolites in the sample via peak pattern matching and spectral deconvolution. d. The result is a data matrix of quantified metabolites, ready for downstream statistical analysis. The automated process takes approximately 10 minutes per spectrum and achieves a mean absolute percentage error of 14% compared to manual profiling [9].

The workflow for a multi-omics study in wine profiling, from sample collection to integrated analysis, can be summarized as follows:

Diagram 1: Multi-omics data integration workflow for wine profiling. This workflow outlines the critical path from sample collection to biological insight, highlighting the essential role of standardization, batch effect correction, and harmonization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Wine Multi-Omics Studies

Item	Function/Application	Example in Wine Research
Quartet Project Reference Materials	Suite of publicly available multi-omics reference materials (DNA, RNA, protein, metabolite) derived from lymphoblastoid cell lines. Used for objective performance assessment of BECAs and quality control [60].	Serves as a universal reference for ratio-based batch correction in method development and benchmarking.
MagMet-W Software	A web-based server for fully automated identification and quantification of over 70 wine compounds (alcohols, sugars, acids, esters) from 1D 1H NMR spectra [9].	Enables high-throughput, standardized, and reproducible metabolomic profiling of wine samples, reducing operator bias.
DSS-d6 NMR Standard	Deuterated 2,2-dimethyl-2-silapentane-5-sulfonate, used as an internal chemical shift reference and quantification standard in NMR spectroscopy [9].	Essential for consistent chemical shift referencing and accurate quantification in wine NMR metabolomics.
3 kDa MWCO Filters	Molecular weight cutoff filters used during wine sample preparation for NMR. They remove proteins, pigments, and other large macromolecules from the wine matrix [9].	Clarifies the sample and improves spectral quality by reducing background interference from large particles.
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	A chemically defined medium that mimics the composition of natural grape must. It allows for highly controlled and reproducible fermentation experiments [5].	Used to study yeast community dynamics and transcriptomic profiles under standardized conditions, minimizing variability from complex natural musts.

Application in Wine Profiling Research: A Case Study

To illustrate the practical application of these preprocessing imperatives, consider a study aiming to link fermenting yeast community composition to the final wine's metabolite profile.

Objective: To identify the molecular determinants of fermentation performance and metabolite production in diverse wine yeast populations [5].

Experimental Workflow & Preprocessing:

• Sample Collection & Fermentation: Grape musts were collected from different vineyards and subjected to spontaneous fermentation under various conditions (control, low temperature, NH4 addition, SO2 addition) [5].
• Multi-Omics Data Generation:
  • Metabolomics: The chemical profile of the resulting wines was comprehensively characterized.
  • Transcriptomics: RNA was extracted from fermenting yeast communities at the tumultuous stage for RNA-seq analysis to assess the meta-transcriptome [5].
• Data Preprocessing Imperatives Applied:
  • Standardization: Fungal community assessment via amplicon sequencing followed standardized protocols for DNA extraction and library preparation (e.g., using ITS2_fITS7 and ITS4 primers) [5].
  • Batch Effect Correction: The multi-batch transcriptomic and metabolomic data were likely processed using BECAs (e.g., ComBat or Ratio-based methods) to remove variations from different fermentation runs, sequencing batches, or metabolite profiling batches.
  • Harmonization: Data from the metabolomics and transcriptomics platforms were integrated to connect yeast species' transcriptional programs with the production of specific wine metabolites.

Outcome: The preprocessed and integrated data revealed that the dominating yeast species, determined by the initial community composition, defined the fermentation performance and metabolite profile of the wines. Furthermore, species-specific transcriptomic profiles highlighted distinct molecular functioning strategies, uncovering an array of orthologs responsible for metabolite production [5]. This insight would not have been possible without rigorous preprocessing to ensure the data from different batches and omics layers were comparable and free from overwhelming technical bias.

The logical relationships and data flow in a batch effect correction tool like BERT, which handles the specific challenge of incomplete data, can be visualized as follows:

Diagram 2: BERT algorithm flow for incomplete data. BERT (Batch-Effect Reduction Trees) addresses data incompleteness by using a tree-based integration framework, leveraging established methods like ComBat and limma in a hierarchical manner.

The Critical Role of Metadata in Reproducible and Interpretable Research

In modern wine profiling research, the integration of multi-omics data—spanning genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics—has revolutionized our understanding of vineyard ecosystems, fermentation dynamics, and final wine quality. However, this advanced analytical capability brings forth a significant challenge: without comprehensive metadata, the vast data generated remain largely uninterpretable and irreproducible. The complexity of wine research encompasses diverse factors from vineyard management practices and environmental conditions to fermentation parameters and microbial community dynamics [5]. Each of these factors generates data across multiple molecular levels, creating an intricate web of information that demands meticulous organization and annotation to yield meaningful scientific insights.

The emergence of high-throughput technologies has enabled researchers to measure hundreds or even thousands of metabolites in a single run through targeted or untargeted approaches [66]. Yet, this capability comes with inherent challenges; the metabolome's chemical complexity far exceeds that of the transcriptome, making complete profiling impossible with any single analytical technique [66]. Different sample preparation, instrumental analysis, and data analysis protocols deliver complementary—but not identical—datasets that may lead to slightly different conclusions. This higher complexity necessitates highly organized data and metadata management, where metabolomic data must be combined with detailed metadata to be correctly interpreted and reused beyond the original experimental context [66]. Within wine research specifically, this translates to capturing critical information about grape varieties, terroir, fermentation conditions, and yeast populations that collectively determine the molecular profile of the final wine [5].

FAIR Data Implementation: Practical Guidelines for Wine Research

Core Principles and Repository Selection

The FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) provide a foundational framework for managing complex multi-omics data in wine research. Implementing these principles begins with selecting appropriate public repositories that support rich metadata annotation. MetaboLights, an ELIXIR-supported resource hosted by EMBL-EBI, serves as a cross-species, cross-technique repository specifically designed for metabolomics experiments [66]. Similarly, the Metabolomics Workbench provides a comprehensive platform for data, metadata, metabolite standards, protocols, and analysis tools [66]. When preparing data for submission, researchers should obtain a unique study ID (e.g., MTBLS000) early in the process, as this persistent identifier must be referenced in publications to enable proper data citation and indexing [66].

Metadata Organization Framework

Effective metadata management requires a structured approach to capturing experimental context. The following table summarizes essential metadata categories for multi-omics wine research:

Table 1: Essential Metadata Categories for Wine Multi-Omics Research

Metadata Category	Key Elements	Importance for Reproducibility
Experimental Design	Research objectives, hypothesis, sampling strategy, replicates	Enables understanding of experimental structure and statistical power
Sample Collection	Vineyard location, farming system (conventional/organic), grape variety, harvest date [5]	Documents biogeographical and anthropic factors shaping microbial communities [5]
Sample Preparation	Grape processing method, maceration time, fermentation vessel type [5]	Captures technical variations affecting metabolite profiles
Analytical Protocols	Instrumentation, chromatography methods, mass spectrometry parameters [66]	Ensures analytical reproducibility across laboratories
Data Processing	Software tools, normalization methods, peak alignment parameters	Provides transparency in data transformation steps
Metabolite Annotation	Reference databases, identification confidence levels, ontologies [66]	Communicates reliability of metabolite identifications

Experimental Protocols: Metadata-Rich Wine Yeast Fermentation Study

Sample Collection and Preparation Protocol

Objective: To capture representative grape must samples while preserving metadata critical for interpreting yeast community composition and function.

Methodology:

• Vineyard Selection: Sample five distinct wine appellations, including vineyards under conventional and organic management practices to assess anthropic factors [5].
• Grape Collection: Collect 3 kg of grapes as composite samples from five bunches from five different grapevine plants per sampling point [5].
• Metadata Recording: Document GPS coordinates, farming practices, grape variety (preferably single-variety like Tempranillo for consistency), and harvest date [5].
• Grape Processing: Press grapes under sterile conditions and macerate with skins and pomace for 2 hours to simulate winemaking conditions [5].
• Must Allocation: Dispense 200-mL of resulting grape must into 250-mL sterile glass bottles for parallel fermentation experiments [5].

Multi-Omics Fermentation Experiment Protocol

Objective: To determine how fermentation conditions impact yeast community dynamics and metabolic output through integrated DNA and RNA sequencing.

Methodology:

• Fermentation Conditions: Establish four distinct fermentation regimes:
  • Control: 25°C without supplemental NH₄ or SO₂
  • Low temperature: 18°C without supplements
  • NH₄ supplementation: 300 mg/L diammonium phosphate at 25°C
  • SO₂ supplementation: 100 mg/L potassium metabisulfite at 25°C [5]

• Endpoint Determination: Define fermentation completion when weight loss remains below 0.01 g/day for two consecutive days [5].

• Sampling Strategy:

  • Initial sampling: Collect for DNA extraction before fermentation begins
  • Tumultuous stage sampling: Collect between 23-45% sugar consumption for DNA/RNA sequencing [5]
  • Final sampling: Collect at fermentation completion for community assessment

• Molecular Analysis:

  • DNA Extraction: Use DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit following manufacturer's protocols [5]
  • Amplicon Sequencing: Target ITS2 region with ITS2_fITS7/ITS4 primers on Illumina MiSeq platform [5]
  • RNA Sequencing: Extract RNA during tumultuous fermentation stage for meta-transcriptomic analysis [5]

The following workflow diagram illustrates the experimental design and multi-omics integration:

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for multi-omics wine yeast fermentation study

Data Integration and Analysis Protocol

Objective: To bridge yeast community composition with functional output through integrated analysis of multi-omics data.

Methodology:

• Community Analysis: Process ITS sequencing data to determine fungal community composition and dynamics across fermentation stages [5].
• Transcriptomic Mapping: Map sequenced cDNA to reference genomes to determine species-specific transcriptional activity [5].
• Metabolite Correlation: Identify associations between dominant yeast species, their transcriptional profiles, and final wine metabolite compositions [5].
• Ortholog Analysis: Identify conserved genes responsible for metabolite production modules associated with specific yeast species [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Wine Multi-Omics Studies

Reagent/Material	Specification	Research Function
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit	Qiagen [5]	DNA extraction from grape must and fermentation samples
ITS2_fITS7/ITS4 Primers	Illumina-compatible [5]	Amplification of fungal ITS2 region for community analysis
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Prepared per Ruiz et al. [19] protocol [5]	Standardized medium for controlled fermentation experiments
Diammonium Sulfate	Laboratory grade, 300 mg/L [5]	Nitrogen supplementation in fermentation condition trials
Potassium Metabisulfite	Laboratory grade, 100 mg/L [5]	SO₂ supplementation in fermentation condition trials
RNA Stabilization Solution	RNAlater or equivalent	Preservation of RNA for meta-transcriptomic analyses

Metadata Standards Implementation: From Theory to Practice

Sample Collection Metadata Specifications

Complete sample metadata must capture both environmental and human-influenced factors that shape microbial communities and metabolic outcomes. For vineyard samples, this includes precise geographical information (GPS coordinates, wine appellation), agricultural practices (conventional vs. organic management), and grape characteristics (variety, harvest date, health status) [5]. Research demonstrates that both biogeographical factors and farming systems significantly influence yeast community composition and structure, which subsequently determines fermentation performance and wine metabolite profiles [5]. This sample-level metadata provides the essential context for interpreting downstream molecular analyses and understanding the ecological forces shaping wine characteristics.

Analytical Metadata Requirements

Comprehensive analytical metadata must document the complete pipeline from sample preparation to data processing. For LC-MS and GC-MS analyses—the workhorses of wine metabolomics—this includes detailed descriptions of extraction protocols, chromatography conditions (column type, solvent gradients, temperature parameters), mass spectrometry settings (ionization mode, resolution, mass range), and data processing parameters (peak picking, alignment, and normalization methods) [66]. Each analytical technique captures different segments of the wine metabolome; NMR identifies dozens of major compounds, HRGC-MS and HPLC-MS detect hundreds to thousands of compounds, while FT-ICR-MS can record thousands of signals for metabolic fingerprinting [66]. Documenting these technical variations is essential for comparing datasets across studies and laboratories.

The relationship between metadata completeness and research reproducibility can be visualized as follows:

Figure 2: Relationship between comprehensive metadata and research reproducibility through FAIR principles

The implementation of robust metadata practices represents a critical pathway toward reproducible and interpretable multi-omics research in wine science. As studies increasingly reveal the complex interactions between environmental factors, microbial communities, and fermentation parameters [5], comprehensive metadata provides the essential connective tissue that transforms disconnected observations into mechanistic understanding. The experimental protocols and guidelines presented here offer a practical framework for researchers to capture the contextual information necessary for meaningful data interpretation and reuse. By adopting these standards, the wine research community can accelerate the transition from correlation to causation in understanding how vineyard and winery practices ultimately shape the chemical and sensory properties of wine. Furthermore, as multi-omics technologies continue to evolve and integrate with artificial intelligence approaches [4], the foundation of well-annotated data will become increasingly valuable for predictive modeling and the development of precision enology approaches that can optimize wine quality and characteristics through targeted intervention in the wine production pipeline.

In multi-omics research, data heterogeneity presents a significant challenge for integration, especially in complex biological systems such as wine profiling. The term "terroir" in viticulture exemplifies this complexity, representing the interaction between the plant's genome, environmental conditions, and human factors [7]. Advances in genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics have significantly increased our knowledge on the abiotic regulation of yield and quality in Vitis vinifera [7]. However, the integration of these diverse data types is complicated by technological variations, differing data structures, and limited feature correspondence across modalities. This application note provides structured protocols and analytical frameworks to address three specific data integration scenarios: matched (measured on the same cells), unmatched (measured on different cells from the same biological system), and mosaic (combining both matched and unmatched samples) data. These strategies are particularly relevant for wine research, where connecting yeast community composition to fermentation performance and wine metabolite production requires sophisticated multi-omics integration [5].

Data Integration Scenarios and Strategic Approaches

The integration of multi-omics data in wine science aims to construct predictive models that can elucidate complex traits and phenotypes, identify biomarkers, and reveal previously unknown relationships between datasets [7]. The approach must be tailored to the specific data matching scenario, as each presents unique challenges and requires specific computational strategies.

Table 1: Data Integration Scenarios and Recommended Strategies

Integration Scenario	Key Characteristics	Primary Challenges	Recommended Computational Strategies
Matched Data	Omics layers measured on the same cell or sample.	High technical variation between modalities; complex nonlinear relationships.	Non-linear neural network encoders; Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) for distribution alignment [67].
Unmatched Data	Omics layers measured on different cells from the same biological system or tissue.	No direct cell-to-cell correspondence; population-level alignment required.	Mutual Nearest Neighbors (MNN) on linked features; topology-preserving geometric regularization [67].
Mosaic Data	Combination of matched and unmatched samples.	Leveraging limited anchor points while integrating larger unmatched datasets.	Hybrid approaches using MNN from matched pairs to guide adversarial alignment of full datasets [67].

Experimental Protocols for Multi-Omics Integration

Protocol: scMODAL for Integrating Unmatched Single-Cell Multi-Omics Data

Purpose: To integrate single-cell omics datasets (e.g., scRNA-seq and scATAC-seq) where cells are not paired across modalities, using the scMODAL deep learning framework [67].

Applications in Wine Science: Integration of transcriptomic data from fermenting yeast species with metabolomic profiles of the resulting wines to identify molecular determinants of fermentation performance [5].

Materials & Reagents:

• Input Data Matrices: Cell-by-feature matrices (e.g., X1 ∈ ℝⁿ¹ˣᵖ¹ for modality 1, X2 ∈ ℝⁿ²ˣᵖ² for modality 2).
• Linked Features: A set of s known positively correlated feature pairs (e.g., X̃1 ∈ ℝⁿ¹ˣˢ, X̃2 ∈ ℝⁿ²ˣˢ), such as a protein-coding gene and its corresponding protein abundance [67].
• Computational Environment: Python with scMODAL package installed (https://github.com/gefeiwang/scMODAL).

Procedure:

• Data Preprocessing: Normalize and log-transform each omics data matrix separately. Standardize the linked feature matrices.
• Network Configuration: Initialize two modality-specific encoder networks (E1, E2) and decoder networks (G1, G2) using fully connected architectures.
• Adversarial Training:
  • Train encoders to project cells from both modalities into a shared latent space Z.
  • Train a discriminator network to distinguish the modality source of latent embeddings.
  • Train encoders to adversarially confuse the discriminator, promoting latent space alignment.
• Anchor Guidance: For each training minibatch, identify Mutual Nearest Neighbor (MNN) pairs between cells based on their linked feature profiles (X̃1, X̃2). Apply an L2 penalty to minimize the distance between these anchor pairs in the latent space.
• Topology Preservation: For each cell in a minibatch, calculate a geometric representation based on Gaussian kernel distances to other cells. Regularize the encoders to preserve these geometric relationships, maintaining population structure.
• Output: Extract aligned latent embeddings Z for all cells from both modalities for downstream analysis.

Protocol: Multi-Omics Data Integration for Wine Fermentation Profiling

Purpose: To connect the composition and function of industrial microbiomes by integrating meta-transcriptomic data of fermenting yeast communities with the metabolite profiles of the resulting wines [5].

Applications in Wine Science: Revealing the functional potential of wild yeast communities under varying fermentation conditions and their contribution to wine sensory attributes.

Materials & Reagents:

• Grape Must Samples: Collected from different wine appellations and farming systems (conventional/organic).
• Synthetic Grape Must (SGM): Prepared as described by Ruiz et al. [5] for controlled experimental fermentations.
• Fermentation Conditions: Control (25°C), Low Temperature (18°C), NH₄ supplement (300 mg/L diammonium sulfate), SO₂ supplement (100 mg/L potassium metabisulfite) [5].
• DNA/RNA Extraction Kit: e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen).
• Sequencing Services: For ITS amplicon sequencing (fungal community) and RNA-Seq (meta-transcriptomic profile).

Procedure:

• Sample Collection & Fermentation:
  • Collect composite grape samples from vineyards, process into must, and dispense into bottles for spontaneous fermentation under the four defined conditions [5].
  • Monitor fermentation kinetics (e.g., by daily weight loss) until completion.
• Controlled SGM Fermentation:
  • Inoculate SGM with fermenting communities sourced from the tumultuous stage of spontaneous fermentations.
  • Conduct fermentations in quadruplicate under the four defined conditions.
  • Sample at the tumultuous stage for DNA (community composition) and RNA (meta-transcriptome) extraction.
• Multi-Omics Data Generation:
  • Community Composition: Perform ITS2 amplicon sequencing on DNA samples to assess fungal community structure.
  • Functional Profile: Perform RNA-Seq on extracted RNA to obtain meta-transcriptomic data of the active fermenting community.
  • Metabolite Profile: Analyze final wines using targeted or untargeted metabolomics (e.g., GC-MS).
• Data Integration & Analysis:
  • Identify Dominant Species: Based on ITS and meta-transcriptomic data.
  • Correlate Transcriptome and Metabolome: Construct correlation networks between species-specific transcriptomic modules and wine metabolite abundances to define a core array of orthologs determining wine ecosystem functioning [5].

Visualization and Accessibility in Data Integration

Effective visualization is critical for interpreting integrated multi-omics data. Adherence to core principles ensures clarity and accessibility [68] [69].

Key Principles:

• Prioritize Clarity: Use clear labels, legends, and titles. Remove non-essential elements ("chart junk") [69].
• Ensure Accessibility: Check color contrast ratios (WCAG 2.0 Level AA requires 4.5:1 for normal text) [70]. Do not rely on color alone; use patterns, shapes, or labels [69]. Provide alt text for all visuals.
• Maintain Consistency: Use a consistent color scheme, font, and chart types across all visualizations in a report or dashboard [69] [71].

Technical Specification for Diagrams: For all diagrams generated with Graphviz, adhere to the following color palette and contrast rules to ensure accessibility and visual coherence [72] [73]:

• Allowed Color Palette: #4285F4, #EA4335, #FBBC05, #34A853, #FFFFFF, #F1F3F4, #202124, #5F6368.
• Contrast Rule: Explicitly set fontcolor to have high contrast against the node's fillcolor (e.g., dark text on light backgrounds, light text on dark backgrounds).
• Max Width: 760px.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Omics Integration

Reagent / Tool	Function	Application Context
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen)	DNA extraction from complex microbial communities.	Assessing fungal community composition in grape musts and during fermentation [5].
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Defined medium for controlled fermentation experiments.	Studying yeast transcriptomic and metabolic responses without the variability of natural must [5].
Linked Features (e.g., Gene-Protein Pairs)	Prior biological knowledge of correlated cross-modality features.	Anchoring the integration of different omics layers in computational frameworks like scMODAL [67].
CITE-seq Data	Provides simultaneously measured transcriptome and surface protein data in the same cells.	Serves as a ground truth benchmark for evaluating multi-omics integration methods [67].

Workflow and Architecture Diagrams

Multi-Omics Integration Strategy Selection

scMODAL Architecture for Data Alignment

In multi-omics studies for wine profiling, achieving robust statistical power is a fundamental prerequisite for generating biologically meaningful and reproducible results. The inherent complexity of these studies—integrating genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—demands meticulous experimental design to detect subtle yet significant effects amidst substantial biological and technical variation. Research on wine yeast populations reveals that functional differences are deeply linked to community composition, a finding that can only be reliably uncovered with adequate sample sizing and replication [5].

This document provides application notes and protocols to guide researchers in designing statistically powerful multi-omics experiments within oenological research. We detail best practices for sample size determination, replication strategies, and data management, providing a structured framework to enhance data quality and validity from vineyard to data analysis.

Quantitative Guidelines for Experimental Design

The tables below synthesize key quantitative parameters from recent multi-omics studies in wine research, offering a reference for designing experiments with sufficient statistical power.

Table 1: Sample and Replication Guidelines from Recent Wine Multi-Omics Studies

Study Focus	Omics Layers Employed	Sample Size (Biological Replicates)	Replication Structure	Key Statistical Power Consideration
Yeast Population Fermentation Performance [5]	Metagenomics, Meta-transcriptomics, Metabolomics	9 locations, 2 farming systems (n=18 initial must samples)	Composite sample from 5 bunches from 5 plants per replicate; fermentations in quadruplicate.	Captures biogeographic and anthropic variation; technical replication validates fermentation robustness.
Spontaneous vs. Inoculated Fermentation [32]	16S/ITS rRNA Sequencing, Metagenomics, Metabolomics	Not explicitly stated, but multiple fermentation trials analyzed.	Multi-omics co-analysis to correlate microbial taxa with metabolite shifts.	Functional insights require deep sequencing and metabolite coverage per sample to link microbes to function.
Spontaneous Jaboticaba Wine Fermentation [53]	Metagenomics, Metabolomics	Dynamic sampling across fermentation time series.	Tracking of microbial succession and flavor compounds over time.	Time-series design captures dynamic processes; power requires sufficient time points and replicates per stage.
Grape Overripening Metabolism [74]	Transcriptome, Proteome, Non-targeted Metabolome	3 ripeness levels over 2 years (n=3 replicates per level).	Randomized block design; 30 vines per replicate block; 250 berries sampled per replicate.	Longitudinal design with biological and temporal replication accounts for vintage and developmental variation.

Table 2: Recommended Minimum Sample Sizes for Common Wine Multi-Omics Study Designs

Study Type	Recommended Minimum Biological Replicates (n)	Notes and Justification
Vineyard "Terroir" Studies (e.g., soil, farming practice)	6 per condition (e.g., 3 locations × 2 practices) [5]	Accounts for high spatial heterogeneity. Composite sampling is crucial.
Fermentation Kinetics (Time-series)	4 per time point [5]	Captures biological variation in dynamic microbial communities.
Grape Berry Development/Ripening	3 per stage, over at least 2 vintages [74]	Controls for annual climatic variability and plant physiological differences.
Microbial Community Function	5-6 per treatment group	Provides power for multivariate statistics (e.g., PERMANOVA) and correlation networks.

Experimental Protocols for Powerful Multi-Omics in Oenology

Protocol: Sample Collection and Replication for Vineyard Microbiome Studies

Application: This protocol is designed for a study investigating the effect of organic vs. conventional farming on the grape must microbiome and its subsequent impact on fermentation metabolites, ensuring high statistical power [5].

Materials:

• Grape clusters (Vitis vinifera L., single variety)
• Sterile sample bags
• Cooler with ice packs
• Permanent marker
• GPS device (optional)
• Reagent Solution: DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen) [5]: For standardized DNA extraction from complex grape must samples.

Procedure:

• Experimental Design: Select a minimum of 3 geographically distinct vineyards. Within each vineyard, identify paired plots under organic and conventional management systems. This yields a minimum of 6 distinct sample groups [5].
• Biological Replication: For each plot (e.g., OrganicVineyardA), collect 5 independent biological replicates. Each replicate is a composite sample: randomly collect 5 bunches from 5 different, randomly selected grapevine plants within the plot [5].
• Sample Collection: Aseptically place the 5 bunches into a sterile sample bag. Label clearly with vineyard, plot, and replicate ID. Immediately place on ice.
• Must Preparation: In the laboratory, process each composite sample independently. Destem and press grapes aseptically. Aliquot the resulting must for downstream DNA extraction and metabolomic analysis. Multiple aliquots per replicate serve as technical replicates.
• Storage: Store DNA aliquots at -80°C. Store metabolomics aliquots at -80°C, often after snap-freezing in liquid nitrogen.

Statistical Power Consideration: This nested design (Replicates within Farming System within Vineyard) explicitly controls for geographic and management variability, allowing for a powerful statistical dissection of the main effect (farming) while accounting for location-specific influences.

Protocol: Inoculation and Multi-Omics Sampling During Experimental Fermentations

Application: To functionally validate findings from field samples and test the effect of fermentation conditions on yeast community function and wine metabolite profiles with high statistical power [5].

Materials:

• Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) [5]
• Sterile 250 mL glass bottles
• Air-locks
• Analytical balance (for weight loss monitoring)
• Reagent Solution: TRIzol Reagent or equivalent [5]: For simultaneous stabilization and isolation of high-quality RNA and DNA from the same fermentation sample for metagenomics and meta-transcriptomics.

Procedure:

• Inoculum Standardization: Use the natural musts from Protocol 3.1 or a defined microbial consortium as inoculum. Standardize the inoculum density (e.g., OD600nm) across all fermentation vessels to ensure consistent starting points [5].
• Fermentation Conditions: For each biological replicate must, set up a minimum of 4 technical/fermentation replicates. Subject these to different conditions (e.g., Control 25°C, Low Temp 18°C, +NH4, +SO2) [5]. This allows testing of treatment effects within a genetic background.
• Sampling During Fermentation:
  • Tumultuous Stage: Sample all replicates at the tumultuous fermentation phase (e.g., 23-45% sugar consumption) for DNA (community structure) and RNA (community gene expression) [5].
  • Endpoint: Sample when fermentation is complete (e.g., weight loss <0.01 g/day for 2 consecutive days) for DNA (final community) and metabolomics (wine profile) [5].
• Sample Processing: Process all samples from the same time point in a randomized order to avoid batch effects. For RNA, stabilize immediately upon sampling.

Statistical Power Consideration: This design, with multiple biological starting musts and technical fermentation replicates per condition, provides the data structure needed for sophisticated statistical models (e.g., ANOVA with mixed effects) to separate the influence of initial community, fermentation condition, and random experimental noise.

Visualizing Workflows and Data Relationships

The following diagrams, generated using Graphviz, illustrate the core experimental designs and data integration pathways to ensure statistical power.

Experimental Design for Powerful Vineyard Microbiology

Data Integration and Analysis Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for Wine Multi-Omics

Reagent / Kit	Function in Workflow	Application Note
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen) [5]	Standardized DNA extraction from complex matrices like grape must, pomace, or fermenting wine.	Critical for removing PCR inhibitors (polyphenols, polysaccharides) and ensuring high-yield, representative metagenomic libraries.
TRIzol Reagent [5]	Simultaneous isolation of RNA, DNA, and proteins from a single sample.	Ideal for meta-transcriptomic studies from fermentation samples, allowing direct correlation of community structure (DNA) and function (RNA).
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) [5]	Defined growth medium for controlled, reproducible experimental fermentations.	Eliminates the variability of natural musts, allowing precise testing of microbial interactions and treatment effects under controlled conditions.
UPLC-QTOF-MS Systems [74]	High-resolution separation and detection of metabolites for non-targeted metabolomics.	Essential for capturing the vast array of volatile and non-volatile compounds that define wine aroma and flavor [53] [10].
ITS/16S rRNA Primers (e.g., ITS2_fITS7/ITS4) [5]	Amplification of fungal (ITS) and bacterial (16S) marker genes for community profiling.	Standardized primers allow for amplicon sequencing to characterize microbial diversity and dynamics during fermentation.

Ensuring Biological Relevance: Validation and Comparative Analysis Frameworks

In the field of wine science, a central challenge is to objectively predict complex human sensory perception using analytical instrumentation. This Application Note details a framework for establishing robust correlations between instrumental data and sensory evaluation, contextualized within a multi-omics wine profiling research project. By integrating data from metabolomics, transcriptomics, and other high-throughput technologies with sensory outcomes, researchers can build predictive models that elucidate how molecular composition drives perceived wine quality and character. The protocols herein provide a standardized approach for linking the chemical landscape of wine to the human sensory experience, a critical step for quality control, product development, and authenticity assurance.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Wine Metabolite Profiling for Sensory Prediction

This protocol describes the use of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Fourier Transform-Infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy to obtain a chemical profile of wine that can be modeled against sensory ratings.

• Principle: The volatile organic compound (VOC) profile, captured by GC-MS, and broad chemical constituents, determined by FT-IR, are key determinants of wine aroma and taste. Machine learning models can identify patterns in this chemical data that correlate with human sensory perception [75].
• Materials:
  • Wine samples
  • Dynamic Headspace Extraction (DHE) system for GC-MS
  • Gas Chromatograph coupled to a Mass Spectrometer
  • FT-IR Spectrometer
• Procedure:
  • Sample Preparation: For GC-MS analysis, use Dynamic Headspace Extraction to concentrate volatile compounds from 89 wine samples. For FT-IR, analyze wine directly to determine 18 physicochemical parameters [75].
  • Instrumental Analysis:
    • GC-MS: Inject the concentrated volatiles onto the GC-MS system. Use a standard capillary column and a temperature program optimized for separating wine VOCs. Acquire mass spectra in electron impact (EI) mode [75].
    • FT-IR: Load the wine sample into the FT-IR spectrometer and acquire spectra in the mid-infrared region. Use proprietary software to quantify parameters like alcohol content, acidity, and residual sugar [75].
  • Data Processing: Preprocess the raw data: align chromatograms, perform peak picking, and normalize the data. The final dataset for modeling should consist of a matrix where rows are wine samples and columns are the peak intensities from GC-MS and the parameters from FT-IR [75].

Protocol 2: Multi-Omics Investigation of Climate Effects on Wine Sensory Attributes

This protocol outlines a multi-omics approach to understand how annual meteorological variations influence phenolic and ester compounds, which are associated with astringency, color, and fruity aroma in red wine [76].

• Principle: Cumulative precipitation during key grape growth stages (flowering-to-coloring and coloring-to-ripening) impacts the abundance of sensory-relevant compounds. A multi-omics approach identifies these molecular determinants [76].
• Materials:
  • Red wine samples from multiple vintages
  • UPLC-MS/MS system
  • HS-SPME-GC-MS system
  • Meteorological data
• Procedure:
  • Sample Collection: Collect red wine samples produced from the same vineyard over multiple vintages to capture interannual variation [76].
  • Metabolite Profiling:
    • Phenolic Compounds: Analyze wine samples using UPLC-MS/MS to identify and quantify up to 72 phenolic compounds, including anthocyanins. Use reverse-phase chromatography and mass detection in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode [76].
    • Ester Compounds: Employ Headspace-Solid Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled to GC-MS to identify and quantify 19 ester and 10 alcohol compounds [76].
  • Data Integration: Correlate the abundance of the identified compounds with meteorological data (e.g., cumulative precipitation) from critical growth stages using statistical analysis such as Pearson correlation. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) can further confirm associations between low precipitation and intensified astringency, fruity aroma, and color [76].

Protocol 3: Sensory Evaluation and Correlation with Instrumental Data

This protocol describes the execution of a sensory study and its subsequent correlation with instrumental textural or chemical data.

• Principle: Trained human panelists provide quantitative ratings of sensory attributes. These ratings are then statistically correlated with instrumental measurements to identify predictive relationships [77] [78].
• Materials:
  • Trained panelists (minimum of 8-12)
  • Sensory evaluation booths
  • Reference standards for sensory attributes
• Procedure:
  • Panel Training: Train panelists to recognize and quantify specific sensory attributes (e.g., hardness, fracturability, aroma, flavor) using a structured scale (e.g., a 9-point hedonic scale). Validate panelist performance for repeatability and consensus [77] [79] [80].
  • Sensory Testing: Present samples to panelists in a randomized, monadic order under controlled conditions. For each sample, panelists score the pre-defined attributes [80].
  • Data Analysis: Calculate average scores for each attribute and product. Use correlation analysis (e.g., Pearson correlation) or more advanced multivariate methods like Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA) or PLS regression to find relationships between the sensory scores and the instrumental data [77] [80]. For complex data structures, Parallel Factor Analysis (PARAFAC) can be used to decompose three-way data (products x attributes x panelists) [81].

Data Presentation

Key Correlations Between Instrumental Measurements and Sensory Attributes

Table 1: Documented correlations between instrumental data and sensory perception across food and beverage matrices.

Product Category	Instrumental Method	Instrumental Parameter	Sensory Attribute	Correlation Coefficient/Result	Citation
Hazelnuts	Texture Analysis (Biomimetic Probe M1)	Hardness	Sensory Hardness	( r_s = 0.8857 )	[77]
Hazelnuts	Texture Analysis (Biomimetic Probe M2)	Fracturability	Sensory Fracturability	( r_s = 0.9714 )	[77]
White Wine	GC-MS & FT-IR	Volatile & Physicochemical Profile	Vivino Consumer Rating	Predictive model established	[75]
Protein-Fortified Puree	Texture Analysis	Firmness	Sensory Firmness	Statistically significant (P<0.05)	[78]
Red Wine	UPLC-MS/MS	Anthocyanin Abundance	Color Intensity & %Red	Positive Correlation	[76]
Red Wine	HS-SPME-GC-MS	Ester Abundance	Fruity Aroma	Positive Correlation	[76]

Impact of Meteorological Factors on Sensory-Relevant Compounds

Table 2: How cumulative precipitation during grape growth stages affects compounds linked to sensory qualities in red wine, as identified via a multi-omics approach [76].

Grape Growth Stage	Compound Class	Number of Compounds Identified	Correlation with Precipitation	Associated Sensory Attribute
Flowering-to-Coloring	Phenolic Compounds	72	Negative Correlation	Astringency, Color Intensity
Coloring-to-Ripening	Ester Compounds	19	Negative Correlation	Fruity Aroma

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential research reagents and solutions for conducting instrumental-sensory correlation studies in wine science.

Item	Function/Application
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	A defined growth medium for conducting standardized and reproducible experimental wine fermentations, eliminating the variability of natural grape must [5].
Dynamic Headspace Extraction (DHE)	A pre-concentration technique for trapping and introducing volatile organic compounds from wine into the GC-MS, crucial for analyzing aroma profiles [75].
Quartz Cuvettes	Essential sample holders for UV-Vis spectroscopy analysis, used for authenticating wine and characterizing its chemical composition [82].

• Biomimetic Probes: Texture analysis accessories designed to mimic human molar geometry, significantly improving the correlation between instrumental texture measurements and sensory perception of attributes like hardness and fracturability [77].
• Diammonium Sulfate ((NH₄)₂SO₄): A nitrogen source used in fermentation experiments to study the impact of nutrient availability on yeast metabolism and the resulting wine metabolite profile [5].

Workflow and Data Integration Diagrams

Multi-Omics to Sensory Perception Workflow

Statistical Modeling Pathways

In modern oenology, the deliberate management of fermenting yeast communities is crucial for controlling wine quality and stylistic outcomes. Moving beyond the default use of single, commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains, a paradigm shift towards harnessing diverse yeast species and consortia is underway. This transition requires a deeper understanding of the functional molecular mechanisms that determine fermentation performance [52]. The complex interplay between yeast community composition, environmental conditions, and the resulting metabolite profile of wine presents a significant challenge for researchers and winemakers alike.

Functional validation bridges the gap between observing microbial diversity and understanding its consequential impact on wine character. By integrating multi-omics technologies—including genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics—we can systematically uncover the molecular determinants of yeast dominance, metabolic output, and overall ecosystem functioning during fermentation [52] [83]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols for designing and executing experiments that functionally validate the role of specific yeast genes and pathways, framed within a multi-omics context for comprehensive wine profiling research.

Experimental Design for Functional Analysis

Core Principles and Workflow

A robust experimental design for functional validation must account for the key factors shaping yeast performance: the initial community structure, the fermentative conditions, and the subsequent molecular responses. The workflow progresses from ecosystem characterization to controlled perturbation and finally to integrated multi-omics analysis.

Key Experimental Factors:

• Initial Community Composition: The starting yeast population is a primary determinant of fermentation trajectory and outcome. Dominance is often established early and can dictate the meta-transcriptomic profile [52].
• Fermentation Conditions: Parameters such as temperature, nutrient supplementation (e.g., nitrogen), and the use of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) are not merely background conditions but active selective pressures that modulate yeast function [52].
• Multi-Omics Integration: A single "omics" layer provides a limited view. True insight is generated by integrating data across genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics to construct a predictive model of phenotype [83].

The schematic below outlines the core logical workflow for a functional validation study.

Defining Fermentation Conditions

The following table summarizes critical fermentation conditions and their impact on yeast physiology, which should be considered when designing functional validation experiments. These conditions serve as experimental variables to test yeast performance and functional stability.

Table 1: Key Fermentation Conditions and Their Impact on Yeast

Condition	Typical Range/Type	Impact on Yeast Performance
Temperature [52]	Control: 25°CLow: 18°C	Influences fermentation kinetics, yeast succession, and the production of volatile aroma compounds.
Nitrogen Supplement [52]	e.g., 300 mg/L Diammonium Phosphate	Can alleviate nutritional stress, improve fermentation kinetics, and alter the metabolic profile.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂) [52]	e.g., 100 mg/L Potassium Metabisulfite	Selects for SO₂-tolerant yeasts (e.g., S. cerevisiae), strongly shaping community structure.
Inoculum Type [52]	Spontaneous vs. Commercial Strain vs. Designed Consortium	The initial community composition is a major factor in determining the dominant species and metabolic output.

Protocol: Multi-Omics Integration for Functional Validation

This protocol details a procedure for assessing yeast fermentation performance and its molecular basis by integrating transcriptomic and metabolomic data, adapted from recent research [52].

Sample Preparation and Fermentation

• Grape Must Preparation: Use either natural grape must (from Vitis vinifera L., e.g., Tempranillo) or Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) for higher experimental reproducibility [52]. For SGM, prepare as described by Ruiz et al. [52].
• Experimental Fermentation Setup:
  • Dispense 200 mL of must into 250 mL sterile glass bottles.
  • Inoculate with the yeast community of interest (e.g., a wild community from grape must, a commercial strain, or a designed consortium).
  • Subject bottles to different fermentation conditions (see Table 1), such as:
    • Control: 25°C, no supplements.
    • Low Temperature: 18°C, no supplements.
    • NH₄ Condition: 25°C, supplemented with 300 mg/L diammonium sulfate.
    • SO₂ Condition: 25°C, supplemented with 100 mg/L potassium metabisulfite.
  • Monitor fermentation progress by measuring daily weight loss (due to CO₂ evolution). Define the endpoint when weight loss remains below 0.01 g/day for two consecutive days.

Multi-Omics Data Collection

• Sampling Timepoints:

  • Initial Must: Collect for DNA extraction to characterize the starting community.
  • Tumultuous Fermentation Stage: Sample when 23-45% of total sugars have been consumed. This is a critical point for RNA extraction (for transcriptomics) and metabolite analysis [52].
  • End of Fermentation: Sample for final DNA (community assessment) and the final wine metabolome.

• Meta-Transcriptomics (RNA-Seq):

  • RNA Extraction: Extract total RNA from cell pellets collected at the tumultuous stage using a commercial kit suitable for yeast.
  • Library Preparation & Sequencing: Deplete rRNA and prepare strand-specific RNA-Seq libraries. Sequence on an Illumina platform to a minimum depth of 20 million paired-end reads per sample.
  • Bioinformatic Analysis:
    • Pre-process reads (quality control, adapter trimming).
    • Map reads to a custom pangenome reference containing all expected yeast species.
    • Perform differential gene expression analysis to identify orthologs and pathways that are upregulated under specific conditions or in dominant species.

• Metabolite Profiling:

  • Sample Preparation: Centrifuge wine samples to remove cells. For LC-HRMS, dilute and mix with acidified acetonitrile. For NMR, filter and add a deuterated solvent (e.g., D₂O) and internal standard (e.g., TSP) [84].
  • Instrumental Analysis:
    • Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LC-HRMS): Provides a broad, untargeted profile of thousands of compounds, including polyphenols and aroma precursors [85] [84].
    • Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy: Offers robust, quantitative data on major metabolites (e.g., amino acids, organic acids, sugars) and is highly reproducible [84].
  • Data Processing: Use software like XCMS (for LC-HRMS) or Chenomx (for NMR) for peak picking, alignment, and annotation against metabolite databases.

Data Integration and Analysis

The core of functional validation lies in integrating the different data layers.

• Pathway Analysis: Map differentially expressed genes and significantly altered metabolites onto biochemical pathways (e.g., phenylpropanoid, sugar metabolism, nitrogen assimilation) to identify coordinated changes [83].
• Network Models: Use heterogeneous network models, such as Bayesian networks, to infer causal relationships between transcriptomic patterns and metabolite abundance, identifying key regulatory nodes [83].
• Supervised Multi-Omics Data Fusion: Employ methods like sparse Projection to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) on the combined LC-HRMS and NMR datasets. This supervised approach powerfully classifies wines based on experimental factors (e.g., yeast strain, withering time) and identifies the key molecular features (transcripts and metabolites) driving the classification [84].

The relationship between the different omics layers and the analytical techniques used to integrate them is visualized below.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The following table provides examples of the types of quantitative data generated from a multi-omics experiment and how they can be interpreted to reveal molecular determinants of fermentation.

Table 2: Example Multi-Omics Data for Functional Analysis

Omics Layer	Analytical Technique	Example Quantitative Readout	Link to Fermentation Performance
Microbial Community	ITS Amplicon Sequencing [52]	Relative abundance of S. cerevisiae: 95% vs 60% under different conditions.	Dominance of specific species determines the core metabolic network active in the must.
Meta-Transcriptomics	RNA-Seq [52]	10X upregulation of orthologs for sugar transporters in a dominant Torulaspora species.	Reveals the molecular strategies (e.g., nutrient uptake) used by a species to achieve dominance.
Metabolomics	LC-HRMS [85] [84]	50% higher concentration of specific polyphenols in wines fermented with a wild consortium.	Links yeast activity to wine sensory attributes and quality, providing a functional output.
Metabolomics	¹H NMR [84]	Significant variation in accumulation of amino acids and monosaccharides based on withering time.	Connects process parameters to chemical composition, revealing markers of terroir/process.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Item	Function / Application in Protocol
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM) [52]	Provides a chemically defined, reproducible medium for controlled fermentation experiments, minimizing batch-to-batch variability inherent in natural must.
Diammonium Sulfate ((NH₄)₂SO₄) [52]	Used as a nitrogen supplement in fermentation condition perturbations to study yeast stress response and nutrient utilization.
Potassium Metabisulfite (K₂S₂O₅) [52]	Source of sulfur dioxide (SO₂); used to test yeast tolerance and the molecular response to this common winemaking additive.
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen) [52]	Efficiently extracts high-quality genomic DNA from complex must and wine samples for subsequent amplicon sequencing of the fungal community.
Cryotolerant Yeast Strains(e.g., S. cerevisiae var. bayanus) [84]	Specific yeast strains with known physiological characteristics (e.g., high alcohol tolerance) used to investigate strain-specific contributions to wine aroma and terroir.
Deuterium Oxide (D₂O) [84]	The solvent required for preparing wine samples for ¹H NMR analysis, allowing for robust metabolite fingerprinting.
3-(Trimethylsilyl)-propionic acid sodium salt (TSP) [84]	Internal chemical shift standard for ¹H NMR spectroscopy; used for quantitative analysis and spectral calibration.

The functional validation protocols outlined herein provide a robust framework for moving beyond correlation to causation in wine yeast research. By systematically applying controlled fermentative perturbations and integrating data across transcriptomic and metabolomic layers, researchers can pinpoint the specific orthologs, pathways, and regulatory mechanisms that underpin yeast dominance and metabolic output. The application of supervised data fusion techniques, such as sPLS-DA, to multi-omics datasets is particularly powerful for classifying wines and identifying the key molecular features responsible for their distinct characteristics [84]. This approach ultimately provides a molecular roadmap for rationally harnessing yeast biodiversity to produce tailored, high-quality wines [52].

The integration of multi-omics data is revolutionizing biological research, from precision oncology to agricultural biotechnology. In wine profiling research, understanding the complex interactions between yeast genomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics is essential for connecting microbial composition to fermentation outcomes and final wine quality [1] [5]. Such investigations require robust benchmarking against standardized, high-quality data. This application note proposes leveraging two leading public data repositories—The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Omics Discovery Index (OmicsDI)—as exemplary models for establishing benchmarking frameworks in oenological research. We detail protocols for accessing and utilizing these resources, with specific applications for multi-omics integration in wine science.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)

Overview: TCGA is a landmark cancer genomics program that molecularly characterized over 20,000 primary cancer and matched normal samples spanning 33 cancer types [86]. This collaborative project between the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) generated over 2.5 petabytes of genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data, creating a foundational resource for biomarker discovery and validation [86] [87].

Primary Access Protocol:

• Access Point: Navigate to the Genomic Data Commons (GDC) Data Portal [86].
• Data Exploration: Use the portal's web-based tools to explore available data types by cancer type, experimental strategy, or program.
• Data Retrieval:
  • For open-access data (clinical, biospecimen, somatic mutations, gene expression, methylation, protein expression), directly download through the portal interface [87].
  • For programmatic access, utilize the GDC API or the isb-cgc-bq dataset in Google BigQuery for analysis without downloading [87].
• Data Level Consideration: Select the appropriate data level (Level 1: raw data, Level 2: processed, Level 3: aggregated/segmented) based on the analysis requirements [87].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of TCGA and OmicsDI Repositories

Feature	The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)	Omics Discovery Index (OmicsDI)
Primary Focus	Cancer Genomics & Related Omics	Cross-Domain Omics Data (Public)
Data Volume	> 2.5 Petabytes [86]	> 453,000 Datasets (as of 2020) [88]
Integrated Omics	Genomics, Transcriptomics, Epigenomics, Proteomics [86]	Genomics, Transcriptomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics, Multi-omics [89] [88]
Access Method	GDC Data Portal, GDC API, Google BigQuery [86] [87]	Web Interface, REST API, R/Python Clients [88]
Notable Tools	Broad GDAC Firehose, TCGA-Reports Corpus [90] [91]	Dataset Search, Similarity Finder, Merge Candidate Identifier [88]

Omics Discovery Index (OmicsDI)

Overview: OmicsDI is an open-source platform that provides a unified framework to access, discover, and disseminate omics datasets across public repositories [89] [88]. It integrates datasets from diverse fields, including proteomics, genomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics, enabling cross-disciplinary data discovery.

Primary Access Protocol:

• Web Interface Search:
  • Navigate to the OmicsDI website.
  • Use the search bar with keywords, or apply filters based on species, tissues, instruments, or omics type.
  • Refine searches using field-specific syntax (e.g., omics_type:"Metabolomics") [88].
• Programmatic Access via REST API:
  • Base URL: www.omicsdi.org/ws/
  • Key Endpoints:
    • Search: /dataset/search?query={keyword}
    • Retrieve Specific Dataset: /dataset/{database}/{accession}
    • Find Similar Datasets: /dataset/getSimilar [88]
• Client Libraries: Utilize the official ddiR (R) or ddipy (Python) libraries to interact with the API within computational workflows [88].

Experimental Protocols for Data Utilization

Protocol 1: Constructing a Benchmark Corpus from TCGA-Reports

This protocol outlines the retrieval and processing of pathology reports to create a machine-readable benchmark for natural language processing (NLP) tasks, adaptable for standardizing wine fermentation reports [91].

Application in Wine Research: This pipeline can be adapted to digitize and structure historical winery reports, fermentation logs, or sensory evaluation notes, enabling large-scale analysis of textual data for quality prediction.

Workflow:

Materials and Reagents:

• Source Data: 11,108 de-identified pathology report PDFs from TCGA data portal [91].
• OCR Software: Amazon Textract or equivalent optical character recognition tool [91].
• Computational Environment: Standard workstation with sufficient storage and memory for processing ~10,000 documents.

Procedure:

• Data Retrieval: Download the complete set of pathology report PDFs from the TCGA data portal.
• OCR Processing: Process all PDFs through Textract to generate initial text output.
• Post-Processing Pipeline:
  • Remove QC artifacts, redaction bars, and TCGA barcodes automatically inserted during data submission.
  • Identify and filter out standardized multiple-choice forms using keyword and check-box detection algorithms.
  • Remove TCGA-specific quality control tables and handwritten annotations using word-level text-type annotations.
  • Apply regular expression filters (e.g., 312 unique patterns) to remove clinically irrelevant section headers while preserving diagnostic content [91].
• Quality Control: Manually validate a random subset of processed reports against original PDFs to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Output: A curated corpus of 9,523 machine-readable pathology reports suitable for NLP analysis and machine learning applications [91].

Protocol 2: Multi-Omics Dataset Discovery via OmicsDI API

This protocol enables systematic discovery of relevant multi-omics datasets for comparative analysis, directly applicable to finding wine-relevant microbial and metabolomic data.

Application in Wine Research: Discover publicly available datasets on yeast genomics, transcriptomics during fermentation, or wine metabolomics to benchmark against internal findings or to power meta-analyses.

Workflow:

Materials and Reagents:

• Software: Python environment with requests library or R environment with httr library; optionally, use official ddipy (Python) or ddiR (R) client libraries [88].
• Computational Resources: Standard personal computer with internet connectivity.

Procedure:

• Query Formulation:
  • Define search parameters based on experimental needs (e.g., organism, tissue, omics type).
  • For wine research, example queries could target "Saccharomyces cerevisiae" with omics type "Transcriptomics" or "Metabolomics".
• API Call Execution:
  • Construct API call to the search endpoint: GET /dataset/search?query={query}[&filter1=value1&...]
  • Use field-specific syntax for precise queries (e.g., omics_type:"Transcriptomics" AND organism:"Saccharomyces cerevisiae").
• Result Processing:
  • Parse JSON response to extract dataset accessions, descriptions, and metadata.
  • Utilize pagination parameters (start, size) to navigate through large result sets.
• Dataset Retrieval and Integration:
  • Use the /dataset/{database}/{accession} endpoint to obtain detailed metadata and file locations.
  • Leverage the API's geolocation feature to download data files from the closest mirror source for improved transfer speeds [88].
  • Access similar datasets using /dataset/getSimilar to find relevant studies for meta-analysis.

Output: A structured list of relevant multi-omics datasets with metadata and direct file access links, ready for integration into analytical pipelines.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Omics Data Benchmarking

Tool / Resource	Function	Application in Protocol
GDC Data Portal	Primary interface for browsing, accessing, and downloading TCGA data [86].	Protocol 1: Source for raw pathology report PDFs and associated clinical metadata.
OmicsDI REST API	Programmatic interface for cross-repository dataset discovery and retrieval [88].	Protocol 2: Execution of structured searches and retrieval of dataset metadata and file links.
TCGA-Reports Corpus	Curated, machine-readable collection of 9,523 pathology reports for NLP benchmarking [91].	Protocol 1: Resulting benchmark corpus; model for creating similar resources in other domains.
ddiR / ddipy Libraries	Programming language-specific clients (R/Python) for simplified interaction with the OmicsDI API [88].	Protocol 2: Streamlining API calls and data parsing within R or Python analytical environments.
Broad GDAC Firehose	Provides standardized, systematic analyses run across all TCGA cohorts (e.g., MutSig2CV) [90].	General Use: Access to pre-computed analyses for benchmarking new computational methods.
ISB-CGC BigQuery Tables	Cloud-based representation of TCGA data enabling large-scale SQL queries without file download [87].	General Use: Efficient querying and integration of clinical and molecular data for cohort building.

TCGA and OmicsDI provide mature, robust models for constructing data repositories that serve as community benchmarks. By adapting the experimental protocols outlined—from processing complex textual data like pathology reports to programmatically discovering cross-disciplinary omics datasets—wine researchers can build powerful, data-driven frameworks. These approaches will accelerate the integration of multi-omics data, ultimately enhancing our understanding of how microbial composition and function determine wine fermentation performance and final product quality.

The advent of high-throughput technologies has enabled the comprehensive characterization of biological systems across multiple molecular layers, or 'omics', including the genome, epigenome, transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome [58] [92]. Multi-omics profiling quantifies biologically distinct signals across these complementary layers, allowing researchers to explore the intricate interconnections between different classes of biological molecules and identify system-level biomarkers [58]. In the context of wine profiling research, this approach can reveal complex interactions between yeast genetics, metabolic pathways, and environmental factors that ultimately determine wine characteristics.

The fundamental challenge of multi-omics integration stems from the high-dimensionality, heterogeneity, and technical noise inherent in each omics dataset [92] [93]. Each omics type has unique data scales, noise ratios, and preprocessing requirements, making integration particularly complex. For wine researchers, this is further complicated by the fact that different omics layers may not correlate directly—for example, high gene expression of metabolic enzymes may not directly correspond to metabolite abundance due to post-translational modifications or environmental factors [93].

Data integration in multi-omics studies generally falls into two application scenarios: horizontal integration (within-omics), which combines datasets from a single omics type across multiple batches or technologies, and vertical integration (cross-omics), which combines multiple omics datasets with different modalities from the same set of samples [58]. A more recent classification specific to single-cell data defines four integration categories: vertical, diagonal, mosaic, and cross integration [35], each with distinct computational requirements and applications.

Categories of Integration Methods

Method Classifications and Underlying Principles

Multi-omics integration methods can be broadly categorized based on their underlying computational approaches and the nature of the data they process. Correlation and covariance-based methods, such as Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) and its extensions, aim to maximize the correlation between linear combinations of variables from different omics datasets [92]. These methods are interpretable and have flexible sparse regularized extensions, but are primarily limited to capturing linear associations. Matrix factorization techniques, including Joint and Integrative Non-negative Matrix Factorization (JIVE, intNMF), decompose multiple omics datasets into joint and individual components, enabling efficient dimensionality reduction and identification of shared molecular patterns [92].

Probabilistic-based methods such as iCluster incorporate uncertainty estimates through latent variable models, offering advantages for handling missing data and providing flexible regularization [92]. Network-based approaches represent samples or omics relationships as graphs, typically demonstrating robustness to missing data, though they may require careful tuning of similarity metrics [92]. Finally, deep generative models, particularly variational autoencoders (VAEs), have gained prominence for their ability to learn complex nonlinear patterns, support missing data, and perform denoising tasks [92] [35].

Integration Scenarios by Data Structure

The structure of available data fundamentally determines the appropriate integration strategy:

• Vertical Integration: Also termed "matched integration," this approach combines different omics modalities (e.g., RNA, ATAC, ADT) profiled from the same single cells [93] [35]. The cell itself serves as a natural anchor for integration, making this the most straightforward scenario.
• Diagonal Integration: This "unmatched integration" combines omics data from different cells of the same sample or related samples [93]. Without direct cellular anchors, methods must project cells into a co-embedded space to find commonalities.
• Mosaic Integration: This advanced approach integrates datasets where each experiment has various combinations of omics that create sufficient overlap across the entire dataset [93]. Tools like COBOLT and MultiVI enable this integration by creating a unified representation of cells across partially overlapping datasets.
• Cross Integration: This category encompasses integration across different technologies, batches, or species, often requiring specialized approaches to handle substantial technical variations [35].

Figure 1: Decision Framework for Multi-Omics Integration Strategies

Benchmarking Integration Performance

Comprehensive Method Evaluation Framework

Recent large-scale benchmarking studies have systematically evaluated integration methods across multiple tasks and data modalities. A 2025 Registered Report in Nature Methods comprehensively evaluated 40 integration methods across 4 data integration categories on 64 real datasets and 22 simulated datasets [35]. The study defined seven common computational tasks that integration methods address: (1) dimension reduction, (2) batch correction, (3) clustering, (4) classification, (5) feature selection, (6) imputation, and (7) spatial registration. Each task was assessed using tailored evaluation metrics to provide a comprehensive performance overview.

The performance of integration methods shows significant dependency on data modalities. For example, methods that perform well with RNA+ADT (antibody-derived tags) data may not maintain their performance with RNA+ATAC (assay for transposase-accessible chromatin) data [35]. This has important implications for wine research, where the specific omics combinations being integrated (e.g., transcriptomics with metabolomics) should guide method selection.

Performance Across Integration Categories

Table 1: Performance Rankings of Vertical Integration Methods by Data Modality

Method	RNA+ADT Rank	RNA+ATAC Rank	RNA+ADT+ATAC Rank	Key Strengths
Seurat WNN	1	2	1	Weighted nearest neighbors, preserves biological variation
Multigrate	2	3	2	Deep generative model, handles multiple modalities
Matilda	4	1	3	Supports feature selection, cell-type-specific markers
sciPENN	3	5	N/R	Neural network-based, good dimension reduction
UnitedNet	5	4	4	Graph-based integration
MOFA+	6	6	5	Factor analysis, interpretable latent factors

Performance rankings based on grand rank scores across multiple datasets and evaluation metrics. Adapted from [35].

For vertical integration, which is most applicable to well-controlled wine studies where multiple omics are assayed from the same samples, Seurat WNN (Weighted Nearest Neighbors) and Multigrate consistently demonstrate strong performance across diverse datasets and modalities [35]. These methods effectively preserve biological variation while successfully integrating technical modalities, making them particularly valuable for identifying subtle molecular patterns in wine fermentation processes.

Table 2: Specialized Method Performance by Research Objective

Research Objective	Top-Performing Methods	Data Modalities	Key Considerations
Feature Selection	Matilda, scMoMaT, MOFA+	RNA+ADT, RNA+ATAC	Matilda/scMoMaT identify cell-type-specific markers; MOFA+ provides reproducible features
Dimension Reduction	Seurat WNN, Multigrate, UnitedNet	All modalities	Preserves biological variation, handles dataset complexity
Classification & Clustering	sciPENN, Matilda, MOFA+	RNA+ADT, RNA+ATAC	Balanced performance across clustering metrics
Imputation & Denoising	Multigrate, scMM	RNA+ATAC	Particularly useful for sparse single-cell data
Batch Correction	Seurat WNN, UnitedNet	All modalities	Effective technical variation removal

Method recommendations based on comprehensive benchmarking across multiple datasets and evaluation metrics [35].

In diagonal and mosaic integration scenarios, which may be more relevant to wine studies integrating data from different experiments or vintages, Graph-Linked Unified Embedding (GLUE) has demonstrated strong performance for triple-omic integration by using prior biological knowledge to anchor features [93]. For mosaic integration, where datasets have varying combinations of omics, COBOLT and MultiVI create unified representations that enable downstream analysis [93].

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Protocol for Benchmarking Integration Methods

To ensure rigorous evaluation of multi-omics integration methods for wine research, the following protocol provides a standardized approach for assessment:

Sample Preparation and QC:

• Reference Materials: Utilize standardized reference materials where available, such as the Quartet reference materials for multi-omics QC [58]. For wine-specific studies, create internal reference samples from representative yeast strains or grape varieties.
• Sample Design: Include both biological replicates (different cultures of same strain) and technical replicates (same sample processed multiple times) to distinguish biological from technical variation.
• Quality Metrics: Apply omics-specific quality controls—Mendelian concordance rate for genomic variants, signal-to-noise ratio for quantitative omics profiling [58].

Data Preprocessing:

• Normalization: Apply modality-specific normalization methods (e.g., SCTransform for RNA-seq, TF-IDF for ATAC-seq) to account for technical variations.
• Feature Selection: Filter low-quality features prior to integration (e.g., genes expressed in fewer than 10 cells for scRNA-seq).
• Batch Effect Evaluation: Use PCA and visualization tools to assess batch effects before integration.

Integration Execution:

• Method Implementation: Run each integration method using standard parameters as defined in original publications.
• Reference-Based Integration: Where applicable, implement ratio-based profiling using common reference samples to improve reproducibility [58].
• Multiple Runs: Execute each method with different random seeds to assess stability.

Performance Assessment:

• Biological Conservation: Evaluate how well each method preserves known biological groups using metrics such as ASW (Average Silhouette Width) for cell type conservation.
• Batch Correction: Assess batch mixing using metrics like iLISI (integration Local Inverse Simpson's Index).
• Feature Selection Accuracy: For methods providing feature selection, compute precision and recall using known marker genes.
• Downstream Analysis: Apply consistent clustering and visualization to integrated outputs for qualitative assessment.

Protocol for Wine Profiling Multi-Omics Integration

For researchers specifically applying multi-omics integration to wine profiling, the following specialized protocol is recommended:

Experimental Design:

• Strain Selection: Include both laboratory reference strains and industrial wine yeast strains to capture relevant biological diversity.
• Time-Series Sampling: Collect samples at multiple time points during fermentation to capture dynamic processes.
• Multi-Omics Acquisition: Profile transcriptomics (RNA-seq), metabolomics (LC-MS), and if possible, proteomics (LC-MS/MS) from the same biological samples.
• Environmental Controls: Record and incorporate environmental parameters (temperature, nutrient levels, pH) as covariates in integration.

Wine-Specific QC Metrics:

• Fermentation Performance: Correlate integration results with fermentation kinetics and metabolic output.
• Sensory Relevance: Where possible, validate molecular findings with sensory analysis data.
• Strain Discrimination: Assess whether integration methods successfully distinguish known strain differences.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Multi-Omics Method Benchmarking

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Multi-Omics Integration

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Reference Materials	Quartet Project Reference Materials (DNA, RNA, protein, metabolites)	Provide multi-omics ground truth for quality assessment and method validation [58]
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NovaSeq, PacBio Revio, Oxford Nanopore	Generate genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic data
Mass Spectrometry Platforms	Thermo Fisher Orbitrap, Bruker timsTOF	Enable proteomic and metabolomic profiling
Quality Control Tools	FastQC, MultiQC, Quartet QC metrics	Assess data quality before integration
Integration Software	Seurat, MOFA+, SCIM, Scanorama	Implement specific integration algorithms
Benchmarking Frameworks	mintBench, MultiBench	Standardized evaluation of method performance

Implementation Guidelines for Wine Research

Successful application of multi-omics integration in wine research requires careful consideration of several practical aspects:

Data Generation Considerations:

• Platform Selection: Choose platforms based on required resolution, throughput, and cost constraints. For transcriptomics in yeast, standard RNA-seq typically suffices, while for complex microbial communities, metatranscriptomics may be necessary.
• Replicate Strategy: Include sufficient biological replicates (recommended n≥3) to capture biological variation, which is particularly important in heterogeneous wine fermentation environments.
• Reference Standards: Incorporate technical reference materials where possible to control for batch effects and enable ratio-based quantification [58].

Computational Infrastructure:

• Memory Requirements: Integration methods vary significantly in computational demands—neural network-based methods typically require GPU access, while statistical methods can run on CPU clusters.
• Software Versions: Use containerized implementations (Docker, Singularity) where available to ensure reproducibility.
• Parallel Processing: Many integration methods benefit from parallelization across multiple cores or nodes.

The systematic benchmarking of multi-omics integration methods reveals that method performance is highly context-dependent, varying significantly by data modalities, integration scenario, and research objectives [35]. For wine profiling research, selection of integration methods should be guided by several key considerations:

Method Selection Guidelines:

• For matched multi-omics data from the same samples, vertical integration methods like Seurat WNN and Multigrate generally provide robust performance [35].
• When integrating partially overlapping datasets from different experiments or vintages, mosaic integration approaches like COBOLT and MultiVI are recommended [93].
• For studies focusing on feature selection and biomarker identification, Matilda and scMoMaT provide cell-type-specific markers, while MOFA+ offers more reproducible feature sets [35].
• In all cases, method performance should be validated using multiple metrics relevant to the specific research questions.

Future Directions: Emerging approaches in multi-omics integration include foundation models pretrained on large-scale datasets that can be fine-tuned for specific applications [92]. Additionally, the development of ratio-based profiling using common reference materials shows promise for improving reproducibility and comparability across batches and laboratories [58]. For the wine research community, establishing field-specific reference materials and benchmark datasets will be crucial for advancing robust multi-omics integration tailored to enological applications.

As multi-omics technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, the systematic evaluation and selection of integration methods will play an increasingly critical role in extracting meaningful biological insights from complex molecular datasets in wine science and beyond.

The field of wine science is increasingly moving beyond simply correlating consumption patterns with health outcomes or linking specific grape varieties with wine characteristics. The central challenge lies in uncovering the causal mechanisms that explain why these correlations exist. Multi-omics approaches—the integrated analysis of genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data—provide a powerful framework to bridge this gap between correlation and causality. By systematically characterizing the molecular components of wine, the functional potential of microbial communities, and the host's biological response, researchers can begin to construct predictive, mechanistic models of how wine influences human physiology and how terroir shapes wine quality [3] [4]. This Application Note details the protocols and strategies for deploying multi-omics to uncover these mechanistic insights within wine profiling research.

Key Application Areas in Wine Research

Multi-omics integration is shedding light on previously intractable questions in oenology and nutritional science. The table below summarizes three primary application areas where this approach is delivering causal understanding.

Table 1: Key Application Areas for Multi-Omics in Wine Research

Application Area	Core Scientific Question	Relevant Omics Layers
Wine-Gut-Host Axis	What are the mechanisms by which moderate wine consumption influences gut microbial ecology and systemic host health? [3]	Metabolomics (wine polyphenols, microbial metabolites), Microbiomics (community diversity & function), Host Genomics/Proteomics [3] [4]
Yeast Fermentation Performance	How do different fermenting yeast species and communities determine the metabolic profile and quality of wine? [5]	Metagenomics (community composition), Meta-transcriptomics (community gene expression), Metabolomics (wine aroma & flavor compounds) [5]
Grape Terroir and Aroma	How do environmental factors and genetic characteristics interact to define the unique aroma and flavor profile of grapes from a specific region? [7] [94]	Genomics (grape cultivar), Transcriptomics (gene expression in berry), Metabolomics (volatile organic compounds) [7] [94]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Investigating the Wine-Gut-Host Axis

This protocol is designed to elucidate the mechanisms by which wine compounds, particularly polyphenols, are transformed by the gut microbiota and how these transformations impact host physiology [3].

1. Sample Collection and Preparation:

• Wine Characterization: Perform untargeted metabolomics on the wine intervention (red, white, or placebo) to establish a baseline compositional profile [3] [4].
• Clinical Trial Design: Conduct a randomized, controlled, crossover intervention study. Participants should provide fecal samples (for microbiome and microbial metabolite analysis), blood samples (for host metabolomic and inflammatory markers), and other relevant biofluids at baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention [3].
• Fecal Sample Processing: Homogenize fecal samples under anaerobic conditions. Aliquot for:
  • DNA extraction for 16S rRNA or shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
  • Metabolite extraction for mass spectrometry-based metabolomics.

2. Data Generation:

• Microbiome Analysis: Perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing on fecal DNA to achieve strain-level resolution of microbial communities and functional potential [3].
• Metabolomics: Conduct both untargeted and targeted metabolomic profiling on fecal and plasma samples. Focus on phenolic acid metabolites, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), bile acids, and lipids [3] [95].
• Host Response Profiling: Use proteomic or transcriptomic assays on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to assess inflammatory and metabolic pathways.

3. Data Integration and Causal Inference:

• Multi-Omic Predictive Modeling: Use tools like MOFA+ to identify latent factors that capture co-variation between the gut microbiome, the plasma metabolome, and host markers [93].
• Pathway Enrichment Analysis: Map differentially abundant metabolites and microbial genes to biological pathways (e.g., using REACTOME) to identify perturbed host and microbial pathways [95].
• Mediation Analysis: Statistically test whether the effect of wine consumption on a host health marker (e.g., reduced inflammation) is mediated by specific microbial taxa or their metabolites, providing evidence for a potential causal pathway [3].

Protocol 2: Decoding Fermentation Performance in Wine Yeast Populations

This protocol leverages multi-omics to connect the composition of yeast communities with their function during fermentation, ultimately revealing the molecular determinants of wine metabolite production [5].

1. Experimental Setup and Sampling:

• Community Inoculation: Start with synthetic grape must (SGM) to ensure a standardized nutrient base. Inoculate with either a defined consortium of yeast species or a complex community derived from natural grape musts [5].
• Fermentation Conditions: Subject the must to different fermentation conditions (e.g., control, low temperature, NH~4~ supplementation, SO~2~ addition) in biological triplicate [5].
• Time-Series Sampling: Collect samples at key fermentation stages (e.g., early, tumultuous, and final stages) for DNA, RNA, and metabolite analysis.

2. Data Generation:

• Community Dynamics: Use ITS amplicon sequencing or shotgun metagenomics on DNA samples to track the taxonomic composition of the yeast community over time [5].
• Meta-transcriptomics: Perform RNA-Seq on samples collected during the tumultuous fermentation phase to profile the gene expression of the active microbial community [5].
• Metabolite Profiling: Analyze the final wine using GC-MS and LC-MS to quantify a wide array of volatile and non-volatile metabolites, including alcohols, esters, acids, and higher alcohols [5] [94].

3. Data Integration and Analysis:

• Correlation Network Analysis: Construct integrated networks linking dominant yeast species, their expressed genes (particularly those involved in metabolic pathways like ester synthesis), and the resulting wine metabolites [5].
• Identification of Key Orthologs: Compare transcriptomic profiles across species to identify orthologous genes with expression patterns that strongly correlate with the production of desirable aroma compounds, defining a functional signature for quality [5].
• Condition-Specific Responses: Use multivariate statistics (e.g., DIABLO) to model how fermentation conditions alter the relationship between community structure, transcriptome, and metabolome [95] [93].

Table 2: Key Analytical Techniques for Wine Multi-Omics

Technique	Application in Wine Research	Key Outputs
Solid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (SPME-GC/MS)	Identification and quantification of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) responsible for wine aroma [94].	Aroma profiles; key discriminant compounds like terpenes, esters, and norisoprenoids.
RNA Sequencing (RNA-Seq)	Profiling gene expression in grape berries or fermenting yeast communities [5] [94].	Differential expression of genes in pathways for secondary metabolite synthesis (e.g., terpenoids, phenolics).
Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing	Characterizing the taxonomic and functional potential of microbial communities on grapes or in fermenting must [3] [5].	Species/strain-level composition; abundance of genes for key functions (e.g., sugar fermentation, stress resistance).
Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS)	Untargeted or targeted profiling of non-volatile metabolites, such as polyphenols, organic acids, and sugars [3] [7].	Comprehensive molecular fingerprints; identification of biomarkers for origin or health effects.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Multi-Omics Wine Research

Item	Function/Application	Example/Note
Synthetic Grape Must (SGM)	Provides a standardized, chemically defined medium for reproducible fermentation experiments, eliminating the variability of natural grape must [5].	Prepared as described in Ruiz et al. [5].
DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit	Efficient DNA extraction from complex samples like grape must, fermented wine, or fecal samples, critical for downstream microbiome analysis [5].	Effective for breaking down yeast cell walls.
ITS/16S rRNA Primers	Amplification of fungal or bacterial marker genes for amplicon sequencing to profile microbial community composition [5].	ITS2_fITS7/ITS4 for fungal ITS2 region [5].
REACTOME Database	A curated database of biological pathways used for functional enrichment analysis of multi-omics data [95].	Helps contextualize lists of significant genes/metabolites in known pathways.
Multi-Omics Integration Software (MOFA+, DIABLO)	Statistical frameworks for the integrated analysis of multiple omics datasets to identify shared sources of variation and predictive biomarkers [95] [93].	MOFA+ is a factor analysis tool; DIABLO is designed for classification and biomarker discovery.
NuChart R Package	An R package that uses Chromosome Conformation Capture (Hi-C) data to create gene neighborhood maps, allowing the integration of genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic data in a spatial context [96].	Useful for studying 3D genome organization in yeast or grapevine.

Visualization of Multi-Omics Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for an integrated multi-omics study, from sample collection to mechanistic insight, as applied to wine research.

Figure 1: Generalized Multi-Omics Workflow for Mechanistic Insight.

The diagram below provides a more detailed view of the data integration process, showing how different omics layers are combined to build a predictive, mechanistic model.

Figure 2: Multi-Omics Data Integration Process.

Conclusion

The integration of multi-omics data provides an unprecedented, systems-level framework to move beyond reductionist approaches in wine science. By concurrently analyzing data from genomes, transcriptomes, and metabolomes, researchers can now decode the complex interactions between vineyard ecosystems, fermenting microbes, and the final wine's chemical and sensory profile. This holistic understanding is pivotal for advancing precision enology, enabling the prediction of sensory outcomes, the design of tailored fermentation strategies, and the exploration of wine's impact on human health, particularly through the gut microbiome. Future directions will be driven by the fusion of multi-omics with artificial intelligence, facilitating the creation of predictive models that can navigate the immense complexity of the wine-food-gut axis. This will ultimately accelerate innovation in functional foods and precision nutrition, offering data-driven insights for both the food industry and biomedical research.

References

• 1. A Multiomics Framework to Unlock the Relationships ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325001048]
• 2. A Multiomics Framework to Unlock the Relationships ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40545001/]
• 3. A Multiomics Framework to Unlock the Relationships between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12296477/]
• 4. UC Davis creates multi-omics framework to unlock gut ... [https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/uc-davis-multi-omics-wine-food-gut-health.html]
• 5. Multi-omics framework to reveal the molecular determinants of ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-024-01930-w]
• 6. Untargeted metabolomics analysis reveals the dynamic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643825014112]
• 7. A Concise Review on Multi-Omics Data Integration for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.01065/full]
• 8. Metabolomic Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Insights into ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5710/11/1/29]
• 9. Automatic Chemical Profiling of Wine by Proton Nuclear ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11334181/]
• 10. From Volatile Profiling to Sensory Prediction [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9040/13/9/337]
• 11. Transcriptomic Identification of Core Regulatory Genes for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12071402/]
• 12. Transcriptome profiling of symptomatic vs. asymptomatic ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06763-9]
• 13. Metagenomic bacterial diversity and metabolomics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713523000579]
• 14. Integration of multi-omics data accelerates molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57550-x]
• 15. Wine fermentation microbiome: a landscape from different ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00905/full]
• 16. Insights into the Microbial Ecosystem of Grape Berries - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11857911/]
• 17. Vineyard under-vine floor management alters soil microbial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29346-1]
• 18. A multi-omics framework to unlock the relationships ... [https://foodandhealth.ucdavis.edu/wine-food-and-gut-health/]
• 19. Associations among Wine Grape Microbiome, Metabolome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4959672/]
• 20. Characterization of Microbial Population of Organic Grapes ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5710/11/6/160]
• 21. Aroma characteristics of volatile compounds brought by ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814623006933]
• 22. In-depth analysis of the characteristics of volatile organic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12513181/]
• 23. Detection and quantification of natural contaminants ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23356506/]
• 24. Volatile Organic Compound-Based Predictive Modeling of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11010234/]
• 25. Terroir and the choice of grape varieties [https://westgarthwines.com/blogs/news/terroir-and-the-choice-of-grape-varieties?srsltid=AfmBOoq7KM_Y7vYU3VrbqOBIZEo0ocIdmAhfBiJGQsstspF7_jPXEvWY]
• 26. Exploring Wine Terroir: A Sense of Place in Winemaking [https://www.wienscellars.com/exploring-wine-terroir-a-sense-of-place-in-winemaking/?srsltid=AfmBOoqEczbNID31IztR-3QQYOLIDyqliJvSZx_USaglqQXCbUQD2bGE]
• 27. Understanding the connection between wine aromas and ... [https://www.internationalwinechallenge.com/Canopy-Articles/understanding-the-connection-between-wine-aromas-and-terroir.html]
• 28. Climate, Grapes, and Wine [https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b/gregory_jones/posts/climate-grapes-and-wine]
• 29. Experimental Tests in Production of Ready-to-Drink ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/10/5941]
• 30. Comparative Evaluation of Microbiota Dynamics and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.649978/full]
• 31. Validation of a Standard Protocol to Assess the Fermentative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8963721/]
• 32. Multi-omics co-analysis of the differences in microbial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643824004602]
• 33. Microbial dynamics in industrial-scale wine fermentation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8882491/]
• 34. Multi-omics integration reveals functional signatures of gut ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12341049/]
• 35. Multitask benchmarking of single-cell multimodal omics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02856-3]
• 36. MOFA+: a statistical framework for comprehensive integration ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-020-02015-1]
• 37. Multiomic analyses uncover immunological signatures in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02953-4]
• 38. Using Seurat with multimodal data [https://satijalab.org/seurat/articles/multimodal_vignette]
• 39. Integration of LC-HRMS and 1H NMR metabolomics data ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590157524004954]
• 40. A living review of commercial single-cell and spatial 'omic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666979X24003525]
• 41. An Attention‐Aware Multi‐Task Learning Framework Identifies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11883102/]
• 42. - Multi framework to reveal the molecular determinants of... omics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39407259/]
• 43. Transcriptomics Provides a Genetic Signature of Vineyard Site ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8546962/]
• 44. GitHub - migueldc1/Wineteractions: Wineteractions Project R analysis [https://github.com/migueldc1/Wineteractions/]
• 45. RNA-seq based transcriptional analysis of Saccharomyces ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-5511-x]
• 46. How one grape gene elevates the fragrance of wines [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1107610]
• 47. Integration of multisensory technology and untargeted ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996925018952]
• 48. Integration of a low‐cost electronic nose and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7455956/]
• 49. A rapid wine brand identification method based on the joint ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814625043407]
• 50. Sensory and Omics approaches reveal the impact of heat ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-025-00438-3]
• 51. Proposed SmartBarrel System for Monitoring and ... [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025Senso..25.3877K/abstract]
• 52. Multi-omics framework to reveal the molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11481383/]
• 53. Multi-omics analysis of microbial communities and flavor ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643825009867]
• 54. AI: A New and Impactful Player in the Quality Evaluation of ... [https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/axrcdnax]
• 55. Application of an Electronic Nose to the Prediction of Odorant ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11990477/]
• 56. Controlling Fermentation Temperature [https://winemakermag.com/article/controlling-fermentation-temperature]
• 57. Fermentation Management Practices [https://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry-info/enology/fermentation-management-guides/wine-fermentation/fermentation-management-practices]
• 58. Multi-omics data integration using ratio-based quantitative ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-023-01934-1]
• 59. Multi-Omics: Challenges and Solutions [https://bigomics.ch/blog/key-challenges-in-multi-omics-data-integration/]
• 60. Correcting batch effects in large-scale multiomics studies ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-03047-z]
• 61. Data Standards for Omics Data: The Basis of Data Sharing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4152841/]
• 62. Harmonized Multi-Omics Data Analysis - How Does It ... [https://oxfordglobal.com/precision-medicine/resources/harmonized-multi-omics-data-analysis-how-does-it-impact-pharmaceutical-research]
• 63. Protein-level batch-effect correction enhances robustness ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12586625/]
• 64. A machine learning-based nuclear magnetic resonance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386142525004081]
• 65. High performance data integration for large-scale analyses ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62237-4]
• 66. Grapevine and Wine Metabolomics-Based Guidelines for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/11/11/757]
• 67. scMODAL: a general deep learning framework for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60333-z]
• 68. Visualizing Quantitative Data: Best Practices [https://ajelix.com/data/visualizing-quantitative-data-best-practices/]
• 69. The Ultimate Data Visualization Handbook for Designers [https://uxmag.medium.com/the-ultimate-data-visualization-handbook-for-designers-efa7d6e0b6fe]
• 70. Contrast Checker [https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/]
• 71. How to change the Style of Visualizations in Looker Studio [https://www.catchr.io/university/looker-studio-lessons/charts-style]
• 72. Text has enhanced contrast | ACT Rule | WAI [https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/09o5cg/]
• 73. forced-colors - CSS - MDN Web Docs - Mozilla [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/At-rules/@media/forced-colors]
• 74. Deciphering metabolic regulation in overripe grapes through ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-07235-w]
• 75. Predicting Wine Ratings Using GC–MS: A Data-Driven ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/predicting-wine-ratings-using-gc-ms-a-data-driven-approach]
• 76. A multi-omics investigation of annual variation patterns in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41004993/]
• 77. Correlating instrumental textural properties to human ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665927125002023]
• 78. Study the correlation between the instrumental and ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00217-023-04246-5]
• 79. Unified Multivariate Ordinal Model for analysis of sensory ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11990]
• 80. Design of a Sensorial-Instrumental Correlation ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9284/9/4/84]
• 81. Extracting information from sensory analysis with the multi ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743923002654]
• 82. Spectroscopic Techniques Application for Wine and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/8/4457]
• 83. A Concise Review on Multi-Omics Data Integration ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5477006/]
• 84. Integration of LC-HRMS and 1H NMR metabolomics data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11279979/]
• 85. Grape and Wine Metabolomics to Develop New Insights ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/4/4/92]
• 86. Program ( The ) - NCI Cancer Genome Atlas TCGA [https://www.cancer.gov/ccg/research/genome-sequencing/tcga]
• 87. Set — ISB TCGA Gateway in the Cloud... Data Cancer [https://isb-cancer-genomics-cloud.readthedocs.io/en/latest/sections/data/TCGA_top.html]
• 88. The omics discovery REST interface - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7319562/]
• 89. OmicsDI: Home [https://www.omicsdi.org/]
• 90. GitHub - IARCbioinfo/awesome- TCGA : Curated list of TCGA resources [https://github.com/IARCbioinfo/awesome-TCGA]
• 91. TCGA-Reports: A machine-readable pathology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10935496/]
• 92. A technical review of multi-omics data integration methods [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12315550/]
• 93. A Guide to Multi-omics Integration Strategies [https://frontlinegenomics.com/a-guide-to-multi-omics-integration-strategies/]
• 94. Combined multi-omics analysis revealed the aroma ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772502225002823]
• 95. Multiomics Tool [https://www.metabolon.com/bioinformatics/multiomics/]
• 96. Integrating multi-omic features exploiting Chromosome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4324155/]