Malolactic fermentation is far more than an acid adjustment. As lactic acid bacteria consume malic acid, they also release a cascade of metabolic byproducts that shape a wine’s aroma, mouthfeel, and stability. Diacetyl contributes buttery notes, esters modulate fruit expression, and the bacteria’s enzymatic machinery can either enhance or strip away desirable volatile compounds. The choice of which bacterium performs this transformation is therefore one of the most consequential decisions a winemaker makes, and the industry’s reliance on a narrow genetic pool has long struck researchers as both a limitation and an opportunity.

The research team, led by Carla Vargas-Luna of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, focused on two indigenous strains: Levilactobacillus brevis BCV-46 and Levilactobacillus brevis C18, both isolated from Chilean grapes. They compared these against a commercial Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain, a species that has emerged in recent years as the leading alternative to Oenococcus oeni. The experiments were conducted at microvinification scale, using four-liter fermentations of Chardonnay must, with each bacterial strain co-inoculated alongside Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the yeast responsible for the primary alcoholic fermentation. This co-inoculation strategy, in which yeast and bacteria are introduced together rather than sequentially, is gaining favor because it shortens production schedules and reduces the risk of spontaneous bacterial growth between fermentations.

A central concern in any such experiment is whether the bacteria will interfere with the yeast’s work. Alcoholic fermentation depends on Saccharomyces cerevisiae converting sugars to ethanol efficiently and completely, and some lactic acid bacteria produce compounds that inhibit yeast metabolism. The researchers found encouraging news on this front: co-inoculation did not impair alcoholic fermentation in any of the treatments. The yeast completed its task regardless of which bacterial companion was present, confirming that these native strains are compatible with standard winemaking yeast at the timing and conditions tested.

The malolactic conversion itself, however, proved more uneven. Only partial malolactic fermentation occurred across the trials, and the degree of malic acid degradation varied substantially by strain. The commercial Lactiplantibacillus plantarum achieved the highest level of malic acid breakdown, demonstrating why it has become the benchmark alternative starter. Among the native strains, Levilactobacillus brevis BCV-46 outperformed its compatriot C18 in acid conversion. The incomplete fermentation suggests that these strains, while viable, may require further optimization of inoculation timing, cell density, or nutritional conditions to fully complete the acid conversion in white wines, which are generally a harsher environment for lactic acid bacteria than reds due to lower pH, higher acidity, and fewer nutrients.

Despite the partial conversion, the chemical differences among the wines were measurable and meaningful. The researchers documented variations in chemical composition across the treatments, though all wines remained within acceptable enological limits, meaning none of the bacterial interventions pushed the wines outside the ranges considered sound and stable for commercial production. This is a nontrivial finding, because lactic acid bacteria can consume residual sugars, produce acetic acid, or alter pH in ways that compromise wine integrity. The native strains passed this basic quality threshold, establishing their fundamental suitability for further development.

The safety dimension of the study produced the sharpest contrast between the two native isolates. Biogenic amines, including histamine, tyramine, and putrescine, are nitrogen-containing compounds that some lactic acid bacteria generate by decarboxylating amino acids. At elevated concentrations, these amines can trigger headaches, flushing, and blood pressure changes in sensitive individuals, and histamine in particular is regulated in some markets. Using molecular screening, the researchers searched for the amino acid decarboxylase genes that confer the ability to produce these compounds. The genes were detected only in L. brevis C18, and correspondingly, wines fermented with that strain showed higher concentrations of tyramine and putrescine. The other strains, including BCV-46 and the commercial L. plantarum, did not carry the decarboxylase genes and did not elevate these amines.

This single genetic distinction transforms the practical outlook for the two native strains. BCV-46 emerges as a candidate worth pursuing: it degraded malic acid respectably, left the wine chemically sound, and carried no detectable amine-producing potential. C18, by contrast, would require careful evaluation before any commercial use, since its amine production represents a genuine food safety consideration. The finding underscores a principle that wine microbiologists have emphasized repeatedly: safety and quality traits are strain-dependent rather than species-dependent, and each candidate starter must be individually characterized before deployment.

Perhaps the most appealing results came from the sensory analysis. The wines produced with different bacterial strains developed significantly different sensory profiles, and the selected native strains enhanced floral, fruity, and creamy attributes in the Chardonnay. These are precisely the aromatic dimensions that white wine consumers prize, and the fact that indigenous Latin American strains could amplify them hints at a strategy for producing wines with a genuine sense of place. Regional microbial biodiversity, long dismissed as a source of unpredictable spoilage, may instead be a reservoir of distinctive flavor signatures that commercial starter cultures cannot replicate.

The broader significance of the work lies in its demonstration that the next generation of malolactic starter cultures may come from vineyards far removed from the traditional wine heartlands of Europe. As climate change alters growing conditions and winemakers worldwide seek to differentiate their products, native bacterial strains offer a dual advantage: adaptation to local conditions and the potential for unique sensory contributions. The Chilean and Mexican research groups behind this study have shown that careful screening, combining fermentation performance testing, chemical analysis, sensory evaluation, and genetic safety checks, can identify which native strains deserve investment and which should be left in the vineyard. For now, the commercial Lactiplantibacillus plantarum still leads in acid conversion, but the native BCV-46 strain has staked its claim as a safe, flavor-enhancing alternative, and the race to domesticate Latin America’s wine microbiome has only begun.

Subject of Research: Non-Oenococcus lactic acid bacteria as malolactic fermentation starters in Chardonnay wine

Article Title: Latin-American non-Oenococcus lactic acid bacteria in Chardonnay wine: effects on chemical composition, sensory profile, and biogenic amine production

Article References: Vargas-Luna, C., Franco, W., Arvizu-Medrano, S., Cortés-Herrera, C., Redondo-Solano, M., Barboza-Vargas, N., Godoy-Olivares, L., & Miranda-Castilleja, D. (2026). Latin-American non-Oenococcus lactic acid bacteria in Chardonnay wine: effects on chemical composition, sensory profile, and biogenic amine production. Food Science and Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-026-02330-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10068-026-02330-6

Keywords: malolactic fermentation, Chardonnay, lactic acid bacteria, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Levilactobacillus brevis, biogenic amines, wine microbiology, co-inoculation, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, sensory profile, food safety, Latin America

The research team, led by Krisztina Szalkay and Kinga Farkas of Semmelweis University in Budapest, set out to answer a question that has long hovered at the edge of autism research: could the way autistic children eat, and the way they sense the world, form a recognizable early behavioral pattern that clinicians could use to spot children who need closer developmental follow-up? With autism now affecting roughly 2.8 percent of children, or about 1 in 36 eight-year-olds in the United States, and with diagnosis often arriving years after symptoms first appear, the search for early, non-social behavioral correlates has taken on real urgency. Widely used screening instruments such as the M-CHAT-R/F focus almost exclusively on social communication and repetitive behaviors, leaving sensory and feeding signs largely invisible to routine surveillance.

That blind spot matters because feeding problems are extraordinarily common in autism. Previous estimates cited in the review suggest they affect between 46 and 89 percent of autistic children, compared with just 1 to 2 percent of typically developing peers. These difficulties frequently emerge between 15 and 36 months of age, a developmental window that precedes or coincides with the onset of core autism symptoms, and they can cascade into malnutrition, growth faltering, poorer academic performance, and impaired social functioning. Atypical sensory processing, formally recognized in the DSM-5 as part of the restricted and repetitive behavior domain, affects more than 70 percent of autistic children and may appear as early as six months of age, potentially before social-communication differences such as impaired joint attention become apparent.

To build their synthesis, the Hungarian team searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register through November 15, 2023, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registering the protocol in PROSPERO. From 11,202 articles identified by the search key, plus 1,067 more found through citation chasing, 46 studies survived screening. Most were cross-sectional, spanning participants aged 2 to 19 years, and the majority relied on parent-report questionnaires such as the BAMBI, the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire, and the Sensory Profile family of instruments. Risk of bias was assessed with the QUIPS tool; ten studies were rated low risk, six moderate, and one high. Statistical pooling used random-effects models with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung-Knapp adjustment, and correlations were Fisher z-transformed before aggregation.

The meta-analytic numbers are striking. Beyond the large overall difference in mealtime behavior, the Limited Variety subscale, reflecting restricted food repertoires, showed a standardized mean difference of 1.18 across seven studies involving more than 700 children. Disruptive mealtime behaviors differed by 0.86, and food refusal showed a moderate effect of 0.70 with a clear trend toward higher refusal in autistic children, a pattern the authors suggest may reflect communication difficulties around food. On the sensory side, autistic children scored dramatically lower on the Short Sensory Profile total, with a mean difference of minus 26.03 points, indicating far more atypical behavioral and emotional responses to everyday sensory input.

When the team standardized scores across different sensory assessment tools to allow direct comparison, one modality stood out above all others: touch. Tactile sensitivity showed the largest group difference of any domain, with a standardized mean difference of minus 1.80, followed by auditory filtering at minus 1.35, sensation seeking at minus 1.23, and taste-smell sensitivity at minus 1.05. For a child who experiences the texture of a lumpy sauce or the seam of a sock as genuinely aversive, the dinner table becomes a sensory minefield, and the data suggest that this is not fussiness but a measurable neurodevelopmental profile.

Perhaps the most clinically consequential finding is the correlation itself. Across studies, the pooled association between the severity of sensory processing differences and the severity of feeding difficulties was moderate, with an absolute correlation coefficient of 0.47 and, notably, near-zero heterogeneity, suggesting the relationship is remarkably stable across study contexts. The link between taste-smell sensitivity and limited food variety was even stronger, at 0.58. Individual studies reported correlations as high as 0.63 to 0.74 between overall sensory and feeding scores, and strong associations between oral and taste-smell processing and restricted eating even when different instruments and patient selection criteria were used. Tactile processing correlated with feeding problems in the 0.29 to 0.53 range, while visual sensitivity, auditory sensitivity, and auditory filtering were also linked to overall eating difficulties.

From these data, the authors distilled five recurrent dimensions of autism-associated feeding difficulty: limited food variety, food refusal, disruptive mealtime behaviors, sensory-based eating problems such as food touch aversion and temperature sensitivity, and oral-motor challenges. They mapped these dimensions onto existing diagnostic frameworks, including the DC:0-3R and DC:0-5 developmental classification systems and the ARFID-related constructs of DSM-5 and ICD-11, offering clinicians a structured way to think about feeding presentations without inventing new diagnostic categories. The framework is explicitly descriptive and hypothesis-generating, and the authors stress it requires empirical validation in longitudinal and comparative studies before it could inform formal practice.

Caution is warranted on several fronts, and the authors are candid about the limitations. Nearly all the evidence is cross-sectional, meaning the sensory-feeding profiles are best understood as early-emerging correlates of autism rather than established predictive markers. Most samples were assessed after diagnosis, in the preschool and early school-age years, with very little data from infancy and toddlerhood. The instruments were largely developed and normed in Western populations, and most studies came from North America, Europe, or Australia, raising questions about cross-cultural generalizability. Caregiver factors such as feeding-related stress and parent-child mealtime dynamics were rarely reported, comparator groups were transdiagnostically heterogeneous, and publication bias could not be formally assessed because fewer than ten studies contributed to each meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity in the between-group analyses further means the pooled effect sizes should be read as distributions of study-specific effects rather than single universal values.

Feeding difficulties, moreover, are not unique to autism. Comparable sensory and feeding features appear in children with ADHD, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, Tourette syndrome, and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, and a recent prevalence-based meta-analysis documented substantial co-occurrence between autism and ARFID, recommending bidirectional screening in clinical settings. The authors therefore argue that feeding inventories and sensory questionnaires should function as structured prompts within routine pediatric and developmental assessments, flagging children who warrant closer neurodevelopmental evaluation, rather than as stand-alone autism screening tools. They complement, rather than replace, existing evidence-based screening recommendations. What the review delivers is a quantified, multi-modal portrait of a behavioral pattern that emerges early, persists over time, and is measurable with brief parent-report instruments already in clinical use. Confirming whether that pattern can genuinely predict autism, and whether intervening on sensory-driven feeding problems during periods of heightened neuroplasticity improves nutritional status, daily functioning, and family quality of life, will require the prospective longitudinal cohorts the authors call for, following children from infancy through childhood with both high-risk samples and community controls. Until then, the dinner table, long a site of quiet struggle, has gained new scientific significance as a window onto the developing autistic brain.

Subject of Research: The association between early-life feeding behavior and sensory processing differences in children with autism spectrum disorder

Article Title: Early-Life Feeding Behavior and Sensory Processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Article References: Szalkay, K., Gergő, D., Kói, T., Kenesei, D., Ocskay, K., Garami, M., Hegyi, P., Nagy, R., & Farkas, K. (2026). Early-Life Feeding Behavior and Sensory Processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-026-07543-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10803-026-07543-6

Keywords: autism spectrum disorder, feeding difficulties, sensory processing, food selectivity, meta-analysis, systematic review, tactile sensitivity, taste-smell sensitivity, early detection, BAMBI, Sensory Profile, child development