1887

Abstract

During industrial processes, yeasts are exposed to harsh conditions, which eventually lead to adaptation of the strains. In the laboratory, it is possible to use experimental evolution to link the evolutionary biology response to these adaptation pressures for the industrial improvement of a specific yeast strain. In this work, we aimed to study the adaptation of a wine industrial yeast in stress conditions of the high ethanol concentrations present in stopped fermentations and secondary fermentations in the processes of champagne production. We used a commercial hybrid and assessed its adaptation in a modified synthetic must (M-SM) containing high ethanol, which also contained metabisulfite, a preservative that is used during wine fermentation as it converts to sulfite. After the adaptation process under these selected stressful environmental conditions, the tolerance of the adapted strain (H14A7-etoh) to sulfite and ethanol was investigated, revealing that the adapted hybrid is more resistant to sulfite compared to the original H14A7 strain, whereas ethanol tolerance improvement was slight. However, a trade-off in the adapted hybrid was found, as it had a lower capacity to ferment glucose and fructose in comparison with H14A7. Hybrid genomes are almost always unstable, and different signals of adaptation on H14A7-etoh genome were detected. Each subgenome present in the adapted strain had adapted differently. Chromosome aneuploidies were present in chromosome III and in chromosome VII–XVI, which had been duplicated. Moreover, chromosome I was not present in H14A7-etoh and a loss of heterozygosity (LOH) event arose on chromosome I. RNA-sequencing analysis showed differential gene expression between H14A7-etoh and H14A7, which can be easily correlated with the signals of adaptation that were found on the H14A7-etoh genome. Finally, we report alterations in the lipid composition of the membrane, consistent with conserved tolerance mechanisms.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • ERA CoBioTech (Award MeMBrane)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AlanD Goddard
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BB/R02152X/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AlanD Goddard
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (Award PCI2018-093190)
    • Principle Award Recipient: AmparoQuerol
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (Award FPU15/01775)
    • Principle Award Recipient: MaríaLairón-Peris
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000628
2021-08-27
2021-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/7/8/mgen000628.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000628&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Fleet GH, Heard G. Yeast growth during fermentation. Fleet G. eds In Wine, Microbiology and Biotechnology Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1993 pp 27–54
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Margalit Y. Must and wine composition. Crum J. eds In Concepts in Wine Chemistry San Francisco, USA: Wine Appreciation Guild Ltd; 1997 pp 76–82
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexandre H, Charpentier C. Biochemical aspects of stuck and sluggish fermentation in grape must. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 1998; 20:20–27 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Charoenchai C, Fleet GH, Henschke PA. Effects of temperature, pH, and sugar concentration on the growth rates and cell biomass of wine yeasts. Am J Enol Vitic 1998; 49:283–288
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belloch C, Orlic S, Barrio E, Querol A. Fermentative stress adaptation of hybrids within the Saccharomyces sensu stricto complex. Int J Food Microbiol 2008; 122:188–195 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arroyo-López FN, Orlić S, Querol A, Barrio E. Effects of temperature, pH and sugar concentration on the growth parameters of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S. kudriavzevii and their interspecific hybrid. Int J Food Microbiol 2009; 131:120–127 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arroyo-López FN, Salvadó Z, Tronchoni J, Guillamón JM, Barrio E et al. Susceptibility and resistance to ethanol in Saccharomyces strains isolated from wild and fermentative environments. Yeast 2010; 27:1005–1015 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Castellari L, Ferruzzi M, Magrini A, Giudici P, Passarelli P et al. Unbalanced wine fermentation by cryotolerant vs. non-cryotolerant Saccharomyces strains. Vitis 1994; 52:49–52
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Giudici P, Zambonelli C, Passarelli P, Castellari L. Improvement of wine composition with cryotolerant Saccharomyces strains. Am J Enol Vitic 1995; 46:143–147
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Masneuf I, Hansen J, Groth C, Piskur J, Dubourdieu D. New hybrids between Saccharomyces sensu stricto yeast species found among wine and cider production strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998; 64:3887–3892 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. González SS, Barrio E, Gafner J, Querol A. Natural hybrids from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces bayanus and Saccharomyces kudriavzevii in wine fermentations. FEMS Yeast Res 2006; 6:1221–1234 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gonzalez SS, Gallo L, Climent MD, Barrio E, Querol A. Enological characterization of natural hybrids from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. kudriavzevii. Int J Food Microbiol 2007; 116:11–18 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pérez-Través L, Lopes CA, Barrio E, Querol A. Stabilization process in Saccharomyces intra- and interspecific hybrids in fermentative conditions. Int Microbiol 2014; 17:213–224 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Peris D, Moriarty R, Alexander WG, Baker E, Sylvester K et al. Hybridization and adaptive evolution of diverse Saccharomyces species for cellulosic biofuel production. Biotechnol Biofuels 2017; 10:78 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gorter de Vries AR, Voskamp MA, van Aalst ACA, Kristensen LH, Jansen L et al. Laboratory evolution of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae × S. eubayanus hybrid under simulated lager-brewing conditions. Front Genet 2019; 10:242 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lopandic K. Saccharomyces interspecies hybrids as model organisms for studying yeast adaptation to stressful environments. Yeast 2018; 35:21–38 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kao KC, Sherlock G. Molecular characterization of clonal interference during adaptive evolution in asexual populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat Genet 2008; 40:1499–1504 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lang GI, Rice DP, Hickman MJ, Sodergren E, Weinstock GM et al. Pervasive genetic hitchhiking and clonal interference in forty evolving yeast populations. Nature 2013; 500:571–574 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Payen C, Sunshine AB, Ong GT, Pogachar JL, Zhao W et al. High-throughput identification of adaptive mutations in experimentally evolved yeast populations. PLoS Genet 2016; 12:1–24 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sanchez MR, Miller AW, Liachko I, Sunshine AB, Lynch B et al. Differential paralog divergence modulates genome evolution across yeast species. PLoS Genet 2017; 13:1–27
    [Google Scholar]
  21. McBryde C, Gardner JM, de Barros Lopes M, Jiranek V. Generation of novel wine yeast strains by adaptive evolution. Am J Enol Vitic 2006; 57:423–430
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones RP, Greenfield PF, Wang L, Cai Y, Zhao X et al. Ethanol and the fluidity of the yeast plasma membrane. Yeast 1987; 3:223–232 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lloyd D, Morrell S, Carlsen HN, Degn H, James PE et al. Effects of growth with ethanol on fermentation and membrane fluidity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 1993; 9:825–833 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ribéreau-Gayon P, Dubourdieu D, Donèche B, Lonvaud A. Biochemistry of alcoholic fermentation and metabolic pathways of wine yeasts. Ribéreau-Gayon P, Dubourdieu D, Donèche B, Lonvaud A. eds In Handbook of Enology: The Microbiology of Wine and Vinification John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006 pp 53–78
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lairón-Peris M, Pérez-Través L, Muñiz-Calvo S, Guillamón JM, Heras JM et al. Differential contribution of the parental genomes to a S. cerevisiae × S. uvarum hybrid, inferred by phenomic, genomic, and transcriptomic analyses, at different industrial stress conditions. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020; 8:1–20 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rossignol T, Dulau L, Julien A, Blondin B. Genome-wide monitoring of wine yeast gene expression during alcoholic fermentation. Yeast 2003; 20:1369–1385 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rácz HV, Mukhtar F, Imre A, Rádai Z, Károly Gombert A et al. How to characterize a strain? The neglected influence of clonal heterogeneity on the phenotypes of industrial Saccharomyces. bioRxiv1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lang GI, Bonstein D, Desai MM. Genetic variation and the fate of beneficial mutations in asexual populations. Genetics 2011; 188:647–661
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Large CRL, Hanson N, Tsouris A, Saada OA, Koonthongkaew J et al. Genomic stability and adaptation of beer brewing yeasts during serial repitching in the brewery. bioRxiv 20201–55
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Blundell JR, Schwartz K, Francois D, Fisher DS, Sherlock G et al. The dynamics of adaptive genetic diversity during the early stages of clonal evolution. Nat Ecol Evol 2019; 3:293–301 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Bukhman Y, DiPiazza NW, Piotrowski J, Shao J, Halstead AGW et al. Modeling microbial growth curves with GCAT. Bioenergy Res 2015; 8:1022–1030 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Park H, Lopez NI, Bakalinsky AT. Use of sulfite resistance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a dominant selectable marker. Curr Genet 1999; 36:339–344 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Querol A, Barrio E, Ramón D. A comparative study of different methods of yeast strain characterization. Syst Appl Microbiol 1992; 15:439–446 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Joshi NA, Fass JN. Sickle: a Sliding-Window, Adaptive, Quality-Based Trimming Tool for Fastq Files (Version 1.33) Software; 2011
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Abyzov A, Urban AE, Snyder M, Gerstein M. CNVnator: An approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing. Genome Res 2011; 21:974–984 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Langdon QK, Peris D, Kyle B, Hittinger CT. sppiDer: a species identification tool to investigate hybrid genomes with high-throughput sequencing. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:2835–2849 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Milne I, Stephen G, Bayer M, Cock PJA, Pritchard L et al. Using tablet for visual exploration of second-generation sequencing data. Brief Bioinform 2013; 14:193–202 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haase SB, Reed SI. Improved flow cytometric analysis of the budding yeast cell cycle. Cell Cycle 2002; 1:132–136 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pérez-Través L, Lopes CA, González R, Barrio E, Querol A. Physiological and genomic characterisation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae hybrids with improved fermentation performance and mannoprotein release capacity. Int J Food Microbiol 2015; 205:30–40 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, van’t Riet K. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Envir Microbiol 1990; 56:1875–1881 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Anders S, Pyl PT, Huber W. HTSeq-A Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:166–169 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 2009; 26:139–140 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 1995; 57:289–300
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Spickett CM, Rennie N, Winter H, Zambonin L, Landi L et al. Detection of phospholipid oxidation in oxidatively stressed cells by reversed-phase HPLC coupled with positive-ionization electrospray [correction of electroscopy] MS. Biochem J 2001; 355:449–457 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Morard M, Benavent-Gil Y, Ortiz-Tovar G, Pérez-Través L, Querol A et al. Genome structure reveals the diversity of mating mechanisms in Saccharomyces cerevisiae x Saccharomyces kudriavzevii hybrids, and the genomic instability that promotes phenotypic diversity. Microb Genomics 2020; 6:
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Morard M, Macías LG, Adam AC, Lairón-Peris M, Pérez-Torrado R et al. Aneuploidy and ethanol tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Front Genet 2019; 10:82 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Coleman ST, Fang TK, Rovinsky SA, Turano FJ, Moye-Rowley WS. Expression of a glutamate decarboxylase homologue is required for normal oxidative stress tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 2001; 276:244–250 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  48. De Maeyer D, Weytjens B, Renkens J, De Raedt L, Marchal K. PheNetic: Network-based interpretation of molecular profiling data. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:244–250
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Reifenberger E, Boles E, Ciriacy M. Kinetic characterization of individual hexose transporters of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and their relation to the triggering mechanisms of glucose repression. Eur J Biochem 1997; 245:324–333 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Beaven MJ, Charpentier C, Rose AH. Production and tolerance of ethanol in relation to phospholipid fatty-acyl composition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC 431. J Gen Microbiol 1982; 128:1447–1455
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Alexandre H, Rousseaux I, Charpentier C. Relationship between ethanol tolerance, lipid composition and plasma membrane fluidity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kloeckera apiculata. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1994; 124:17–22 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Henderson CM, Block DE. Examining the role of membrane lipid composition in determining the ethanol tolerance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 2014; 80:2966–2972 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ernst R, Ejsing CS, Antonny B. Homeoviscous adaptation and the regulation of membrane lipids. J Mol Biol 2016; 428:4776–4791 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Learmonth RP, Gratton E. Assessment of membrane fluidity in individual yeast cells by laurdan generalised polarisation and multi-photon scanning fluorescence microscopy. Kraayenhof R, Visser A, Gerritsen H. eds In Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Imaging and Probes - New Tools in Chemical, Physical and Life Sciences Springer; 2002 pp 241–252
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Weil ED. Sulfur compounds. Mark H, Othmer D, Overberger C, Seaborg G. eds In Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd. edn New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1983 pp 107–167
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pérez-Ortín JE, Querol A, Puig S, Barrio E. Molecular characterization of a chromosomal rearrangement involved in the adaptie evolution of yeast strains. Genome Res 2002; 12:1533–1539 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zimmer A, Durand C, Loira N, Durrens P, Sherman DJ et al. QTL dissection of lag phase in wine fermentation reveals a new translocation responsible for Saccharomyces cerevisiae adaptation to sulfite. PLoS One 2014; 9:37–39
    [Google Scholar]
  58. García-Ríos E, Nuévalos M, Barrio E, Puig S, Guillamón JM. A new chromosomal rearrangement improves the adaptation of wine yeasts to sulfite. Environ Microbiol 2019; 2:1771–1781
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Casalone E, Colella C, Daly S, Gallori E, Moriani L et al. Mechanism of resistance to sulfite in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Curr Genet 1992; 22:435–440 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Park H, Bakalinsky AT. SSU1 mediates sulphite efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 2000; 16:881–888 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Nadai C, Treu L, Campanaro S, Giacomini A, Corich V. Different mechanisms of resistance modulate sulfite tolerance in wine yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016; 100:797–813 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Park H, Hwang YS. Genome-wide transcriptional responses to sulfite in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Microbiol 2008; 46:542–548 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Divol B, Du Toit M, Duckitt E. Surviving in the presence of sulphur dioxide: Strategies developed by wine yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012; 95:601–613 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Ripper M. Die schweflige Saure im Weine und deren Bestimmung. J fuer Prakt Chemie/Chemiker-Zeitung 1892; 46:428
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ingram M. The germicidal effects of free and combined sulphur dioxide. J Soc Chem Ind 1948; 67:18–21
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Aguilera J, Andreu P, Randez-Gil F, Prieto JA. Adaptive evolution of baker’s yeast in a dough-like environment enhances freeze and salinity tolerance. Microb Biotechnol 2010; 3:210–221 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kutyna DR, Varela C, Stanley GA, Borneman AR, Henschke PA et al. Adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to generate strains with enhanced glycerol production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2012; 93:1175–1184 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wenger JW, Piotrowski J, Nagarajan S, Chiotti K, Sherlock G et al. Hunger artists: Yeast adapted to carbon limitation show trade-offs under carbon sufficiency. PLoS Genet 2011; 7:e1002202 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Dunham MJ, Badrane H, Ferea T, Adams J, Brown PO et al. Characteristic genome rearrangements in experimental evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002; 99:16144–16149 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Gresham D, Desai MM, Tucker CM, Jenq HT, Pai DA et al. The repertoire and dynamics of evolutionary adaptations to controlled nutrient-limited environments in yeast. PLoS Genet 2008; 4:e1000303 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Fisher KJ, Buskirk SW, Vignogna RC, Marad DA, Lang GI. Adaptive genome duplication affects patterns of molecular evolution in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLOS Genet 2018; 14:e1007396 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Libuda DE, Winston F. Alterations in DNA replication and histone levels promote histone gene amplification in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 2010; 184:985–997 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  73. James TY, Michelotti LA, Glasco AD, Clemons RA, Powers RA et al. Adaptation by loss of heterozygosity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae clones under divergent selection. Genetics 2019; 213:665–683 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Smukowski Heil CS, DeSevo CG, Pai DA, Tucker CM, Hoang ML et al. Loss of heterozygosity drives adaptation in hybrid yeast. Mol Biol Evol 2017; 34:1596–1612 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Waghmare SK, Bruschi C. Differential chromosome control of ploidy in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 2005; 22:625–639 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Adamczyk J, Deregowska A, Skoneczny M, Skoneczna A, Kwiatkowska A et al. Adaptive response to chronic mild ethanol stress involves ROS, sirtuins and changes in chromosome dosage in wine yeasts. Oncotarget 2016; 7:29958–29976 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Deregowska A, Skoneczny M, Adamczyk J, Kwiatkowska A, Rawska E et al. Genome-wide array-CGH analysis reveals YRF1 gene copy number variation that modulates genetic stability in distillery yeasts. Oncotarget 2015; 6:30650–30663 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Whittaker SG, Rockmill BM, Blechl AE, Maloney DH, Resnick MA et al. The detection of mitotic and meiotic aneuploidy in yeast using a gene dosage selection system. Mol Gen Genet 1988; 215:10–18 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Voordeckers K, Kominek J, Das A, Espinosa-Cantú A, De Maeyer D et al. Adaptation to high ethanol reveals complex evolutionary pathways. PLoS Genet 2015; 11:1–31 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Torres EM, Dephoure N, Panneerselvam A, Tucker CM, Whittaker CA et al. Identification of aneuploidy-tolerating mutations. Cell 2011; 143:71–83
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Springer M, Weissman JS, Kirschner MW. A general lack of compensation for gene dosage in yeast. Mol Syst Biol 2010; 6:1–8 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Hose J, Yong CM, Sardi M, Wang Z, Newton MA et al. Dosage compensation can buffer copy-number variation in wild yeast. Elife 2015; 4:1–28 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Gasch AP, Hose J, Newton MA, Sardi M, Yong M et al. Further support for aneuploidy tolerance in wild yeast and effects of dosage compensation on gene copy-number evolution. Elife 2016; 5:1–12 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Hemmi K, Julmanop C, Hirata D, Tsuchiya E, Takemoto JY et al. The physiological roles of membrane ergosterol as revealed by the phenotypes of syr1/erg3 null mutant of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 1995; 59:482–486 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Abe F, Minegishi H. Global screening of genes essential for growth in high-pressure and cold environments: Searching for basic adaptive strategies using a yeast deletion library. Genetics 2008; 178:851–872 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Masneuf-Pomarède I, Bely M, Marullo P, Lonvaud-Funel A, Dubourdieu D. Reassessment of phenotypic traits for Saccharomyces bayanus var. uvarum wine yeast strains. Int J Food Microbiol 2010; 139:79–86 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Gamero A, Tronchoni J, Querol A, Belloch C. Production of aroma compounds by cryotolerant Saccharomyces species and hybrids at low and moderate fermentation temperatures. J Appl Microbiol 2013; 114:1405–1414 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Stribny J, Gamero A, Pérez-Torrado R, Querol A. Saccharomyces kudriavzevii and Saccharomyces uvarum differ from Saccharomyces cerevisiae during the production of aroma-active higher alcohols and acetate esters using their amino acidic precursors. Int J Food Microbiol 2015; 205:41–46 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Chi Z, Arneborg N. Relationship between lipid composition, frequency of ethanol-induced respiratory deficient mutants, and ethanol tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Appl Microbiol 1999; 86:1047–1052 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  90. You KM, Rosenfield CL, Knipple DC. Ethanol tolerance in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is dependent on cellular oleic acid content. Appl Env Microbiol 2003; 69:1499–1503
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Huffer S, Clark ME, Ning JC, Blanch HW, Clark DS. Role of alcohols in growth, lipid composition, and membrane fluidity of yeasts, bacteria, and archaea. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011; 77:6400–6408 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Dawaliby R, Trubbia C, Delporte C, Noyon C, Ruysschaert JM et al. Phosphatidylethanolamine is a key regulator of membrane fluidity in eukaryotic cells. J Biol Chem 2016; 291:3658–3667 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ballweg S, Sezgin E, Doktorova M, Covino R, Reinhard J et al. Regulation of lipid saturation without sensing membrane fluidity. Nat Commun 2020; 1:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Jurešić GC, Blagović B, Rupčić J. Alterations in phosphatidylcholine and phosphatidylethanolamine content during fermentative metabolism in saccharomyces cerevisiae brewer’s yeast. Food Technol Biotechnol 2009; 47:246–252
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Tyurina YY, Lou W, Qu F, Tyurin VA, Mohammadyani D et al. Lipidomics characterization of biosynthetic and remodeling pathways of cardiolipins in genetically and nutritionally manipulated yeast cells. ACS Chem Biol 2017; 12:265–281 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lou W, Ting HC, Reynolds CA, Tyurina YY, Tyurin VA et al. Genetic re-engineering of polyunsaturated phospholipid profile of Saccharomyces cerevisiae identifies a novel role for Cld1 in mitigating the effects of cardiolipin peroxidation. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids 2018; 1863:1354–1368 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000628
Loading
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000628
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error