Adaptive Divergence in Wine and Wild Yeasts
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJEB19382 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERR1856440_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR1856440_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR1856450_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR1856450_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| ERR1856441_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 28 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:We performed here the transcriptomic profile of 44 segregants from a cross between S288c and 59A (a spore of EC1118 strain). The analysis was performed in wine fermentation condition in stationary phase during nitrogen starvation and in alcoholic stress. These data, associated with an individual genotyping by Affymetrix array allow us to highlight genetic variations involved in perturbation of regulatory network and fermentative behavior.
2013-10-21 | GSE41025 | GEO
Project description:The yeast Dekkera bruxellensis is as ethanol tolerant as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and may be found in bottled wine. It causes the spoilage of wine, beer, cider and soft drinks. In wines, the metabolic products responsible for spoilage by Dekkera bruxellensis are mainly volatile phenols. These chemical compounds are responsible for the taints described as ‘‘medicinal’’ in white wines (due to vinyl phenols) and as ‘‘leather’’, ‘‘horse sweat’’ and ‘‘stable’’ in red wines (due to ethyl phenols mainly 4-ethylphenol). Apart from the negative aroma nuances imparted by these yeasts, positive aromas such as ‘smoky’, ‘spicy’ and ‘toffee’ are also cited. Our goal was to identify the impact that the wine spoilage yeast Dekkera bruxellensis has on fermenting S. cerevisiae cells, especially on its gene expression level. To this end we co-inoculated both yeast species at the start of fermentation in a synthetic wine must, using S. cerevisiae-only fermentations without Dekkera bruxellensis as a control. All fermentations were employed in special membrane reactors (1.2 um pore size cut-off) physically separating Dekkera bruxellensis from wine yeast S. cerevisiae. Biomass separation with this membrane was done to abolish the possibility of hybridizing also D. bruxellensis probes on Agilent V2 (8x15K format) G4813 DNA microarrays designed just for S. cerevisiae ORF targets. The 1.2 um pore membrane separating both yeasts allowed the exchange of ethanol, metabolites and sugars during the fermentation.
2012-06-13 | GSE38582 | GEO
Project description:Industrial wine yeast strains possess specific abilities to ferment under stressing conditions and give a suitable aromatic outcome. Although the fermentations properties of Saccharomyces cervisiae wine yeasts are well documented little is known on the genetic basis underlying the fermentation traits. Besides, although strain differences in gene expression has been reported, their relationships with gene expression variations and fermentation phenotypic variations is unknown. To both identify the genetic basis of fermentation traits and get insight on their relationships with gene expression variations, we combined fermentation traits QTL mapping and expression profiling in a segregating population from a cross between a wine yeast derivative and a laboratory strain.
2011-01-19 | GSE26437 | GEO
Project description:The goal of this study was to compare the expression level of the whole genome of two wine yeast strains highly differing in their sulfite production (High producer strain: 10281A; Low producer strain: 1764A). Conditions maximizing SO2 production were selected: nitrogen rich media (425 mg/l assimilable nitrogen) and low temperature (16°C). This transcriptomic analysis was performed during the sulfite production phase, just after the entry in stationary phase. This analysis is part of a global work, aiming at the identification of the molecular basis of sulfite production by wine yeasts through physiologic, transcriptomic and genetic studies.
2015-05-14 | GSE55083 | GEO
Project description:We performed here the transcriptomic profile of 44 segregants from a cross between S288c and 59A (a spore of EC1118 strain). The analysis was performed in wine fermentation condition in stationary phase during nitrogen starvation and in alcoholic stress. These data, associated with an individual genotyping by Affymetrix array allow us to highlight genetic variations involved in perturbation of regulatory network and fermentative behavior. 56 transcriptomic profiles were performed with Agilent mono-color array. 6 hybridizations were performed for each parental strains: 3 technical replicates for 2 biological replicated samples (59As1 and 59As5; S288Cs1 and S288Cs5). One hybridization was performed for each of the 44 segregants. Using mono-color array, the logarithm base 2 of intensity was directly used after normalization.
2013-10-21 | E-GEOD-41025 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however for aroma and flavour formation in wine non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GCxGC-TOF-MS and sensory analysis data of Sauvignon blanc wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) where commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct profile both sensorially and chemically. SC and CZ were the most distinct in both of these cases. SC had guava, grapefruit, banana, and pineapple aromas while CZ was driven by fermented apple, dried peach/apricot, and stewed fruit as well as sour flavor. Chemically over 300 unique features were identified as significantly different across the fermentations. SC had the highest number of esters in the highest relative concentration but all the yeasts had distinct ester profiles. CZ displayed the highest number of terpenes in high concentration but also produced a large amount of acetic acid. KA was high in ethyl acetate. TD had fewer esters but three distinctly higher thiol compounds. LT showed a relatively high number of increased acetate esters and certain terpenes. PK had some off odor compounds while the MP had high levels of different methyl butyl-, methyl propyl-, and phenethyl esters. Overall, this study gives a more detailed profile of these yeasts than anything previously reported.
2015-08-19 | MTBLS212 | MetaboLights
Project description:The goal of this study was to compare the expression level of the whole genome of two wine yeast strains highly differing in their sulfite production (High producer strain: 10281A; Low producer strain: 1764A). Conditions maximizing SO2 production were selected: nitrogen rich media (425 mg/l assimilable nitrogen) and low temperature (16°C). This transcriptomic analysis was performed during the sulfite production phase, just after the entry in stationary phase. This analysis is part of a global work, aiming at the identification of the molecular basis of sulfite production by wine yeasts through physiologic, transcriptomic and genetic studies. Two strains compared in the same conditions with biological replicates following a dye-swap design.
2015-05-14 | E-GEOD-55083 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The yeast Dekkera bruxellensis is as ethanol tolerant as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and may be found in bottled wine. It causes the spoilage of wine, beer, cider and soft drinks. In wines, the metabolic products responsible for spoilage by Dekkera bruxellensis are mainly volatile phenols. These chemical compounds are responsible for the taints described as M-bM-^@M-^XM-bM-^@M-^XmedicinalM-bM-^@M-^YM-bM-^@M-^Y in white wines (due to vinyl phenols) and as M-bM-^@M-^XM-bM-^@M-^XleatherM-bM-^@M-^YM-bM-^@M-^Y, M-bM-^@M-^XM-bM-^@M-^Xhorse sweatM-bM-^@M-^YM-bM-^@M-^Y and M-bM-^@M-^XM-bM-^@M-^XstableM-bM-^@M-^YM-bM-^@M-^Y in red wines (due to ethyl phenols mainly 4-ethylphenol). Apart from the negative aroma nuances imparted by these yeasts, positive aromas such as M-bM-^@M-^XsmokyM-bM-^@M-^Y, M-bM-^@M-^XspicyM-bM-^@M-^Y and M-bM-^@M-^XtoffeeM-bM-^@M-^Y are also cited. Our goal was to identify the impact that the wine spoilage yeast Dekkera bruxellensis has on fermenting S. cerevisiae cells, especially on its gene expression level. To this end we co-inoculated both yeast species at the start of fermentation in a synthetic wine must, using S. cerevisiae-only fermentations without Dekkera bruxellensis as a control. All fermentations were employed in special membrane reactors (50 KDa pore size cut-off) physically separating Dekkera bruxellensis from wine yeast S. cerevisiae. Biomass separation with this membrane was done to abolish the possibility of hybridizing also D. bruxellensis probes on Agilent V2 (8x15K format) G4813 DNA microarrays designed just for S. cerevisiae ORF targets. The 50 KDa pore membrane separating both yeasts allowed the exchange of ethanol, metabolites and sugars during the fermentation. Fermentations were carried out in synthetic wine must in duplicate for both the control S. cerevisiae (strain Lalvin EC1118) and mixed fermentation. Sampling of yeast S. cerevisiae for RNA extractions were performed at 22 h of fermentation, during the exponential growth phase of S. cerevisiae, at 92 h and 144 h of fermentation, during its early and late stationary growth phase and at 187 h of fermentation, during its phase of growth decline.
2012-06-12 | E-GEOD-38582 | biostudies-arrayexpress