4.6 Article

Do Metabolomics and Taxonomic Barcode Markers Tell the Same Story about the Evolution ofSaccharomyces sensu strictoComplex in Fermentative Environments?

Journal

MICROORGANISMS
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8081242

Keywords

Saccharomyces; metabolomic fingerprint; barcode markers; yeast taxonomy; FTIR; LC-MS metabolomic

Categories

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Research and University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Yeast taxonomy was introduced based on the idea that physiological properties would help discriminate species, thus assuming a strong link between physiology and taxonomy. However, the instability of physiological characteristics within species configured them as not ideal markers for species delimitation, shading the importance of physiology and paving the way to the DNA-based taxonomy. The hypothesis of reconnecting taxonomy with specific traits from phylogenies has been successfully explored for Bacteria and Archaea, suggesting that a similar route can be traveled for yeasts. In this framework, thirteen single copy loci were used to investigate the predictability of complex Fourier Transform InfaRed spectroscopy (FTIR) and High-performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) profiles of the four historical species of theSaccharomyces sensu strictogroup, both on resting cells and under short-term ethanol stress. Our data show a significant connection between the taxonomy and physiology of these strains. Eight markers out of the thirteen tested displayed high correlation values with LC-MS profiles of cells in resting condition, confirming the low efficacy of FTIR in the identification of strains of closely related species. Conversely, most genetic markers displayed increasing trends of correlation with FTIR profiles as the ethanol concentration increased, according to their role in the cellular response to different type of stress.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available