4.6 Article

Differential expression of thiamine biosynthetic genes in yeast strains with high and low production of hydrogen sulfide during wine fermentation

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 109, 期 1, 页码 272-281

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04652.x

关键词

fermentation; food; genomics; microarray; yeasts

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry for Education and Science [BIO2005-00840, AGL2000-0133-P4-03, PETRI 95 0038 CT]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Release of hydrogen sulfide by fermenting yeast is a potential problem in wine production, because of its strong organoleptic impact. To identify the genetic determinants of sulfide production, we compared the transcriptomes of two wine yeast strains with similar oenological properties, but with very different levels of sulfide production, UDC522 (high sulfide producer) and P29 (low producer). Methods and Results: Oenological microfermentations were sampled at the peak production of sulfide. Transcription profiles of the two strains were analysed by three methods, a cDNA-based array, an oligonucleotide-based array and qRT-PCR analysis of selected transcripts. Less than 10% of yeast genes showed significant differences between the two strains. High sulfide production correlated with a general overexpression of thiamine biosynthesis genes, whereas genes linked to the catabolism of sulfur-containing compounds (like amino acids) showed no significant expression differences between both strains. Conclusions: Our data suggest a relationship between the thiamine biosynthetic pathway and sulfide production during wine fermentation. Significance and Impact of the Study: This study provides a first hint which indicates that for some yeast strains, biosynthesis of thiamine (and perhaps of other sulfur-containing compounds) may be more relevant than the general nitrogen metabolism in explaining sulfide production by some yeast strains during vinification, defining new targets for genetic improvement of wine yeast strains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据