4.7 Article

Early transcriptional response to biotic stress in mixed starter fermentations involving Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.10.017

关键词

Interspecific interaction; Biotic stress; Non-Saccharomyces; Mixed starter; Wine fermentation

资金

  1. MINECO/FEDER, UE [AGL2015-63629-R]
  2. MINECO Formacion Postdoctoral contract from the Spanish Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in microbial wine biotechnology have led to the recent commercialization of several non-Saccharomyces starter cultures. These are intended to be used in either simultaneous or sequential inoculation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The different types of microbial interactions that can be stablished during wine fermentation acquire an increased relevance in the context of these mixed-starter fermentations We analysed the transcriptional response to co-cultivation of S. cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii. The study focused in the initial stages of wine fermentation, before S. cerevisiae completely dominates the mixed cultures. Both species showed a clear response to the presence of each other, even though the portion of the genome showing altered transcription levels was relatively small. Changes in the transcription pattern suggested a stimulation of metabolic activity and growth, as a consequence of the presence of competitors in the same medium. The response of S. cerevisiae seems to take place earlier, as compared to T. delbrueckii. Enhanced glycolytic activity of the mixed culture was confirmed by the CO2 production profile during these early stages of fermentation. Interestingly, HSP12 expression appeared induced by co-cultivation for both of S. cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii in the two time points studied. This might be related with a recently described role of Hsp12 in intercellular communication in yeast. Expression of S. cerevisiae PAUgenes was also stimulated in mixed cultures. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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