4.6 Article

Screening of β-Glucosidase and β-Xylosidase Activities in Four Non-Saccharomyces Yeast Isolates

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 80, 期 8, 页码 C1696-C1704

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.12954

关键词

beta-glucosidase; beta-xylosidase; non-Saccharomyces yeasts

资金

  1. [INV-AE112-66049/UV]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The finding of new isolates of non-Saccharomyces yeasts, showing beneficial enzymes (such as -glucosidase and -xylosidase), can contribute to the production of quality wines. In a selection and characterization program, we have studied 114 isolates of non-Saccharomyces yeasts. Four isolates were selected because of their both high -glucosidase and -xylosidase activities. The ribosomal D1/D2 regions were sequenced to identify them as Pichia membranifaciens Pm7, Hanseniaspora vineae Hv3, H. uvarum Hu8, and Wickerhamomyces anomalus Wa1. The induction process was optimized to be carried on YNB-medium supplemented with 4% xylan, inoculated with 106cfu/mL and incubated 48h at 28 degrees C without agitation. Most of the strains had a pH optimum of 5.0 to 6.0 for both the -glucosidase and -xylosidase activities. The effect of sugars was different for each isolate and activity. Each isolate showed a characteristic set of inhibition, enhancement or null effect for -glucosidase and -xylosidase. The volatile compounds liberated from wine incubated with each of the 4 yeasts were also studied, showing an overall terpene increase (1.1 to 1.3-folds) when wines were treated with non-Saccharomyces isolates. In detail, terpineol, 4-vinyl-phenol and 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol increased after the addition of Hanseniaspora isolates. Wines treated with Hanseniaspora, Wickerhamomyces, or Pichia produced more 2-phenyl ethanol than those inoculated with other yeasts. Practical Application Wines produced with a combination of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces strains could have a better quality than others. Non-Saccharomyces yeasts contribute to aroma enhancement of Muscat wines.

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