MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response of wine yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) aldehyde dehydrogenases to acetaldehyde stress during Icewine fermentation

2007· article· en· W1514805007 on OpenAlexaff
G.M. Pigeau, Debra Inglis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetaldehydeFermentationYeast in winemakingYeastAldehyde dehydrogenaseBiochemistryWineAcetic acidGlycerolSugarFermentation in winemakingChemistryFood scienceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiologyEnzymeEthanol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We previously reported that the aldehyde dehydrogenase encoded by ALD3 but not ALD6 was responsible, in part, for the increased acetic acid found in Icewines based on the expression profile of these genes during fermentation. We have now completed the expression profile of the remaining yeast aldehyde dehydrogenase genes ALD2, ALD4 and ALD5 during these fermentations to determine their contribution to acetic acid production. The contribution of acetaldehyde stress as a signal to stimulate ALD expression during these fermentations was investigated for all ALD genes. The expression of glycerol-3-phosphate encoded by GPD2 was also followed during these fermentations to determine its role in addition to the role we already identified for GPD1 in the elevated glycerol produced during Icewine fermentation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Icewine juice (38.5 degrees Brix, 398 +/- 5 g l(-1) sugar), diluted Icewine juice (20.8 degrees Brix, 196 +/- 4 g l(-1) sugar) and the diluted juice with sugar levels equal to the original Icewine juice (36.6 degrees Brix, 395 +/- 6 g l(-1) sugar) were fermented in duplicate using the commercial wine yeast K1-V1116. Acetic acid and glycerol production increased 8.4- and 2.7-fold in the Icewine vs the diluted juice fermentation, respectively, accompanied by a fourfold transient increase in acetaldehyde in the Icewine condition during the first week. Both mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenases encoded by ALD4 and ALD5 were expressed, with ALD5 expression highest at the start of all fermentations and ALD4 expression increasing during the first week of each condition. ALD2, ALD4, ALD5 and GPD2 showed no differential expression between the three fermentation conditions indicating their lack of involvement in elevating acetic acid and glycerol in Icewine. When yeast fermenting the diluted fermentation was exposed to exogenous acetaldehyde, the transient spike in acetaldehyde increased the expression of ALD3 but this response alone was not sufficient to cause an increase in acetic acid. Expression of the other aldehyde dehydrogenases was unaffected by the acetaldehyde addition. CONCLUSIONS: The aldehyde dehydrogenases encoded by ALD2, ALD4 and ALD5 do not contribute to the elevated acetic acid production during Icewine fermentation. Expression of GPD2 was not upregulated in high sugar fermentations and does not reflect the elevated levels of glycerol found in these wines. Acetaldehyde at a concentration produced during Icewine fermentation stimulates the expression of ALD3, but has no impact on the expression of ALD2, -4, -5 and -6. Upregulation of ALD3 alone in the dilute fermentation is not sufficient to increase acetic acid in wine and requires additional responses found in cells under hyperosmotic stress. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This work confirms that increased acetic acid and glycerol production during Icewine fermentation follows upregulation of ALD3 and GPD1 respectively, but upregulation of ALD3 alone is not sufficient to increase acetic acid production. Additional responses of cells under osmotic stress are required to increase acetic acid in Icewine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MicrobiologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207