Computational Models for Prediction of Yeast Strain Potential for Winemaking from Phenotypic Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains from diverse natural habitats harbour a vast amount of phenotypic diversity, driven by interactions between yeast and the respective environment. In grape juice fermentations, strains are exposed to a wide array of biotic and abiotic stressors, which may lead to strain selection and generate naturally arising strain diversity. Certain phenotypes are of particular interest for the winemaking industry and could be identified by screening of large number of different strains. The objective of the present work was to use data mining approaches to identify those phenotypic tests that are most useful to predict a strain's potential for winemaking. We have constituted a S. cerevisiae collection comprising 172 strains of worldwide geographical origins or technological applications. Their phenotype was screened by considering 30 physiological traits that are important from an oenological point of view. Growth in the presence of potassium bisulphite, growth at 40 °C, and resistance to ethanol were mostly contributing to strain variability, as shown by the principal component analysis. In the hierarchical clustering of phenotypic profiles the strains isolated from the same wines and vineyards were scattered throughout all clusters, whereas commercial winemaking strains tended to co-cluster. Mann-Whitney test revealed significant associations between phenotypic results and strain's technological application or origin. Naïve Bayesian classifier identified 3 of the 30 phenotypic tests of growth in iprodion (0.05 mg/mL), cycloheximide (0.1 µg/mL) and potassium bisulphite (150 mg/mL) that provided most information for the assignment of a strain to the group of commercial strains. The probability of a strain to be assigned to this group was 27% using the entire phenotypic profile and increased to 95%, when only results from the three tests were considered. Results show the usefulness of computational approaches to simplify strain selection procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".