MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012043009 · doi:10.1007/s10295-010-0924-1

Evaluation of the acetaldehyde production and degradation potential of 26 enological Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast strains in a resting cell model system

2010· article· en· W2012043009 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erhu Li, Ramón Mira de Orduña

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLallemandChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsAcetaldehydeYeastSaccharomyces cerevisiaeWineBiochemistryYield (engineering)SaccharomycesSubstrate (aquarium)ChemistryFermentationFood scienceEthanolBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acetaldehyde is relevant for wine aroma, wine color, and microbiological stability. Yeast are known to play a crucial role in production and utilization of acetaldehyde during fermentations but comparative quantitative data are scarce. This research evaluated the acetaldehyde metabolism of 26 yeast strains, including commercial Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces, in a reproducible resting cell model system. Acetaldehyde kinetics and peak values were highly genus, species, and strain dependent. Peak acetaldehyde values varied from 2.2 to 189.4 mg l(-1) and correlated well (r(2) = 0.92) with the acetaldehyde production yield coefficients that ranged from 0.4 to 42 mg acetaldehyde per g of glucose in absence of SO(2). S. pombe showed the highest acetaldehyde production yield coefficients and peak values. All other non-Saccharomyces species produced significantly less acetaldehyde than the S. cerevisiae strains and were less affected by SO(2) additions. All yeast strains could degrade acetaldehyde as sole substrate, but the acetaldehyde degradation rates did not correlate with acetaldehyde peak values or acetaldehyde production yield coefficients in incubations with glucose as sole substrate.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & BiotechnologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207