Ethanol Tolerance of Lactic Acid Bacteria, Including Relevance of the Exopolysaccharide Gene <i>Gtf</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are generally ethanol-tolerant organisms that have a higher resistance to ethanol than most bacteria. However, little is known with regard to the role ethanol tolerance plays in beer spoilage. Various stresses found in beer need to be overcome for an organism to be able to grow and cause spoilage. Because of this, a broad range of beer-spoilage abilities is found in LAB, and no conservation of this phenotype exists within species. As such, it is very difficult to accurately predict when a contaminating LAB would be able to spoil beer. Analysis of LAB ethanol tolerance was performed to determine whether a predictive factor could be found for the ability to grow in beer. Minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations were determined for 61 LAB that were also analyzed for their ability to spoil beer. No significant correlation was found between ethanol tolerance and ability to spoil beer because ethanol tolerance was essentially conserved within species. In addition, 153 LAB isolates were screened for the glucosyltransferase gene gtf, which is responsible for exopolysaccharide (EPS) production, to determine whether the presence of the gene was correlated with the ability to spoil beer or to tolerate high ethanol concentrations. The gtf gene was found in only six isolates, and no difference in beer-spoilage ability was found between ropy and nonropy isolates. Further, ethanol tolerance of EPS-producing variants was comparable with their nonropy counterparts. The results of this study show that ethanol tolerance does not play a discriminating role in LAB beer spoilage and that the presence of the gtf gene does not provide a selective advantage for ethanol tolerance or beer spoilage.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it