MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Saccharomyces uvarum yeast isolate consumes acetic acid during fermentation of high sugar juice and juice with high starting volatile acidity

2020· article· en· W3017245185 on OpenAlex
Debra Inglis, Jennifer M. Kelly, Stephanie Van Dyk, Lisa Dowling, Gary J. Pickering, Belinda Kemp

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOENO One · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcetic acidWineFermentationChemistryFood scienceBrixYeastEthanol fermentationSugarYeast in winemakingAcetaldehydeMalolactic fermentationFermentation in winemakingSaccharomycesWine faultEthanolBiochemistrySaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiologyLactic acidBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: A Saccharomyces uvarum isolate was assessed for its ability to metabolize acetic acid present in juice and during the fermentation of partially dehydrated grapes. The impact on other yeast metabolites was also compared using an S. uvarum isolate and an S. cerevisiae wine yeast. The upper limit of fruit concentration that allowed the S. uvarum isolate to ferment wines to < 5 g/L residual sugar was defined.Methods and results: Cabernet franc grapes were partially dehydrated to three different post-harvest sugar targets (24.5 °Brix, 26.0 °Brix, and 27.5 °Brix) along with non-dehydrated grapes (21.5 °Brix control). Musts from all treatments were vinified with either the S. uvarum isolate CN1, formerly identified as S. bayanus, or S. cerevisiae EC1118. All wines were successfully vinified to less than 5 g/L residual sugar. Fermentation kinetics between the two yeasts were similar for all wines other than 27.5 °Brix, where CN1 took three days longer. During fermentation with CN1, acetic acid peaked on day two, then decreased in concentration, resulting in final wine acetic acid lower than that measured on day two. Wines fermented with EC1118 showed an increase in acetic acid over the time-course of fermentation. Significantly lower wine oxidative compounds (acetic acid, acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate) and higher glycerol resulted in wine produced with CN1 in comparison to EC1118. Both yeasts produced comparable ethanol at each Brix level tested. Further studies showed that CN1 lowered acetic acid seven-fold from 0.48 g/L in juice to 0.07 g/L in wine whereas EC1118 reduced acetic acid to 0.18 g/L.Conclusions: The autochthonous S. uvarum yeast isolate successfully fermented partially dehydrated grapes to < 5 g/L sugar up to 27.5 ºBrix. The consumption rate of acetic acid was faster than its production during fermentation, resulting in low acetic acid, acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate in wine in comparison to a commercial S. cerevisiae yeast while consistently producing higher glycerol.Significance and impact of the study: The S. uvarum yeast isolate can metabolize acetic acid during fermentation to significantly lower acetic acid, ethyl acetate and acetaldehyde in wine. It can also reduce acetic acid by seven-fold from the starting juice to the finished wine, which could have potential application for managing sour rot arising in the vineyard or during the dehydration process in making appassimento-style wines.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.172 · 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