Adaptive evolution of sulfite tolerance in<i>Brettanomyces bruxellensis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brettanomyces bruxellensis is considered one of the most problematic microbes associated with wine production. Sulfur dioxide is commonly used to inhibit the growth of B. bruxellensis and limit the potential wine spoilage. Brettanomyces bruxellensis wine isolates can grow at higher concentrations of this preservative than isolates from other sources. Thus, it has been suggested that the use of sulfite may have selected for B. bruxellensis strains better adapted to survive in the winemaking environment. We utilized laboratory adaptive evolution to determine the potential for this to occur. Three B. bruxellensis strains, representative of known genetic variation within the species, were subjected to increasing sublethal sulfur dioxide concentrations. Individual clones isolated from evolved populations displayed enhanced sulfite tolerance, ranging from 1.6 to 2.5 times higher than the corresponding parental strains. Whole-genome sequencing of sulfite-tolerant clones derived from two of the parental strains revealed structural variations affecting 270 genes. The region containing the sulfite efflux pump encoding gene, SSU1, showed clear copy number variants in all sequenced clones. Regardless of parental strain genetic background, SSU1 copy number changes were reproducibly associated with one SSU1 haplotype. This work clearly demonstrates adaptive evolution of B. bruxellensis when exposed to sublethal sulfites and suggests that, similar to Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast, the mechanism responsible involves the gene SSU1.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".