Genomic and phenotypic comparison between similar wine yeast strains ofSaccharomyces cerevisiaefrom different geographic origins

Abstract

Aims: To study genomic and phenotypic changes in wine yeasts produced in short time periods analysing yeast strains possibly derived from commercial strains recently dispersed. Methods and Results: We conducted a genomic and phenotypic comparison between the commercial yeast strain EC1118 and two novel strains (LV CB and L‐957) isolated from different wine areas industrially intervened <20 years ago. Molecular analysis by amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and RAPD‐PCR was not able to distinguish between these strains. However, comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) showed discrete DNA gains and losses that allowed unequivocal identification of the strains. Furthermore, analysis of aCGH data supports the hypothesis that strains LV CB and L‐957 are derivatives from strain EC1118. Finally, scarce phenotypic differences in physiological and metabolic parameters were found among the strains. Conclusion: The wine yeasts have a very dynamic genome that accumulates changes in short time periods. These changes permit the unique genomic identification of the strains. Significance and Impact of the Study: This study permits the evaluation of microevolutive events in wine yeasts and its relationship with the phenotype in this species.

Geographical markers for Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with similar technological origins domesticated for rice-based ethnic fermented beverages production in North East India

“…Multiple retrotransposons (Ty elements) mediating reciprocal recombination demonstrated the karyotype alteration in natural and industrial strains (Rachidi et al 1999). Gaining a copy of four genes responsible for increased fermentation rate was also demonstrated by microarray comparative genomic hybridization (Salinas et al 2010).…”

“…The RAPD-PCR is also reported as a reliable technique to discriminate strains of same geographical origin (Martinez et al 2007). Recently, multilocus sequence typing (Fay and Benavides 2005), comparative genomic hybridization using microarray (Salinas et al 2010), and whole genome sequencing (Schacherer et al 2009;Liti et al 2009) were also utilized for typing S. cerevisiae strains to correlate geographical and technological origin of the strains.…”

Detection and identification of microorganisms in wine: a review of molecular techniques

“…For example, Salinas et al [100] were able to differentiate between S. cerevisiae strains LV CB, L-957 and the commercial strain EC118 using CGH, while both AFLP and RAPD-PCR (discussed below) considered them to be the same strain. To date, two other studies have used CGH to study S. cerevisiae strains.…”

“…Curtin et al [24] used the method to identify eight different genotypes of D. bruxellensis from 31 winemaking regions in Australia. Other studies have examined Saccharomyces strains from different geographical origins [59,100].…”

Study of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Wine Strains for Breeding Through Fermentation Efficiency and Tetrad Analysis

“…The flasks were maintained at 20°C without agitation and plugged with Müller valves to facilitate the evolution of only CO 2 from the system. The fermentation evolution was assessed two to three times a day to determine weight loss [31] and time required for constant weight was 28 days. The maximum fermentation rate (lmax) (h -1 ) was calculated using a modified Gompertz equation [37] with Origin8.0 software.…”