As previously communicated in my last post, I am currently working on a Dekkera anomala proteome (strain YV396) to get a better understanding of the pathways associated with compounds found in beers like Lambics. I compiled my data and first results into a easier to read format (see below). In case there is something else of interest in the genome, I will likely publish these results on my blog as well.
It has been a while since I look at Brettanomyces genomes since there wasn’t that much data available to play around. And mainly B. bruxellensis data is available due to its importance in the wine industry. This all changed when I came across the deposited draft genome assembly of a Dekkera anomalus YV396 genome in June by Vervoort,Y et al. Since there was no annotation material available for this genome I quickly decided to give the annotation a shot myself. Simply because I am interested in certain pathways in Brettanomyces. Everything I needed was my Ubuntu notebook (which died during the annotation process), my new Ubuntu workstation (replacing the notebook) and some Python coding. No access to a cluster whatsoever. Is it possible to finish an entire annotation project at home? You will find out very shortly. As I am still compiling data for a post, I want to start sharing the material part as well as the first abstract. Just to give you a sneak-peek into the project. The remaining part of the genome & proteome project will get published very soon. Just give me some additional time to finish up the various pathway analysis and writing up the paper. Still a lot to be discovered in the new genome…
I – Methods
The draft genome assembly of Dekkera anomalus strain YV396 (isolated from a Belgian brewery) was retrieved from GenBank (accession number LCTY00000000.1; June 2015) deposited in May 2015 by KU Leuven [Vervoort et al.]. Illumina HiSeq data (100x coverage) was assembled into a genome using SOAPdenovo v.1.05. The statistics for the obtained assembly are summarized in Tab. 1.
Gene prediction on contigs was performed using the AUGUSTUS web-service (AUGUSTUS parameter project identifier: pichia_stipitis, UTR prediction: false, report genes on both strands, alternative transcripts few, allowed gene structure: predict any number of (possibly partial) genes, ignore conflicts with other strand: false) [Stanke et al.2006, 2008]. The gene prediction statistics are summarized in Tab. 2.
Gene annotation was performed by Blast2GO including remote blastx on NCBI and InterProScan for domain predictions [Conesa et al, 2005]. GO-term mapping and annotation performed by Blast2GO pipeline. Close to 3,000 out of the predicted 4,160 could be annotated by Blast2GO (Fig 3). Another subset of about 600 sequences could be mapped to a biological function without a GO term and about 460 sequences only resulted in BLAST hits which could not be further associated with a protein function.
Most abundant species associated with the best blastx hits were Dekkera bruxellensis, Ogataea polymorpha and Pichia kudriavzevi (not shown).
- Conesa, A., Götz, S., García-Gómez, J. M., Terol, J., Talón, M., and Robles, M. (2005). Blast2GO:a universal tool for annotation, visualization and analysis in functional genomics research. Bioinformatics, 21(18):3674–3676.
- Stanke, M., Diekhans, M., Baertsch, R., and Haussler, D. (2008). Using native and syntenically mapped cDNA alignments to improve de novo gene finding. Bioinformatics, 24(5):637–644.
- Stanke, M., Schoffmann, O., Morgenstern, B., and Waack, S. (2006). Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics, 7(1):62.
- Vervoort,Y., Herrera-Malaver,B., Mertens,S., Guadalupe Medina,V., Duitama,J., Michiels,L., Derdelinckx,G., Voordeckers,K., Verstrepen,K.J. (2015) Purification and characterization of a novel Brettanomyces anomalus beta-glucosidase enzyme suitable for food bioflavoring – unpublished.
Eureka, back to spoilage yeasts. Today, I would like to introduce another spoilage yeast called Metschnikowia pulcherrima (anamorph Candida pulcherrima): A killer yeast with applications in the wine industry, available at Lallemand’s (aka Flavia MP346) and results from one of my countless (beer) split batch experiments. I hope there is something in here for everyone. Put on your science hats, take out your pencils & notepads and start reading. Spoiler alert: you have to interpret the results yourself.
Where do I work?
M. pulcherrima can be isolated from grapes, cherries, Drosophila spp. (fruit fly), flowers and spoiled fruits [Kurtzman et al, 2011]. A yeast commonly found in nature then. If you want to know more about M. pulcherrima and its role in the wine production, go to http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu.
What about beer?
I could not find a source where M. pulcherrima is linked to beer or discussed as potential spoilage yeast thereof. This might not be that surprising since beer is, first of all, commonly not brewed with fruits and second, it’s not really the most alcohol resistant nor metabolically advanced yeast in the universe. Apparently, M. pulcherrima seems to have an alcohol tolerance of about 5% [wineserver.ucdavis.edu, 2015]. Not really high compared to brewer’s yeast with levels of around 12% (or even higher).
What is so special about me?
One very special character of M. pulcherrima makes it a very interesting yeast for the food industry: It’s a killer yeast! The killer activity is affecting blue mold (Penicillium sp.), Botrytis cinerea (gray mold) and couple of bacteria, yeasts [Kurtzman et al, 2011]. This inhibition/killer activity seems to be linked to pulcherriminic acid which is able to form insoluble compounds ultimately depleting the medium of iron ions (which are essential for the growth of other microorganisms) [Oro et al, 2014]. Scientists therefore studied efficacies of M. pulcherrima as a biocontrol agent against the molds mentioned above to eventually prolong the storage times of fruits. If you want to know more about the killer activity and the science behind it, go to PubMed and have a look at the publication from M. Sipiczki. I think this is a very nice example to show people not affiliated with science, that spending money to investigate very odd microorganisms may even result in discoveries that can have an industrial application. Or even have an impact on drug developments against pathological molds. Or put the yeast on the radar of a yeast hunter…
Where can you find me?
As mentioned in the introduction, Lallemand sells a M. pulcherrima product called Flavia MP346. One of the few advantages to brew in Switzerland is the fact, that everything around me is about wine. And getting wine yeasts is therefore rather easy. I therefore got myself a package of said yeast and tried to investigate the impact on beer.
According to Lallemand, Flavia MP346 is a strain isolated from Chile with the speciality of α-arabinofuranosidase secretion to increase terpenes and volatile thiols to enhance the aroma of a wine. Overall increasing the aroma complexity (mainly fruit components) in the finished product. The yeast is commonly added to the must first followed by a Saccharomyces pitch 24 h later on.
To test if there is any (detectable) effect on aroma complexity in a malt based beverage like beer, I performed a simple split batch experiment. I started with a straight forward Belgian inspired recipe (3 kg Vienna malt, 3 kg Abbey malt and 0.5 kg CaraMunich 2; 24 IBU with Saazer; OG about 1.066, brewed 12. December 2014), and split the wort in two parts. One part fermented with a Saccharomyces (US-05) only, the second part with a dose of M. pulcherrima for 24 h before pitching the same Saccharomyces strain. I was really curious to try this yeast because an effect seemed very unlikely to me since the yeast can mainly ferment glucose (see below) and is incapable of fermenting maltose. Not to forget the rather low alcohol tolerance. Bottled on 12th of January 2015 (TG_control: 1.023 (5.9 ABV), TG_Metschnikowia: 1.024 (5.9 ABV)).
Aroma: Lots of dark fruits like figs, prunes. Caramel notes as well as burnt sugar components. Very nice!
Appearance: Red-brown color, slightly cloudy, off-white head (see picture on the left). Lots of carbonation.
Flavor: Very similar to aroma. Caramel and malts. Not much else going on (yeast character or whatever).
Mouthfeel: Light body, average carbonation, malty/sweet-caramel/bitter finish. Very nicely balanced.
Overall Impression: Nice bitter:body balance. Very classical and easy to drink. Most of the character originates from choice of malts (caramalts). Not much flavor picked up from US-05 yeast (as planned).
Metschnikowia partial ferment:
Aroma: Different (compared to control): Besides the malt character (caramel, dark fruits, burnt sugar) notes of raspberries, pepper and wild funk (mostly phenolic acids). Very pleasant aroma profile.
Appearance: Red-brown color, slightly cloudy, off-white head (see picture on the left). Lots of carbonation. Similar to control.
Flavor: Similar to aroma without the fruity components (mainly caramel & malt). Finishes with a bitter overhang (balance toward bitter).
Mouthfeel: Very light body (lighter than control), higher carbonation than control (gusher),
Overall Impression: Typical Belgian dark ale with hints of fruits as well as phenolic funk in the nose. Body on the lower end resulting in an overhang of bitterness (not very well-balanced). Seems to have attenuated more than the control resulting in a low body and over-carbonated beer. In the end, I prefer the control. Although the aroma profile of the Metschnikowia beer is nice, it’s a less drinkable beer (my opinion).
So far for the plain results. Lets put them into perspective. According to Lallemand, the yeast is used in wine to promote the fruit components. And I have the feeling that I was able to pick up such an effect in my experiment as well. The beer dosed with M. pulcherrima had pronounced notes of fruits which were not present in the control. The beer had a higher attenuation level resulting in a lower body and a bitter balanced beer.
Great! I will leave the interpretation of the experiment as well as other applications of this yeast to you. The only thing that I don’t recommend is to ferment a beer with M. pulcherrima only. Simply because of its incapability to ferment the most abundant sugars in wort (just in case someone tries that, goes horribly wrong and wants to sue me for that).
Some biochemical stats about me for yeast ranchers
First some micrographs:
Yeast grows on Sabouraud agar like any other Saccharomyces yeast. I however noticed one difference: M. pulcherrima seems to be non-cycloheximide resistant (according to http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu, 2015). I plated the Lallemand product on Sabouraud agar supplemented with + 10 mg L-1 cycloheximide and I could not detect any colonies. Now some stats summarized from Kurtzman et al (2011).
|Systematic name:||Metschnikowia pulcherrima (anamorph Candida pulcherrima)|
|Synonyms:||There are a lots of accepted synonyms for this yeasts. Just some examples: Torula pulcherrima, Saccharomyces pulcherrimus|
|Growth on malt agar:||Cell morphology:||Globose to ellipsoid, 2.5 µm x 4-10 µm. Pulcherrimin (reddish-brown) pigment present & diffuses into media|
|Pellicle formation:||Not described|
That’s all for today. Thanks for reading.
- Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (2011) The Yeasts, a Taxonomic Study. Volume 1. Fifth edition. Elsevier (Link to sciencedirect)
- Oro L, Ciani M, Comitini F (2014) Antimicrobial activity of Metschnikowia pulcherrima on wine yeasts. J Appl Microbiol. 116(5):1209-17
- wineserver.ucdavis.edu (2015) http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry/enology/winemicro/wineyeast/metschnikowia_pulcherrima.html
Welcome back everyone. Yes, I am still alive. Although my job in science absorbs lots of my spare time lately, I still find time now and then to brew on a semi-professional scale. Which unfortunately leaves yeast science and this blog at lower priorities. I still do yeast work at home but it all shifted to more practical applications like establishing and testing blends, evaluating yeast isolates and playing around with some full size wine barrels.
What I want to share today are the results of an evaluation experiment I performed a couple of months ago to look for MRS media alternatives to propagate lactobacillus at home. MRS media is kind of the golden standard used to propagate lactobacillus. It works very well but with the disadvantage of being a quite expensive media. I therefore tested a couple of cheaper alternative media and compared the growth/propagation efficiency with MRS. Please notice that the experiment and results are added in a rather short kind of way. That’s all from me now. Take out your pencils & notepads and start reading. Over&Out.
Goal of project
- Set up starter conditions and protocols to propagate Lactobacillus sp. to pitchable amounts
- Compare growth properties to MRS broth as reference
- Determine most efficient media to propagate Lactobacillus sp.
Material & Methods
The following media were tested:
- Lactobacillus media 1: 100% apple juice
- Lactobacillus media 2: 100% apple juice + CaCO3 (20 g L-1)
- Lactobacillus media 3: 100% apple juice + CaCO3 (20 g L-1) + yeast nutrients
- Lactobacillus media 4: 10°P DME
- Lactobacillus media 5: 10°P DME, 10% (v/v) apple juice
- Lactobacillus media 6: 10°P DME, 10% apple juice + CaCO3 (20 g L-1)
- Lactobacillus media 7: 10°P DME, 10% apple juice + CaCO3 (20 g L-1) + yeast nutrients
- MRS-Bouillon (as reference, CarlRoth prepared according to manual)
10°P DME starter and MRS media was autoclaved (15 min at 121°C) and mixed with additional components at room temperature. Pasteurized apple juice was used. Each media (50 mL in total) was inoculated with 1 mL of bacteria culture (Wyeast 5335 L. delbruecki/L. buchneri; Wyeast 5223 L. brevis). Propagation performed at room temperature (no shaking, no aeration).
To address the efficiency of the media, the culture densities were estimated based on microscope observations after 7 days of propagation.
WY 5335 L. delbrueckii/L. buchneri:
- Media 1: None-few LAB cells (rod-shaped) visible
- Media 2: Yeast & circular bacteria cells visible (contamination)
- Media 3: Circular bacteria visible (very few LABs)
- Media 4: LAB visible
- Media 5: LAB visible
- Media 6: LAB visible
- Media 7: Lots of LAB
- MRS control: Lots of LAB maybe more than media 7
WY 5223 L. brevis:
- Media 1: None-few LAB
- Media 2: Circular cells, few rod-shaped bacteria
- Media 3: Circular cells, few rod-shaped bacteria
- Media 4: LAB visible
- Media 5: LAB visible, more or less the same as for media 4
- Media 6: Lots of LAB
- Media 7: Lots of LAB, maybe same as media 6
- MRS control: Lots of LAB, same as media 7
pH-measurements after propagation
Unfortunately, I was not able to measure the pH of the media prior to the propagation. Just received my fancy pH-meter a bit to late for that. Below the pH measurements of the media after propagation.
Media // L. delbrueckii // L. brevis
1 // 3.21 // 3.23
2 // 5.80 // 5.87
3 // 6.54 // 5.92
4 // 4.08 // 3.32
5 // 3.10 // 3.22
6 // 5.68 // 4.57
7 // 5.42 // 4.82
MRS // 4.18 // 4.44
Summary & Conclusions
- LAB grow very well in MRS media (room temperature, no aeration)
- Both LAB samples tested grew in various of the tested media. Apple juice, even in presence of other components, does not lead to optimal growth efficiencies compared with the MRS controls
- Propagation in Lactobacillus Media 7 (10°P DME + 10% (v/v) apple juice + 2% (w/v) CaCO3 and yeast nutrients leads to growth efficiencies close to MRS media
In conclusion, growing/propagating LAB in Lactobacillus Media 7 seems to be the most efficient media tested in this series with results similar to MRS media.
Short one for today. I would like to share some information about the sugar composition of wort since I had to take this into consideration for an upcoming project I am preparing for publishing here soon (yes, its yeast related). Lets talk sugars today!
I am not sure how many homebrewers thought about the actual sugar composition of their wort before. And I am not speaking about fermentable and non-fermentable ones. The real composition like sucrose, maltose, glucose etc. The question now is why one might think about that problem in the first place. For example, if you are interested to know if a non-Saccharoymces yeast (capable of fermenting glucose only) can ferment something in a wort, you might need to know if glucose is even present in the first place (and this example is pretty close to the question I asked myself to eventually investigate the composition of sugars in wort).
The composition of sugars in wort has been addressed a couple of years ago and published in various papers. Like “Determination of the sugar composition of wort and beer by gas liquid chromatography” by Otter et al published in 1967 [get me to the paper]. I will not go into the scientific details as well as experimental setup of this paper but would like to discuss the results.
Otter et al determined the concentrations of six sugars (fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, maltotriose and maltotetraose) in 15 different worts with various OGs (ranging from 1.027 up to 1.093). I averaged the sugar compositions of the 15 samples as amount of sugar X relative to the total amount of sugar present in wort. Just to give me a rough idea. So don’t read too much into the numbers here. It’s about the ratio or more like sugar X is highly abundant or not. And yes, I thought about effects of grain bill composition, mash schedules, mash pH, you name it on the sugar composition. Getting a rough idea here.
About half of the sugars present in wort is maltose (Fig 2). Followed by maltotriose and glucose. And some smaller amounts of fructose, sucrose and maltotetraose. Maltotetraose by the way is a dextrin and can be counted as non-fermentable. Standard Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains are capable of fermenting all the present sugars except maltotetraose. Which might explain why S. cerevisiae is the working horse of brewers. In summary, maltose makes up about half of the total sugars followed by glucose and maltotriose. And some minor amounts of fructose, sucrose and maltotetraose. I am actually surprised about the amount of glucose present in wort. I did not expect that at all.
So there you go. I will address the initial problem about a specific sugar metabolism of a non-Saccharomyces yeast in a future post including some empirical data. Stay tuned!
Starting 2015 with science. This is a more in depth post about yeast phylogeny. Please have a look at the more basic post here. This time, I would like to discuss the relationship of various Brettanomyces/Dekkera strains and share my results concerning the recent WLP Brettanomyces bruxellensis Trois yeast ID crisis.
I would like to start with the Brettanomyces/Dekkera strains first. I obtained 38 Dekkera/Brettanomyces sequences (26S rDNA) from the CBS database, aligned them using MUSCLE (run in default mode, see MSA in Fig 1) and reconstructed a phylogenetic tree using MABL (model HKY85) and rendered using TreeDyn (run in default mode, Fig 2).
I would like to emphasize the importance of having a look at the intermediate steps in constructing a phylogenetic tree since sequence alignments can happen in various ways. Looking at the MUSCLE output, one can already expect to see the individual strains clustered together due to their sequence similarities. However, there is one particular sequence that seems to be a bit off (sequence number 1, B. naardenensis CBS 6116). This sequence seems to be different from all the other B. naardenensis sequences shown at the bottom (sequences 29-38). Based on this result, one can expect to see CBS 6116 to be an out-group to the other B. naardenensis sequences. In summary, the alignments seem to be okay and let’s have a look at the phylogenetic tree of the 38 sequences.
As already observed in the MSA, the individual Brettanomyces/Dekkera species cluster together as expected (Fig 2). B. naardenensis CBS6116 does indeed form an out-group (isolated from lemon drink in France) and is kind of distant to the other B. naardenesis sequences. So why is this CBS 6116 sequence different?
To address this question, I tried to figure out first what other sequences are similar to CBS 6116 by BLASTing against the NCBI nr database (run in default mode). I got several hits and manually inspected the results via alignment. The CBS 6116 sequence has high sequence identities to Pichia guillermondii (Fig 3). One might reason – based on these results – that CBS 6116 is not a Dekkera/Brettanomyces strain.
Going back to the phylogenetic tree in Fig 2. It seems that all the current Dekkera/Brettanomyces species end up in the same clusters and show enough substitutions to tell individual species apart. This is very important information for everyone interested in determining the species of an unknown Dekkera/Brettanomyces strain.
WLP Brettanomyces Trois ID crisis
I got interested in the WLP story (WLP Brettanomyces bruxellensis Trois not being a Brettanoymces strain) and started by looking at the WLP Brett Trois ITS sequences I received from Omega Labs (reads 64-ITS1.ab1 and 64-ITS4.ab1). I had a quick look at the chromatograms and would not use any of the reads for my own work due to its low base quality and multiple peak calls at certain positions. Besides the read from Omega Labs, I received a read used to ID the B. Trois as Saccharoymces cerevisiae at Charles River’s Lab as well as the read published by SuiGeneris. Since I don’t have the chromatograms for these two sequences, I manually inspected the reads in various alignments to get an idea about their quality. Lets start with my analysis for the WLP Brettanoymces bruxellensis Trois ID’ing based on phylogenetic trees.
To get the most likely phylogenetic tree one has to follow some basic rules. Beginning with looking at the same shared derived homologous traits (homologous DNA sequences) and verifying that no other DNA sequence alterations impact the phylogenetic tree like sequencing errors (wrong base calls, no base call, multiple base calls etc). So far so good. I aligned some ITS2 regions from various CBS Saccharomyces strains to the various ITS2 reads from WLP’s Brettanomyces Trois (Fig 4).
Lets have a look at the alignment shown in Fig 4. Especially at the 64-ITS4.ab1 read from WLP B. Trois (sequence 1 shown at the top). One can easily see, that various base differences exists compared to the other sequences in the alignment. Supporting the initial idea that the DNA sequence from this read is not very reliable nor very representative (if one compares the read to the two other WLP B. Trois reads shown at the bottom). Due to the differences in this read, I would not be surprised to see this read out-grouped in the phylogeny tree later on. The two reads from Charles River’s Lab and SuiGeneris seem to be way better and similar to other Saccharomyces sp. sequences shown in the alignment.
To make the phylogeny more computational efficient and more reliable, I extracted the sequences mapping to the two WLP sequences (sequence regions from the right side in Fig 4) to receive the alignment shown in the next figure (Fig 5).
A first look at the alignment in Fig 5 reveals some hotspots for variations like gaps and different base calls (color regions). The question I would like to address now is whether the variations are due to speciation or artifacts. Artifacts are commonly more random than variations due to speciation. A quick inspection reveals lots of random variations in the 64-ITS4 read but none/few for the two other WLP B. Trois reads.
The phylogeny tree obtained for the sequences shown in the alignment in Fig 5 is shown in Fig 6
As expected the n64-ITS4 read gets out-grouped and might be interpreted as a different species. Well this is true if one just looks at the tree in Fig 6 but did not look at the previous alignments and possible reasons for the out-grouping. In this case, the quality of the base calls for the n64-ITS4.ab1 read are very poor and led to wrong base calls after all (investigated by pair-pair alignments). In summary, the differences leading to an out-grouping of WLP B. Trois based on the n64-ITS2 read are not due to the physical differences in the DNA sequence but due to sequencing errors.
In summary, the two WLP B. Trois sequences group together with other Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Supporting the current view that WLP B. Trois might indeed not be a Dekkera/Brettanomyces strain (at least based on ITS2 sequence homology). Or at least the samples of WLP B. Trois that float around these days.
As I do isolate and work with my own Brettanomyces strains, it happened to me various times that I was able to observe some Saccharomyces cerevisiae beside the initial Brettanomyces strain after some serial re-pitches (and I did not use Saccharomyces for the fermentation). This Saccharomyces contamination might lead to problems during the propagation. Saccharomyces cerevisiae might overgrow Brettanomyces increasing the Saccharomyces:Brettanomyces ratio even further. Eventually leading to very few Brettanomyces cells left in a population. Keeping Brettanomyces samples is not as easy as one might think. And I would not be surprised if more yeast conundrums turn up in the next years.
Eureka, we are finally back to spoilage yeasts. Today, I would like to introduce another spoilage yeast called Hanseniaspora uvarum (anamorph Kloeckera apiculata). A very acid-tolerant yeast that can be found close to everywhere and is involved in various natural fermentations such as wine and even certain beer styles. Lets have a closer look at K. apiculata and some fermentations associated with this yeast.
Where do I work?
K. apiculata is present in early grape juice, cacao, coffee fermentation, malting barley, cider fermentation, spoiled figs, tomatoes, canned black cherries, can be isolated from fresh strawberries, black currants, wine grapes and various other fruits, fruit juices and fruit syrups [Pitt and Hocking, 2009, Kurtzman et al, 2011]. Furthermore, K. apiculata could be isolated from soil, fruit flies, caterpillars and even sea water (Florida USA) [Kurtzman et al, 2011]. In summary, K. apiculata is very abundant in nature. Lets have a look at some fermentations in more detail.
A study to investigate the microflora associated with wet Coffea arabica fermentation (pulped coffee is left to ferment under water) in Tanzania identified K. apiculata [Masoud et al, 2004]. The general idea is that K. apiculata, together with other yeasts, are involved in the degradation of the pulp of the coffee beans by secreting pectinases (pectin is a polysaccharide in plants found to give structural integrity). Making it possible to get the coffee bean without any pulp remainders. Another study investigating the microflora of wet fermenting Coffea arabica in Mexico could not identify K. apiculata [Avallone et al, 2001]. Same results performed on dry fermentation (pulped coffee is left to ferment exposed to air) of Coffea arabica in Brazil where the authors could not find any K. apiculata [Silva et al, 2008]. I don’t believe that K. apiculata is not present in Mexico and Brazil. I think it might be another example of the techniques used to identify yeasts may make a difference. Some techniques (especially molecular techniques such as PCR) can be more sensitive than agar plates. Furthermore, molecular techniques can pick up non-viable yeasts (as the DNA is still present) whereas one would miss these yeasts on agar plates as the yeasts are not viable (not growing) anymore.
Moving on to Irish Cider where K. apiculata is the predominant yeast in the first fermentation phase before Saccharomyces cerevisiae takes over [Morrissey et al, 2004]. In this case, the authors could identify the apples as the source for K. apiculata. Interesting to notice is the fact that the maturation phase is dominated by Brettanomyces/Dekkera (you are welcome, fellow Brett hunters).
What about beer?
Compared to some previous featured spoilage yeasts, Kloeckera apiculata can be found in beer. Very similar to the previous mentioned natural fermentations, K. apiculata is involved in a natural beer fermentation: The Belgian Lambics. After leaving the wort cool in a coolship and inoculation/mixing in tanks, the Lambic fermentation starts within a couple of days [Fig 1]. Beginning with an increase of Enterobacteriaceae and K. apiculata within the first days [van Oevelen et al, 1977]. Right before Saccharomyces sp. take over. What K. apiculata exactly contributes to the flavor composition of Lambics (and Geuze) is not really well understood. One study shows a minor impact on fatty acids and ester production where K. apiculata can increase C8, C10 and C12 fatty acids during fermentation [Spaepen M et al, 1978].
Although it is commonly accepted that K. apiculata is involved in Lambic fermentations, very recent studies to investigate the microflora at Cantillon as well as an American Coolship Ale facility (Allagsh?) don’t mention K. apiculata in their result section [Bokulich et al, 2012, Spitaels F et al, 2014]. Beside all these results, one can further pose the question how K. apiculata can even get into the wort in the first place? Maybe from the wine barrels?
What is so special about me?
K. apiculata is one of the dominant yeasts in several early natural fermentation stages. Beside that, the yeast seems to have some interesting enzymes such as beta-D-glucosidase and beta-D-Xylosidase which are key enzymes to release aromatic compounds in winemaking [Kurtzman et al, 2011].
Not only are enzymes interesting but flocculation seems to be an interesting research topic as well. As previously discussed, premature flocculation can lead to premature end of a fermentation. Studies showed that K. apiculata is able to pull down a poor flocculent S. cerevisiae strain [Sosa et al, 2008]. The authors mention a possible application such as removing any natural S. cerevisiae yeasts by co-flocculation from the grape must with K. apiculata (before fermentation). Then adding a well-defined S. cerevisiae culture for the main fermentation.
Where can you find me?
In theory and taking all the various sources into consideration where one can find K. apiculata, isolating K. apiculata from various natural sources should be rather easy. Furthermore to notice, K. apiculata is not an important human pathogen although isolates exist [Kurtzman et al, 2011].
Some biochemical stats about me for yeast ranchers
Data summarized from Kurtzman et al (2011).
|Systematic name:||Hanseniaspora uvarum (anamorph Kloeckera apiculata)|
|Synonyms:||There are a lots of accepted synonyms for this yeasts. Just some examples: Hanseniaspora apiculata, Kloeckera brevis
|Growth on YM agar:||Cell morphology:||Apiculate, spherical to ovoid, 1.5 -5 µm x 2.5-11.5 µm [Fig 2]|
|Clustering:||Occurring as single cells or pairs|
|Pseudohyphae:||May be observed|
|Pellicle formation:||Not described|
Since K. apiculata is negative for maltose fermentation and actually only capable of fermenting glucose, it is very unlikely that a single K. apiculata beer fermentation would work (as mainly maltose is present in wort). K. apiculata however should work very well with Cidre and other natural fruit juices where the most dominant sugar is glucose. That’s everything I got for Kloeckera apiculata.
- Avallone S, Guyot B, Brillouet JM, Olguin E, Guiraud JP (2001) Microbiological and Biochemical Study of Coffee Fermentation. Current Microbiology, Vol 42, p 252-256
- Bokulich NA, Bamforth CW, Mills DA (2012) Brewhouse-Resident Microbiota Are Responsible for Multi-Stage Fermentation of American Coolship Ale. PLoS ONE, Vol 7(4)
- Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T (2011) The Yeasts, a Taxonomic Study. Volume 1. Fifth edition. Elsevier (Link to sciencedirect)
- Masoud W, Cesar LB, Jespersen L, Jakobsen M (2004) Yeast involved in fermentation of Coffea arabica in East Africa determined by genotyping and by direct denaturating gradient gel electrophoresis. Yeast, Vol 21(7), p 549-56
- Morrissey WF, Davenport B, Querol A, Dobson ADW (2004) The role of indigenous yeasts in traditional Irish cider fermentations. Journal of Applied Microbiology, Vol 97, p647-655
- Pitt JI, Hocking AD (2009) Fungi and Food Spoilage. Springer Science & Business Media
- Silva CF, Batista LR, Abreu LM, Dias ES, Schwan RF (2008) Succession of bacterial and fungal communities during natural coffee (Coffea arabica) fermentation. Food Microbiology, Vol 25, p 951-957
- Spaepen M, van Oevelen D, Verachtert H (1978) Fatty Acid And Esters Produced During The Spontaneous Fermentation Of Lambic And Gueuze. J. Inst. Brew, Vol 84, p 278-282
- Spitaels F, Wieme AD, Janssens M, Aerts M, Daniel H-M, van Landscoot A, de Vuyst L, Vandamme P (2014) The Microbial Diversity of Traditional Spontaneously Fermented Lambic Beer. PLoS ONE, Vol 9(4)
- Sosa OA, de Nadra MCM; Farias ME (2008) Behaviour of Kloeckera apiculata flocculent strain in coculture with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Food Technology And Biotechnology, Vol 4, p 413-418
- Van Oevelen D, Spaepen M, Timmermans P, Verachtert D (1977) Microbiological Aspects Of Spontaneous Wort Fermentation In The Production Of Lambic And Gueuze. J. Inst. Brew, Vol 83, p 356-360