title: Effects of single and combined cell treatments based on low pH and high concentrations of ethanol on the growth and fermentation of Dekkera bruxellensis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
abstract: The alcoholic fermentation in Brazil displays some peculiarities because the yeast used is recycled in a non-aseptic process. After centrifugation, the cells are treated with acid to control the bacterial growth. However, it is difficult to manage the indigenous yeasts without affecting the main culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This work evaluated how the cell treatment could be modified to combat contaminant yeasts based on the differential sensitivities to low pH and high concentrations of ethanol displayed by an industrial strain of S. cerevisiae and three strains of Dekkera bruxellensis, which are common contaminant yeasts in Brazilian fermentation processes. The tests were initially performed in rich medium with a low pH or a high concentration of ethanol to analyse the yeast growth profile. Then, the single and combined effects of low pH and ethanol concentration on the yeast cell viability were evaluated under non-proliferative conditions. The effects on the fermentation parameters were also verified. S. cerevisiae grew best when not subjected to the stresses, but this yeast and D. bruxellensis had similar growth kinetics when exposed to a low pH or increased ethanol concentrations. However, the combined treatments of low pH (2.0) and ethanol (11 or 13 %) resulted in a decrease of D. bruxellensis cell viability almost three times higher than of S. cerevisiae, which was only slightly affected by all cell treatments. The initial viability of the treated cells was restored within 8 h of growth in sugar cane juice, with the exception of the combined treatment for D. bruxellensis. The ethanol-based cell treatment, in despite of slowing the fermentation, could decrease and maintain D. bruxellensis population under control while S. cerevisiae was taking over the fermentation along six fermentative cycles. These results indicate that it may be possible to control the growth of D. bruxellensis without major effects on S. cerevisiae. The cells could be treated between the fermentation cycles by the parcelled addition of 13 % ethanol to the tanks in which the yeast cream is treated with sulphuric acid at pH 2.0.
authors.affiliation: Dept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Via Anhanguera, Km 174, Araras, SP 13600-970, Brazil.
authors.forename: Ana Paula Guarnieri
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Bassi
authors.forename: Jéssica Carolina Gomes
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: da Silva
authors.forename: Vanda Renata
authors.initials: VR
authors.lastname: Reis
authors.forename: Sandra Regina
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Ceccato-Antonini
mesh_terms: D003470:Culture Media; D055167:Dekkera / Q000254:growth & development* / Q000378:metabolism*; D057168:Distillation; D000431:Ethanol / Q000378:metabolism / Q000494:pharmacology*; D005285:Fermentation; D006863:Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; D007218:Industrial Microbiology; D050296:Microbial Viability; D012441:Saccharomyces cerevisiae / Q000254:growth & development* / Q000378:metabolism*; D031786:Saccharum / Q000378:metabolism
chemical_list: D003470:Culture Media; D000431:Ethanol
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2005 Mar;66(6):641-7
references.pmid: 15538553
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000 Oct;24(4):469-86
references.pmid: 10978547
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Sep 1;86(1-2):11-22
references.pmid: 12892919
references.citation: Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1984;50(2):183-92
references.pmid: 6431904
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2007 Feb;102(2):538-47
references.pmid: 17241360
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Jul;109(1):116-27
references.pmid: 20002866
references.citation: J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98(4):862-71
references.pmid: 15752332
references.citation: FEMS Yeast Res. 2008 Nov;8(7):1155-63
references.pmid: 18752628
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Jul;87(4):1487-97
references.pmid: 20437232
references.citation: J Food Sci. 2010 Jun;75(5):M322-6
references.pmid: 20629891
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Oct 25;104(3):337-44
references.pmid: 15996781
references.citation: Microbiology (Reading). 2010 Jun;156(Pt 6):1686-1696
references.pmid: 20203053
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011 Sep;91(5):1267-75
references.pmid: 21735264
references.citation: Eukaryot Cell. 2009 Nov;8(11):1739-49
references.pmid: 19717738
references.citation: Int J Food Microbiol. 2008 Jan 31;121(2):201-7
references.pmid: 18077036
references.citation: Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2011 Jun;100(1):99-107
references.pmid: 21350883
references.citation: FEBS Lett. 2001 Jun 1;498(1):98-103
references.pmid: 11389906
references.citation: Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2012 Mar;101(3):529-39
references.pmid: 22041979
references.citation: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2003 Apr;61(2):157-62
references.pmid: 12655458
references.citation: Food Microbiol. 2009 Dec;26(8):915-21
references.pmid: 19835781
references.citation: Biotechnol Biofuels. 2011 Dec 20;4(1):59
references.pmid: 22185398