ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2004
Comparison of two alternative dominant selectable markers for wine yeast transformation.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient CRISPR-Cas9 mediated multiplex genome editing in yeasts.Biotechnology for biofuels · 2018Article
- amdSYM, a new dominant recyclable marker cassette for Saccharomyces cerevisiae.FEMS yeast research · 2013Article
- Genetic characterization and construction of an auxotrophic strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae JP1, a Brazilian industrial yeast strain for bioethanol production.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2012Article
- Identification of yeast associated with the planthopper, Perkinsiella saccharicida: potential applications for Fiji leaf gall control.Current microbiology · 2011Article
- A recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain overproducing mannoproteins stabilizes wine against protein haze.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic improvement of industrial yeast strains is restricted by the availability of selectable transformation markers. Antibiotic resistance markers have to be avoided for public health reasons, while auxotrophy markers are generally not useful for wine yeast strain transformation because most industrial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains are prototrophic. For this work, we performed a comparative study of the usefulness of two alternative dominant selectable markers in both episomic and centromeric plasmids. Even though the selection for sulfite resistance conferred by FZF1-4 resulted in a larger number of transformants for a laboratory strain, the p-fluoro-DL-phenylalanine resistance conferred by ARO4-OFP resulted in a more suitable selection marker for all industrial strains tested. Both episomic and centromeric constructions carrying this marker resulted in transformation frequencies close to or above 10(3) transformants per microg of DNA for the three wine yeast strains tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.