ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2016
Impact of different spray-drying conditions on the viability of wine Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spray Drying Encapsulation ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Microencapsulation by spray drying of coffee epiphytic yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCMA 0543 and Torulaspora delbrueckii CCMA 0684.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022Article
- Totipotency ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Survival of Spray-DriedFood technology and biotechnology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spray-drying (SD) is widely considered a suitable method to preserve microorganisms, but data regarding yeasts are still scanty. In this study, the effect of growing media, process variables and carriers over viability of a wild wine Saccharomyces (S.) cerevisiae LM52 was evaluated. For biomass production, the strain was grown (batch and fed-batch fermentation) in a synthetic, as well as in a beet sugar molasses based-medium. Drying of cells resuspended in several combinations of soluble starch and maltose was performed at different inlet and outlet temperatures. Under the best conditions-suspension in soluble starch plus maltose couplet to inlet and outlet temperatures of 110 and 55 °C, respectively-the loss of viability of S. cerevisiae LM52 was 0.8 ± 0.1 and 0.5 ± 0.2 Log c.f.u. g(-1) for synthetic and molasses-based medium, respectively. Similar results were obtained when S. cerevisiae strains Zymoflore F15 and EC1118, isolated from commercial active dry yeast (ADY), were tested. Moreover, powders retained a high vitality and showed good fermentation performances up to 6 month of storage, at both 4 and -20 °C. Finally, fermentation performances of different kinds of dried formulates (SD and ADY) compared with fresh cultures did not show significant differences. The procedure proposed allowed a small-scale production of yeast in continuous operation with relatively simple equipment, and may thus represent a rapid response-on-demand for the production of autochthonous yeasts for local wine-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26712628What 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.