Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29453625›Full record

ArticleAMB Express2018

Effects of feedstock and co-culture of Lactobacillus fermentum and wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain during fuel ethanol fermentation by the industrial yeast strain PE-2.

Vanda R Reis, Ana Paula G Bassi, Bianca C Cerri, Amanda R Almeida, Isis G B Carvalho, Reinaldo G Bastos, Sandra R Ceccato-Antonini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMB Express, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A New Approach to Produce Succinic Acid Through a Co-Culture System.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2021
    Article
  4. A Novel Cold-Adaptive Endo-1,4-β-Glucanase FromFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vanda R ReisDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Ana Paula G BassiDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Bianca C CerriDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Amanda R AlmeidaDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Isis G B CarvalhoDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Reinaldo G BastosDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil.
Sandra R Ceccato-AntoniniDept Tecnologia Agroindustrial e Socio-Economia Rural, Universidade Federal de São Carlos-Centro de Ciencias Agrarias, Via Anhanguera, km 174, Araras, SP, 13600-970, Brazil. antonini@ufscar.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0723-1704
Universidade Federal de São Carlos · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 301701/2012-1Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2011/17928-0Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2012/16082-0
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though contamination by bacteria and wild yeasts are frequently observed during fuel ethanol fermentation, our knowledge regarding the effects of both contaminants together is very limited, especially considering that the must composition can vary from exclusively sugarcane juice to a mixture of molasses and juice, affecting the microbial development. Here we studied the effects of the feedstock (sugarcane juice and molasses) and the co-culture of Lactobacillus fermentum and a wild Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain (rough colony and pseudohyphae) in single and multiple-batch fermentation trials with an industrial strain of S. cerevisiae (PE-2) as starter yeast. The results indicate that in multiple-cycle batch system, the feedstock had a minor impact on the fermentation than in single-cycle batch system, however the rough yeast contamination was more harmful than the bacterial contamination in multiple-cycle batch fermentation. The inoculation of both contaminants did not potentiate the detrimental effect in any substrate. The residual sugar concentration in the fermented broth had a higher concentration of fructose than glucose for all fermentations, but in the presence of the rough yeast, the discrepancy between fructose and glucose concentrations were markedly higher, especially in molasses. The biggest problem associated with incomplete fermentation seemed to be the lower consumption rate of sugar and the reduced fructose preference of the rough yeast rather than the lower invertase activity. Lower ethanol production, acetate production and higher residual sugar concentration are characteristics strongly associated with the rough yeast strain and they were not potentiated with the inoculation of L. fermentum.

Indexed as

BacteriumEthanolFeedstockFermentationSugarsWild yeasts

Identifiers

PMID29453625
PMCPMC5815976
OpenAlexW2794598987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.