Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32066762›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Identification of flocculant wine yeast strains with improved filtration-related phenotypes through application of high-throughput sedimentation rate assays.

Cristian Varela, Caroline Bartel, Damian Espinase Nandorfy, Anthony Borneman, Simon Schmidt, Chris Curtin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Subpopulation-specific gene expression inCurrent research in food science · 2025
    Article
  3. Heterologous Expression ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  4. Calcium DeterminesApplied and environmental microbiology · 2022
    Article
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

6 authors.

Cristian VarelaThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia. Cristian.Varela@awri.com.au.
Caroline BartelThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia.
Damian Espinase NandorfyThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia.
Anthony BornemanThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia.
Simon SchmidtThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia.
Chris CurtinThe Australian Wine Research Institute, PO Box 197, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA, 5064, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most yeast-driven biotechnological applications, biomass is separated from the aqueous phase after fermentation or production has finished. During winemaking, yeasts are removed after fermentation by racking, filtration, or centrifugation, which add costs to the overall process and may reduce product yield. Theoretically, clarification and filtration can be aided through use of yeast strains that form flocs due to cell-cell binding, a process known as flocculation. However, because early flocculation can cause stuck/sluggish fermentations, this phenotype is not common amongst commercially available wine yeasts. In this study we sought to identify wine strains that exhibit late-fermentation flocculant behaviour using two complementary approaches; a high-throughput sedimentation rate assay of individual strains and a competitive sedimentation assay using a barcoded yeast collection. Amongst 103 wine strains, several exhibited strong sedimentation at the end of the wine fermentation process under various environmental conditions. Two of these strains, AWRI1688 and AWRI1759, were further characterised during red winemaking trials. Shiraz wines produced with both strains displayed improved filtration-related properties. AWRI1759 produced wines with greater filterability, whereas AWRI1688 enabled the recovery of larger wine volumes after racking. Thus, this study demonstrates the effective use of sedimentation screening assays to identify wine yeasts with practical winemaking applications.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, FungalEthanolFermentationFiltrationFlocculationFood TechnologyHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationPhenotypeSaccharomyces cerevisiaeWineDNA, FungalEthanol

Identifiers

PMID32066762
PMCPMC7026045

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.