Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3
4
5
6
7
Vanda Renata Reis, Ana Paula Guarnieri Bassi, Jessica Carolina Gomes da Silva,
9
10
11
12
13
Paulo Brazil
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
*Corresponding author:
21
22
E-mail: antonini@cca.ufscar.br
1
2
ABSTRACT
Among the native yeasts more commonly found in the alcoholic fermentation, rough colonies
S. cerevisiae strains which exhibited rough and smooth colonies, searching for alternatives
that could contribute to the management of these yeasts (rough colonies) in the alcoholic
flocculation and fermentative capacity were carried out with 22 strains (11 rough and 11
10
smooth colonies). The effect of the acid treatment using different pH values over the growth
11
of two strains (52 rough and PE-02 smooth) was also evaluated as well as a batch
12
fermentation with cell recycling. The invasiveness in YEPD Agar medium occurred in low
13
frequency; ten out of eleven rough yeasts exhibited expressive flocculation; none of the
14
strains showed killer activity; rough strains presented lower and slower fermentative capacity
15
comparing to smooth strains, in a 48-hour cycle in batch system using sugar cane juice. The
16
rough strain was severely affected by the acid treatment in pH values of 1.0 and 1.5, but the
17
same did not occur with the smooth colony. The fermentative efficiency in mixed
18
fermentation (smooth and rough strain in the same cell mass proportion) did not differ from
19
the efficiency obtained with the smooth strain alone, probably due to the acid treatment
20
conducted in pH 1.5, in a batch cell-recycle test. A fermentative efficiency as low as 60% was
21
22
23
24
INTRODUCTION
Although many efforts to search for new microorganisms, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
remains the most utilized in the ethanol production in Brazil. It is a robust yeast, capable to
afford stressful conditions, with high fermentation efficiency, rapid growth, effective sugar
concentrations and low levels of oxygen, osmotolerance, thermotolerance, and cell activity in
acidic environments, which are fundamental for its industrial utilization [3].
In Brazil, a continuous sugar cane harvest season takes place over a period of about 200 days
to produce fuel ethanol. Very high yeast cell concentrations producing alcohol concentrations
10
of 6-11% (v/v) in short fermentation times lasting 6 to 10 hours is one of the main conditions
11
of Brazilian distilleries. Another peculiarity is the separation of yeast cells from the fermented
12
broth by centrifugation and continuous recycling. The concentrated yeast receives a treatment
13
with diluted sulfuric acid for 1-2 hours at pH 2.0-2.5 to kill contaminant bacteria and is re-
14
pitched into fermentation tanks. The fermented broth is distilled to obtain anhydrous ethanol
15
16
One of the main concerns in the sugar and ethanol industry is how to avoid and deal with the
17
contaminant microorganisms, mainly bacteria and wild yeasts (Saccharomyces and non-
18
Saccharomyces), both competing with the selected yeast strains to survive in the fermentors
19
[9]. The peculiarities of the Brazilian fermentation process for ethanol production, as the
20
successive recycling of yeast cells along the sugar cane harvest and the difficulties to sterilize
21
large volumes of juice and water, allow the contaminant microorganisms to enter into the
22
process [1].
23
24
indigenous (wild) strains of Saccharomyces, because in the latter the strategies to circumvent
25
the contamination can affect the industrial yeast strain, once their metabolism is very similar.
Besides, non-Saccharomyces strains are normally eliminated from the process. However, the
indigenous Saccharomyces sometimes dominate the process, replacing the main strain, which
is not always harmful, since their fermentative performance is somehow similar [4].
development [16], which are undesirable characteristics for the industry. However, there are
many reports concerning the application of flocculating yeast in the fermentation industry,
especially for beer, wine and distilled beverages [8] but for the ethanol production the use is
still limited [29]. Anyway, the definition of yeast flocculation must be revisited in order to
10
11
12
of cell aggregation into multicellular masses called flocs, with the subsequent rapid
13
sedimentation from the medium in which they are suspended [24, 25]. This process has
14
gained special interest for its biotechnological relevance and was recently reviewed in many
15
aspects [8, 24, 29]. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, aggregation as sexual aggregation, co-
16
flocculation and cell chain formation should not be confused with flocculation. Of particular
17
interest in the present work, cell chain formation is derived from a failure of the younger bud
18
to separate from the mother cell, resulting in an aggregate formation of approximately 30-50
19
cells, covalently linked, and presenting no re-aggregation after mechanical dispersion [24,
20
25]. This is the reason by which the rough variant of S. cerevisiae cells with chain of cells -
21
here studied will not be referred to flocculent cells, although the known ability of the cells to a
22
23
The colony and cellular morphologies of natural and industrial populations of S. cerevisiae
24
25
rough colonies are quite common in this species. Among one thousand strains grown on
YEPD medium, 2.5% exhibited a rough colony phenotype [10]. In Candida albicans, the
colony morphology is known to be related to the cell types: smooth colonies contain only
blastopores while rough colonies consist of different proportions of true hyphae and
morphology, which appears as a central body from which numerous branches depart [10].
have been frequently associated with disturbances in the fermentation process depending on
the fermentation system and other operational conditions. However, a little is known about
their competitive status comparing to typical strains of S. cerevisiae (smooth and bright
10
11
In this context, this work aimed to evaluate strains of S. cerevisiae exhibiting rough colonies
12
13
14
performance in batch system using sugar cane juice submitted to cell recycle and acid
15
treatment, as developed in industrial conditions. Although these yeast strains are quite
16
common in the alcoholic fermentation environment, and the problems coming from their
17
installation in the system are well known, the present work is the first scientific contribution
18
to the understanding of their role in the process. The results may hopefully highlight possible
19
ways of management of these S. cerevisiae strains during the fermentation when necessary.
20
21
22
Microorganisms
23
Yeast cultures exhibiting smooth and rough colonies were collected from different ethanol-
24
producing units and submitted to PCR and sequencing of the ITS region, using the primers
25
ITS-1 and ITS-4 in the rDNA [28] to confirm the species S. cerevisiae. After confirmation,
eleven strains exhibiting smooth colonies and dispersed cells (2, 3, 12, 15, 17, 18, 33, 37, 38,
39 and 47) and eleven strains exhibiting rough colonies and pseudohyphal morphology (4, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 35, 36 and 52) were chosen for the experiments, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Intraspecific variation was verified by amplification of microsatellite loci confirming that the
6
7
Invasive growth
The yeast strains were cultivated in YEPD medium at 30C for 3 days, following incubation
10
at room temperature for 2 days. The Petri dishes were photographed and after the agar surface
11
was washed with distilled water to take the colonies off. The dishes were photographed again
12
to verify the presence of colony spots in the agar (a signal of invasiveness into the culture
13
medium). Transversal cuts were made in parallel with the spots to visualize the filamentous
14
15
16
Flocculation
17
The flocculation assay was performed according to [25] with modifications. After the growth
18
in the multiplication medium, the cells were collected by centrifugation, washed twice with
19
sodium citrate buffer (50 mM; pH 3.0) containing 5 mM EDTA and with water at 4C. The
20
cells were resuspended in cold distilled water and diluted or concentrated until an OD (600
21
nm) of 2.0 was reached. The flocculation (sedimentation) of the cells was determined in the
22
absence or presence of calcium chloride solution (10 mM). After a vigorous shaking, samples
23
from the upper portion of the tube were taken at 0 and after 10 minutes from the resting and
24
the OD was determined. The flocculation percentage (%) was calculated as following:
25
1
2
Killer character
The yeast strains were tested for the production of killer toxins in buffered methylene blue-
tested were inoculated with sterile toothpicks on the medium surface previously inoculated
with the sensitive strains S. cerevisiae NCYC1006 and Torulopsis glabrata ATCC15126. The
killer activity was detected when an inhibition zone and or a blue zone around the test yeast
9
10
11
12
medium (sugar cane juice with around 4% of reducing sugars), inoculating two loops of the
13
yeast strain. The tubes were incubated at 30C, at 160 rpm, for 12 hours. Following, the
14
medium was centrifuged for 5 minutes at 3,400 rpm, discarding the supernatant and
15
resuspending the cells in 5 mL of the multiplication medium, which were inoculated in 125-
16
mL Erlenmeyers containing 45 mL of the same medium, at 30C and 160 rpm, for 12 hours.
17
Following, the entire volume was transferred to 50-mL Falcon tubes previously sterilized,
18
weighed and centrifuged under the same conditions. The cells were washed twice with
19
distilled water. After the last wash, the tubes were weighed to estimate the wet mass in grams.
20
21
of 20% (v/v) as the inoculum. Flask fermentations (500-mL Erlenmeyers containing 200 mL
22
of final volume of fermentation medium constituted of sugar cane juice with around 16% w/v
23
of total reducing sugars) were maintained at 30C for 48 hours. Samples were taken out at
24
each 12 hours and centrifuged. Soluble solids (Brix), by refratometer; pH, in a digital pH-
25
meter; and alcohol content (g/100 mL), after the sample distillation and determination of
supernatant.
3
4
For this test, the yeast strains PE-02 (here named 17) and 52 were selected, representing the
smooth colony and rough colony of S. cerevisiae, respectively. Initially, the cells of each
and transference of the cell mass to tubes containing acid solution (diluted sulfuric acid) in
pH values of 1.0; 1.5; and 2.0, in triplicates. The tubes were incubated at 30C, 160 rpm, for 2
10
hours. After the acid treatment, the cells were washed twice with sterile distilled water,
11
12
30C, 160 rpm, for 36 hours. Samples were taken before the acid treatment, after the acid
13
treatment, and after 18 and 36 hours of cultivation in the multiplication medium, and
14
inoculated in YEPD medium. After incubation at 30C for 72 hours, the colonies were
15
16
17
18
For this test, the yeast strains named PE-02 (here named 17) and 52 were selected,
19
representing the smooth colony and rough colony of S. cerevisiae, respectively. The strains
20
were utilized in pure fermentations of each and in a mixed fermentation, with both in the
21
proportion of 1:1 regarding the cell mass utilized as inoculum. The fermentation tests were
22
conducted as described in the item Fermentative tests in batch system without cell recycle,
23
however, after the completion of each fermentative cycle (12 hours), the cells were recovered
24
by centrifugation (3,400 rpm, 5 minutes) and treated with sulfuric acid solution, pH 1.5, at
25
30C, 160 rpm, for 2 hours. Following the cell mass was washed twice with sterile distilled
water and resuspended in fermentation medium to initiate a new fermentative cycle. Six 12-
hour fermentative cycles were carried out, analyzing in the supernatant after each
fermentative cycle: soluble solids (Brix), by refratometr; pH, in a digital pH-meter; alcohol
content (g/100 mL), after the sample distillation and determination of alcohol content in the
acid method, after hydrolysis of the samples. The fermentative efficiency was calculated
based on the alcoholic content of the fermented medium and the consumption of total
glucose). Before centrifugation, the fermented broth was plated in YEPD medium to evaluate
10
11
12
Statistical analysis
13
The results were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukeys test to compare the averages
14
(p<0.05).
15
16
17
Invasive growth
18
All the selected yeast strains were tested regarding their ability to grow invasively in YEPD
19
medium. Only six strains showed invasive growth, and it was not a particular feature of
20
21
Carbon limitation causes a developmental switch allowing the cells to penetrate the surface of
22
an agar medium. This is called invasiveness, which means that in response to long incubation
23
periods in rich medium where the concentration of glucose or other fermentable carbon source
24
decreases, haploid cells of S. cerevisiae elongate and invade the agar in order to forage for
25
nutrients [5, 14, 19, 21]. Industrial strains of S. cerevisiae exhibited invasive growth, both
haploid and diploid strains [22]. In the present work, the rough colonies were expected to
present wide expression of invasiveness due to the pseudohyphal morphology, but this result
was not found. Others have also observed invasive growth regardless the colony phenotypes
[10].
5
6
Flocculation
All the yeast strains were grown in multiplication medium (diluted sugar cane juice) and the
analysis of cell flocculation was determined in the presence or absence of Ca2+ ions. Eight
strains (4, 8, 9, 10, 16, 19, 36 and 52) showed a high flocculation rate (>50%) both with and
10
without calcium, and 4 of them had a flocculation rate above 90% in these conditions (strains
11
8, 9, 16 and 52). Another group (strains 7 and 35) showed a flocculation rate from 20 to 35%,
12
which increased significantly after the addition of Ca2+ ions, indicating a calcium-dependent
13
flocculation. Finally, the remaining strains (total of 12) had a little or no flocculation (0-3%)
14
15
Ten out eleven rough yeast colonies expressed high flocculation; concerning the smooth
16
strains, no one showed flocculation. This characteristic flocculation - is not desirable for the
17
alcoholic fermentation process because it makes difficult the conversion of sugar to ethanol.
18
For a maximum conversion, the permanence of the yeasts suspended in the fermentation
19
broth and not flocculated is essential [18]. Yeast flocculation is one of the worst problems
20
21
causes loss of cells in the centrifuge and consequently the substrate is deviated for the cell
22
23
This kind of yeast strain (rough colony, pseudohyphal morphology) is sometimes called
24
flocculent yeast, however, it does not follow the definition of flocculation, in despite of the
25
cell settlement at the bottom of the flasks. The cell aggregates result from the inability of the
10
buds to separate from the mother cell after the cell division. It is quite different from the
flocculation caused by environmental conditions and their interactions with the yeast cell
wall. The presence of adhesins decorating the cell wall is a major requirement for flocculation
at the end of fermentation in brewing yeasts [26]. An extreme variation in the pH of the
medium [24] or the addition of special enzymes like papain, cause the release of the cells
clustered in aggregates. These treatments do not affect the condition of cell aggregates
displayed by the strains here studied. There is indeed a multiplicity of factors that affects
flocculation, like cations, pH, temperature, oxygen, sugars, ethanol, genealogical and cultural
age, cell density and mechanical agitation [24], which seems not affect the rough colonies
10
exhibiting pseudohyphal morphology. Interestingly, the yeasts with this phenotype can also
11
float on the top of the fermentors constituting a scum, resulting in the arrest of CO2 inside the
12
tank and the possibility of medium release with loss of sugar and ethanol. Indeed,
13
Saccharomyces flor yeasts are among the most tolerant organisms to ethanol, and are able to
14
produce a biofilm that has acquired the ability to float, probable an adaptation to the extreme,
15
selective pressures imposed by the conditions inside sherry wine barrels. The yeast cells are
16
17
18
Killer phenotype
19
The yeasts were also evaluated concerning the production of killer toxins, however, no strain
20
(smooth or rough colonies) inhibited both sensitive yeast strains. Two strains of S. cerevisiae
21
exhibiting rough colonies and pseudohyphal morphology, isolated from the ethanol
22
fermentation, also displayed neutral reaction to a group of standard killer strains, in different
23
pH values [12]. Others studied 165 flocculent yeasts and found only 3% of them as killer
24
toxin producers (C. Steckelberg, M.G.S. Andrietta. 2011. Abstr. Simposio Nacional de
25
Bioprocessos, Caxias do Sul, RS, Brazil). These authors credited this result to the hard
11
conditions found in the fermentation tanks (high acidity and alcohol content), which could
impair the toxin activity. However, others showed a strain isolated from the fermentative
process with high killer activity against other yeasts, besides exhibiting killer activity along
5
6
The fermentative capability of the rough and smooth colonies of S. cerevisiae was analyzed in
batch system without cell recycle. The results of alcohol productivity for each of the yeast
strain are seen in Fig. 3, showing a better performance of the smooth colonies. Considering all
10
the yeasts divided in two groups (smooth and rough), it was observed that the alcoholic
11
content was higher for the smooth colonies in the periods of 12 and 24 hours of fermentation,
12
however in 36 and 48 hours, there was no significant difference between the two colony
13
phenotypes. Generally, the smooth colonies presented significantly higher alcoholic content in
14
the fermented must than that displayed by the rough colonies (Fig. 3).
15
The data of productivity showed in Figure 3 considered the maximum productivity displayed
16
by each strain during the 48-hour fermentation test. The range for the smooth colonies was
17
1.3-2.2 g/l.h while for rough colonies the range was 1.1-1.7 g/l.h, showing higher variability
18
among the smooth colonies than with rough colonies. Values of 2.22 to 2.84 g/l.h of ethanol
19
productivity were found for 19 yeast strains isolated from Brazilian distilleries belonging to
20
the Saccharomyces sensu stricto group, with great variability of kinetics values in terms of
21
strain [3]. In the present work, in spite of the similar variability, the average ethanol
22
production of rough colonies was significantly lower than smooth colonies of S. cerevisiae
23
24
25
12
To reduce bacterial contamination, when fermentation ceases, yeast cells are centrifuged to
result a yeast cream with 60-70% (wet weight basis/v) of cells. This yeast suspension is
diluted with water (1:1) and treated with sulfuric acid to pH 1.8-2.5 for 2 hours with agitation.
The yeast cream is ready to be re-used as starter for a next fermentation cycle so the recycling
is a peculiar trait of Brazilian process over a production season lasting 200-250 days [6].
However in spite of the relative tolerance to low pH displayed by yeasts, the acid treatment
can cause physiological disturbances in yeast cells, with mineral leakage and decreasing level
evaluate whether a differential sensitivity to low pH can be found between the rough and
10
smooth colony of S. cerevisiae in order to manage the contaminant strains with rough
11
12
For this test, the strains 17 (smooth) and 52 (rough) were chosen to verify the effect of acid
13
treatment on their growth. The first strain, also named PE-02, is a selected yeast strain with
14
dominance and permanence in the process during all the harvest season [6] , and the second
15
was chosen because it presented high flocculation rate, as described above, besides high
16
resistance to sugar concentration and sensitivity to low pH (data not shown). The results
17
showed that the rough strain was severely affected by low pH values as 1.0 and 1.5, with
18
significant decrease in the number of colony forming units. There was a recovery in the
19
growth when the yeast was transferred to multiplication medium (sugar cane juice) after the
20
acid treatment, however, the initial number of colonies before the treatment was not reached
21
(Fig. 4).
22
Different results were obtained for the smooth strain (PE-02). This yeast strain did not show
23
significant decrease in the growth after the acid treatment, but in pH 1.0; on the contrary, a
24
significant increase in the number of colonies was observed after the acid treatment in pH 2.0.
25
After 36 hours of incubation in multiplication medium, the cells treated with sulfuric acid had
13
their number of colonies increased in relation to the initial value (before the treatment), as
seen in Fig. 4.
These results point out to a satisfactory strategy to control the contamination by a rough strain
of S. cerevisiae. Lowering the pH value from 2.0 (which is commonly utilized in industrial
conditions [1]) to 1.5, for example, would result in low numbers of this contaminant yeast
inside the fermentation tanks, without impairing the main yeast (here represented by PE-02).
The growth recovery of the rough strain after the treatment occurred in a longer period of
time than that elapsed in a fermentative cycle, normally between 8-10 hours.
9
10
11
The same yeast strains as above were utilized in this experiment, conducted in batch system
12
with cell recycle and acid treatment of the ferment. The results are depicted in Figs. 5, 6 and
13
7.
14
The fermentation with the rough strain showed lower ethanol production, higher
15
concentration of residual sugar and fermentative efficiency around 60%. With the mixed
16
fermentation with rough and smooth strains (equal amounts of cell mass of each strain in the
17
initial fermentation cycle), a significant higher production of ethanol was observed in relation
18
to the rough strain alone, however, it was lower than the value found with the smooth strain
19
alone. The fermentative efficiency of the mixed fermentation was similar to the fermentation
20
with PE-02 alone, but different from the rough alone. These results corroborate the ones
21
obtained for the fermentation in a single 48-hour cycle, in which the rough strain had similar
22
fermentative behavior in relation to the smooth strain but only after 36 hours of fermentation.
23
In a batch system with cell recycle at each 12 hours of fermentation, the rough yeast was not
24
able to complete the fermentation and consume all the available sugars (Fig. 5).
14
The profile displayed by the rough strain, as slow fermentation, high residual sugar and lower
fermentative efficiency has been frequently correlated with contamination by this kind of S.
cerevisiae colony phenotype (data not shown). The cell morphology, with clusters or flocs,
becomes the contact cell nutrients more difficult, which in turns affects the fermentation. A
floc, when suspended in a liquid medium, presents a negative gradient of nutrients from the
periphery to the centre. Nutrient limitation and waste product accumulation are problems
Another important point to be considered is the protection guaranteed to the cells within flocs,
increasing survival rates [23]. This is a particularly important characteristic conferring more
10
11
12
the fermentation because the metabolism of the first is very similar to the one displayed by the
13
selected yeast strain, besides the fact that they carry undesirable features such as flocculation,
14
low fermentation yield and incomplete sugar consumption [6], as observed in this work for
15
rough S. cerevisiae strains. Nowadays, a product or process that can be utilized to avoid or
16
17
strain is not known [1]. In this regard, a particular sensitivity towards a specific condition
18
could be employed to manage the growth of these contaminants, and in this work a
19
20
The final pH of the fermentation broth was statistically similar or lower, respectively, when
21
the mixed culture of both yeasts or the pure culture of the smooth strain was utilized, and
22
significantly different from the pure culture of the rough strain. The lower pH reflects in a
23
24
Concerning the yeast growth during the fermentation process, the smooth strain showed the
25
same growth performance in pure culture or in mixed culture with the rough strain, however
15
the last strain displayed a different profile. The initial number of colonies was approximately
similar in pure or mixed fermentations, for each strain, however for the rough colony, there
was an increase in growth till the second fermentative cycle, showing stabilization further. In
the mixed culture, an increase in the colony number was also observed till the second
fermentation cycle, but the number of rough colonies increased further, which it did not occur
in the pure fermentation with this strain (Fig. 7). An important point should be emphasized
concerning the growth monitoring of rough colonies. Equal proportion of cell mass was added
to the fermentation medium at the start of the fermentation for each colony phenotype,
however, the number of colonies is different among them especially due to the fact that with
10
the rough colony, a group of cells (pseudohyphae) will generate only one colony, in such a
11
way that the number of colonies will always be lower than the number of yeast cells.
12
In the mixed fermentation, the sugar consumption was lower and slower comparing to the
13
pure culture of the smooth strain, indicating the effect of the contamination by the rough
14
strain. The latter may have utilized the sugar for biomass production, because the growth was
15
increased along the fermentative cycles, resulting in lower alcohol production. This growth
16
behavior was not observed in the pure culture of the rough strain, which could indicate that
17
the smooth strain was more efficient in the sucrose hydrolysis, releasing reducing sugars as
18
glucose and fructose which are readily utilized by the rough strain in a slower rate. In pure or
19
mixed culture with the rough strain, the growth of the smooth strain had approximately the
20
21
If this consideration is true, the question arisen is in what extension (and if) the acid treatment
22
at pH 1.5 was effective to control the rough strain growth. The results described in the last
23
item showed that the rough strain was effectively affected by the cell treatment at pH 1.5,
24
which did not occur with the smooth strain. In view of this result, a greater rough strain
25
growth would be expected if the acid treatment was not carried out or a less stressful
16
condition was adopted. In fact, the overall fermentative efficiency was not affected by the
contamination of the rough strain (in equal amounts of mass cell of rough smooth strains at
the initial step), despite of the significant greater residual sugar concentration in the mixed
fermentation.
Metabolic functions associated with this kind of colony variant were seldom studied.
Comparisons among the strain M28 (a natural isolate from Tuscany, Italy) and the colony
variants (filigreed or rough and smooth) segregated from a single tetrad showed that all of the
segregants were vigorous, but there were differences in the gene expression patterns between
them. The ammonia permease, MEP2, had the greatest affinity for ammonia and was most
10
prominently overexpressed in the rough segregants while the amino acid transporters were
11
abundantly expressed in smooth strains [11]. However, there was no detectable difference in
12
growth rate in any progeny. Given the different metabolic profiles observed, their fitness may
13
14
Shorter fermentation time and more cell recycles are important points to be considered,
15
because although the alcoholic fermentation is a well-known process, a little is known about
16
the response of the yeasts to the stressing conditions adopted by the Brazilian distilleries,
17
which simply not occur in other fermentation processes [1]. The understanding of how the
18
stressing factors affect the contaminant yeasts without effect upon the main strain is still a
19
challenge, but it is undoubtedly a way to manage the contamination by yeasts during the
20
process. In this context, the contribution of the present work is to show that this kind of wild
21
yeast strain of S. cerevisiae, displaying rough colony, pseudohyphal morphology and high
22
23
fermentation system adopted in Brazilian industries, with cell recycle after a short
24
fermentation period of time not longer than 8-12 hours [7]. The contamination with this yeast
25
strain results in a lower ethanol production and higher residual sugar concentration, but a
17
more drastic acid treatment between the cell recycles (pH 1.5) could avoid more harmful
Other levels of contamination should be tested in order to verify the acceptable number of
5
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
7
8
This study was supported by FAPESP (fellowship grants to A.P.G. Bassi and J.C.G.
Silva and research support 2009/14617-4) and CAPES (fellowship grant to V.R. Reis).
9
10
REFERENCES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
19
FIGURE LEGENDS
Figure 1. A. Colony (growing in YEPD medium) and cells (magnification of 400X at optical
microscopy) of a smooth colony (left) and a rough colony (right) of S. cerevisiae strains. B.
Strains of S. cerevisiae grown on YEPD medium after 3 days at 30C and 2 days at room
temperature. Aspect of the colonies before washing; after washing, showing the spots on
agar medium (invasive growth); and transversal cut of the agar medium after washing
8
9
10
Figure 2. Flocculation (%) of the S. cerevisiae strains in the presence (black bar) or absence
(gray bar) of calcium ions.
11
12
13
presented by rough and smooth colonies (total of 22 strains) of S. cerevisiae. The experiments
14
were carried out in sugar cane juice, 16Brix, pH 4.3, during 48 hours of fermentation at
15
30C. Different letters over the bars mean significant difference at 5% by Tukeys test.
16
17
Figure 4. Growth (CFU/mL) of two yeast strains of S. cerevisiae (52, in black, rough colony;
18
PE-02, in gray, smooth colony), submitted to the acid treatment with sulfuric acid in different
19
pH values (1.0; 1.5; 2.0), at 30C, for 2 hours, at 160 rpm. The determination of CFU (in
20
YEPD medium) was carried out before the acid treatment, right after the acid treatment (0
21
hours) and after 18 and 36 hours of incubation of the treated cells in multiplication medium
22
23
24
Figure 5. Effect of the yeast strain (52, rough; PE-02, smooth; and mixed) over the alcoholic
25
content (A), total reducing sugars (B), final pH (C) and fermentative efficiency (D) in
20
fermentations carried out in sugar cane juice, 16% (w/v) of total reducing sugars, pH 4.3, at
30C, along six 12-hour fermentative cycles, with acid treatment of the ferment (at pH 1.5).
Different letters over the bar mean significant difference at 5% by Tukeys test.
4
5
Figure 6. Alcohol content (A), total reducing sugars (B) and final pH (C) in the fermentations
juice, 16% (w/v) of total reducing sugars, pH 4.3, at 30C, along six 12-hour fermentative
and mixed
) in sugar cane
9
10
Figure 7. Number of yeasts (CFU/mL) during the fermentations carried out in sugar cane
11
juice inoculated with the strains 52 (rough colony, in black) and PE-02 (smooth colony, in
12
gray), in pure (A) and mixed culture (B), along six 12-hour fermentative cycles, 16% (w/v) of
13
total reducing sugars, pH 4.3, at 30C, with acid treatment of the ferment (at pH 1.5). The
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
21