Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2001, p. 2056-2061, Vol. 67, No. 5
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.5.2056-2061.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Yeast Population Dynamics during the Fermentation
and Biological Aging of Sherry Wines
B.
Esteve-Zarzoso,1,2
M. J.
Peris-Torán,1
E.
García-Maiquez,3
F.
Uruburu,2 and
A.
Querol1,*
Departamento de Biotecnología,
Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos
(CSIC), 46100 Burjassot,1 and CECT
(Spanish Type Culture Collection), Universitat de València,
Burjassot,2 València, and
Bodegas González-Byass, Jerez de la Frontera,
Cádiz,3 Spain
Received 3 November 2000/Accepted 7 February 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Molecular and physiological analyses were used to study the
evolution of the yeast population, from alcoholic fermentation to
biological aging in the process of "fino" sherry wine making. The
four races of "flor" Saccharomyces cerevisiae (beticus,
cheresiensis, montuliensis, and rouxii) exhibited
identical restriction patterns for the region spanning the internal
transcribed spacers 1 and 2 (ITS-1 and ITS-2) and the 5.8S rRNA gene,
but this pattern was different, from those exhibited by non-flor
S. cerevisiae strains. This flor-specific pattern was
detected only after wines were fortified, never during alcoholic
fermentation, and all the strains isolated from the velum exhibited the
typical flor yeast pattern. By restriction fragment length polymorphism
of mitochondrial DNA and karyotyping, we showed that (i) the native
strain is better adapted to fermentation conditions than commercial
strains; (ii) two different populations of S. cerevisiae
strains are involved in the process of elaboration, of fino sherry
wine, one of which is responsible for must fermentation and the other,
for wine aging; and (iii) one strain was dominant in the flor
population integrating the velum from sherry wines produced in
González Byass wineries, although other authors have described a
succession of races of flor S. cerevisiae during wine
aging. Analyzing all these results together, we conclude that yeast
population dynamics during biological aging is a complex phenomenon and
differences between yeast populations from different wineries can be observed.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The production of sherry wines
comprises two successive processes: first, alcoholic fermentation of
must by yeast to produce white wine, and second, biological aging
(using the "soleras" system) of the wine under a velum ("flor")
produced by yeast, the so-called flor yeast. All wines made by this
special procedure including finos, amontillados, and olorosos) are
called sherry wines.
Fermentation of grape juice into wine is a complex microbial reaction.
Yeasts are primarily responsible for the alcoholic fermentation of
musts, while many vines undergo another fermentation process mediated
by lactic acid bacteria (6). Traditionally, wines have
been produced by natural fermentation due to the development of yeasts
originating from the grapes and winery equipment, although modern
enological practices include the inoculation of dry wine yeasts. In
Jerez de la Frontera (Andalusia, southern Spain), wineries follow a
particular alcohol fermentation process. In these wineries, enologists
add the dry wine yeasts to a volume of fresh must equivalent to 1/3 of
the total capacity of the fermentation tank. The same volume of fresh
must is added 4 to 5 days after fermentation starts (another 1/3 of the
total volume of the fermentation tank). After another 4 to 5 days,
tanks are filled with fresh must (the last 1/3 volume). The first
volume acts as an inoculum for the second portion of fresh must added,
and so on. This progressive addition of must during sherry wine making
ensures a uniform quality of wines before their biological aging.
When fermentation is completed, wines are supplemented with as much as
15 to 15.5% alcohol before the aging process. Aging is achieved in two
phases. The first called "sobretablas," is a static process in
which wines are introduced into oak butts. The second phase, called
soleras, is a dynamic system, involving several kinds of oak butts at
different aging stages, in which the lowest level contains the oldest
wines, and the newest wines are at the top. Twenty percent of the butt
volume is left empty to allow the growth of flor yeast. These flor
yeasts appear on the surface of the wine forming a thin pellicle (for a
review of the whole process, see references 14, 16, and
17). Growth of yeasts on velum surfaces produces important
changes in the characteristics of the wine due to the oxidative
metabolism of the flor yeasts (17, 18). Various
microbiological studies on the fermentation (7, 13, 21, 22,
23) and aging (11, 15, 16) processes in the
elaboration of sherry wines have been carried out. However, although
some of these studies analyze the dynamics of yeast strains during the
specific steps of sherry wine making (18), no complete
monitoring of the whole process, from grape must to aged wine has been
performed to date.
In this study, the whole elaboration process of sherry wines has been
studied using molecular techniques for identification and
characterization of yeast species and strains. Yeast population dynamics were studied during alcoholic fermentation, before and after
alcohol addition, and during the biological aging of sherry wines in
oak butts (sobretablas and soleras). The objectives of this work were
(i) to investigate the diversity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
strains involved in the alcoholic fermentation of sherry wines, (ii) to
analyze the level of implantation of inoculated strains during sherry
wine fermentations, (iii) to study the relationship between the strains
present during wine fermentation and the strains involved in velum
formation, and (iv) to study the relationship between strains isolated
at different stages of biological aging.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Fermentation assays.
Fermentations were carried out in
30,000-liter tanks. Must was obtained from grapes of the "Palomino
fino" variety. Each step of the fermentation process was conducted
with 10,000 liters of must. All musts (pH 3.2) were sulfited with 100 ppm of SO2 and rectified with tartaric acid to a level of 4 to 4.5 g/liter. In all cases the sugar content of the must varied from
200 to 230 g/liter.
Sampling.
Two different tanks were selected to monitor
alcoholic fermentation, with 2 days' difference between them. Yeast
strains were isolated during three different steps of the alcoholic
fermentation (referred to below as step 1, step 2, and step 3)
representative of the fresh must additions (described in the
introduction), and at the end, when the fermentation was completed
(step 4). Samples were also taken after the addition of alcohol and
during biological aging. Additional samples were aseptically taken from
the vela of yeasts growing on the surfaces of fino sherry wines in oak butts. For each of different soleras systems (D and E) two different butts (D1, D2, E1, and E2) were sampled at each level. Soleras system D
had four levels, or "criaderas" (from the oldest wine at the 1st
criadera to the newest wine at the 4th, and system E had three
criaderas. Isolations were made on yeast-peptone-dextrose (YPD) and
lysine agar media (during alcoholic fermentation only), after several
dilutions in 1
saline solution. Plates were incubated at 28°C for
2 to 6 days (9, 10). At each sampling point 50 colonies
were picked on YPD petri dishes, and after incubation they were stored
at 4°C.
Yeast identification.
Colonies isolated at each sampling
point were identified by PCR amplification of the region spanning
internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 (ITS-1, and ITS-2) and the 5.8S
rRNA gene (5.8S-ITS region) and subsequent restriction analysis
according to the work of Esteve-Zarzoso et al. (4) using
DyNAzyme II DNA polymerase (Finnzymes OY, Espoo, Finland). PCR products
and restriction fragments were separated on 1.4 and 3% agarose gels,
respectively. Cfol, Ddel, HaeIII, and HinfI
(Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim, Germany) were used as
restriction endonucleases to identify all yeasts isolated from sherry
wines. Fragment lengths were estimated by comparison to a 100-bp ladder
(Gibco-BRL, Gaithersburg, Md.). Restriction patterns obtained were
compared with those obtained by Esteve-Zarzoso et al. (4)
and Fernández-Espinar et al. (5).
Strain differentiation.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
restriction analysis and karyotyping were used to differentiate strains
of S. cerevisiae. Restriction analysis of mtDNA was
performed according to the work of Querol et al. (19);
HinfI was used as the most suitable restriction endonuclease
for differentiation among S. cerevisiae flor and nonflor
strains (11, 15, 19). DNA for electrophoretic karyotyping was prepared in agarose plugs as described by Carle and Olson (2). Chromosomal profiles were determined by the
contour-clamped homogeneous electric field (CHEF) technique with a
DRIII apparatus (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, Calif.) using standard
S. cerevisiae chromosomes as a marker (Bio-Rad
Laboratories). Yeast chromosomes were separated on 1% agarose gels in
two steps, comprising 60-s pulses for 14 h and then 120-s pulses
for 10 h, both at 6 V/cm with an angle of 120°. The running
buffer used was 0.5× TBE (45 mM Tris-borate, 1 mM EDTA) cooled at
14°C.
 |
RESULTS |
Yeast population dynamics during alcoholic fermentation.
A
total of 1,126 colonies were identified. Table
1 shows the identification results and
the percentage of colonies corresponding to each species at each step
during must fermentation. The species Candida stellata, Dekkera
anomala, Hanseniaspora guilliermondii, Hanseniaspora uvarum,
Issatchenkia terricola, and S. cerevisiae were isolated
at frequencies higher than 2%. Other species, such as Candida
incommunis, Candida sorbosa, and Zygosaccharomyces cidri or Z. fermentati, were isolated at very low
frequencies and are considered sporadic. We found five different
restriction pattern profiles of the 5.8S-ITS region that do not
correspond to any of the species included in our database of patterns
from more than 132 yeast species isolated from food, including wine fermentations (4, 8). It is possible that these patterns correspond to yeasts from soil contaminants in some cases, or to yeast
species infrequently involved in wine making. Yeast identification by
molecular techniques agrees with the description of wine yeast diversity obtained by classical techniques (9). At the
beginning of the process, the most frequent yeast species are apiculate yeasts, and at the end Saccharomyces species become the main
species responsible for fermentation.
S. cerevisiae population dynamics during alcoholic
fermentation and the role of the active dry yeast were studied by means of mtDNA restriction analysis and karyotyping of strains sampled during
these processes. A rapid and simple method of Saccharomyces yeast characterization based on mtDNA restriction analysis, has been
described for monitoring of wine fermentations (19), and HinfI has been determined to be the restriction endonuclease
that recovers the highest mtDNA variability. Using this method with HinfI as the restriction endonuclease, we obtained five
different mtDNA restriction patterns from a total of 953 S. cerevisiae colonies isolated throughout alcoholic fermentation and
confirmed by electrophoretic karyotyping (Fig.
1). Pattern I corresponds to the
inoculated commercial strain, and the other patterns correspond to wild
isolates. It is worth noting the high similarities among the four mtDNA restriction patterns (II, III, IV, and V) exhibited by wild S. cerevisiae isolates. The evolution of the five patterns during alcoholic fermentation is shown in Fig.
2. The most interesting result is that
the inoculated strain (restriction pattern I) is not responsible for
the vinification process. At the beginning of step 2 this strain was
replaced by natural strains with other restriction patterns in both
fermentation tanks, X and Y (Fig. 2).

View larger version (73K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
(a) mtDNA restriction patterns of S. cerevisiae isolates from two fermentation tanks (see Materials and
Methods) using the restriction endonuclease HinfI. Lane M
corresponds to lambda DNA digested with PstI, used as a
marker. (b) Chromosomal profiles of the S. cerevisiae
isolates from fermentation tanks. Lane M corresponds to strain YNN295
(Bio-Rad), used as a marker.
|
|

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Growth of yeast strains present in two fermentation
tanks (X and Y) during alcoholic fermentation. Strains were
characterized by mtDNA restriction analysis, confirmed later by
karyotyping (Fig. 1). Pattern I corresponds to the commercial strain.
|
|
Yeast population evolution during sobretablas.
Once fermented
wines are clarified by natural sedimentation, they are fortified to an
alcohol content of 15% and placed in oak butts in sobretablas
location. During these procedures samples were taken. After isolation
on YPD medium, 47 colonies were identified as described above (4,
5). Yeast colonies isolated were identified as belonging to the
species S. cerevisiae (16.65%), Pichia
membranaefaciens (53.85%), Pichia anomala (25.35%),
and S. cerevisiae flor yeast (4.15%). Pichia
species appear at high percentages in this step of the process; this
has been described as usual in sherry wine (16).
The most important finding for this sherry wine stage is the presence
of S. cerevisiae flor strains at a detectable frequency for
the first time. These particular strains were molecularly characterized
by Fernández-Espinar et al. (5), who showed that
they can easily be identified by their specific restriction patterns of
the 5.8S-ITS region. These flor yeast patterns are detected only after
wines are fortified, never before, probably because they are present at
very low frequencies during alcohol fermentation and thus cannot be
detected. mtDNA restriction patterns and karyotyping were again used to
differentiate Saccharomyces isolates at the strain level.
Two different mtDNA restriction patterns were obtained (Fig.
3); pattern A was exhibited by nonflor S. cerevisiae, and pattern B was exhibited by flor strains.
However, these patterns appear during the sobretablas process and are
not observed during the subsequent biological aging.

View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
mtDNA restriction patterns (a) and chromosomal profiles
(b) of S. cerevisiae isolates from fortified wine (lanes A
and B) and velum (lanes C to I). Lanes M correspond to the size markers
described for Fig. 1.
|
|
Yeast population evolution during biological aging.
Biological
aging is of great importance during the elaboration of sherry wine.
Once the wine has been fortified to an alcohol content of 15%
(vol/vol), a velum is formed by flor yeasts on the wine surface. Recent
studies (14, 21, 22) have shown that the yeasts isolated
from the velum, or flor, mainly correspond to various strains of
S. cerevisiae (flor strains). To study microbial diversity
during biological aging, samples were taken from the vela of two
different soleras systems (D and E). A total of 169 different colonies
were isolated on YPD medium and identified at the species level by
amplification of the 5.8S-ITS region and subsequent restriction
analysis using CfoI, HaeIII, and HinfI by the method of Esteve-Zarzoso et al. (4). The same
method allowed us to differentiate S. cerevisiae flor
strains from other S. cerevisiae strains according to the
work of Fernández-Espinar et al. (5). As can be seen
in Table 2, S. cerevisiae flor yeasts are the most frequent species growing on velum in both soleras
systems, although in some particular butts other, undesirable yeasts,
like Dekkera bruxellensis, were found, at even higher frequencies than S. cerevisiae flor yeasts (Table 2, D1,
level 1, and E2, level 1). These species have also been isolated in sherry wines during biological aging by Martínez et al.
(16), indicating the complex ecological community growing
on the velum. The species of the genus Dekkera
(Brettanomyces) are typical spoilage yeasts isolated from
many fermented beverages, including wines. Ibeas et al.
(12) detected Dekkera yeast by nested PCR in
barrel-aging sherry wines suspected of Dekkera contamination
because of their high acetic acid content. In the present study,
Dekkera yeasts have been found at significant levels in
sherry wines, indicating that these yeasts may coexist with S. cerevisiae flor yeasts in some butts during normal biological
aging.
All the S. cerevisiae strains isolated during biological
aging exhibited the typical ribosomal pattern described for S. cerevisiae flor yeast (5). These strains were also
characterized by mtDNA restriction analysis and karyotyping (Fig. 3).
According to Ibeas et al (11), the digestion of mtDNA with
HinfI allowed the differentiation of S. cerevisiae flor yeast at the strain level. Figure 3 shows the
seven mtDNA HinfI restriction patterns exhibited by flor
strains (lanes C to I). Although restriction patterns obtained from all these strains were similar, with the exception of pattern E, which is
the most divergent, some differences among them were observed, mainly
due to the gain or loss of one restriction band. As can be seen from
Table 3, a general predominance of the
strain exhibiting pattern C is observed in the soleras (oldest wines),
although in particular oak butts two or more strains may coexist. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Ibeas et al. (11), who also found a predominant strain coexisting with
some minority strains in some butts, but alone in other butts. In our study, minority strains exhibiting a special mtDNA restriction pattern
characterized by fewer and shorter restriction fragments were found.
These strains, corresponding to petite mutants, present the typical
ribosomal pattern and karyotype of S. cerevisiae, but a
totally different mtDNA restriction analysis (short bands), probably
due to the mutagenic effect of the high alcohol content of these wines
(11).
 |
DISCUSSION |
Many studies have been conducted to learn more about the
non-Saccharomyces yeasts involved in wine making
(1), as well as to monitor the evolution of the S. cerevisiae strains during natural and inoculated alcoholic
fermentation (19). The Saccharomyces strains
responsible for sherry wine aging constitute a special group of wine
yeasts, which have been poorly studied at a molecular level. In this
sense, only one attempt at the molecular characterization of these
yeast strains using mtDNA restriction analysis and electrophoretic karyotyping has been made (11, 15). In the present study, we have shown, for the first time, the evolution of yeast populations from alcoholic fermentation to biological aging in the production of
fino sherry wines.
The use of active dry yeasts is of particular interest for the wine
industry. There has been considerable controversy over the use of
selected pure strains in wine fermentation. It is generally assumed
that indigenous yeasts are suppressed by the starter. However studies
show that indigenous yeasts can still participate in the fermentation
(19, 20) or that only 50% implantation was achieved when
fermentation was conducted with some commercial strains
(3). In the present study we have shown another example where the native strain is better adapted to fermentation conditions than commercial strains.
Jackson (14) has stated that strains involved in alcoholic
fermentation are responsible for velum formation. In this study we show
that there are two different populations of S. cerevisiae strains conducting the elaboration of fino sherry wine. One of them is
involved in must fermentation, and the other is involved in wine aging.
The S. cerevisiae flor strains exhibited 5.8S-ITS region
restriction patterns different from those typical of the species
S. cerevisiae. These differences can easily be used to differentiate this interesting group of strains (5). They
demonstrate that the specific patterns exhibited by flor yeasts are due
to the presence of a 24-bp deletion in the ITS-1 region. In the present study, we have demonstrated that this deletion is fixed in flor yeast
and that this type of yeast can be isolated from fortified wine. We
have never found a Saccharomyces flor yeast pattern among the 953 colonies identified as S. cerevisiae isolated during
alcoholic fermentation. This result was confirmed by mtDNA restriction
analysis and karyotyping. Flor yeast patterns do not appear during
alcoholic fermentation or during sobretablas aging.
In conclusion, we propose using restriction fragment length
polymorphism analysis of the 5.8S-ITS region as an alternative to
identify wine yeasts, including Saccharomyces flor yeasts. In this work, we demonstrated that in some cases, the inoculated commercial yeast strain is not responsible for the alcoholic
fermentation, because it is not adapted to the wine area and cannot
compete with the natural flora. Besides, using molecular techniques to characterize yeasts, we demonstrated that the S. cerevisiae
strains involved in wine fermentation are different from the strains
responsible for biological aging (S. cerevisiae flor yeast).
One dominant strain in the flor population integrating the velum was
observed in sherry wines produced in González Byass wineries.
These results are not in accordance with results published previously
by Martínez et al. (16). These authors show a
progressive ecological succession of races of S. cerevisiae
during wine aging. However, Ibeas et al. (11) observed
that a single strain dominates individual barrels and that a dominant
strain is stable for two consecutive years. Analyzing all the results
together, we conclude that yeast population dynamics during biological
aging is a complex phenomenon, and we can observe differences between
yeast populations in different wineries.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This work was supported by CICYT grants to A.Q.
(ALI96-0457-CO2-01) and F.U. (ALI96-0457-CO2-02). B.E.Z. was the
recipient of an FPI fellowship from the Spanish government.
Thanks are due to E. Barrio for critical discussion of the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Departamento de
Biotecnología, Instituto de Agroquímica y
Tecnología de Alimentos (CSIC), P.O. Box 73, 46100 Burjassot,
València, Spain. Phone: 34 96 390 00 22. Fax: 34 96 363 63 01. E-mail: aquerol{at}iata.csic.es.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Amerine, M. A.,
H. W. Berg,
R. E. Kunkee,
C. S. Ough,
V. L. Singleton, and A. D. Webb.
1982.
The technology of wine making, 4th ed.
AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Wesport, Conn.
|
| 2.
|
Carle, G. F., and M. V. Olson.
1985.
An electrophoretic karyotype of yeasts.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
82:3756-3760[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 3.
|
Esteve-Zarzoso, B.,
A. Gostíncar,
R. Bobet,
F. Uruburu, and A. Querol.
2000.
Selection and molecular characterisation of wine yeasts isolated from the "El Penedès" area (Spain).
Food Microbiol.
17:553-562[CrossRef].
|
| 4.
|
Esteve-Zarzoso, B.,
C. Belloch,
F. Uruburu, and A. Querol.
1999.
Identification of yeasts by RFLP analysis of the 5.8S rRNA gene and the two ribosomal internal transcribed spacers.
Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
49:329-337[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Fernández-Espinar, M. T.,
B. Esteve-Zarzoso,
A. Querol, and E. Barrio.
2000.
RFLP analysis of the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and the 5.8S rRNA gene region of the genus Saccharomyces: a fast method for species identification and the differentiation of flor yeasts.
Antonie Leeuwenhoek
78:87-97[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Fleet, G. H.,
S. Lafon-Lafourcade, and P. Ribéreau-Gayon.
1984.
Evolution of yeasts and lactic acid bacteria during fermentation and storage of Bordeaux wines.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
48:1034-1038[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 7.
|
García Maiquez, E.
1995.
Los microorganismos del Jerez.
Microbiol. SEM
11:51-58.
|
| 8.
|
Guillamón, J. M.,
J. Sabaté,
E. Barrio,
J. Cano, and A. Querol.
1998.
Rapid identification of wine yeast species based on RFLP analysis of the ribosomal ITS regions.
Arch. Microbiol.
169:387-392[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Heard, G. M., and G. H. Fleet.
1985.
Growth of natural yeast flora during the fermentation of inoculated wines.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
50:727-728[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Heard, G. M., and G. H. Fleet.
1986.
Evaluation of selective media for enumeration of yeasts during wine fermentation.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
60:477-481.
|
| 11.
|
Ibeas, J. I.,
I. Lozano,
F. Perdigones, and J. Jimenez.
1997.
Dynamics of flor yeast populations during the biological aging of sherry wines.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
48:75-79[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Ibeas, J. I.,
L. Lozano,
F. Perdigones, and J. Jimenez.
1996.
Detection of Dekkera-Brettanomyces strains in sherry by a nested PCR method.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
62:998-1003[Abstract].
|
| 13.
|
Iñigo, B.,
D. Vazquez, and V. Arroyo.
1963.
Los agentes de la fermentación vínica en la zona de Jerez.
Rev. Cienc. Aplic.
93:296-305.
|
| 14.
|
Jackson, R. S.
1994.
Wine science. Principles and applications, p. 338-379.
Academic Press Inc., San Diego, Calif.
|
| 15.
|
Martínez, P.,
A. C. Codón,
L. Pérez, and T. Beníez.
1995.
Physiological and molecular characterization of flor yeasts: polymorphism of flor yeast populations.
Yeast
11:1399-1411[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Martínez, P.,
L. Pérez Rodriguez, and T. Benítez.
1997.
Evolution of flor yeast population during the biological aging of fino sherry wine.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
48:160-168[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 17.
|
Martínez de la Ossa, E.,
L. Caro,
M. Bonat,
L. Pérez, and B. Domeq.
1987.
Dry extract in sherry and its evolution in the aging process.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
38:321-325[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 18.
|
Martínez de la Ossa, E.,
L. Pérez, and I. Caro.
1987.
Variations of the major volatiles through aging of sherry.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
38:293-297[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Querol, A.,
E. Barrio, and D. Ramón.
1994.
Population dynamics of natural Saccharomyces strains during wine fermentation.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
21:315-323[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 20.
|
Schütz, M., and J. Gafner.
1993.
Analysis of yeast diversity during spontaneous and induced alcoholic fermentations.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
75:551-558.
|
| 21.
|
Valcarcel, M. J.,
L. Pérez,
P. González, and B. Domeq.
1987.
Efecto del pie de cuba sobre la fermentación dirigida en la zona del Jerez, p. 160-165.
In
Proceedings IV Jornadas Universitarias de Viticultura y Enología en JerezCadiz, Spain.
|
| 22.
|
Valcarcel, M. J.,
L. Pérez,
P. González, and B. Domeq.
1987.
Efecto de la sulfitación sobre las levaduras responsables de la fermentación en la zona del Jerez, p. 187-195.
In
Proceedings IV Jornadas Universitarias de Viticultura y Enología en JerezCadiz, Spain.
|
| 23.
|
Valcarcel, M. J.,
L. Pérez,
P. González, and B. Domeq.
1989.
Efecto de la modificación de pH mediante la corrección de la acidez sobre la flora fermentativa en la zona del Jerez, p. 145-150.
In
Proceedings V Jornadas Universitarias de Viticultura y Enología en JerezCadiz, Spain.
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, May 2001, p. 2056-2061, Vol. 67, No. 5
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.5.2056-2061.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Infante, J. J., Dombek, K. M., Rebordinos, L., Cantoral, J. M., Young, E. T.
(2003). Genome-Wide Amplifications Caused by Chromosomal Rearrangements Play a Major Role in the Adaptive Evolution of Natural Yeast. Genetics
165: 1745-1759
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Arias, C. R., Burns, J. K., Friedrich, L. M., Goodrich, R. M., Parish, M. E.
(2002). Yeast Species Associated with Orange Juice: Evaluation of Different Identification Methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
68: 1955-1961
[Abstract]
[Full Text]