Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AEM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Minireview

Microbial Dynamics in Traditional and Modern Sour Beer Production

Anna Dysvik, Sabina Leanti La Rosa, Gert De Rouck, Elling-Olav Rukke, Bjørge Westereng, Trude Wicklund
Danilo Ercolini, Editor
Anna Dysvik
aFaculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sabina Leanti La Rosa
aFaculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gert De Rouck
bFaculty of Engineering Technology, KU Leuven Technology Campus Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elling-Olav Rukke
aFaculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bjørge Westereng
aFaculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Trude Wicklund
aFaculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Danilo Ercolini
University of Naples Federico II
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00566-20
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Traditional sour beers are produced by spontaneous fermentations involving numerous yeast and bacterial species. One of the traits that separates sour beers from ales and lagers is the high concentration of organic acids such as lactic acid and acetic acid, which results in reduced pH and increased acidic taste. Several challenges complicate the production of sour beers through traditional methods. These include poor process control, lack of consistency in product quality, and lengthy fermentation times. This review summarizes the methods for traditional sour beer production with a focus on the use of lactobacilli to generate this beverage. In addition, the review describes the use of selected pure cultures of microorganisms with desirable properties in conjunction with careful application of processing steps. Together, this facilitates the production of sour beer with a higher level of process control and more rapid fermentation compared to traditional methods.

INTRODUCTION

Beer is a malt-based alcoholic beverage consumed worldwide (1). The earliest written records of beer consumption date to 2800 BC, but historians believe beer or beer-like beverages were consumed much earlier. Billions of liters are consumed each year, making beer among the most popular beverages today. According to the German Beer Purity Law from 1516, beer should only contain water, malt, and hops. Yeast was later included on the ingredient list. This law, with some modifications, is still applied in countries such as Germany, but nonmalt carbohydrate sources are extensively used in beer production worldwide (1).

Malt, usually wheat or barley, is milled and mixed with hot water in a mashing step. During the mashing, enzymes, including α- and β-amylases, degrade starch to fermentable carbohydrates. After mashing, the insoluble fraction, referred to as brewer’s spent grain (BSG), is separated from the sugar-rich liquid, referred to as wort, in a process called lautering. The wort is then boiled with hops before it is cooled and inoculated with yeast (Fig. 1A). The most commonly used yeast species for beer fermentation, also known as brewer’s yeasts, are Saccharomyces pastorianus, used for fermentation of lager beer, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, used in ale production. During fermentation, the yeast, usually a single-strain culture, utilizes the available carbohydrates, amino acids, and other nutrients in wort to generate ethanol, carbon dioxide, higher alcohols, esters, and other metabolites (1).

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

(A) Schematic illustration of the beer production process. Grain is malted, milled, and mashed before wort is separated from brewer’s spent grain and boiled with hops. Yeast is added to chilled wort to ferment the sugary wort into ethanol-containing beer. (B) Schematic illustration of the lambic beer production process. Active inoculation of wort is not carried out. Boiled wort is cooled down in a shallow, open vessel (coolship), where it is spontaneously inoculated by exposure to the environment. The wort is transferred to wooden casks, where spontaneous fermentation by a variety of yeasts and bacteria can transpire.

Different processing steps reduce the beer’s susceptibility to unwanted microbial growth during production. Examples of such processing steps include malt acidification, application of high temperatures during mashing, boiling, and pasteurization in addition to filtrations and application of low temperatures during storage (2). Furthermore, hops containing antimicrobial iso-α-acids (typically 17 to 55 mg/liter) also act as preservatives. By going through the fermentation process, beer typically acquires a number of properties that make it an inhospitable environment for microbial growth, thus protecting against spoilage (2). These factors include ethanol, typically in the range of 3.5% to 5% or higher, acidic pH, low oxygen, and high carbon dioxide content as well as low quantities of available nutrients.

Ethanol in beer provides an important antimicrobial hurdle. In 1935, Shimwell showed that beers with higher ethanol content were more resistant to growth of Lactobacillus brevis, which was referred to as Saccharobacillus pastorianus at that time (3). The antimicrobial mode of action of ethanol is through inhibition of cell membrane function (4) and induction of cell membrane leakage (5). An ethanol-induced increase in membrane permeability causes a rise of protons influx into the cytoplasm, which makes it difficult for bacterial cells to maintain pH homeostasis (6). This is especially important in low-pH environments such as beer. Cell morphology and a variety of cellular functions can also be affected by ethanol (7).

Low pH represents an additional hurdle that microorganisms need to circumvent to grow in beer. Beer pH generally ranges between 3.4 and 4.7, depending on beer style, but most beers have a pH ranging between 4.0 and 4.5 (8). Acidic pH causes increased influx of organic acid and acidification of the cytoplasm. This can damage various enzyme systems and hinder nutrient uptake, thereby interrupting cellular metabolism in general (9). Inability to maintain constant intracellular pH results in cell death (10). In addition to the direct effect of low pH, the acidic environment affects microbial cells survival synergistically with hop compounds (11).

When hops are added to beer, they introduce various antimicrobial compounds such as α-acids, iso-α-acids, and β-acids. Iso-α-acids are the most important antimicrobial compounds acting primarily as ionophores (12). Being weak acids, undissociated iso-α-acids can cross cell membranes and dissociate intracellularly where the pH is higher (13). The release of protons causes a drop of the intracellular pH that demolishes the proton motive force, ultimately affecting the whole-cell metabolism (13). Other antimicrobial actions inherent to iso-α-acids include induction of membrane leakage (14) and oxidative stress in the presence of manganese at low pH (15).

Carbon dioxide is formed during yeast fermentation of beer; CO2 lowers beer pH and contributes to making it microbiologically stable. Further, the presence of CO2 creates an anaerobic environment that inhibits growth of aerobic bacteria (2). CO2 acts as a preservative through pH reduction and oxygen displacement and through an inherent antimicrobial effect that is not yet fully elucidated (16). An inhibitory effect of CO2 on a number of metabolic enzymes has been suggested as an important mode of action (17), as has disturbance of cell membrane function (18). Regardless of the mechanism, CO2 exposure inhibits growth in both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (19), and higher levels of CO2 in beer have been associated with reduced growth of beer spoilers (20).

During fermentation, yeast will consume the majority of nutrients. The available quantities of carbohydrates and amino acids in most beers are therefore low (21). Low nutrient content has been correlated with decreased susceptibility to bacterial growth (22).

Although the hurdles described above make the beer stable with respect to microbial growth, there are microorganisms capable of contaminating beer. The presence of microorganisms with beer spoilage potential can cause loss of colloidal stability, ropiness, and aroma and taste defects, among others (23). Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (24), acetic acid bacteria (AAB) (25), Enterobacteriaceae (26), Zymomonas and Pectinatus spp. (27), and Megasphaera spp. (28) are all bacteria associated with beer spoilage. Some yeasts, including Brettanomyces, Candida, Hanseniaspora, Torulaspora, Pichia, and Saccharomyces, also have beer spoilage potential (29). It is a common belief that beer is resistant to foodborne pathogens. Some studies have, however, suggested that some foodborne pathogens, such as strains of Escherichia coli and Bacillus cereus, are able to survive in beer (30). In the context of sour beers, microorganisms with beer spoilage potential can be viewed in a different light, as the involvement of microorganisms beyond conventional brewer’s yeast is essential for the production of such beers.

Sour beer.Sour beer is a highly diverse genre of beer, not restricted to one specific definition based on production process, raw material, or geographic origin. A common denominator for sour beer is higher concentrations of organic acids, causing reduced pH (pH 3.0 to 3.9) compared to “regular beers.” This leads to elevated intensity of corresponding sensory attributes such as acidic taste (31). The elevated levels of organic acids in sour beer originate from the involvement of acid-producing bacteria in the fermentation process. While the fermentation of conventional beer is usually limited to single-strain yeast fermentations, sour beer originates through fermentation by multiple microorganisms, including both yeasts and bacteria (32). Various techniques for sour beer fermentations exist, including spontaneous fermentation, controlled mixed fermentations, and sour mashing and similar techniques, where the different microorganisms are separated in time (33). Belgian brewing culture is famous for its sour beer traditions, and classic sour beer styles of Belgian origin include lambic and lambic-derived beers such as geuze and kriek, as well as Flanders red ale and old brown ale. Berliner Weisse and Gose are sour beer styles of German origin (33). American coolship ale (ACA) is a product from the American craft beer culture, with a production process heavily inspired by the classic Belgian styles (34). The popularity of sour beer has increased in recent decades, and research is being carried out on both traditional fermentations and alternative production techniques. The main focus of the current review, besides traditional sour beer products and challenges associated with their production, is on lactic acid bacteria, their adaption strategies to beer environments, and their application in modern fermentation methods. Other microorganisms, such as Brettanomyces and acetic acid bacteria (AAB), are also important in sour beer fermentations; their role in sour beer production has been extensively reviewed in recent publications (33, 35–38) and will not be covered in detail here.

Brettanomyces (also known as Dekkera) bruxellensis is the species most commonly associated with beer fermentations and is the cause of “Brett character,” which includes fruity, floral, and tropical taints, as well as medical, leathery, smoky, and horsey aromas (39). Interest in Brettanomyces within the brewing industry is due to its ability to generate a wide range of flavor-active compounds, including volatile phenolic compounds (40) and volatile esters (41, 42). Further, the β-glucosidase enzymes, inherent to a number of Brettanomyces strains (43, 44), facilitate liberation of volatile flavor compounds bound with glycoside bonds in plant materials. Examples include the release of flavor-active compounds from cherries during traditional kriek production (45).

AAB are obligately aerobic bacteria that produce acetic acid as one of their main metabolic products (46). AAB are recognized in the production of vinegar, vitamin C, and cellulose, but are often considered problematic in the beverage industry due to their spoilage potential (47). Despite this, they are vital contributors in the fermentation of a number of products, including cocoa and water kefir, and some AAB, such as Acetobacter and Gluconobacter, are also important in spontaneous fermentations of sour beers (33, 47, 48). The produced acetic acid is important to the pH and sensory acidity of sour beer, but AAB has also been associated with other compounds important to sensory perception, such as ethyl acetate (49).

Traditional sour beer products.Lambic beers are produced through spontaneous fermentations in which no active inoculation of microbial starter cultures is carried out (Fig. 1B). The boiled wort is transferred hot to shallow, open vessels, known as coolships, and left to cool down, completely open to the air, typically overnight (32). This exposure is assumed to facilitate inoculation by environmental microorganisms present in air in the brewhouse (50–52). Microbial inoculation may also occur from the barrels, which potentially host a large number of microorganisms in a dormant stage in microcavities on the wood surface (53). To ensure that the cooldown occurs within a reasonable amount of time, and as a means for some level of microbial control, traditional lambic brewing is only carried out during the winter months (32, 51). When it reaches the temperature of approximately 20°C, the wort is transferred to wooden barrels for fermentation and maturation (32). According to the studies carried out with classic culture-dependent techniques, a four-phase microbial succession takes place during fermentation in the wooden barrels. The first phase is often referred to as the enterobacteria phase, as enterobacteria are dominating. Acetic acid bacteria and oxidative yeasts are also present during this phase, which can prevail for a week (52) to a month (32, 55). Low concentrations of ethanol and organic acids are produced during this first phase (52). The following phase is the main fermentation phase, in which Saccharomyces spp. dominate for 3 to 4 months, followed by an acidification phase dominated by LAB and AAB. Production of ethanol and carbon dioxide dominates the main fermentation phase, and organic acids such as lactic acid and acetic acid are produced during the acidification phase (52). The final phase is the maturation phase, where Brettanomyces as well as Lactobacillus, Pediococcus, and acetic acid bacteria dominate, usually from approximately 8 months onward (32). Production of esters such as ethyl acetate and ethyl lactate are characteristic of the maturation phase (51, 52). More recent studies have been carried out using culturing methods in conjunction with high-throughput sequencing techniques to obtain higher-quality information on the microbial species diversity. Spitaels et al. (55) showed that samples acquired throughout the fermentation process from two batches from a lambic brewery had a similar microbial succession to that reported by Van Oevelen et al. (32), with an initial Enterobacteriaceae phase the first month, followed by a phase dominated by Saccharomyces spp. and Pediococcus damnosus, until Dekkera bruxellensis dominated after 6 months. This study, however, suggested that acidification and alcohol fermentation occurred simultaneously, rather than as an extended acidification phase as described previously (32, 51). These results corresponded well with those of Bokulich et al. (34), where samples obtained during a 3-year fermentation period of spontaneously fermented American coolship ale were analyzed. Another study on lambic beer has resulted in more than 2,000 microbial isolates throughout the 2-year fermentation, of which 400 were bacterial strains and more than 1,700 were yeast strains (52). The authors describe a distinct four-phase microbial succession, with an enterobacteria phase (first week), a main fermentation (24 h to 7 weeks), acidification (week 7 to 9 months), and maturation (6 months and onward). While the enterobacterial phase lasted for a month in traditional lambic production without wort acidification (55), De Roos et al. (52) showed that the enterobacterial phase did not occur when the wort was acidified by lactic acid addition. In a study focusing on Belgian red-brown acidic ales, the authors showed that the dominant operational taxonomic units (OTUs) are Pediococcus, Acetobacteraceae, Lactobacillus, Dekkera, and Pichia. Lactic acid and ethanol were the main metabolites, and ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl octanoate were identified as the main aromatic compounds (56).

Some industrial breweries produce lambic beers on a larger scale in a process that diverges somewhat from the traditional one. These breweries usually use modern processing methods, such as pasteurization, filtration, and forced carbonation for their lambic products (57). By using modern equipment to chill wort, the production can be carried out year-round, not depending on low winter temperatures for overnight cooling in shallow vessels. Industrial lambic breweries also use wooden casks, but these are generally custom-made and far greater in size (170 to 200 hl) compared to the retired wine casks used in traditional lambic breweries (57). Comparison of the microbial succession during a 1-year fermentation in an industrial lambic brewery and that occurring during traditional production identified a core microbiota (57). Microorganisms in this community included S. cerevisiae, S. pastorianus, D. bruxellensis, and P. damnosus. Differences between traditional and industrial fermentations included an absence of the Enterobacteriaceae phase, explained by reduced initial pH due to lactic acid addition and a larger variety of AAB in industrial production.

The microbiota living on the inner surface of the wooden casks used in a traditional lambic brewery has been shown to vary with barrel cleaning procedures and the general condition of the casks with respect to age, wood thickness, and wood porosity. Based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing, De Roos et al. (53) identified a variety of bacteria, including Pediococcus, Lactobacillus, and Acetobacter, and yeasts such as Saccharomyces, Dekkera, and Pichia possibly acting as a source for microbial inoculation (45).

Lambic is the base beer for a variety of different beer styles. Geuze (also referred to as gueuze) is a highly carbonated beer that is made by mixing young 1-year-old and older (2 years or more) lambic following refermentation in bottles. Faro is made by mixing lambic with rock sugar (58). Kriek is a fruit lambic made by mixing sour cherries with a young lambic, allowing a second fermentation on the fruit sugars (59). Raspberries can also be used in the same way in lambic beer, resulting in a product referred to as framboise (58).

For ACA production, wort is cooled in open, shallow cooling vessels to favor spontaneous inoculation by the environment before transfer to wooden barrels. The microbial succession is similar to that of Belgian lambic, although some minor differences can be found (34).

Flanders red ale and old brown ales are originally products of spontaneous fermentation and year-long maturation. Besides traditional methods, modern production of these beers is carried out as controlled mixed fermentations in which inoculated yeast and bacteria ferment the wort before young beer is matured (60). Flanders red ale originates from West Flanders, is red colored, and is said to be “wine-like.” Flanders red ale is matured for up to 2 years in oak barrels. Maturation in oak separates Flanders red ale from the old brown ales indigenous to eastern Flanders. The latter are described as more malt driven and less acidic (61).

Gose and Berliner Weisse are common German sour beer styles in which wheat malt makes up a substantial fraction of the malt bill, and lactobacilli play important roles in fermentation. Both beer styles, originating from Goslar and Berlin, respectively, represent products that are produced both through traditional and with more modern methods. An important difference between Berliner Weisse and Gose is the spiciness of the latter, imposed by addition of salt and coriander (33).

Challenges associated with traditional sour beer production.Production of sour beer through spontaneous fermentation is associated with several challenges. These include inconsistent product quality, wastage due to failed fermentations, and time consumption. A study by Spitaels et al. (62) looking at microbiota and metabolites of aged geuze clearly demonstrated inconsistency in production, as the bottle-to-bottle metabolite variation made it impossible to generalize age effects on geuze. The product variations that arise through the traditional process can be seen as a positive attribute and are greatly appreciated by some consumers, as they represent a mark of authenticity and natural production. The product inconsistency can also be considered negative, especially if beer has to be discarded due to organoleptic failure after years of fermentation and maturation. The idea of using pure cultures in controlled mixed fermentations is appealing not only because it can offer improved process control and product consistency and potentially reduce production time for sour beers, but also because controlled mixed fermentations offer tremendous potential for generation of novel products. Mixed fermentations of beer with pure cultures are utilized to an increasing extent in the craft brewing industry. The application of mixed cultures and nonconventional microbial strains to beer fermentation offers vast possibilities for flavor generation. In addition, the capacity of nonconventional brewing microorganisms for diverse carbohydrate utilization allows the inclusion of nonconventional raw materials in beer production. This can be exploited as a tool to improve process control, besides being a method for direct conversion of nonfood carbohydrate sources to food products through fermentation. Lactobacillus sp. are highly interesting in this regard. An example of this was recently presented, using xylooligosaccharides for controlled fermentation with Lactobacillus (63). Interestingly, this study revealed an interesting ratio of acetic acid to lactic acid that may favorably prevent extensive Acetobacter fermentation that is considered challenging in many products.

Lactobacilli and sour beer.Lactobacilli are Gram-positive rod-shaped bacteria that produce lactic acid as the main metabolic product of carbohydrate metabolism (64). Their metabolism is classified either as obligately homofermentative, meaning that they convert hexose sugars to lactic acid almost exclusively, or as obligately or facultatively heterofermentative, converting hexose sugars to lactic acid as well as CO2 and ethanol or acetic acid. Lactobacilli have a great safety record, and certain strains of some species are used as health-promoting probiotics as well as starter cultures for fermentation of a vast variety of food products. They are associated with fermented dairy products such as yogurts (65) and cheeses (66), fermented vegetables (67), and fermented meat products (68, 69). Lactobacilli are also vital contributors to the production of a number of food products through mixed fermentations, where both bacteria and yeast participate, including kefir (70), water kefir (71), sourdough bread (72), and alcoholic beverages such as wine (73), sake (74), and beer (2).

In beer, lactobacilli can be terrible spoilers or vital fermentation contributors, depending on the beer style and the strain properties. Lactobacilli are considered spoilers in ales and lagers, as these bacteria cause unwanted haze and sedimentation, off-flavors, acid formation, and ropiness (75). In sour beer, where production of acid is welcomed, lactobacilli can be appreciated contributors, vital to the wanted organoleptic characteristics developed through fermentation. Regardless of their presence as spoilers or as needed fermenters in beer, lactobacilli need to overcome the comprehensive sum of hurdles to be involved. A wide set of systems for detection and adaptation to stress are involved in this (21, 76).

Lactobacilli are generally inhibited from growing in beer by the presence of hop’s iso-α-acids. Some strains, however, are resistant to the antimicrobial actions of hops and thus able to survive in beer (2, 75, 77). Genes associated with hops resistance in LAB include horA, horC, and hitA (78). The horA gene encodes an ABC transporter capable of expelling hops bitter acids from cells (79). The horC gene presumably encodes a proton motive force (PMF)-dependent multidrug effluence pump (80, 81). Products from horA and horC contribute to hops resistance by lowering the net influx of hops bitter acids into the cell cytoplasm, thereby restricting their actions as antibacterial protonophores. The hitA gene is assumed to encode a divalent cation transporter that increases hop resistance by helping hop-sensitive bacteria transporting divalent cations, e.g., Mn2+, into cells where the proton gradient has been dissipated (82). Other cellular adaptations are also involved in hop resistance in LAB, including modifications of the cell wall (83) and cell morphology (84). The presence of horA and/or horC is used as a genetic marker for the ability to survive in beer (68).

Lactobacilli are generally tolerant to ethanol, which confers them competitive advantages in fermentative environments (85). They do, however, display huge variation in their resistance, as some (e.g., strains of Lactobacillus plantarum) stop growing at 5% to 6% ethanol, while others can sustain environments with much higher concentrations (86, 87). While most LAB are inhibited above 13% ethanol (88), reports exist of sake spoilers able to grow at 20% ethanol (74). Kleynmans et al. (89) reported lactobacilli able to resist 16% ethanol, even at a pH as low as 3.3. Even though lactobacilli are generally able to sustain the ethanol levels in many beers, the role of ethanol tolerance on beer spoilage potential is not well characterized (90). Indeed, Pittet et al. (90) found no correlation between ethanol tolerance and ability to grow in beer.

Carbohydrate catabolism by lactobacilli causes accumulation of organic acids and a reduction in pH in the environment in which they reside, making it inhospitable for many potential microbial competitors. Extracellular, undissociated acids can pass cell membranes, where they dissociate in response to the higher intracellular pH, ultimately affecting enzyme activity and damaging DNA (91). Lactobacilli are not unaffected by acidic environments, even though they inflict such an environment upon themselves. Strategies involved in their response to acidic stress include the glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) system. In the GAD system, extracellular glutamate is internalized and decarboxylated to γ-aminobutyrate (GABA) in a reaction where a proton is consumed before the decarboxylated product is exported to the extracellular environment. This consumption of intracellular protons contributes to increased intracellular pH. In addition, the decarboxylation can be coupled to an electrogenic transporter, which allows ATP generation through the proton motive force (68, 92). The arginine deaminase pathway (ADI) (93) is another system for maintaining pH homeostasis in lactobacilli (94) and other LAB (95). In the ADI pathway, arginine is converted to ornithine, ammonia (NH3), and carbon CO2, and ATP is generated. NH3 is generated in the conversion, and it reacts with intracellular protons, thus contributing to alkalization of the cytoplasm. The FoF1-ATPase is a ubiquitous enzyme among bacteria that can facilitate the production of ATP in a reaction sustained by transmembrane proton motive force, or it can expel protons from cells in an energy-consuming process sustained by ATP consumption (96). Active proton expulsion increases in acidic environments and is vital for maintaining pH homeostasis in lactobacilli (97) and other LAB (98). Several other systems are known to be involved in the acid stress response of LAB comprehensively, which are covered in the review by van de Guchte et al. (68).

Lactic acid bacteria are known to be more resistant toward the presence of CO2 than many other bacteria (99). In addition, they are able to sustain low oxygen levels, as lactobacilli are anaerobic or aerotolerant (64).

During the fermentation of wort, conventional brewer’s yeast utilizes sucrose, fructose, glucose, and maltose. Some strains can also utilize maltotriose. Poly- and oligosaccharides are also present in wort, often referred to as dextrins (100). Dextrins can contribute to the sensory perception, e.g., fullness, in ale or lager beer, but in mixed fermentations, these higher molecular mass glycans can serve as the substrate for microorganisms with carbohydrate-degrading capabilities exceeding those of conventional brewer’s yeast. In traditional lambic production, a higher content of such polysaccharides is promoted by inclusion of unmalted wheat in the grain bill (≤30%) and the application of turbid mashing. Both of these factors contribute to reducing enzymatic carbohydrate degradation during mashing, promoting a higher dextrin content in wort, which is assumed to be important for sustaining the prolonged fermentation phases that occur after the main fermentation in lambic production (37). Many lactobacilli have enzymes that facilitate utilization of residual carbohydrates in wort, which are not degradable by conventional brewer’s yeast. Maltotriose, maltotetraose (101), maltopentaose, and more complex maltodextrins can sustain growth of Lactobacillus (102), and genes encoding enzymes necessary for cellular import and degradation of maltodextrins have been identified (103). Amylolytic lactobacilli can also degrade starch (104), and some lactobacilli can also utilize cellobiose (105) and xylooligosaccharides (63) (discussed in detail below). Lactobacillus involvement in superattenuation of lambic beer has been implicated. In superattenuated or overattenuated beer, a larger carbohydrate fraction has been fermented than the one that is degradable by brewer’s yeast alone (106). Although it is not the primary focus of the current review, it should be noted that other microorganisms, including Brettanomyces, are able to degrade complex carbohydrates and are equally important in superattenuation of sour beer (39, 107).

As previously stated, lactobacilli must overcome the sum of hurdles in beer posed by ethanol, low pH, the presence of iso-α-acids (and other hops compounds), and nutrient depletion (Fig. 2) to carry out metabolism in the beer environment. If Lactobacillus growth is required, e.g., in sour beer production, this can perhaps be promoted by removing or reducing the stringency of one of the hurdles discussed above, e.g., nutrient depletion. A specific substrate, known to promote metabolism of a limited number of microorganisms, could, for instance, be added to beer to promote a rapid acidification phase in mixed or sequential fermentations. An example of such a substrate could, for instance, be lactose, which does not promote the growth of S. cerevisiae but supports Lactobacillus metabolism (108).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Illustration of the hurdle effect in beer, where relatively low-intensity hurdles such as iso-α-acids, ethanol, low pH, high CO2, and low O2 together pose a substantial antimicrobial effect.

Modern methods of sour beer production.Producing sour beers in controlled fermentations with pure cultures is by no means a new idea. In the late seventies, a study on the microbiology of spontaneous wort fermentation suggested the following question for future research: “Can lambic be made with pure cultures?” (32). After 4 decades, there is still little evidence in the scientific literature of it having been pursued. Indeed, most of the scientific literature is focused on characterizing the microbiology and metabolite formation of spontaneous fermentation (Fig. 3A), rather than investigating alternative production methods that may offer improved process control and/or reduce fermentation times. Experimentation into, and development of, alternative production methods have emerged in industry, and different modes of spontaneous, semispontaneous, and pure-culture fermentations are carried out for commercial production. An example of this is the “sour worting” method (Fig. 3B) where Lactobacillus fermentation for acid production is carried out prior to yeast fermentation, either by Saccharomyces, Brettanomyces, or both, in oak barrels (31).

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Modern approaches to sour beer production. (A) Traditional production process with spontaneous fermentation. (B) Prefermentation with LAB, followed by yeast fermentation. (C) Cofermentation with yeast and LAB. (D) Secondary fermentation with LAB with wood-derived carbohydrates as the substrate.

A strategy for simplifying and shortening the production process was explored by Kumara and Verachtert (107). They fermented wort from a lambic brewery for a short period (≤48 h) at high temperature (28°C) with S. cerevisiae to obtain wort depleted of S. cerevisiae-fermentable carbohydrates. The yeast cells were then removed, and the prefermented wort was pasteurized before inoculation with a mixed population from spontaneously fermenting, 1-year-old lambic. In the same manner, a lambic at an earlier fermentation stage and higher carbohydrate content was pasteurized and reinoculated with the same mixed population from the further progressed lambic fermentation. Using this process, the overattenuation occurred in 30 days at 28°C, resulting in beers with more than 4,000 mg/liter lactic acid and 800 mg/liter acetic acid in both fermentations.

Single-strain fermentation with nonconventional, acid-producing yeast has also been attempted. Domizio et al. (109) tested three different strains of Lachancea thermotolerans in 3-week-long fermentations of wort at 14°C in which they compared the performance of L. thermotolerans to that of a conventional S. cerevisiae brewing strain. All the nonconventional strains were able to degrade maltose but not maltotriose. They were also able to produce comparable quantities of ethanol (approximately 5% vol/vol) and higher quantities of lactic acid than S. cerevisiae. A substantial increase in acidity was obtained with one of the tested strains (final pH, 3.77 compared to 4.24 for S. cerevisiae). Even though the lactic acid content was higher for all L. thermotolerans fermentations than S. cerevisiae fermentation, it only ranged from approximately 100 to 300 mg/liter, which is substantially lower than in most sour beers. Osburn et al. (110) tested 284 (54 species, 26 genera) yeasts isolated in small-scale beer fermentations for their fermentation performance. Sensory testing of the resulting beers illustrated that many of the strains generated beers described as tart or sour. The authors identified multiple yeast strains capable of producing lactic acid and used four of these (strains of Hanseniaspora vineae, Lachancea fermentati, Schizosaccharomyces japonicus, and Wickerhamomyces anomalus) in following brewing experiments where the wort was incubated at 21.7°C for 1 month. Quantification of the lactic acid in the beers ranged from 900 to 4,500 mg/liter, and the W. anomalus-fermented beer was perceived as very sour, with pear, apple, and apricot aroma (110). This method, named “primary souring,” is as an alternative production route for sour beer, solely relying on fermentation with yeasts that produce lactic acid as well as ethanol and CO2.

The application of an initial biological wort acidification step (Fig. 3B) is another alternative production method for sour beer that has been explored both in industry (31) and in research (111). Biological acidification can be carried out in the mashing tun (sour mash), in the brewing kettle (kettle sour), or after the wort has been transferred to the fermentation vessel (sour wort). The concept is to carry out LAB fermentation in unhopped wort prior to yeast fermentation within a short time frame, typically 24 to 48 h. In this way, the hurdle effects imposed by yeast fermentation (ethanol, nutrient depletion, low pH, etc.) and iso-α-acids on LAB metabolism can be circumvented, and the ability of LAB to rapidly produce high quantities of lactic acid is exploited. When the desired level of lactic acid has been obtained, the wort is then boiled to stop bacterial fermentation, followed by single-strain fermentation with conventional brewer’s yeast. An alternative to the interfermentation boiling step is addition of highly hopped wort upon yeast addition to introduce antimicrobial iso-α-acids after the wanted bacterial activity has transpired (112). In a study by Peyer et al. (111), Lactobacillus amylovorus was used for biological acidification of mash and preboil and postboil worts. Acidified worts were subsequently inoculated with S. cerevisiae US-05. The authors showed how biological acidification at different time points in the preyeast fermentation process led to differences in the obtained beer product. Acidification of preboil wort emerged as an efficient method to ensure high acidity and minimal organoleptic failure (112). Prefermentation with Lactobacillus buchneri prior to yeast fermentation was tested for production of sour beer (112). Sour beers (pH 3.5 to 3.7) with high lactic acid concentrations (∼1,000 mg/liter) were produced in 3 weeks of fermentation. Although L. buchneri made a significant contribution to the metabolite composition of the beer, the sensory influence of this did not surpass the influence obtained with chemical acidification.

Two recent studies have explored novel strategies to expedite sour beer production and improve the process control through cofermentation of yeast and lactic acid bacteria tolerant to brewing-related stresses (113) and through secondary fermentation using a woody biomass-derived substrate (63) containing xylooligosaccharides that are also found in BSG. Two different lactobacilli, L. plantarum WildBrew Sour Pitch and L. brevis BSO464, were selected based on their ability to sustain various beer-related stress factors (ethanol, low pH, iso-α-acids, etc.) and were used in separate cofermentations with yeast (113). Sour beers (pH 3.6 to 3.8) with high lactic acid concentrations (∼1,800 to 2,600 mg/liter) were successfully produced in as little as 3 weeks (Fig. 3C). L. plantarum contributed to the sensory properties of beer by causing increased intensity in fruity odor and dried fruit odor, while the L. brevis-fermented beer had similar sensory properties to a commercial sour beer in acidic taste and astringency. In another study, Dysvik et al. showed that xylooligosaccharides (XOS) from birch wood can be used to selectively support L. brevis BSO 464 growth in the beer (63) (Fig. 3D). Sour beer with a pH of 3.3 to 3.6 and a lactic acid concentration of 1,750 to 3,900 mg/liter was produced in only 2 to 4 weeks. XOS-driven secondary fermentation shifted multiple sensory properties significantly, and sensory evaluation of the produced XOS sour beer showed that the product was similar to that of a commercial sour beer in dried fruit odor, total flavor intensity, astringency, and acidic taste.

Another approach has been investigated in which cofermentation with Lactobacillus paracasei L26 and S. cerevisiae US-05 is used in sour beer production (114). A novel sour beer beverage with sufficiently high lactobacilli count to represent a legitimate delivery vehicle for probiotics was developed. Although the presence of ethanol in beer is problematic in a health-promoting, probiotic context, the high viability of lactobacilli is noteworthy. The sour beer had a pH of 3.6 and contained 109 CFU of probiotic lactobacilli per serving (100 ml) and more than 5,000 mg/liter of lactic acid.

Conclusions.Interest in sour beer has increased substantially in recent decades. Sour beer is traditionally produced through spontaneous fermentations in which complex microbial consortia are involved (Fig. 3). These can include different yeast (Saccharomyces spp. and Brettanomyces spp.) and bacterial (Lactobacillus spp., Pediococcus spp., and Acetobacter spp.) species. A diverse range of metabolites are formed through the successive microbial progression of such fermentations, resulting in highly complex products with respect to sensory properties. High quantities of organic acids, such as lactic acid and acetic acid, results in low pH and high intensity in sourness and acidic taste compared to ales and lagers fermented by pure, single cultures of S. cerevisiae and S. pastorianus, respectively. Several issues complicate the production of sour beer through traditional methods. These include poor process control, lack of consistency in product quality, and lengthy fermentation times. Most of the sour beer research has been focused on understanding the complex spontaneous fermentation process, originating from traditional Belgian brewing culture. Pure-culture fermentations with strains of Lactobacillus and S. cerevisiae, in conjunction with careful application of processing steps, offer a valid alternative to facilitate production of sour beer with a higher level of process control and more rapid fermentation compared to traditional methods. Selection of strains based on their potential for substrate utilization and flavor generation could also open possibilities for using nonconventional sources of carbohydrates in beverages production through fermentation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by a Ph.D. fellowship from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Chemistry Biotechnology and Food Science to T.W., E.O.R., and B.W. B.W., A.D., and S.L.L.R. are grateful for support from The Research Council of Norway through grant no. 244259 and 250479.

  • Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Pires E,
    2. Brányik T
    . 2015. Biochemistry of beer fermentation. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Vriesekoop F,
    2. Krahl M,
    3. Hucker B,
    4. Menz G
    . 2012. 125th anniversary review: bacteria in brewing: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Inst Brew 118:335–345. doi:10.1002/jib.49.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Shimwell JL
    . 1935. The resistance of beer towards Saccharobacillus pastorianus. J Inst Brew 41:245–258. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1935.tb05593.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Casey GP,
    2. Ingledew W
    . 1986. Ethanol tolerance in yeasts. Crit Rev Microbiol 13:219–280. doi:10.3109/10408418609108739.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Eaton LC,
    2. Tedder TF,
    3. Ingram LO
    . 1982. Effects of fatty acid composition on the sensitivity of membrane functions to ethanol in Escherichia coli. Subst Alcohol Actions Misuse 3:77–87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Barker C,
    2. Park SF
    . 2001. Sensitization of Listeria monocytogenes to low pH, organic acids, and osmotic stress by ethanol. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1594–1600. doi:10.1128/AEM.67.4.1594-1600.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Kalathenos P,
    2. Russell NJ
    . 2003. Ethanol as a food preservative, p 196–217. In Russell NJ, Gould GW (ed), Food preservatives. Springer US, Boston, MA. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30042-9_10.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. van Leeuwen TA
    . 2006. A comparison of the chemical analysis of beers and judges’ scores from the 2004 Australian International Beer Awards. Honours thesis. University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Neal AL,
    2. Weinstock JO,
    3. Lampen JO
    . 1965. Mechanisms of fatty acid toxicity for yeast. J Bacteriol 90:126–131. doi:10.1128/JB.90.1.126-131.1965.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Booth IR,
    2. Stratford M
    . 2003. Acidulants and low pH, p 25–47. In Russell NJ, Gould GW (ed), Food preservatives. Springer US, Boston, MA. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30042-9_3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Simpson W,
    2. Hammond J
    . 1991. Antibacterial action of hop resin materials, p 185–192. European Brewing Convention, Proceedings of Congress, Lisbon, Portugal.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Schurr BC,
    2. Hahne H,
    3. Kuster B,
    4. Behr J,
    5. Vogel RF
    . 2015. Molecular mechanisms behind the antimicrobial activity of hop iso-α-acids in Lactobacillus brevis. Food Microbiol 46:553–563. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2014.09.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Simpson WJ,
    2. Smith AR
    . 1992. Factors affecting antibacterial activity of hop compounds and their derivatives. J Appl Bacteriol 72:327–334. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1992.tb01843.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Teuber M,
    2. Schmalreck AF
    . 1973. Membrane leakage in Bacillus subtilis 168 induced by the hop constituents lupulone, humulone, isohumulone and humulinic acid. Arch Mikrobiol 94:159–171. doi:10.1007/BF00416690.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Behr J,
    2. Vogel RF
    . 2010. Mechanisms of hop inhibition include the transmembrane redox reaction. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:142–149. doi:10.1128/AEM.01693-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. King AD, Jr,
    2. Nagel CW
    . 1967. Growth inhibition of a Pseudomonas by carbon dioxide. J Food Science 32:575–579. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1967.tb00836.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. King AD, Jr,
    2. Nagel CW
    . 1975. Influence of carbon dioxide upon the metabolism of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Food Science 40:362–366. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1975.tb02202.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sears DF,
    2. Eisenberg RM
    . 1961. A model representing a physiological role of CO2 at the cell membrane. J Gen Physiol 44:869–887. doi:10.1085/jgp.44.5.869.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Martin JD,
    2. Werner BG,
    3. Hotchkiss JH
    . 2003. Effects of carbon dioxide on bacterial growth parameters in milk as measured by conductivity. J Dairy Sci 86:1932–1940. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73780-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Hammond J,
    2. Brennan M,
    3. Price A
    . 1999. The control of microbial spoilage of beer. J Inst Brew 105:113–120. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1999.tb00014.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sakamoto K,
    2. Konings WN
    . 2003. Beer spoilage bacteria and hop resistance. Int J Food Microbiol 89:105–124. doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(03)00153-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fernandez JL,
    2. Simpson WJ
    . 1995. Measurement and prediction of the susceptibility of lager beer to spoilage by lactic acid bacteria. J Appl Bacteriol 78:419–425. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb03428.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Esmaeili S,
    2. Mogharrabi M,
    3. Safi F,
    4. Sohrabvandi S,
    5. Mortazavian AM,
    6. Bagheripoor-Fallah N
    . 2015. The common spoilage microorganisms of beer: occurrence, defects, and determination-a review. J Food Sci Technol 7:68–73.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Garofalo C,
    2. Osimani A,
    3. Milanovic V,
    4. Taccari M,
    5. Aquilanti L,
    6. Clementi F
    . 2015. The occurrence of beer spoilage lactic acid bacteria in craft beer production. J Food Sci 80:M2845–M2852. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.13112.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Van Vuuren HJJ,
    2. Loos MA,
    3. Louw HA,
    4. Meisel R
    . 1979. Distribution of bacterial contaminants in a South African lager brewery. J Appl Bacteriol 47:421–424. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1979.tb01202.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. van Vuuren H,
    2. Cosser K,
    3. Prior BA
    . 1980. The influence of Enterobacter agglomerans on beer flavour. J Inst Brew 86:31–33. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1980.tb03952.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lee SY,
    2. Madee MS,
    3. Jangaard NO,
    4. Horiuchi EK
    . 1980. Pectinatus, a new genus of bacteria capable of growth in hopped beer. J Inst Brew 86:28–30. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1980.tb03951.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Satokari R,
    2. Juvonen R,
    3. Mallison K,
    4. von Wright A,
    5. Haikara A
    . 1998. Detection of beer spoilage bacteria Megasphaera and Pectinatus by polymerase chain reaction and colorimetric microplate hybridization. Int J Food Microbiol 45:119–127. doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00154-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Jespersen L,
    2. Jakobsen M
    . 1996. Specific spoilage organisms in breweries and laboratory media for their detection. Int J Food Microbiol 33:139–155. doi:10.1016/0168-1605(96)01154-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kim SA,
    2. Kim NH,
    3. Lee SH,
    4. Hwang IG,
    5. Rhee MS
    . 2014. Survival of foodborne pathogenic bacteria (Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus, and Listeria monocytogenes) and Bacillus cereus spores in fermented alcoholic beverages (beer and refined rice wine). J Food Prot 77:419–426. doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-234.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. Tonsmeire M
    . 2014. American sour beer: innovative techniques for mixed fermentations. Brewer Publications, Boulder, Colorado.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Van Oevelen D,
    2. Spaepen M,
    3. Timmermans P,
    4. Verachtert H
    . 1977. Microbiological aspects of spontaneous wort fermentation in the production of lambic and gueuze. J Inst Brew 83:356–360. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1977.tb03825.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Bossaert S,
    2. Crauwels S,
    3. De Rouck G,
    4. Lievens B
    . 2019. The power of sour - a review: old traditions, new opportunities. Brew Sci 72:78–88.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Bokulich NA,
    2. Bamforth CW,
    3. Mills DA
    . 2012. Brewhouse-resident microbiota are responsible for multi-stage fermentation of American Coolship Ale. PLoS One 7:e35507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035507.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    1. Spitaels F,
    2. Wieme AD,
    3. Snauwaert I,
    4. De Vuyst L,
    5. Vandamme P
    . 2017. Microbial ecology of traditional beer fermentations, p 179–196. In Bokulich NA, Bamforth CW (ed), Brewing microbiology: current research, omics and microbial ecology. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, UK. doi:10.21775/9781910190616.07.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Bokulich NA,
    2. Bamforth CW
    . 2013. The microbiology of malting and brewing. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 77:157–172. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00060-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. De Roos J,
    2. De Vuyst L
    . 2019. Microbial acidification, alcoholization, and aroma production during spontaneous lambic beer production. J Sci Food Agric 99:25–38. doi:10.1002/jsfa.9291.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Steensels J,
    2. Daenen L,
    3. Malcorps P,
    4. Derdelinckx G,
    5. Verachtert H,
    6. Verstrepen KJ
    . 2015. Brettanomyces yeasts — from spoilage organisms to valuable contributors to industrial fermentations. Int J Food Microbiol 206:24–38. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.04.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Crauwels S,
    2. Steensels J,
    3. Aerts G,
    4. Willems K,
    5. Verstrepen K,
    6. Lievens B
    . 2015. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, essential contributor in spontaneous beer fermentations providing novel opportunities for the brewing industry. Brew Sci 68:110–121.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Chatonnet P,
    2. Dubourdie D,
    3. Boidron J-n,
    4. Pons M
    . 1992. The origin of ethylphenols in wines. J Sci Food Agric 60:165–178. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740600205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Spaepen M,
    2. Verachtert H
    . 1982. Esterase activity in the genus Brettanomyces. J Inst Brew 88:11–17. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1982.tb04061.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Spaepen M,
    2. Van Oevelen D,
    3. Verachtert H
    . 1978. Fatty acids and esters produced during the spontaneous fermentation of lambic and gueuze. J Inst Brew 84:278–282. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1978.tb03888.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    1. Gondé P,
    2. Blondin B,
    3. Leclerc M,
    4. Ratomahenina R,
    5. Arnaud A,
    6. Galzy P
    . 1984. Fermentation of cellodextrins by different yeast strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 48:265–269. doi:10.1128/AEM.48.2.265-269.1984.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Daenen L,
    2. Saison D,
    3. Sterckx F,
    4. Delvaux FR,
    5. Verachtert H,
    6. Derdelinckx G
    . 2008. Screening and evaluation of the glucoside hydrolase activity in Saccharomyces and Brettanomyces brewing yeasts. J Appl Microbiol 104:478–488. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03566.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Daenen L,
    2. Sterckx F,
    3. Delvaux FR,
    4. Verachtert H,
    5. Derdelinckx G
    . 2008. Evaluation of the glycoside hydrolase activity of a Brettanomyces strain on glycosides from sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) used in the production of special fruit beers. FEMS Yeast Res 8:1103–1114. doi:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00421.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Mamlouk D,
    2. Gullo M
    . 2013. Acetic acid bacteria: physiology and carbon sources oxidation. Indian J Microbiol 53:377–384. doi:10.1007/s12088-013-0414-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    1. De Roos J,
    2. De Vuyst L
    . 2018. Acetic acid bacteria in fermented foods and beverages. Curr Opin Biotechnol 49:115–119. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2017.08.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Spitaels F,
    2. Li L,
    3. Wieme A,
    4. Balzarini T,
    5. Cleenwerck I,
    6. Van Landschoot A,
    7. De Vuyst L,
    8. Vandamme P
    . 2014. Acetobacter lambici sp. nov., isolated from fermenting lambic beer. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 64:1083–1089. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.057315-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Kashima Y,
    2. Iijima M,
    3. Okamoto A,
    4. Koizumi Y,
    5. Udaka S,
    6. Yanagida F
    . 1998. Purification and characterization of intracellular esterases related to ethylacetate formation in Acetobacter pasteurianus. J Ferment Bioeng 85:584–588. doi:10.1016/S0922-338X(98)80009-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Martens H,
    2. Dawoud E,
    3. Verachtert H
    . 1991. Wort enterobacteria and other microbial populations involved during the first month of lambic fermentation. J Inst Brew 97:435–439. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1991.tb01082.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    1. Verachtert H,
    2. Debourg A
    . 1995. Properties of Belgian acid beers and their microflora. Part I. The production of gueuze and related refreshing acid beers. Cerevisia 20:37–41.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. De Roos J,
    2. Vandamme P,
    3. De Vuyst L
    . 2018. Wort substrate consumption and metabolite production during lambic beer fermentation and maturation explain the successive growth of specific bacterial and yeast species. Front Microbiol 9:2763. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02763.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    1. De Roos J,
    2. Van der Veken D,
    3. De Vuyst L
    . 2018. The interior surfaces of wooden barrels are an additional microbial inoculation source for lambic beer production. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:e02226-18. doi:10.1128/AEM.02226-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.
    Reference deleted.
  55. 55.↵
    1. Spitaels F,
    2. Wieme AD,
    3. Janssens M,
    4. Aerts M,
    5. Daniel H-M,
    6. Van Landschoot A,
    7. De Vuyst L,
    8. Vandamme P
    . 2014. The microbial diversity of traditional spontaneously fermented lambic beer. PLoS One 9:e95384. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095384.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    1. Snauwaert I,
    2. Roels SP,
    3. Van Nieuwerburg F,
    4. Van Landschoot A,
    5. De Vuyst L,
    6. Vandamme P
    . 2016. Microbial diversity and metabolite composition of Belgian red-brown acidic ales. Int J Food Microbiol 221:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.12.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.↵
    1. Spitaels F,
    2. Wieme AD,
    3. Janssens M,
    4. Aerts M,
    5. Van Landschoot A,
    6. De Vuyst L,
    7. Vandamme P
    . 2015. The microbial diversity of an industrially produced lambic beer shares members of a traditionally produced one and reveals a core microbiota for lambic beer fermentation. Food Microbiol 49:23–32. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2015.01.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    1. Verachtert H,
    2. Derdelinckx G
    . 2014. Belgian acidic beers: daily reminiscences of the past. Cerevisia 38:121–128. doi:10.1016/j.cervis.2014.04.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    1. De Keersmaecker J
    . 1996. The mystery of lambic beer. Scientific American 275:74–80. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0896-74.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    1. Alworth J
    . 2015. The beer bible. Workman Publishing Company, New York, NY.
  61. 61.↵
    1. Preedy VR
    . 2009. Beer in health and disease prevention. Academic Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  62. 62.↵
    1. Spitaels F,
    2. Van Kerrebroeck S,
    3. Wieme AD,
    4. Snauwaert I,
    5. Aerts M,
    6. Van Landschoot A,
    7. De Vuyst L,
    8. Vandamme P
    . 2015. Microbiota and metabolites of aged bottled gueuze beers converge to the same composition. Food Microbiol 47:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2014.10.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    1. Dysvik A,
    2. La Rosa SL,
    3. Buffetto F,
    4. Liland KH,
    5. Myhrer KS,
    6. Rukke EO,
    7. Wicklund T,
    8. Westereng B
    . 2020. Secondary lactic acid bacteria fermentation with wood-derived xylooligosaccharides as a tool to expedite sour beer production. J Agric Food Chem 68:301–314. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05459.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    1. Wright A,
    2. Axelsson L
    . 2019. Lactic acid bacteria: an introduction, p 1–16. In Vinderola G, Ouwehand AC, Salminen S, von Wright A (ed), Lactic acid bacteria: microbiological and functional aspects, 5th ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  65. 65.↵
    1. McFarland LV
    . 2015. From yaks to yogurt: the history, development, and current use of probiotics. Clin Infect Dis 60:S85–S90. doi:10.1093/cid/civ054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Carafa I,
    2. Nardin T,
    3. Larcher R,
    4. Viola R,
    5. Tuohy K,
    6. Franciosi E
    . 2015. Identification and characterization of wild lactobacilli and pediococci from spontaneously fermented mountain cheese. Food Microbiol 48:123–132. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2014.12.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.↵
    1. Petrović T,
    2. Dimitrijević S,
    3. Radulović Z,
    4. Mirković N,
    5. Rajić J,
    6. Obradović D,
    7. Nedović V
    . 2012. Comparative analysis of the potential probiotic abilities of lactobacilli of human origin and from fermented vegetables. Arch Biol Sci 64:1473–1480. doi:10.2298/ABS1204473P.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    1. Cocolin L,
    2. Dolci P,
    3. Rantsiou K,
    4. Urso R,
    5. Cantoni C,
    6. Comi G
    . 2009. Lactic acid bacteria ecology of three traditional fermented sausages produced in the North of Italy as determined by molecular methods. Meat Sci 82:125–132. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.01.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Fontana C,
    2. Bassi D,
    3. López C,
    4. Pisacane V,
    5. Otero MC,
    6. Puglisi E,
    7. Rebecchi A,
    8. Cocconcelli PS,
    9. Vignolo G
    . 2016. Microbial ecology involved in the ripening of naturally fermented llama meat sausages. A focus on lactobacilli diversity. Int J Food Microbiol 236:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. 70.↵
    1. Vardjan T,
    2. Mohar Lorbeg P,
    3. Rogelj I,
    4. Čanžek Majhenič A
    . 2013. Characterization and stability of lactobacilli and yeast microbiota in kefir grains. J Dairy Sci 96:2729–2736. doi:10.3168/jds.2012-5829.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. 71.↵
    1. Gulitz A,
    2. Stadie J,
    3. Wenning M,
    4. Ehrmann MA,
    5. Vogel RF
    . 2011. The microbial diversity of water kefir. Int J Food Microbiol 151:284–288. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.09.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Minervini F,
    2. De Angelis M,
    3. Di Cagno R,
    4. Gobbetti M
    . 2014. Ecological parameters influencing microbial diversity and stability of traditional sourdough. Int J Food Microbiol 171:136–146. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.11.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Mtshali PS,
    2. Divol B,
    3. du Toit M
    . 2012. Identification and characterization of Lactobacillus florum strains isolated from South African grape and wine samples. Int J Food Microbiol 153:106–113. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.10.023.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Tsuji A,
    2. Kozawa M,
    3. Tokuda K,
    4. Enomoto T,
    5. Koyanagi T
    . 2018. Robust domination of Lactobacillus sakei in microbiota during traditional Japanese sake starter Yamahai-Moto fermentation and the accompanying changes in metabolites. Curr Microbiol 75:1498–1505. doi:10.1007/s00284-018-1551-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    1. Suzuki K
    . 2011. 125th anniversary review: microbiological instability of beer caused by spoilage bacteria. J Inst Brew 117:131–155. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.2011.tb00454.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    1. Geissler AJ,
    2. Behr J,
    3. von Kamp K,
    4. Vogel RF
    . 2016. Metabolic strategies of beer spoilage lactic acid bacteria in beer. Int J Food Microbiol 216:60–68. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.08.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Bergsveinson J,
    2. Ziola B
    . 2017. Investigation of beer spoilage lactic acid bacteria using omic approaches, p 245–274. In Bokulich NA, Bamforth CW (ed), Brewing microbiology: current research, omics and microbial ecology. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, UK. doi:10.21775/9781910190616.09.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.↵
    1. Bergsveinson J,
    2. Baecker N,
    3. Pittet V,
    4. Ziola B
    . 2015. Role of plasmids in Lactobacillus brevis BSO 464 hop tolerance and beer spoilage. Appl Environ Microbiol 81:1234–1241. doi:10.1128/AEM.02870-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Sakamoto K,
    2. Margolles A,
    3. van Veen HW,
    4. Konings WN
    . 2001. Hop resistance in the beer spoilage bacterium Lactobacillus brevis is mediated by the ATP-binding cassette multidrug transporter HorA. J Bacteriol 183:5371–5375. doi:10.1128/jb.183.18.5371-5375.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Iijima K,
    2. Suzuki K,
    3. Asano S,
    4. Ogata T,
    5. Kitagawa Y
    . 2009. HorC, a hop-resistance related protein, presumably functions in homodimer form. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 73:1880–1882. doi:10.1271/bbb.90189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Suzuki K,
    2. Iijima K,
    3. Ozaki K,
    4. Yamashita H
    . 2005. Isolation of a hop-sensitive variant of Lactobacillus lindneri and identification of genetic markers for beer spoilage ability of lactic acid bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:5089–5097. doi:10.1128/AEM.71.9.5089-5097.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.↵
    1. Hayashi N,
    2. Ito M,
    3. Horiike S,
    4. Taguchi H
    . 2001. Molecular cloning of a putative divalent-cation transporter gene as a new genetic marker for the identification of Lactobacillus brevis strains capable of growing in beer. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 55:596–603. doi:10.1007/s002530100600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Behr J,
    2. Ganzle MG,
    3. Vogel RF
    . 2006. Characterization of a highly hop-resistant Lactobacillus brevis strain lacking hop transport. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:6483–6492. doi:10.1128/AEM.00668-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Asano S,
    2. Suzuki K,
    3. Iijima K,
    4. Motoyama Y,
    5. Kuriyama H,
    6. Kitagawa Y
    . 2007. Effects of morphological changes in beer-spoilage lactic acid bacteria on membrane filtration in breweries. J Biosci Bioeng 104:334–338. doi:10.1263/jbb.104.334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Gold RS,
    2. Meagher MM,
    3. Hutkins R,
    4. Conway T
    . 1992. Ethanol tolerance and carbohydrate metabolism in lactobacilli. J Ind Microbiol 10:45–54. doi:10.1007/BF01583633.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.↵
    1. Wibowo D,
    2. Eschenbruch R,
    3. Davis CR,
    4. Fleet GH,
    5. Lee TH
    . 1985. Occurrence and growth of lactic acid bacteria in wine: a review. Am J Enol Viticult 36:302–313.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    1. Suzuki K,
    2. Asano S,
    3. Iijima K,
    4. Kitamoto K
    . 2008. Sake and beer spoilage lactic acid bacteria — a review. J Inst Brew 114:209–223. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.2008.tb00331.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. 88.↵
    1. Nojiro K
    . 1984. Advances in sake brewing microbiology IV. J Soc Brew Jpn 79:229–235.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.↵
    1. Kleynmans U,
    2. Heinzl H,
    3. Hammes WP
    . 1989. Lactobacillus suebicus sp. nov., an obligately heterofermentative Lactobacillus species isolated from fruit mashes. Syst Appl Microbiol 11:267–271. doi:10.1016/S0723-2020(89)80024-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.↵
    1. Pittet V,
    2. Morrow K,
    3. Ziola B
    . 2011. Ethanol tolerance of lactic acid bacteria, including relevance of the exopolysaccharide gene Gtf. J Am Soc Brew Chem 69:57–61. doi:10.1094/ASBCJ-2011-0124-01.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.↵
    1. van de Guchte M,
    2. Serror P,
    3. Chervaux C,
    4. Smokvina T,
    5. Ehrlich SD,
    6. Maguin E
    . 2002. Stress response in lactic acid bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 82:187–216. doi:10.1023/A:1020631532202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  92. 92.↵
    1. Higuchi T,
    2. Hayashi H,
    3. Abe K
    . 1997. Exchange of glutamate and gamma-aminobutyrate in a Lactobacillus strain. J Bacteriol 179:3362–3364. doi:10.1128/jb.179.10.3362-3364.1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. 93.↵
    1. Cunin R,
    2. Glansdorff N,
    3. Piérard A,
    4. Stalon V
    . 1986. Biosynthesis and metabolism of arginine in bacteria. Microbiol Rev 50:314–352. doi:10.1128/MMBR.50.3.314-352.1986.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Champomier Vergès MC,
    2. Zuñiga M,
    3. Morel-Deville F,
    4. Pérez-Martínez G,
    5. Zagorec M,
    6. Ehrlich SD
    . 1999. Relationships between arginine degradation, pH and survival in Lactobacillus sakei. FEMS Microbiol Lett 180:297–304. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.1999.tb08809.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Arena ME,
    2. Saguir FM,
    3. Manca de Nadra MC
    . 1999. Arginine, citrulline and ornithine metabolism by lactic acid bacteria from wine. Int J Food Microbiol 52:155–161. doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(99)00133-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Stock D,
    2. Leslie AGW,
    3. Walker JE
    . 1999. Molecular architecture of the rotary motor in ATP synthase. Science 286:1700–1705. doi:10.1126/science.286.5445.1700.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.↵
    1. Corcoran BM,
    2. Stanton C,
    3. Fitzgerald GF,
    4. Ross RP
    . 2005. Survival of probiotic lactobacilli in acidic environments is enhanced in the presence of metabolizable sugars. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:3060–3067. doi:10.1128/AEM.71.6.3060-3067.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Futai M,
    2. Noumi T,
    3. Maeda M
    . 1989. ATP synthase (H+-ATPase): results by combined biochemical and molecular biological approaches. Annu Rev Biochem 58:111–136. doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.58.070189.000551.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  99. 99.↵
    1. Borch E,
    2. Kant-Muermans M-L,
    3. Blixt Y
    . 1996. Bacterial spoilage of meat and cured meat products. Int J Food Microbiol 33:103–120. doi:10.1016/0168-1605(96)01135-x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  100. 100.↵
    1. Boulton C,
    2. Quain D
    . 2001. The biochemistry of fermentation, p 69–142. In Boulton C, Quain D (ed), Brewing yeast and fermentation. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. doi:10.1002/9780470999417.ch3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. 101.↵
    1. Møller MS,
    2. Goh YJ,
    3. Rasmussen KB,
    4. Cypryk W,
    5. Celebioglu HU,
    6. Klaenhammer TR,
    7. Svensson B,
    8. Abou Hachem M
    . 2017. An extracellular cell-attached pullulanase confers branched α-glucan utilization in human gut Lactobacillus acidophilus. Appl Environ Microbiol 83:e00402-17. doi:10.1128/AEM.00402-17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    1. Spear GT,
    2. French AL,
    3. Gilbert D,
    4. Zariffard MR,
    5. Mirmonsef P,
    6. Sullivan TH,
    7. Spear WW,
    8. Landay A,
    9. Micci S,
    10. Lee BH,
    11. Hamaker BR
    . 2014. Human alpha-amylase present in lower-genital-tract mucosal fluid processes glycogen to support vaginal colonization by Lactobacillus. J Infect Dis 210:1019–1028. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu231.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Nakai H,
    2. Baumann MJ,
    3. Petersen BO,
    4. Westphal Y,
    5. Schols H,
    6. Dilokpimol A,
    7. Hachem MA,
    8. Lahtinen SJ,
    9. Duus JO,
    10. Svensson B
    . 2009. The maltodextrin transport system and metabolism in Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and production of novel alpha-glucosides through reverse phosphorolysis by maltose phosphorylase. FEBS J 276:7353–7365. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2009.07445.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Reddy G,
    2. Altaf M,
    3. Naveena BJ,
    4. Venkateshwar M,
    5. Kumar EV
    . 2008. Amylolytic bacterial lactic acid fermentation — a review. Biotechnol Adv 26:22–34. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.07.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    1. Gänzle MG,
    2. Follador R
    . 2012. Metabolism of oligosaccharides and starch in lactobacilli: a review. Front Microbiol 3:340. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2012.00340.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. De Cort S,
    2. Kumara HM,
    3. Verachtert H
    . 1994. Localization and characterization of alpha-glucosidase activity in Lactobacillus brevis. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:3074–3078. doi:10.1128/AEM.60.9.3074-3078.1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. 107.↵
    1. Kumara H,
    2. Verachtert H
    . 1991. Identification of lambic superattenuating micro-organisms by the use of selective antibiotics. J Inst Brew 97:181–185. doi:10.1002/j.2050-0416.1991.tb01064.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.↵
    1. Domingues L,
    2. Guimarães PMR,
    3. Oliveira C
    . 2010. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for lactose/whey fermentation. Bioeng Bugs 1:164–171. doi:10.4161/bbug.1.3.10619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    1. Domizio P,
    2. House JF,
    3. Joseph CML,
    4. Bisson LF,
    5. Bamforth CW
    . 2016. Lachancea thermotolerans as an alternative yeast for the production of beer. J Inst Brew 122:599–604. doi:10.1002/jib.362.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  110. 110.↵
    1. Osburn K,
    2. Amaral J,
    3. Metcalf SR,
    4. Nickens DM,
    5. Rogers CM,
    6. Sausen C,
    7. Caputo R,
    8. Miller J,
    9. Li H,
    10. Tennessen JM,
    11. Bochman ML
    . 2018. Primary souring: a novel bacteria-free method for sour beer production. Food Microbiol 70:76–84. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.09.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.↵
    1. Peyer LC,
    2. Zarnkow M,
    3. Jacob F,
    4. De Schutter DP,
    5. Arendt EK
    . 2017. Sour brewing: impact of Lactobacillus Amylovorus FST2.11 on technological and quality attributes of acid beers. J Am Soc Brew Chem 75:207–216. doi:10.1094/ASBCJ-2017-3861-01.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.↵
    1. Dysvik A,
    2. Liland KL,
    3. Myhrer KS,
    4. Westereng B,
    5. Rukke EO,
    6. de Rouck G,
    7. Wicklund T
    . 2019. Pre‐fermentation with lactic acid bacteria in sour beer production. J Inst Brew 125:342–356. doi:10.1002/jib.569.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. 113.↵
    1. Dysvik A,
    2. La Rosa SL,
    3. Liland KH,
    4. Myhrer KS,
    5. Østlie HM,
    6. De Rouck G,
    7. Rukke EO,
    8. Westereng B,
    9. Wicklund T
    . 2020. Co-fermentation involving Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus species tolerant to brewing-related stress factors for controlled and rapid production of sour beer. Front Microbiol 11:279. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.00279.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  114. 114.↵
    1. Alcine Chan MZ,
    2. Chua JY,
    3. Toh M,
    4. Liu S-Q
    . 2019. Survival of probiotic strain Lactobacillus paracasei L26 during co-fermentation with S. cerevisiae for the development of a novel beer beverage. Food Microbiol 82:541–550. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2019.04.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Microbial Dynamics in Traditional and Modern Sour Beer Production
Anna Dysvik, Sabina Leanti La Rosa, Gert De Rouck, Elling-Olav Rukke, Bjørge Westereng, Trude Wicklund
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2020, 86 (14) e00566-20; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00566-20

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Applied and Environmental Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Microbial Dynamics in Traditional and Modern Sour Beer Production
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Applied and Environmental Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Microbial Dynamics in Traditional and Modern Sour Beer Production
Anna Dysvik, Sabina Leanti La Rosa, Gert De Rouck, Elling-Olav Rukke, Bjørge Westereng, Trude Wicklund
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jul 2020, 86 (14) e00566-20; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00566-20
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

microbial dynamics
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
sour beer
lactic acid bacteria
mixed fermentation

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AEM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AppEnvMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

 

Print ISSN: 0099-2240; Online ISSN: 1098-5336