Review

Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications

  • These two authors contributed equally
  • Received: 13 September 2019 Accepted: 19 January 2020 Published: 11 February 2020
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the best studied eukaryote and a valuable tool for most aspects of basic research on eukaryotic organisms. This is due to its unicellular nature, which often simplifies matters, offering the combination of the facts that nearly all biological functions found in eukaryotes are also present and well conserved in S. cerevisiae. In addition, it is also easily amenable to genetic manipulation. Moreover, unlike other model organisms, S. cerevisiae is concomitantly of great importance for various biotechnological applications, some of which date back to several thousands of years. S. cerevisiae's biotechnological usefulness resides in its unique biological characteristics, i.e., its fermentation capacity, accompanied by the production of alcohol and CO2 and its resilience to adverse conditions of osmolarity and low pH. Among the most prominent applications involving the use of S. cerevisiae are the ones in food, beverage -especially wine- and biofuel production industries. This review focuses exactly on the function of S. cerevisiae in these applications, alone or in conjunction with other useful microorganisms involved in these processes. Furthermore, various aspects of the potential of the reservoir of wild, environmental, S. cerevisiae isolates are examined under the perspective of their use for such applications.

    Citation: Maria Parapouli, Anastasios Vasileiadis, Amalia-Sofia Afendra, Efstathios Hatziloukas. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 1-31. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020001

    Related Papers:

    [1] Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Maged Wasfy Helmy, Nada Salah El Dine El Meniawy, Sarah M Abdelhamid . Investigation of the protective and therapeutic effects of Lactobacillus casei and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a breast cancer mouse model. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 193-207. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022016
    [2] Enrico Viola, Vincenzo Naselli, Rosario Prestianni, Antonino Pirrone, Antonella Porrello, Filippo Amato, Riccardo Savastano, Antonella Maggio, Micaela Carusi, Venera Seminerio, Valentina Craparo, Azzurra Vella, Davide Alongi, Luca Settanni, Giuseppe Notarbartolo, Nicola Francesca, Antonio Alfonzo . The impact of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae bio-protective strain during cold static clarification on Catarratto wine. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 40-58. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025003
    [3] Sukrita Punyauppa-path, Pongpat Kiatprasert, Jutaporn Sawaengkaew, Polson Mahakhan, Parichat Phumkhachorn, Pongsak Rattanachaikunsopon, Pannida Khunnamwong, Nantana Srisuk . Diversity of fermentative yeasts with probiotic potential isolated from Thai fermented food products. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 575-594. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022037
    [4] Jorge Barriuso . Quorum sensing mechanisms in fungi. AIMS Microbiology, 2015, 1(1): 37-47. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2015.1.37
    [5] Luciana De Vero, Tommaso Bonciani, Alexandra Verspohl, Francesco Mezzetti, Paolo Giudici . High-glutathione producing yeasts obtained by genetic improvement strategies: a focus on adaptive evolution approaches for novel wine strains. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 155-170. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.155
    [6] Ibtissem Chaib, Scheherazed Dakhmouche-Djekrif, Leila Bennamoun, Tahar Nouadri . Extracellular enzymes producing yeasts study: cost-effective production of α-amylase by a newly isolated thermophilic yeast Geotrichum candidum PO27. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 83-106. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024006
    [7] Thomas Bintsis . Yeasts in different types of cheese. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(4): 447-470. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021027
    [8] Napapohn Kajadpai, Jirameth Angchuan, Pannida Khunnamwong, Nantana Srisuk . Diversity of duckweed (Lemnaceae) associated yeasts and their plant growth promoting characteristics. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 486-517. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023026
    [9] Ahmed E. Kholif, Anuoluwapo Anele, Uchenna Y. Anele . Microbial feed additives in ruminant feeding. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 542-571. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024026
    [10] Nurul Alia Syufina Abu Bakar, Nur Aliyyah Khuzaini, Siti Baidurah . Co-fermentation involving Lysinibacillus sp. and Aspergillus flavus for simultaneous palm oil waste treatment and renewable biomass fuel production. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(3): 357-371. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022025
  • Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the best studied eukaryote and a valuable tool for most aspects of basic research on eukaryotic organisms. This is due to its unicellular nature, which often simplifies matters, offering the combination of the facts that nearly all biological functions found in eukaryotes are also present and well conserved in S. cerevisiae. In addition, it is also easily amenable to genetic manipulation. Moreover, unlike other model organisms, S. cerevisiae is concomitantly of great importance for various biotechnological applications, some of which date back to several thousands of years. S. cerevisiae's biotechnological usefulness resides in its unique biological characteristics, i.e., its fermentation capacity, accompanied by the production of alcohol and CO2 and its resilience to adverse conditions of osmolarity and low pH. Among the most prominent applications involving the use of S. cerevisiae are the ones in food, beverage -especially wine- and biofuel production industries. This review focuses exactly on the function of S. cerevisiae in these applications, alone or in conjunction with other useful microorganisms involved in these processes. Furthermore, various aspects of the potential of the reservoir of wild, environmental, S. cerevisiae isolates are examined under the perspective of their use for such applications.


    Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) is a unicellular fungus, possessing a nuclear genomic DNA of 12068 kilobases (kb) organized in 16 chromosomes [1]. Its genome has been completely sequenced by Goffeau et al. 1996 [1] and was found to contain approximately 6000 genes, of which, 5570 [2] are predicted to be protein-encoding genes. Bioinformatic analyses have revealed that a number of protein-encoding genes are of foreign origin, i.e., a result of lateral gene transfer, as the term was defined by Doolittle, 1999 [3]. These genes, which entered S. cerevisiae's genome horizontally, are either of prokaryotic or eukaryotic origin [4]. This came initially as a surprise, because of its osmotrophic nutritional style and the presence of robust cell wall, cell- and intracellular membranes. Hall at al., 2005 [4] located 10 genes of putative prokaryotic origin present in S. cerevisiae's genome. One example of acquisition of a gene from another eukaryote is the gene FSY1. FSY1 encodes a fructose transporter [5] and has probably originated from some close relative of S. cerevisiae. This gene is considered as important because its product lends probably to its host strain (EC 1118) an increased capability to utilize fructose under conditions of low hexose concentrations present in the must (i.e., towards the end phase of fermentation).

    In respect to S. cerevisiae extra chromosomal elements' genomics, all strains contain of course mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecules, but often with different sizes [6]. The largest version of mtDNA has a length of approximately 85780 bps [7]. Furthermore, most S. cerevisiae strains harbor in their nucleus a distinct extra-chromosomal DNA genetic element called 2µm circle (reviewed by Futcher, 1988 [8]). This double-stranded DNA element has a typical length of 6318 bps and a copy number of approximately 60 copies per cell). It is considered as ‘selfish DNA’ and has nearly no phenotypic consequences for its host, except a slight reduction of the host's growth rate. It is of no use for industrial applications, but on the other hand was highly instrumental for various applications concerning the genetic manipulation of its host. Other extra-chromosomal genetic elements harbored by various strains of S. cerevisiae include single- and double-stranded RNA molecules and retroviruses [9]. Some of these elements have a significant contribution to S. cerevisiae's killer phenotype (s. Section 2.2.2).

    S. cerevisiae is a model organism, a valuable tool for all aspects of basic research. Unlike other model organisms though, such as Escherichia coli, or Caenorhabditis elegans, S. cerevisiae is concomitantly also a most valuable species for a variety of industrial applications. One major reason for this feature is one part of its life style, termed ‘make-accumulate-consume’ [10]. This feature is based on the Crabtree effect, which consists in the fact that S. cerevisiae, even under aerobic conditions does not use the respiratory machinery to metabolise saccharides and promote biomass growth, but instead, it produces ethanol and other two-carbon compounds, via pyruvate [11]. The consequence of this fact is that S. cerevisiae produces and accumulates ethanol—which is toxic, or static, for most other microbial species able to compete with it for the sugar compounds- and thus eliminate competition. After S. cerevisiae has cleared the particular ecological niche from most of its competitors, it then proceeds in the consumption of the produced ethanol, thus promoting its own growth. According to Hagman et al., 2013 [12], this strategy evolved gradually before the whole genome duplication of S. cerevisiae and other yeast species, which took place approximately 100 million years ago [13]. It consisted in the loss of a specific cis-acting regulatory sequence (AATTTT) of several promoters, of genes involved in respiration [14]. This sequence is present and conserved in many other yeast genera, such as, Kluyveromyces, Candida and others, while it is absent from the yeast Dekkera, a genus, which includes species, known to be efficient ethanol producers [15]. Certainly, there are two more characteristics, which are very important for some industrial applications of S. cerevisiae: its remarkable resistance/tolerance to high sugar concentrations and production of a number of aromatic, volatile compounds. To the latter characteristic will be devoted special attention during the discussion of vinification.

    Environmental strains of S. cerevisiae are subjected to much harsher conditions, than the laboratory ones, which are usually cultured under most favourable conditions. The study of environmental strains reveals, among others, also additional survival strategies developed by this species, which are not apparent during the studies of laboratory/industrial strains. Environmental strains are able to overwinter in the soil, where they can sporulate. Other known natural niches, which S. cerevisiae usually occupies, are leaves and trunks of various plant species, such as oak trees. It is noteworthy, that although S. cerevisiae is found in abundance in environments, such as wineries, its presence there does not originate from grapevines, or grape berries. To the contrary, its presence in the latter habitats is scarce compared to other microorganisms. Mortime and Polsinelli, 1999 [16] determined the frequency of S. cerevisiae's presence in one in a thousand grapes, a frequency much smaller than the ones of other microorganisms. In addition, they found that the incidence of S. cerevisiae increases to one out of four when it concerns damaged grapes in the field. In a different study, Taylor et al., 2014 [17], using a metagenomic approach, were able to detect approximately one S. cerevisiae cell among approximately 20,000 cells belonging to various other fungal genera/species. The rare presence of S. cerevisiae in intact grapes and its much frequenter presence in damaged ones seem to constitute a contradiction, which is explained though by the fact that this organism can occupy an additional niche, i.e., insects. S. cerevisiae is insect-borne, and was detected in several different insects, such as, wasps [18] and Drosophila species [19], which feed on, among others, also on damaged grapes. Stefanini et al., 2012 [18] examined the gut microbiome of social wasps and detect the presence of S. cerevisiae cells, albeit in smaller numbers (4%) compared with other yeasts, such as Candida, or Pichia. Despite its smaller numbers, S. cerevisiae has a stable presence in the wasp community, since it overwinters in the gut of hibernating colony founding queens from autumn until spring and then, is transferred to their larvae through feeding. Regarding the Drosophila - S. cerevisiae interaction, Buser et al., 2014 [19] in the course of their study of the niche construction theory, showed that Drosophila simulans has a preference for yeast producing more efficient attractants. This is a mutually beneficial interaction, because while the flies that harbor the yeast exhibit an increased fecundity, S. cerevisiae benefits from being transferred to new niches, such as damaged grapes. This explains the higher incidence of S. cerevisiae in damaged grapes, compared with the incidence on intact ones. The frequency of S. cerevisiae occurrence in the environment is still under study, but it is much frequenter than initially anticipated. Wang et al., 2012 [20] collected 2064 samples from various natural, not human-made, habitats in China and were able, using an enrichment-based approach, to detect the presence of S. cerevisiae in 226 of them (10.9 %). The genetic diversity of S. cerevisiae isolates found in the positive samples was also much larger than in human-made, or human–‘influenced’ ones. This could be potentially very important, because environmental, ‘wild’, strains could bear genotypes with highly interesting properties for biotechnological applications. The use of ‘wild’ strains for industrial applications though may not be a simple procedure, because the genetic diversity does not always correspond to a phenotypic one. Camarasa et al., 2011 [21] e.g., studied the efficiency of 72 S. cerevisiae strains of diverse origins (industrial, laboratory, environmental) under conditions of must fermentation and found that strains originating from rich in sugar environments were able to finish the fermentation process, while the laboratory or environmental strains were unable to perform satisfactorily. The molecular basis of the better adaptation, especially of the wine strains, to the stressful conditions of must fermentation is yet unknown and could be attributed more than one reasons such as epigenetic phenomena.

    This review focuses mainly on various aspects of industrial applications employing S. cerevisiae, especially those related to its fermentation capacity and its use in the wine and food industry, as well as in the bioethanol production. Furthermore, we present data highlighting the potential of environmental S. cerevisiae isolates in the above-mentioned biotechnological applications.

    S. cerevisiae has been an essential component of human civilization because of its extensive use in food and beverage fermentation in which it has a high commercial significance. In the European yeast industry, a 1 million tonnes is produced annually, and around 30% of which is exported globally. The global market's annual growth rate was 8.8% from 2013 to 2018.

    In regard to beverage industry, S. cerevisiae is involved in the production of many fermented beverages, such as wine, beer and cider; distilled beverages, such as rum, vodka, whisky, brandy, and sake; whereas in other alcoholic beverages worldwide, from fruits, honey, and tea, S. cerevisiae is also involved [22]. Fermentation can take place either from a spontaneous development of the raw material microflora, or from the addition of a pure yeast culture. [22],[23]. A discussion on the contribution of S. cerevisiae in wine, bread and cocoa fermentations follows, highlighting aspects such as the biochemical reactions that take place in the cell and whose products determine the final products, the traits that strains must have in order to be successful starters and the potential of exploiting native strains in industry.

    The relationship between wine and man dates back thousands of years: detection of calcium salt of tartaric acid and terebinth resin in a pottery jar constitute the first experimental evidence for the presence of wine in Iran, around 5400–5000 BC [24]. The relationship between wine and S. cerevisiae is equally long-lasting as it was proven by the presence of ribosomal DNA from S. cerevisiae in a wine jar from Egypt dated back to 3150 BC [25]. However, this relationship was revealed not earlier than 1860 when Louis Pasteur established for the first time the ‘hidden’ world of yeast activity during the wine fermentation [26] and eventually in 1890, when Müller-Thurgau proposed the process of controlled wine fermentations with starter cultures [27]. This innovative practice, which found broad application after almost a century, in the 1970s, revolutionized the wine industry and has resulted in the improvement of wine quality by offering a better control and consequently better repeatability and reliability of the fermentations [27].

    From the very beginning, the vinification environment exposes microorganisms present in grape must to many different types of stress applying selective pressure on them [27][30]: Natural grape must is hostile due to its low pH and high sugar concentrations; in the majority of industrial fermentations high concentrations of the antioxidant and antimicrobial preservative sulphur dioxide are also added intensifying harsh conditions, whereas, as the fermentation proceeds, stress is multiplied for a plethora of reasons including anaerobic conditions, depletion of nutrient reserves (nitrogen, lipids and vitamins), increased acid concentrations, ethanol toxicity and temperature variations. S. cerevisiae although is found in very low populations in vineyards or grapes, prevails fermentation by dominating over the other yeast species abundant in natural must as it is able to overcome all fermentation stresses [28],[31]. This is the reason it has gained itself the title of ‘the wine yeast’ being the main workhorse of the wine industry worldwide [31]. Another set of criteria for a successful choice of a starter culture in industry is the production levels of several metabolites that, form the ‘fermentation bouquet’ and determine the complex sensorial and organoleptic character of the produced wine [29]. As it has been reported the compounds that have the greatest impact on ‘fermentation bouquet’ include higher alcohols, esters, aldehydes and terpenes [32]. S. cerevisiae is primarily responsible for the formation of the first three categories as it is not a sufficient terpenes producer [33].

    Higher alcohols (fusel alcohols), from a quantitative point of view, is the most important group of compounds that S. cerevisiae produces during fermentation. Their biosynthesis is conducted via amino acid catabolism, through a route known as the Ehrlich pathway [34]. As it is reviewed by Hazelwood et al., 2008 [35] this pathway consists of three steps: Initially transaminases, encoded by the genes ARO8, ARO9, BAT1 and BAT2, deaminate amino acids to the corresponding α-ketoacids. Secondly, α-ketoacids are converted to their corresponding aldehydes by one of the five decarboxylases (Pdc1p, Pdc5p, Pdc6p, Aro10p and Thi3p) present in S. cerevisiae genome. Finally, the alcohol dehydrogenases, Adh1p to Adh6p and Sfa1p, catalyze the reduction of aldehydes to their corresponding higher alcohols. Styger et al., 2011, 2013 [36],[37] exploited the yeast deletion library EUROSCARF in order to access the genes that have the most important contribution on higher alcohol production. Their results highlight BAT2 as the dominant gene of the pathway suggesting that the initial transamination step is rate-limiting. Typical representatives of higher alcohols found in wine are 1-propanol (stupefying), 1-butanol (fusel odor), isobutanol (alcoholic flavour), 2 phenylethanol (floral, rose notes) and isoamyl alcohol (marzipan flavours) [38]. Because if their total concentration exceeds 400 mg/lt, they contribute negatively on the wine bouquet [38], industry demands for strains with a relatively low fusel alcohol production [29]). The correlation between the concentration of amino acids and the amount of higher alcohols produced follows a pattern according to which at YAN (Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen) levels below 200 mg/L, the production of higher alcohols increases along with YAN concentrations whereas above 200 mg/L the relationship turns inversible [39],[40], a trend that should be taken into account to modulate higher alcohols formation in industry. The concentrations that are reached however are strongly related to the strain used [41].

    Esters are the most desirable group of compounds contributing fruity and floral aromas to the wine bouquet [42]. S. cerevisiae synthesizes two major groups of esters during fermentation, namely the acetate esters of higher alcohols and the ethyl esters of medium-chain fatty acids [MCFA]. Such esters include ethyl acetate (varnish, nail polish, fruity), isoamyl acetate (banana, pear), isobutyl acetate (banana) and phenylethyl acetate (rose, honey, fruity, flowery), ethyl hexanoate (apple, banana, violets), ethyl octanoate (pineapple, pear) and ethyl decanoate (floral) [43]. Recently, Ruiz et al. 2019 [44] reviewed extensively the correlation of the most important volatile compounds in wines with their corresponding odor in many different vine varieties. At this point it should be noted that ethyl acetate is desirable at concentrations below 150 mg/L, otherwise it confers spoilage character to wine [43]. Because the concentration of most esters is low and therefore very close to the human's smell nose detection limit, we understand that minimal variations in their concentration can to be of great importance for the quality of the final product of fermentation (wine) [30],[45]. The biosynthesis of acetate esters takes place intracellularly through an enzymatic reaction between acetyl-coenzyme A and an alcohol catalyzed by an alcohol acetyltransferase (AATase). In S. cerevisiae, two such enzymes have been extensively studied: AATase I and AATase II encoded by genes ATF1 and ATF2, respectively [42][48], whereas recently an ethanol acetyltransferase, encoded by EAT1, was also identified [49] and reported to have the potential to produce acetate and propanoate esters [50]. Eht1p and Eeb1p are the enzymes that catalyze the reaction between a medium chain fatty acid [MCFA]-CoA with ethanol synthesizing the MCFA-ethyl esters, possessing also as well as an esterase activity [51]. With regard to acetate ester hydrolysis, the only enzyme identified in the S. cerevisiae proteome is isoamyl acetate-hydrolyzing esterase [Iah1p] [48],[52],[53]. Experiments by Kruis et al., 2018 [50] revealed that even when all known ester synthases were deleted in S. cerevisiae, ester biosynthesis was not completely abolished, suggesting the existence of other ester synthases in the S. cerevisiae proteome, which have not been discovered yet. In addition, the determination of esterase activity in partially purified protein fragments of S. cerevisiae cells leads to the conclusion that other unidentified enzymes with esterase activity are present in the S. cerevisiae proteome [42]. Based on the needs of modern wine making, successful starters should possess moderate esterase activity [29].

    The major aldehyde synthesized by S. cerevisiae during wine fermentation is acetaldehyde constituting over 90% of the total aldehyde content of wine [54],[55]. Acetaldehyde, is the last precursor in the anaerobic pathway before ethanol. The pyruvate, end product of glycolysis, is converted to acetaldehyde by the pyruvate decarboxylase enzymes, encoded by genes PDC1, PDC5, and PDC6 with the first two pdc enzymes, being the major contributors to the decarboxylation activity controlling directly levels of acetaldehyde [56]. Acetaldehyde is further converted to ethanol, by the ADH1-encoded dehydrogenase, whereas ADH2-encoded enzyme [Adh2p] catalyzes the reverse reaction. Acetaldehyde when present in low concentrations confers a fruity pleasant aroma but when in excess produces green and grassy off-flavours [54]. Worth of notice though is that the concentrations of acetaldehyde vary significantly between different types of wine with average values of approximately 80 mg/L for white wine, 30 mg/L for red wine, and 300 mg/L for sherries [54]. In addition to the direct effect of acetaldehyde on the aromatic profile of wine, it is equally important, if not more, its indirect effect due to its high reactivity with other compounds [36],[54]. Of special interest for the wine industry it is acetaldehyde's binding activity with SO2, the basic antimicrobial and antioxidant agent, forming a complex compound which offers limited protection to the produced wine [54]. Acetaldehyde also mediates condensation reactions of grape-derived anthocyanins with tannins into stable red wine pigments during winemaking [57]. As different strains of S. cerevisiae synthesize considerably different amounts of acetaldehyde, it is critical to choose a strain suitable depending on the type of wine produced [54],[58],[59].

    The process of producing the fermentation bouquet is complex. It includes a significant number of biosynthetic pathways and genes and is affected by various parameters including the composition of the fermentation medium, the fermentation conditions and the inoculum used [32]. Although genetic manipulation of S. cerevisiae strains has already been proposed since the beginning of the century in order to generate strains with an ideal combination of desired oenological traits [60], however, as practice proves, it is not an alternative that finds ground in industry that prefers natural strains to cover consumers' demands. Many studies have shown that the use of starter cultures consisting of indigenous to the winemaking environment strains enhance wine flavour and confer to wine a special distinctive character reflecting the area of origin (terroir) [61][65]. However, in industry spontaneous fermentations involving indigenous microflora are not carried out due to their very serious disadvantages including inconsistent results from vintage to vintage and prevailing of undesired microorganisms resulting in the production of off-flavours spoilage of wine [66]. Instead, winemaking in industry worldwide is usually carried out with the use of a limited number (<150) of commercially available S. cerevisiae strains [60]. Although this practice ensures reliability and reproducibility, however, it leads to the production of ‘industrialized’ wines in which the positive influence of indigenous flora has been minimized [62]. Given the fact that the microflora of the vineyards is characteristic, demonstrating the existence of a nonrandom microbial-terroir, depending on regional, varietal and climatic factors, it is easily concluded that there is a rich source of indigenous S. cerevisiae strains to be exploited by the wine industry [67]. To this end, this practice can guarantee the preserving of the microbial biodiversity and the improvement of product quality leading to better consumer acceptance and consequently higher economic profit of the wine industries.

    In recent years, several researchers and many wine industries have turned their attention to vinification processes involving fermentations with mixed yeast inocula. There are two main reasons for this approach: i) the attempt to improve the organoleptic characteristics of the resulting wines. ii) The need for production of wines with lower alcohol content.

    The mixed starter cultures usually consist of one commercial, or laboratory S. cerevisiae strain and one non-Saccharomyces strain, usually isolated from grapes. As non-Saccharomyces inocula have served member species of several genera, among them Candida, Debaryomyces Hanseniaspora (and its anamorph Kloekera), Issatchenkia, Kluyveromyces/Lanchancea, Metschnikowia, Pichia, Torulaspora, Wickerhamomyces (Table 1). The mixed starters are applied in a co-, or sequential fashion and often in varying ratios of cell numbers.

    The use of non-Saccharomyces species as starters, along with various S. cerevisiae strains improved considerably various wine characteristics, such as: physicochemical properties, the composition and concentration of the wine's volatile compounds, i.e. flavour, aroma of the final product, glycerol concentration and others. Ciani et al., 2016 [68] reviewed such efforts published up to 2009. In Table 1, are presented some representative examples and its achievements, or failures of similar mixed starter efforts after 2009.

    The efforts to lower the ethanol content of wines emanate from two reasons: the consumers' desire for wines with less alcohol and the climatic change and global temperature increase, which, among others, leads also to higher sugar content of the grapes and subsequently to higher ethanol content in wines. Furthermore, wines with lower alcohol content are subject to lower taxes and therefore, it has a positive effect on the product's final price.

    Aiming the reduction of alcohol content of wines, a number of approaches were developed. There are three categories of approaches: application before, during and post fermentation.

    One approach is the selection of varieties, or clones bearing grapes with lower sugar content, or the earlier harvest of the grapes, before they accumulate sugar. Early harvest though has a negative impact on the maturity of important phenolic compounds and the final aromatic profile of the wine [82]. Furthermore, various cultivation practices were explored aiming at the production of grapes with lower sugar content [83], but they often proved ineffective.

    Physical methods were also developed and applied prior to fermentation begin. They include various membrane nanofiltration methods to remove glucose from the must (indicative references: [84],[85]. For the same purpose was used also reverse osmosis, resulting in altered organoleptic and physical characteristics [86]. Another possible approach is the treatment of must with the enzyme glucose oxidase, which oxidizes glucose to prior to fermentation start, which though leads also to the unwanted oxidation of other compounds as well [83].

    Decrease of the alcohol content during fermentation was attempted using genetically modified S. cerevisiae with partial success, or an alternative approach based on adaptive evolution [83],[87]. However, the most widely used approach by researchers and wineries and probably the most inexpensive and efficient one is the employment of mixed starters, composed of S. cerevisiae and some other yeast species. In one occasion, S. cerevisiae was combined with another Saccharomyces species, Saccharomyces kudriavzevii [88]. The authors used different aeration conditions and ratios of S. cerevisiaeS. kudriavzevii inocula, achieving under specific conditions a reduction of ethanol concentration up to 1.9 %. In most cases, the mixed inocula consist of one S. cerevisiae and one non-Saccharomyces species. The various combinations used for the purpose of reducing the alcohol content in wines are presented by Ciani et al., 2016 [68].

    Table 1.  Mixed starter cultures of S. cerevisiae with non-Saccharomyces species leading to improved organoleptic traits.
    Inocula composition Fermented material Mode of inoculation Major achievement/negative results Reference
    S. cerevisiae–Candida sake Grape must Co-inoculation high levels of esters and fatty acids enzymatic activities Maturano et al., 2015 [69]
    S. cerevisiae–Debaryomyces vanrijiae Grape must Co-inoculation Increased levels of terpenes and higher alcohols Maturano et al., 2015 [69]
    S. cerevisiae–Hanseniaspora uvarum Grape must Co- and sequential inoculation Increased production of volatile compounds, esters and terpenes Tristezza et al., 2016 [70]
    S. cerevisiae–Hanseniaspora vineae Co- and sequential inoculation Two-fold increase of the concentration of 2-phenylethyl acetate in the sequential inoculation Viana et al., 2011 [71]
    S. cerevisiae–Hanseniaspora vineae Grape must Sequential inoculation Increased production of acetate esters and some ethyl esters, decreased production of higher alcohols and some medium chain fatty acids Medina et al., 2013 [72]
    S. cerevisiae–Issatchenkia orientalis Grape must Co-inoculation Reduction of malic acid Kim et al., 2008 [73]
    S. cerevisiae–Lanchancea thermotolerance Grape must Co- and sequential inoculation Reduction of pH, increase of 2-phenylethanol and glycerol Gobbi et al., 2013 [74]
    S. cerevisiae–Metschnikowia pulcherrima Grape must Co-inoculation Increased production of polysaccharides, glycerol and volatile compounds. Reduction of volatile acidity. Comitini et al., 2011 [75]
    S. cerevisiae–Metschnikowia pulcherrima Mango pulp Co-inoculation Increased glycerol concentration, reduction of volatile acidity and total acidity Sadineni et al., 2012 [76]
    S. cerevisiae–Metschnikowia pulcherrima var. zitsae Grape must Sequential inoculation Improved aromatic bouquet. Parapouli et al., 2010 [77]
    S. cerevisiae–Pichia guilliermondii Grape must Sequential inoculation (Negative outcome) Production of taste spoiling phenol compounds Sáez et al., 2010 [78]
    S. cerevisiae – Torulaspora delbruckii Amarone must Improved aroma Azzolini et al., 2012 [79]
    S. cerevisiae – Torulaspora delbruckii Grape must Co-inculation Increase of ester production Renault et al., 2015 [80]
    S. cerevisiae – Torulaspora delbruckii Mango pulp Co-inoculation Increased glycerol concentration, reduction of volatile acidity and total acidity Sadineni et al., 2012[76]
    S cerevisiae – Wickerhamomyces anomalus Grape must Sequential inoculation Increased levels acetates, ethyl esters and lineal alcohols. Reduced levels of organic acids Izquierdo- Canas et al., 2014 [81]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Yeast-yeast interactions during fermentation: Despite the reported successes achieved using mixed inocula of S. cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces species, the choice of combination is not straight forward. The reason is that the interaction among different yeast species is not only species but also strain specific [89]. For example, during a fermentation employing S. cerevisiae and T. debrukii, Curiel et al., 2017 [90], found that several genes (44) were up-regulated at the early stage of fermentation (2 h). Among these genes were genes involved in the ‘Glucose Fermentation Pathway’, many genes whose products are involved in the alternative nitrogen assimilation pathway, as well as several genes encoding amino acid permeases. In the case of a similar fermentation involving S. cerevisiae and C. sake, Curiel et al., 2017 [90] found many similar genes up-regulated, as in the case of T. debrukii, while in the interaction with C. sake, 34 genes were down regulated, unlike the case of T. debrukii, where only four genes were down-regulated. Markedly different was the gene regulation profile of S. cerevisiae when combined H. uvarum in a similar fermentation. In this case, Curiel et al., 2017 [90] found that a set of 29 genes were up-regulated, among them also genes involved in stress response.

    In general, there is a broad spectrum of different kinds of interactions between must fermenting species/strains. This spectrum ranges from the production of compounds lethal or static to other yeast and bacterial species/strains up to neutral coexistence, or even to mutualism. Branco et al., 2014 [91], e.g., identified several antimicrobial peptides secreted by S. cerevisiae CCMI 885, which had either a lethal or a static effect on other yeast species and Oenococcus oeni strains during fermentation in synthetic must. These peptides are fragments derived from the enzyme glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase. In addition, several S. cerevisiae strains secrete proteinaceous compounds named K1, K2 and K28, which kill other, sensitive S. cerevisiae strains. These toxin-like substances are products of genes present in extra-chromosomal RNA genetic elements [9]. Other types of yeast-yeast interactions include cell-to-cell contact mediated domination [92], mildly antagonistic coexistence during fermentation, such as those presented in Table 1, or even stimulation of metabolic activity [90]. Therefore, although each new combination of starters needs to be tested carefully, it seems that there are a vast number of possible new combinations of mixed starters.

    All these approaches for ethanol removal post fermentation from wine are based on various membrane filtration techniques, reverse osmosis and evaporation of alcohol. This approach though impacts negatively and significantly the profile of volatile compounds, especially various esters [93].

    The practice of bread making is one of the oldest biochemistry processes in the world. There are strong indications that yeast was already used in 10.000 BCE to produce bread but the earliest archaeological evidence for leavened breads was found in the second millennium BC in Egypt and the first millennium BC in North Western China. Until the middle ages bread was mostly made at home, but during the population expansion of the 11th and 12th centuries, communal mills and ovens were constructed and professional bakers became common [94][98].

    S. cerevisiae, also known as baker's yeast or simply ‘the yeast’, is the most common yeast species in bread and in sourdoughs. It has been used as a starter culture since the 19th century, where the Baker's yeasts were obtained from the leftovers of the beer manufacture. In 1792 in England, the first compressed yeasts for baking and brewing were made and by 1800 they were available in northern Europe, while in the U.S.A. in 1868, a compressed yeast of an improved strain was introduced and facilitated the large-scale production of bread [94][100].

    Bread production requires the mixing of flour, water and sourdough. Depending on the culture and geographic location, different kinds of flours were used including wheat, barley, emmer, einkorn, khorasan, rye, spelt, teff, maize, or sorghum, while the sourdough was a mix of flour and water, containing fermenting yeast and Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) [98]. S. cerevisiae is generally inoculated into bread dough at a concentration of 2% of the total ingredients. The oxygen from the air entrapped in the dough during mixing is consumed in a couple of minutes by the respiration of yeast cells, and under the anaerobic conditions that are formed yeast cell reproduction is slowing down and the fermentation reaction takes place. The optimal conditions for fermentation in the dough are around 34–38 °C, at pH 4.0–5.2, using fresh cells because older cells require longer fermentation time. A possible factor that delays yeast multiplication is the addition of fat, salt, or spices [101].

    Three categories of sugar exist on dough: a) natural sugars present in flour (including glucose, sucrose, fructose, and maltose), b) added sugars by bakers, and c) maltose released by the amylolytic breakdown of starch. The yeast cells transform glucose and fructose from the degradation of the more complex carbohydrates such as sucrose, maltose, and starch, to carbon dioxide and ethanol. Maltose, dextrose and sucrose are produced from the starch with the help of amylases found in the flour or in diastased malt, besides the possible addition of fungal amylases added by bakers, while glucose and fructose are transformed into carbon dioxide and ethanol by zymases [22],[94],[98],[101].

    Because of the sugar fermentation, the yeast cells are considered as a leavening agent in baked goods, leading to an increase of the bread dough volume from the fermentation gasses, therefore to changes in the structure of the product, and to synthesis of organic acids and volatile products that contribute to the taste and flavour of bread [94],[101]. When the most favorable environment for yeast growth is provided, the yeast fermentation produces gases and forms a gluten matrix that enables maximum gas retention, thus achieving a desired loaf volume. The incorporated into the matrix gas bubbles are growing during fermentation, and are getting saturated with carbon dioxide, leading to the expanding of the dough and thinning of the dough matrix between the gas cells. The gas holding capacity of the dough is an important characteristic that determines the bread quality and suitability of the yeast in use. More gas cells in the dough, the higher the gas cells distribution is, leading to more resistance in forces that may cause them to rupture, to lower extensibility and to a higher specific volume. During baking, the ethanol from the dough evaporates along with some water forming the aerated matrix of the crumb [94].

    With the use of dried yeast, nonviable cells are present, releasing glutathione as a stress response, while instant active dry yeast helps reduce dough mixing time, due to an effect on the gluten network development. Dough is affected by oxidizing and reducing agents, such as glutathione, which affects the disulfide bonds on the glutenin subunits and their degree of polymerization, resulting in a modified viscoelastic gluten network and gluten proteins with reduced size and lower molecular weight. Yeast is also able to produce glycerol, which has a positive effect on the texture of bread, especially during freezing, and pyruvic acid [94].

    In sourdoughs the fermentation is spontaneous or initiated by a starter culture, by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeasts fermenting a mixture of flours and water. A well-described microorganism diversity throughout the world exists, with over 30 yeast species and 50 LAB species identified. In a sourdough usually there is a dominant yeast species, usually S. cerevisiae, and a dominant LAB species, with low diversity, while between sourdoughs the diversity can be high. LAB cells are usually a log count higher in population compared to the yeast cells. The major metabolic activities present are acidification (LAB), flavour formation (LAB and yeasts), and leavening (yeasts and heterofermentative LAB species). The dominant yeast species in sourdoughs have the ability to ferment under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions, therefore considered Crabtree positive yeasts [98],[102].

    While many papers and reviews have dealt with LAB in sourdoughs, few reviews have dealt with yeasts in sourdoughs [98],[102]. The metabolic diversity of yeast and LAB species in a sourdough offers a wide range of associations that may define the final composition and the characteristics of sourdough bread [98]. In the baking industry there is a trend to use short fermented bread-making, resulting in limited development of aroma and flavour. The addition of different bacterial starter cultures, could compensate with the production of flavour and aroma during such short fermentations [94].

    Bread is mostly made using commercial Baker's yeast. There are also commercially available sourdoughs with selected yeasts and LAB strains that offer specific and desirable characteristics depending on the targeted product. Bread though, can still be made traditionally with natural sourdough, maintained by continuous re-inoculation of new batches of flour and water [98].

    Commercial strains of S. cerevisiae can be selected for their fermentation performance, their flavour and aroma compound production in the final product (esters, aldehydes, and ketones production), thus improving its organoleptic characteristics.

    Flavour and aroma are very important parameters in bread but during bread dough fermentation, the yeast cells produce limited amount of aroma, compared to other yeast fermentations in food products. The main production of highly aromatic compounds is triggered by baking. Those compounds are either volatile like alcohols, aldehydes and ketones or nonvolatile like acids, esters, sugars, phenolic compounds free fatty acids, and lipids. The most significant of them are alcohols and aldehydes such as 2,3-butanedione and 3-hydroxy-2-butanone and esters. Some nonvolatile compounds may act as precursors for later reactions forming new flavour compounds. Sugars remaining from the fermentation react in Maillard reactions, having a great effect on aroma. The flavour is also affected with the reduction of dough pH and the production of reducing compounds which affect dough rheology [22],[94],[101].

    Major importance on the strain selection is their ability to produce CO2 rapidly. Sucrose is preferably consumed in fermentation, so strains with strong invertase activity are preferred, but it is also necessary to select strains that are adapted to maltose utilization, especially for dough that contains little or no sucrose [22]. The ability to ferment maltose is linked to fermentation performance, because maltose is a significant source of carbon. When glucose and fructose are available, maltose-utilization enzymes are repressed causing a lag phase in CO2 production until the genes encoding for the maltose-utilization pathway are induced, thus in S. cerevisiae strain selection, the ability to ferment maltose at a high speed is a desirable feature [98]. When sucrose is added strain osmo-tolerance is to be taken into consideration [22].

    Other selectable characteristics are biomass production, ethanol production, cell growth rate, dehydration, the volume of the final product, the structure, the color (carbohydrates, amino acids), cold stress-tolerance, shelf-life (acids, glycerol) [94],[98].

    The strains of S. cerevisiae that are used in bakery are mostly polyploids. A genetic diversity study among domesticated S. cerevisiae strains revealed that roughly 50% of beer and bakery strains exhibited four alleles at several microsatellite loci. This suggests polyploidization and aneuploidization events in the evolution of these strains [103], a fact that was confirmed and demonstrated by a later study [104]. That study showed that some tetraploid bakery strains, reproductively isolated from S. cerevisiae, derived from the hybridization of different diploid S. cerevisiae strains, representing a new species as defined by the biological species concept [104]. An analysis of 330 bakery strains isolated worldwide showed that 75% of the commercial bakery strains and 57% of the strains isolated from natural sourdoughs are tetraploids [98].

    A recent genomic analysis of 37 bakery strains showed that most strains clustered separately from the wine and sake lineages, suggesting a distinct evolutionary history, however they do not form a separate group like wine strains suggesting several different domestication courses [105].

    The industries can obtain yeast cultures from culture collection centers or isolate and develop their own cultures. Maintaining the cultures long-term ensures consistency of performance and quality [95]. By using the technique enrichment culture, strains with required characteristics can be isolated from natural habitats, and selected by gradually increasing exposure to the tested factors or by cultivation with high levels of those factors over time [95]. Today, fresh yeast is generally available with the form of compressed yeast with 60–75% moisture and 44% dry content. Other forms are and dry yeast and bulk liquid or cream yeast (a suspension of fresh yeast with 82% moisture) [101]. Dried yeast can be obtained in two commercial forms: active dry yeast and instant dry yeast. Active dry yeast gives much lower leavening activity than fresh yeast, is resistant to drying, to high sugar concentration, and to some inhibitors, while instant dry yeast has a higher activity than dry yeast, approaching that of compressed yeast [95],[101]. The appropriate storage conditions for the fresh yeast to preserve the enzymatic activity and has a 15-day shelf life when stored at 4 °C. If longer storage is needed, temperature at 1 °C will suffice. Frozen yeast has a 3-month shelf-life. Dry yeasts have about 1 year (active dry yeast) or 2 years (instant active dry yeast) self-life [101].

    In order to improve the characteristics of bakery products, researches study the possibility of exploiting LAB characteristics to obtain dough leavening in absence of baker's yeast, producing a ready-to-use liquid sourdough which would be added to the dough for bread Liquid sourdoughs can offer shorter, easier and more controllable procedures, properties that the industry requires [106].

    Some yeast species that could be used instead of Saccharomyces include Debaromyces, Kluyveromyces, and Schizosaccharomyces [94]. In recent studies the use and impact of different beer yeasts on wheat bread quality, instead of Baker's yeast, was investigated, showing both superior and inferior characteristics compared to the use of Baker's yeast [107].

    The beans of the tropical plant Theobroma cacao are the basic raw material for the production of chocolate [108][110]. However, raw cocoa beans are inedible, being bitter and astringent, while their aroma and flavours are not those of chocolate; thus, are subjected to fermentation to reduce the levels of polyphenols and alcaloids, causing the bitterness and astringency, and to develop flavours determining the fine organoleptics of cocoa and chocolate [108][110]. To this end, after the cocoa rods are opened, cocoa beans covered by the acidic [high concentration of citric acid] and sugar-rich (10–15% sugars) cocoa pulp are exposed to the naturally existing wild microflora and left to undergo a spontaneous fermentation [108][111].

    The micro-ecosystem of the cocoa fermentation is complex and dynamic including mainly yeasts followed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and acetic acid bacteria [AAB] [109],[112],[113]. At the beginning of fermentation, yeast under anaerobic and low pH (3–4) conditions start to ferment the pulp-sugars producing ethanol as well as numerous flavour metabolites that will determine the quality of the final products [108][111],[114]. In addition, through the action of pectinolytic enzymes, they degrade gradually the highly viscous cocoa pulp (containing 1,5% pectin) allowing the air to penetrate into the pulp [108][111] while they also metabolise citric acid causing a pH increase [108],[110],[111] conditions that favor the growth of LAB and AAB [108][111]. LAB increase pH further as they metabolize citric acid and AAB oxidize ethanol to acetic acid [[108][111]. As both ethanol and acetic acid productions are exothermic reactions the temperature grows up to 50 °C [108][110].

    According to experimental results, yeast activity is of paramount importance for the production of high-quality chocolate. Specifically, in pilot-scale cocoa fermentations carried out in the presence or absence of yeasts Ho et al., 2014 [115] observed that without yeasts there is a reduced production of ethanol, higher alcohols and esters throughout the fermentation while the chocolate produced was of inferior quality compared to the one produced when yeasts were present in fermentation. On the contrary, as the same research team reports LAB and AAB, were not proven necessary for the completion of cocoa fermentation, while their absence did not affect the organoleptic characteristics of the chocolate produced [116],[117].

    A great variety of yeasts have been isolated and characterized from cocoa beans fermentations, with S. cerevisiae being among the most prevalent in several studies [112],[118],[119],[120][126], This fact is attributed to the specific properties of S. cerevisiae including its pectinolytic activity, rapid growth at a slightly increased pH and better adaptation to stress conditions of high ethanol concentrations and high temperatures [108],[109]. As unlike the other industrial fermentation, cocoa fermentation is spontaneous and consequently poorly controlled; inoculation with selected starter cultures could ensure successful fermentations with guaranteed reproducibility [108]. To this end, S. cerevisae has gained a lot of interest and several studies have exploited strains of the species as starters in mixed or mono-cultures fermentation schemes [127],[128]. However, the dynamics and contribution of S. cerevisiae to cocoa fermentation are clearly depicted in the experimental proof of the studies in which S. cerevisiae served as the only starter culture or in comparative studies in which its presence or absence was the only parameter of differentiation. In specific, the pectinolytic activity of S. cerevisiae in inoculated cocoa fermentations has been reported to improve pulp draining up to 127% [129]. In addition, Meersman et. al., 2017 [130] in order to evaluate the role of endo-polygalacturonase [EPG] conducted cocoa pulp fermentations inoculated either with a wild type S. cerevisiae or with a deletion strain in which PGU1 gene, encoding EPG, was knocked out. As a control served the fermentation with non-inoculated pulp. As Meersman et al., 2017 [130] reported the viscosity of the pulp inoculated with the deletion strain wasn't significantly different from that of the corresponding non-fermented pulp whereas it was also by a 23.5% higher when compared to that of its counterpart fermented with the wild type strain [130]. These results render EPG the major pectinolytic enzyme of S. cerevisiae for pulp degradation.

    In addition, Lefeber et al., 2012 [131] and Ramos et al., 2014 [122], have reported that the inoculation with S. cerevisiae strains leads to a quicker consumption of pulp-sugars and to a higher production of ethanol, accelerating the fermentation process. Several studies have also focused on the impact of S. cerevisiae inoculation on the organoleptic features of the chocolates produced. Lefeber et al., 2012 [131] reported that the chocolates produced in presence of S. cerevisiae in a mixed starter culture along with LAB and AAB were characterized as fruity and were the most preferred by a trained panel compared to their counterparts produced in its absence in the starter or through spontaneous cocoa bean fermentation. To the same conclusion resulted Visintin et al., 2017 [132] that observed more fruity odors in chocolates produced in presence of S. cerevisiae and T. delbrueckii than in their counterparts fermented in presence of only T. delbrueckii. This positive influence of S. cerevisiae on the sensory characteristics can be attributed to its ability to produce desirable flavour compounds such as esters, alcohols and aldehydes conferring fruity, flowery and candy, fruity and cocoa notes, respectively [133],[134]. More specifically S. cerevisiae has been related to key flavour compounds in cocoa beans such as ethyl octanoate, 2-phenylethyl acetate, ethyl acetate, 2-methyl-butanal, 3-methyl-butanol, 2-phenylethanol, and 2-heptanol [124],[127].

    Assi-Clair et al., 2019 [135] conducted a comparative study on the performance of two S. cerevisiae strains when used as starters in cocoa fermentations. According to their results the two strains presented different profiles in regard to the production of flavour metabolites, depicted also on the organoleptic attributes of the produced chocolates, indicating that the selection of a successful starter is rather strain than species depending. Another parameter that must be taken into account is the cocoa variety used as the it was evidenced by the experimental results of Ramos et al., 2014 [122] and Menezes et al., 2016 [134] that inoculated different cocoa varieties with the same S. cerevisiae CA11 leading to chocolates with different sensory profiles, concluding that a starter culture can be appropriate for a certain cocoa variety but not for all.

    One step further, tailoring of S. cerevisiae strains has been proposed in order to obtain superior strains with a combination of desirable features [113],[114]. First, in 2015 the Meersamn et al. [114] team mated selected strains and developed a hybrid that exhibited increased thermotolerance and fermentation capacity, compared to parental strains, whereas it also produced chocolate of superior quality. Following other mating experiments in 2016, the same team reported even improved hybrids that apart from being temperature tolerant, and robust fermentors, could also produce high concentrations of desirable esters modulating the flavour of chocolate produced [113].

    Taken together, these studies underline the importance of S. cerevisiae in cocoa fermentations and point out to its exploitation as the starter culture to improve the efficiency and consistency of fermentations and thereafter the quality of commercial chocolate production.

    The history of ethanol utilization as a biofuel goes back to 1826, when the American inventor Samuel Morey designed an internal combustion engine for a boat, fueled by a mixture of ethanol and turpentine [136]. Later in 1860, Nicolaus August Otto, a German engineer, developed another internal combustion engine for which an ethanol fuel blend was used [136], followed by the American industrialist Henry Ford who constructed tractors that could be powered by ethanol [137]. The high ethanol taxes, however, as well as the much cheaper price of gasoline, prevented its use as an engine fuel. Since then, a series of historic and economic events sometimes promoted and at others opposed the idea of using ethanol as alternative energy source: the discovery of the much inexpensive petroleum, its restrictions during World Wars I and II, the oil discovery and production in the Arabic Peninsula countries and their 1970s embargo. The latter, along with the increase in fuel prizes and the environmental pollution, was a triggering event for the researchers to investigate the possibilities of alternative energy sources in a general matter. Reflecting the above expectations for inexpensive, renewable and environmentally friendly fuel, ethanol is today considered as the mostly used biofuel worldwide. The term bioethanol is used to define the amount of ethanol that is produced to be used as a fuel.

    Bioethanol can be used alone or mixed with gasoline and exhibits several advantages over petroleum fuel such as higher octane number (108), broader flammability limits, higher flame speeds and increased heats of vaporization [138], while on the other hand is less toxic, readily biodegradable and produces lesser air-borne pollutants [139].

    Bioethanol is produced from the fermentation of sugars originating by a variety of sources, since its synthetic production is prohibitive due to its high cost. Primarily, the substrates used for sugar fermentation involve plants rich in sucrose from food crops such as sugarcane, sugar beet and a variety of fruits, and starch (corn, rice, wheat, etc): the bioethanol produced from fermentation of food crops is called ‘first generation’ biofuel. However, since these feed stocks fulfill the needs of animal and human nutrition, there is a controversy concerning their use as fermentation substrates for ethanol production. Therefore, a strategy of ‘second-generation’ biofuel has been developed, in which non-food substrates belonging to the lignocellulosic biomass (wood, straw, crop and food wastes, etc.) are exploited. Subsequently, a ‘third-generation’ bioethanol has been derived from algal biomass including microalgae and macroalgae [137],[140],[141].

    United States of America use corn as the dominant feedstock for ethanol production, while Canada uses corn and wheat, Brazil sugar cane, China corn, wheat, and cassava, and European countries use primarily wheat and sugar beet to produce bioethanol [137]. Up today, USA is the largest ethanol producer worldwide for fuel utilization [142]. Ethanol production averages over a million barrels (159 million liters) per day with an annualized rate of 16 billion gallons (60 billion liters) in 2017, as reported by H. T. Kennedy in the February 17 issue of Biofuels Digest. USA and Brazil are the dominant countries in ethanol production manufacturing over 85% of the world's fuel alcohol [143].

    Alcoholic fermentation is pretty much synonymous to Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the protagonist in the industrial ethanol production among various other yeasts that synthesize ethanol by sugar fermentation. Under anaerobic conditions, S. cerevisiae uses glycolysis to catabolize sugars reaching the step of pyruvic acid formation. In follows, the latter is converted by pyruvate decarboxylase to acetaldehyde and carbon dioxide, which in turn is reduced to ethanol by alcohol dehydrogenase and releasing NAD+ at the same time. The terminal step reactions that lead to ethanol are therefore very important and constitute the basis for major fermentation industries [144].

    Although Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the dominant sugar fermenter, other yeast species are capable of producing bioethanol from sugar fermentation as well [143]. Kluyveromyces marxianus has been investigated (among other applications) for the production of bioethanol from polyfructan substrates [145]. Dekkera bruxellensis has been used for bioethanol production from hexoses as products of starch hydrolysis [146], while Scheffersomyces (Pichia) stipitis utilizes lignocelluloses substrates [147] or algal biomass [148].

    Apart from bioethanol, higher alcohols such as propanol and butanol are synthesized by genetically modified or metabolically engineered S. cerevisiae strains [149]. Propanol is suitable for engine fuel usage due to its high octane numbers. Since, however, its synthesis is very expensive, microbial strains have been tested for its production by fermentation of sugar substrates. Production of propanol in wine by yeast strains has been reported [150]. Based on this reaction, a genetically modified S. cerevisiae strain with 2-Keto acid decarboxylase (KDC) and alcohol/aldehyde dehydrogenase (ADH) activity synthesized increased amounts of propanol via 2-ketobutyrate (2KB) and could therefore be a potential for this application [151].

    Butanol, as propanol, possesses a range of physical properties such as less hygroscopy, less corrosiveness, higher energy density and octane value compared with ethanol. Therefore, it can be blended with gasoline in much higher proportions than ethanol [152]. Butanol production from yeast is genetically monitored by introducing a synthetic acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) pathway using adh1 mutants of S. cerevisiae A267T/E568K, which significantly improves the n-butanol yield [153].

    The isobutanol biosynthesis includes ketoisovalerate synthesis (an intermediate of valine biosynthesis) in the mitochondria and catabolism of this ketoacid into isobutanol in the cytosol [35].

    A number of heterologous bacterial genes encoding appropriate enzymes which lead to the increased production of isobutanol have been introduced into S. cereviasiae strains. The molecular mechanisms and genetic engineering of S. cereviasiae strains have been analytically described and reviewed by Buijs et al., 2013 [152]. This synthesis has been applied by Butalco, Butamax and Gevoare companies that have developed commercial production of isobutanol. Butamax applied the mitochondrial pathway [154], while Butalco [155] and Gevo [156] based their production on a cytosolic pathway.

    The benefits of S. cerevisiae as GRAS ethanologen have been extensively reviewed and include high rates of ethanol tolerance and production, stress tolerance, flexibility in genetic improvement and effective adaptation for large scale fermentations. On the other hand, S. cerevisiae cannot ferment certain sugars such as pentoses. Another obstacle is the accumulation of trehalose to boost the membrane as a stress response. Also, in response to osmotic stress, S. cerevisiae synthesizes the compatible solute glycerol (especially in the presence of high sugar concentrations) to protect the cells from water loss; this response, however, results in reduction of the proportion of alcohol production, which is undesirable in bioethanol fermentations. Subsequently, flocculation (the agammaegation of yeast cells into clumps) is a phenomenon that complicates the procedure in fuel alcohol plants, because flocculent yeasts do not remain in suspension to be in contact with the fermentable sugars for the duration of the fermentation [143].

    Since bioethanol is produced in fuel plants (often called biorefineries to be discriminated from the petrochemical industry), the fermentation takes place in a bioreactor, where yeast should possess tolerance in high temperature and alcohol concentration, pH alteration, and, most importantly, the achievement of the highest level of alcohol production in the shortest possible time. Therefore, because yeast is the fermentation biocatalyst, understanding yeast physiology is a key to optimizing industrial alcohol production. Various types of yeast strains have been used in fermentation for ethanol production, including wild type and recombinants obtained as hybrids, by genetic engineering, immobilization, or yeast synthetic biology approaches [141],[143].

    Nutrients supporting the fermentation of certain substrates are key factors as they influence the yeast growth, stress tolerance and ethanol production along with undesired by-products. For optimal alcohol production, yeast fermentation should be supplied with appropriate nutrients which include fermentable carbohydrates, sufficient nitrogen, vitamins, as well as oxygen at the beginning of the fermentation so that yeast synthesizes compounds as e.g. sterols to strengthen its membrane [157]. Minerals are also very important, as the decarboxylation of pyruvate by yeast is catalyzed by pyruvate decarboxylase and alcohol dehydrogenase, which in turn require magnesium and zinc, respectively [144].

    Regardless of the kind of feed stocks used, these should firstly undergo a pretreatment in order to reduce in size and facilitate the next steps. Usually, steam explosion is the most efficient procedure combining low cost, non-environmental hazard and complete sugar recovery [158]. The substrates should then be converted to fermentable sugars, a process carried out by enzymatic treatment which provides high selectivity for each substrate, gentle treatment and low energy cost [159]. Usually, starch is converted to hexoses by alpha amylases, while hemicelluloses are converted to pentoses by glucoamylases. Lignocellulosic material is often converted to sugars by acidic hydrolysis. Fermentation is then carried out by yeasts and ethanol is further isolated by distillation and dehydration [137],[141].

    The above processes are performed by three possible mechanisms: separate hydrolysis and fermentation (SHF) followed mainly for lignocellulosic materials, simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) and simultaneous saccharification and co-fermentation (SSCF). In SSF and SSCF, enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation process occur simultaneously and therefore are preferred for their lower cost, higher ethanol yield and shorter processing time [160],[161].

    Bioethanol is produced in the bioreactor by in fed-batch, repeated batch, continuous and semicontinuous conditions [141]. In batch fermentation, where everything is added in a closed system at the beginning, the reaction manipulation is simple [162], but the high sugar concentration can act as an inhibition factor for yeast growth and therefore ethanol production [163]. In continuous fermentation, on the contrary, a bioreactor containing the fermenting yeast is constantly supplied with substrates and supporting nutrients, while the products are steadily separated from the reaction mixture [164]. The benefits include smaller volumes which lead to increased product yield and lower cost [161]. On the other hand, the long cultivation time as well as contamination risks are disadvantages for this method [165]. In fed-batch fermentation, procedures of both batch and continuous conditions are combined in order to minimize the inhibitor effects on yeast activity caused by the substrate during the batch mode by keeping it in small amounts [165]. This process exhibits many benefits and has been reported to be productive in combination with non-uniform SSF system [166].

    In a bioreactor, factors like temperature increase, pH alteration, osmotic stress and ethanol concentration can cause S. cerevisiae multiple stress phenomena which, in turn, will affect ethanol production. Α variation between 20–35 °C is acceptable for S. cerevisiae with optimum temperature growth of 30 °C, while an increase to approx. 40 °C would induce the biosynthesis of stress-response factors as heat-shock proteins and trehalose among them. The upregulation of trehalose metabolizing genes induce, in turn, a number of other genes, (for instance, those involved in ergosterol biosynthesis [167]. Subsequently, enzymes produced by S. cerevisiae or added externally are temperature-sensitive ant thus inactivated [168], hence temperature is monitored during the whole process. Ethanol causes toxic effects in yeast membrane, which are confronted by the addition of protective nutrients [169],[170]. On the other hand, osmotic stress can occur from the overproduction of glycerol by yeast, mainly observed in biofuel production plants that utilize starch and sugar feedstocks. This causes toxic effects on cells and decreased alcohol fermentation and could be avoided by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation [143]. SSF can be applied in fermentations of lignocelluloses feed stocks for second-generation bioethanol production as well, because during this procedure, acetic acid, which inhibits yeast growth, is reduced [171].

    Non-Saccharomyces strains and some bacteria have been observed as contaminants in bioethanol production and compete against Saccharomyces starters by synthesizing inhibitory products which inhibit yeast growth and ethanol productivity. The majority of the reports come from plant industries in Brazil using sugarcane, since Brazil is the largest producer of bioethanol from this feed stock. Dekkera, Schizosaccharomyces, and Candida spp. are often isolated, due to their tolerance to stress conditions [172]. On the other hand, the dominant bacteria belong to the genus Lactobacillus and exhibit high ethanol tolerance [173]. To overcome this obstacle, the cleaning and sterilization regulation should be strictly followed in plant industries [143].

    There is a tremendous number of S. cerevisiae strains used in bioethanol industry described in detail (e. g. [143],[174]). The strain requirements for an application in plant industry should include, among other parameters, stress tolerance and ethanol productivity. It has been shown that wild-type S. cerevisiae strains exhibit a high potential in fermenting sugars to ethanol compared to the commercial ones. This is the case of Brazilian fuel ethanol plants where wild-type Saccharomyces strains have been isolated from sugarcane molasses [175], or wild-type S. cerevisiae KL17 which reached an exceptionally high ethanol concentration of 96.9 g/L with a productivity of 3.46 g/L/h after simultaneous fermentation of glucose and galactose [176].

    On the other hand, improved strains can be obtained by evolutionary adaptation, in which a strain is subjected to a particular selective stress by serial inoculations in order to obtain spontaneous mutants that responded to the above conditions [177]. By this method a series of strains possessing important properties for ethanol production have been achieved, such as xylose utilization by yeast strains used in lignocellulose fermentation [178]. Moreover, by exhibiting yeast strains xylose plus acetic acid selective pressure, Wright et al., 2011 [179] isolated an improved strain fermenting xylose and resistant to acetic acid and proceeded thus furthermore in strain improvement to be used in second-generation ethanol fermentation.

    In addition, enhanced strains for certain properties can be developed by application of classical genetics, such as hybridization by crossing or protoplast fusion, as well as mutagenesis. These methods have been extensively studied by Steensels et al., 2014 [174]. For instance, hybrid strains developed by protoplast fusion between S. cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces strains which ferment xylose have been used for fermentation of Ipomea carnea biomass containing both hexoses and pentoses [180]. By hybrid strategies, appropriate strains have been developed (especially in ethanol tolerance) with natural method and therefore are not regarded as genetically modified (GM). On the other hand, many industrial strains are polyploid or aneuploid and therefore cannot be improved by mating procedures. By the crossing methods, many other characteristics apart from the desired are altered and could affect the fermentation procedure.

    Cell immobilization is a common technology followed in fermentation procedures. It exhibits a series of advantages over free cell fermentation such as high density of active cells, higher rates of conversion, while the reaction time is shortened and the product isolation is facilitated. The immobilization types include adsorption, crosslinking, encapsulation and entrapment. The most popular immobilization method for yeast is adsorption, while calcium alginate has been the most suitable carrier. A number of immobilization procedures concerning strains, carriers and ethanol productivity have been reviewed by Azhar et al., 2017 [141]. Among them, a high ethanol production of 98.48 g/L has been achieved by fermentation of sweet sorghum juice from S. cerevisiae NP 01 immobilized by adsorption on sorghum stalk [181].

    There is a remarkable variety of genetic modified yeast strains used in alcohol fuel plants, in which heterologous enzymes providing products of high added value have been introduced. Recombinant DNA technology is applied depending of the desired properties that should be provided by the recombinant strains. The reduction of glycerol production has been a challenge achieved for ethanol-producing yeasts [182]. For the fermentation of starch obtained from corn mashes (mainly in USA), commercial strains modified to express glucoamylase genes have been constructed. This way, starch is breaking down to glucose, which, in turn, is fermented in a SSF system, where glucose is slowly released and the osmotic stress is diminished [183]. Another obstacle confronted by GM yeasts is the release of pentoses after the pretreatment of lignocellulosic substrate, not fermented by wild S. cerevisiae strains. The introduction of heterologous xylose isomerase genes in wild type strains allows the complete utilization of lignocellulosic hydrolysates [184]. Thus, the development of robust yeast strains with improved metabolic pathways will continue to be critical for the fruitful operation of large-scale ethanol biorefineries.

    S. cerevisiae is undeniably the best studied and one of the most widely used eukaryotes in a wide variety of industrial processes, such as wine, food and ethanol production. Despite of the efficient adaptation of the various S. cerevisiae strains used in those processes, there is still a great potential of either optimizing existing strains, or exploit the immense natural reservoir of environmental isolates.



    Conflict of interest



    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Goffeau A, Barrell BG, Bussey H, et al. (1996) Life with 6000 genes. Science 274: 563-547. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5287.546
    [2] Wood V, Rutherford KM, Ivens A, et al. (2001) A re-annotation of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Comp Funct Genomics 2: 143-154. doi: 10.1002/cfg.86
    [3] Doolittle WF (1999) Lateral genomics. Trends Cell Biol 9: M5-8. doi: 10.1016/S0962-8924(99)01664-5
    [4] Hall C, Brachat S, Dietrich FS (2005) Contribution of horizontal gene transfer to the evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeEukaryot Cell 4: 1102-1115. doi: 10.1128/EC.4.6.1102-1115.2005
    [5] Galeote V, Novo M, Salema-Oom M, et al. (2010) FSY1, a horizontally transferred gene in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC1118 wine yeast strain, encodes a high-affinity fructose/H+ symporter. Microbiology 156: 3754-3761. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.041673-0
    [6] de Zamaroczy M, Bernardi G (1985) Sequence organization of the mitochondrial genome of yeast--a review. Gene 37: 1-17. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(85)90252-5
    [7] Foury F, Roganti T, Lecrenier N, et al. (1998) The complete sequence of the mitochondrial genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFEBS Lett 440: 325-331. doi: 10.1016/S0014-5793(98)01467-7
    [8] Futcher AB (1988) The 2 micron circle plasmid of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeYeast 4: 27-40. doi: 10.1002/yea.320040104
    [9] Wickner RB (1996) Double-stranded RNA viruses of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeMicrobiol Rev 60: 250-265. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.60.1.250-265.1996
    [10] Thomson JM, Gaucher EA, Burgan MF, et al. (2005) Resurrecting ancestral alcohol dehydrogenases from yeast. Nat Genet 37: 630-635. doi: 10.1038/ng1553
    [11] Pronk JT, Yde Steensma H, Van Dijken JP (1996) Pyruvate metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeYeast 12: 1607-1633. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(199612)12:16<1607::AID-YEA70>3.0.CO;2-4
    [12] Hagman A, Sall T, Compagno C, et al. (2013) Yeast ‘make-accumulate-consume’ life strategy evolved as a multi-step process that predates the whole genome duplication. PLoS One 8: e68734. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068734
    [13] Wolfe KH, Shields DC (1997) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome. Nature 387: 708-713. doi: 10.1038/42711
    [14] Ihmels J, Bergmann S, Gerami-Nejad M, et al. (2005) Rewiring of the yeast transcriptional network through the evolution of motif usage. Science 309: 938-940. doi: 10.1126/science.1113833
    [15] Rozpedowska E, Hellborg L, Ishchuk OP, et al. (2011) Parallel evolution of the make-accumulate-consume strategy in Saccharomyces and Dekkera yeasts. Nat Commun 2: 302. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1305
    [16] Mortimer R, Polsinelli M (1999) On the origins of wine yeast. Res Microbiol 150: 199-204. doi: 10.1016/S0923-2508(99)80036-9
    [17] Taylor MW, Tsai P, Anfang N, et al. (2014) Pyrosequencing reveals regional differences in fruit-associated fungal communities. Environ Microbiol 16: 2848-2858. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12456
    [18] Stefanini I, Dapporto L, Legras JL, et al. (2012) Role of social wasps in Saccharomyces cerevisiae ecology and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 13398-13403. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208362109
    [19] Buser CC, Newcomb RD, Gaskett AC, et al. (2014) Niche construction initiates the evolution of mutualistic interactions. Ecol Lett 17: 1257-1264. doi: 10.1111/ele.12331
    [20] Wang QM, Liu WQ, Liti G, et al. (2012) Surprisingly diverged populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in natural environments remote from human activity. Mol Ecol 21: 5404-5417. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05732.x
    [21] Camarasa C, Sanchez I, Brial P, et al. (2011) Phenotypic landscape of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during wine fermentation: evidence for origin-dependent metabolic traits. PLoS One 6: e25147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025147
    [22] Stewart GG (2014) SACCHAROMYCES | Saccharomyces cerevisiaeEncyclopedia of Food Microbiology (Second Edition) Oxford: Academic Press, 309-315. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00292-5
    [23] Hittinger CT, Steele JL, Ryder DS (2018) Diverse yeasts for diverse fermented beverages and foods. Curr Opin Biotechnol 49: 199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.10.004
    [24] McGovern PE, Glusker DL, Exner LJ, et al. (1996) Neolithic resinated wine. Nature 381: 480. doi: 10.1038/381480a0
    [25] Cavalieri D, McGovern PE, Hartl DL, et al. (2003) Evidence for S. cerevisiae fermentation in ancient wine. J Mol Evol 57 Suppl 1: S226-232. doi: 10.1007/s00239-003-0031-2
    [26] Pasteur L (1860)  Mémoire sur la fermentation alcoolique Mallet-Bachelier.
    [27] Marsit S, Dequin S (2015) Diversity and adaptive evolution of Saccharomyces wine yeast: a review. FEMS Yeast Res 15: fov067. doi: 10.1093/femsyr/fov067
    [28] Bauer F, Pretorius IS (2000) Yeast stress response and fermentation efficiency: how to survive the making of wine-a review. S Afr J Enol Vitic 21: 27-51.
    [29] Eldarov MA, Kishkovskaia SA, Tanaschuk TN, et al. (2016) Genomics and biochemistry of Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeast strains. Biochemistry (Mosc) 81: 1650-1668. doi: 10.1134/S0006297916130046
    [30] Swiegers JH, Saerens SM, Pretorius IS (2016) Novel yeast strains as tools for adjusting the flavor of fermented beverages to market specifications. Biotechnol Flavor Prod 62-132. doi: 10.1002/9781118354056.ch3
    [31] Matallana E, Aranda A (2017) Biotechnological impact of stress response on wine yeast. Lett Appl Microbiol 64: 103-110. doi: 10.1111/lam.12677
    [32] Mina M, Tsaltas D (2017) Contribution of yeast in wine aroma and flavour. Yeast - industrial applications .
    [33] Cordente AG, Curtin CD, Varela C, et al. (2012) Flavour-active wine yeasts. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 96: 601-618. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4370-z
    [34] Ehrlich F (1907) Über die Bedingungen der Fuselölbildung und über ihren Zusammenhang mit dem Eiweißaufbau der Hefe. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft 40: 1027-1047. doi: 10.1002/cber.190704001156
    [35] Hazelwood LA, Daran JM, van Maris AJ, et al. (2008) The Ehrlich pathway for fusel alcohol production: a century of research on Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolism. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 2259-2266. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02625-07
    [36] Styger G, Jacobson D, Bauer FF (2011) Identifying genes that impact on aroma profiles produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the production of higher alcohols. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 91: 713-730. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3237-z
    [37] Styger G, Jacobson D, Prior BA, et al. (2013) Genetic analysis of the metabolic pathways responsible for aroma metabolite production by Saccharomyces cerevisiaeAppl Microbiol Biotechnol 97: 4429-4442. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4522-1
    [38] Swiegers JH, Pretorius IS (2005) Yeast modulation of wine flavor. Adv Appl Microbiol 57: 131-175. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2164(05)57005-9
    [39] Ugliano MA, Henschke P, Herderich M, et al. (2007) Nitrogen management is critical for wine flavour and style. Aust N Z Wine Ind J 22: 24-30.
    [40] Vilanova M, Pretorius IS, Henschke PA (2015) Influence of diammonium phosphate addition to fermentation on wine biologicals. Processing and impact on active components in Food San Diego: Academic Press, 483-491. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-404699-3.00058-5
    [41] Carrau FM, Medina K, Farina L, et al. (2008) Production of fermentation aroma compounds by Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeasts: effects of yeast assimilable nitrogen on two model strains. FEMS Yeast Res 8: 1196-1207. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00412.x
    [42] Verstrepen KJ, Van Laere SD, Vanderhaegen BM, et al. (2003) Expression levels of the yeast alcohol acetyltransferase genes ATF1, Lg-ATF1, and ATF2 control the formation of a broad range of volatile esters. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 5228-5237. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.9.5228-5237.2003
    [43] Lambrechts MG, Pretorius IS (2000) Yeast and its importance to wine aroma—A Review. S Afri J Enology Viti 21: 97-129.
    [44] Ruiz J, Kiene F, Belda I, et al. (2019) Effects on varietal aromas during wine making: a review of the impact of varietal aromas on the flavor of wine. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103: 7425-7450. doi: 10.1007/s00253-019-10008-9
    [45] Saerens SM, Delvaux FR, Verstrepen KJ, et al. (2010) Production and biological function of volatile esters in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeMicrob Biotechnol 3: 165-177. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00106.x
    [46] Mason AB, Dufour JP (2000) Alcohol acetyltransferases and the significance of ester synthesis in yeast. Yeast 16: 1287-1298. doi: 10.1002/1097-0061(200010)16:14<1287::AID-YEA613>3.0.CO;2-I
    [47] Lilly M, Lambrechts MG, Pretorius IS (2000) Effect of increased yeast alcohol acetyltransferase activity on flavor profiles of wine and distillates. Appl Environ Microbiol 66: 744-753. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.2.744-753.2000
    [48] Lilly M, Bauer FF, Lambrechts MG, et al. (2006) The effect of increased yeast alcohol acetyltransferase and esterase activity on the flavour profiles of wine and distillates. Yeast 23: 641-659. doi: 10.1002/yea.1382
    [49] Kruis AJ, Levisson M, Mars AE, et al. (2017) Ethyl acetate production by the elusive alcohol acetyltransferase from yeast. Metab Eng 41: 92-101. doi: 10.1016/j.ymben.2017.03.004
    [50] Kruis AJ, Gallone B, Jonker T, et al. (2018) Contribution of Eat1 and Other Alcohol Acyltransferases to Ester Production in Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFront Microbiol 9: 3202. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03202
    [51] Saerens SM, Verstrepen KJ, Van Laere SD, et al. (2006) The Saccharomyces cerevisiae EHT1 and EEB1 genes encode novel enzymes with medium-chain fatty acid ethyl ester synthesis and hydrolysis capacity. J Biol Chem 281: 4446-4456. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M512028200
    [52] Fukuda K, Kuwahata O, Kiyokawa Y, et al. (1996) Molecular cloning and nucleotide sequence of the isoamyl acetate-hydrolyzing esterase gene (EST2) from Saccharomyces cerevisiaeJ Ferment Bioeng 82: 8-15. doi: 10.1016/0922-338X(96)89447-5
    [53] Fukuda K, Yamamoto N, Kiyokawa Y, et al. (1998) Balance of activities of alcohol acetyltransferase and esterase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is important for production of isoamyl acetate. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 4076-4078. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.10.4076-4078.1998
    [54] Liu S-Q, Pilone GJ (2000) An overview of formation and roles of acetaldehyde in winemaking with emphasis on microbiological implications. Int J Food Sci Technol 35: 49-61. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2621.2000.00341.x
    [55] Styger G, Prior B, Bauer FF (2011) Wine flavor and aroma. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 38: 1145-1159. doi: 10.1007/s10295-011-1018-4
    [56] de Assis LJ, Zingali RB, Masuda CA, et al. (2013) Pyruvate decarboxylase activity is regulated by the Ser/Thr protein phosphatase Sit4p in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFEMS Yeast Res 13: 518-528. doi: 10.1111/1567-1364.12052
    [57] Eglinton J, Griesser M, Henschke P, et al. (2004) Yeast-mediated formation of pigmented polymers in red wine. Red wine color American Chemical Society, 7-21. doi: 10.1021/bk-2004-0886.ch002
    [58] Klosowski G, Mikulski D, Rolbiecka A, et al. (2017) Changes in the concentration of carbonyl compounds during the alcoholic fermentation process carried out with Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast. Pol J Microbiol 66: 327-334. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.4861
    [59] Romano P, Suzzi G, Turbanti L, et al. (1994) Acetaldehyde production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae wine yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Lett 118: 213-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1994.tb06830.x
    [60] Schuller D, Casal M (2005) The use of genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains in the wine industry. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 68: 292-304. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-1994-2
    [61] Scacco A, Oliva D, Di Maio S, et al. (2012) Indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains and their influence on the quality of Cataratto, Inzolia and Grillo white wines. Food Res Int 46: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.10.038
    [62] Alves Z, Melo A, Figueiredo AR, et al. (2015) Exploring the Saccharomyces cerevisiae volatile metabolome: indigenous versus commercial strains. PLoS One 10: e0143641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143641
    [63] Álvarez-Pérez JM, Álvarez-Rodríguez ML, Campo E, et al. (2016) Selection of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains applied to the production of Prieto Picudo Rosé wines with a different aromatic profile. S Afri J Enology Viti 35: 15.
    [64] Tufariello M, Chiriatti MA, Grieco F, et al. (2014) Influence of autochthonous Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on volatile profile of Negroamaro wines. LWT - Food Sci Technol 58: 35-48. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.03.016
    [65] Parapouli M, Sfakianaki A, Monokrousos N, et al. (2019) Comparative transcriptional analysis of flavour-biosynthetic genes of a native Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain fermenting in its natural must environment, vs. a commercial strain and correlation of the genes' activities with the produced flavour compounds. J Biol Res (Thessalon) 26: 5. doi: 10.1186/s40709-019-0096-8
    [66] Romano P, Capece A (2017) Wine microbiology. Starter Cultures in Food Production 255-282. doi: 10.1002/9781118933794.ch13
    [67] Bokulich NA, Thorngate JH, Richardson PM, et al. (2014) Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: E139-148. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317377110
    [68] Ciani M, Morales P, Comitini F, et al. (2016) Non-conventional yeast species for lowering ethanol content of wines. Front Microbiol 7: 642.
    [69] Maturano YP, Assof M, Fabani MP, et al. (2015) Enzymatic activities produced by mixed Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces cultures: relationship with wine volatile composition. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 108: 1239-1256. doi: 10.1007/s10482-015-0578-0
    [70] Tristezza M, Tufariello M, Capozzi V, et al. (2016) The oenological potential of hanseniaspora uvarum in simultaneous and sequential co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for industrial wine production. Front Microbiol 7: 670. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00670
    [71] Viana F, Belloch C, Valles S, et al. (2011) Monitoring a mixed starter of Hanseniaspora vineae-Saccharomyces cerevisiae in natural must: impact on 2-phenylethyl acetate production. Int J Food Microbiol 151: 235-240. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.09.005
    [72] Medina K, Boido E, Farina L, et al. (2013) Increased flavour diversity of Chardonnay wines by spontaneous fermentation and co-fermentation with Hanseniaspora vineaeFood Chem 141: 2513-2521. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.056
    [73] Kim DH, Hong YA, Park HD (2008) Co-fermentation of grape must by Issatchenkia orientalis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae reduces the malic acid content in wine. Biotechnol Lett 30: 1633-1638. doi: 10.1007/s10529-008-9726-1
    [74] Gobbi M, Comitini F, Domizio P, et al. (2013) Lachancea thermotolerans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in simultaneous and sequential co-fermentation: a strategy to enhance acidity and improve the overall quality of wine. Food Microbiol 33: 271-281. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.10.004
    [75] Comitini F, Gobbi M, Domizio P, et al. (2011) Selected non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts in controlled multistarter fermentations with Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFood Microbiol 28: 873-882. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2010.12.001
    [76] Sadineni V, Kondapalli N, Obulam VSR (2011) Effect of co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii or Metschnikowia pulcherrima on the aroma and sensory properties of mango wine. Ann Microbiol 62: 1353-1360. doi: 10.1007/s13213-011-0383-6
    [77] Parapouli M, Hatziloukas E, Drainas C, et al. (2010) The effect of Debina grapevine indigenous yeast strains of Metschnikowia and Saccharomyces on wine flavour. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 37: 85-93. doi: 10.1007/s10295-009-0651-7
    [78] Saez JS, Lopes CA, Kirs VC, et al. (2010) Enhanced volatile phenols in wine fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and spoiled with Pichia guilliermondii and Dekkera bruxellensisLett Appl Microbiol 51: 170-176.
    [79] Azzolini M, Fedrizzi B, Tosi E, et al. (2012) Effects of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed cultures on fermentation and aroma of Amarone wine. European Food Res Technol 235: 303-313. doi: 10.1007/s00217-012-1762-3
    [80] Renault P, Coulon J, de Revel G, et al. (2015) Increase of fruity aroma during mixed T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae wine fermentation is linked to specific esters enhancement. Int J Food Microbiol 207: 40-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.04.037
    [81] Izquierdo Cañas PM, García-Romero E, Heras Manso JM, et al. (2014) Influence of sequential inoculation of Wickerhamomyces anomalus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the quality of red wines. European Food Res Technol 239: 279-286. doi: 10.1007/s00217-014-2220-1
    [82] Kontoudakis N, Gonzalez E, Gil M, et al. (2011) Influence of wine pH on changes in color and polyphenol composition induced by micro-oxygenation. J Agric Food Chem 59: 1974-1984. doi: 10.1021/jf103038g
    [83] Ozturk B, Anli E (2014) Different techniques for reducing alcohol levels in wine: A review. BIO Web of Conferences 3: 02012. doi: 10.1051/bioconf/20140302012
    [84] García-Martín N, Perez-Magariño S, Ortega-Heras M, et al. (2010) Sugar reduction in musts with nanofiltration membranes to obtain low alcohol-content wines. Sep Purif Technol 76: 158-170. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2010.10.002
    [85] Salgado CM, Palacio L, Prádanos P, et al. (2015) Comparative study of red grape must nanofiltration: Laboratory and pilot plant scales. Food Bioprod Process 94: 610-620. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2014.08.007
    [86] Mira H, de Pinho MN, Guiomar A, et al. (2017) Membrane processing of grape must for control of the alcohol content in fermented beverages. J Membr Sci Res 3: 308-312.
    [87] Barrio E, González SS, Arias A, et al. (2006) Molecular mechanisms involved in the adaptive evolution of industrial yeasts. Yeasts in food and beverages Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 153-174. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-28398-0_6
    [88] Alonso-Del-Real J, Contreras-Ruiz A, Castiglioni GL, et al. (2017) The use of mixed populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. kudriavzevii to reduce ethanol content in wine: limited aeration, inoculum proportions, and sequential inoculation. Front Microbiol 8: 2087. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02087
    [89] Wang C, Mas A, Esteve-Zarzoso B (2016) The interaction between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces yeast during alcoholic fermentation is species and strain specific. Front Microbiol 7: 502.
    [90] Curiel JA, Morales P, Gonzalez R, et al. (2017) Different non-Saccharomyces yeast species stimulate nutrient consumption in S. cerevisiae mixed cultures. Front Microbiol 8: 2121. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02121
    [91] Branco P, Francisco D, Chambon C, et al. (2014) Identification of novel GAPDH-derived antimicrobial peptides secreted by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and involved in wine microbial interactions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98: 843-853. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5411-y
    [92] Perez-Torrado R, Rantsiou K, Perrone B, et al. (2017) Ecological interactions among Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains: insight into the dominance phenomenon. Sci Rep 7: 43603. doi: 10.1038/srep43603
    [93] Longo R, Blackman JW, Torley PJ, et al. (2017) Changes in volatile composition and sensory attributes of wines during alcohol content reduction. J Sci Food Agric 97: 8-16. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7757
    [94] Heitmann M, Zannini E, Arendt E (2018) Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolites produced during fermentation on bread quality parameters: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58: 1152-1164. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2016.1244153
    [95] Joseph R, Bachhawat AK (2014) Yeasts: Production and Commercial Uses. Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology, 2 Eds Oxford: Academic Press, 823-830. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00361-X
    [96] Nielsen J (2019) Yeast systems biology: model organism and cell factory. Biotechnol J 14: e1800421. doi: 10.1002/biot.201800421
    [97] Money NP (2018)  The Rise of Yeast: How the Sugar Fungus Shaped Civilization Oxford University Press.
    [98] Carbonetto B, Ramsayer J, Nidelet T, et al. (2018) Bakery yeasts, a new model for studies in ecology and evolution. Yeast 35: 591-603. doi: 10.1002/yea.3350
    [99] Duan SF, Han PJ, Wang QM, et al. (2018) The origin and adaptive evolution of domesticated populations of yeast from Far East Asia. Nat Commun 9: 2690. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05106-7
    [100] Menezes R, Tenreiro S, Macedo D, et al. (2015) From the baker to the bedside: yeast models of Parkinson's disease. Microb Cell 2: 262-279. doi: 10.15698/mic2015.08.219
    [101] Hidalgo A, Brandolini A (2014) BREAD | Bread from Wheat Flour. Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology, 2Eds Oxford: Academic Press, 303-308. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00044-6
    [102] De Vuyst L, Harth H, Van Kerrebroeck S, et al. (2016) Yeast diversity of sourdoughs and associated metabolic properties and functionalities. Int J Food Microbiol 239: 26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.018
    [103] Legras JL, Merdinoglu D, Cornuet JM, et al. (2007) Bread, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects human history. Mol Ecol 16: 2091-2102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03266.x
    [104] Albertin W, Marullo P, Aigle M, et al. (2009) Evidence for autotetraploidy associated with reproductive isolation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: towards a new domesticated species. J Evol Biol 22: 2157-2170. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01828.x
    [105] Peter J, De Chiara M, Friedrich A, et al. (2018) Genome evolution across 1,011 Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolates. Nature 556: 339-344. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0030-5
    [106] De Bellis P, Rizzello CG, Sisto A, et al. (2019) Use of a selected Leuconostoc Citreum strain as a starter for making a ‘Yeast-Free’ bread. Foods 8: 70. doi: 10.3390/foods8020070
    [107] Heitmann M, Zannini E, Arendt EK (2015) Impact of different beer yeasts on wheat dough and bread quality parameters. J Cereal Sci $V 63: 49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2015.02.008
    [108] Schwan RF, Wheals AE (2004) The microbiology of cocoa fermentation and its role in chocolate quality. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 44: 205-221. doi: 10.1080/10408690490464104
    [109] De Vuyst L, Weckx S (2016) The cocoa bean fermentation process: from ecosystem analysis to starter culture development. J Appl Microbiol 121: 5-17. doi: 10.1111/jam.13045
    [110] Aprotosoaie AC, Luca SV, Miron A (2016) Flavor chemistry of Cocoa and Cocoa products-an overview. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 15: 73-91. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12180
    [111] Gutiérrez TJ (2017) State-of-the-Art Chocolate manufacture: a review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 16: 1313-1344. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12301
    [112] Papalexandratou Z, De Vuyst L (2011) Assessment of the yeast species composition of cocoa bean fermentations in different cocoa-producing regions using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. FEMS Yeast Res 11: 564-574. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2011.00747.x
    [113] Meersman E, Steensels J, Struyf N, et al. (2016) Tuning chocolate flavor through development of thermotolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae starter cultures with increased acetate ester production. Appl Environ Microbiol 82: 732-746. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02556-15
    [114] Meersman E, Steensels J, Paulus T, et al. (2015) Breeding strategy to generate robust yeast starter cultures for Cocoa pulp fermentations. Appl Environ Microbiol 81: 6166-6176. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00133-15
    [115] Ho VT, Zhao J, Fleet G (2014) Yeasts are essential for cocoa bean fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol 174: 72-87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.12.014
    [116] Ho VT, Zhao J, Fleet G (2015) The effect of lactic acid bacteria on cocoa bean fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol 205: 54-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.03.031
    [117] Ho VTT, Fleet GH, Zhao J (2018) Unravelling the contribution of lactic acid bacteria and acetic acid bacteria to cocoa fermentation using inoculated organisms. Int J Food Microbiol 279: 43-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.04.040
    [118] Schwan RF (1998) Cocoa fermentations conducted with a defined microbial cocktail inoculum. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 1477-1483. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.4.1477-1483.1998
    [119] Jespersen L, Nielsen DS, Honholt S, et al. (2005) Occurrence and diversity of yeasts involved in fermentation of West African cocoa beans. FEMS Yeast Res 5: 441-453. doi: 10.1016/j.femsyr.2004.11.002
    [120] Daniel HM, Vrancken G, Takrama JF, et al. (2009) Yeast diversity of Ghanaian cocoa bean heap fermentations. FEMS Yeast Res 9: 774-783. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2009.00520.x
    [121] Meersman E, Steensels J, Mathawan M, et al. (2013) Detailed analysis of the microbial population in Malaysian spontaneous cocoa pulp fermentations reveals a core and variable microbiota. PLoS One 8: e81559. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081559
    [122] Ramos CL, Dias DR, Miguel M, et al. (2014) Impact of different cocoa hybrids (Theobroma cacao L.) and S. cerevisiae UFLA CA11 inoculation on microbial communities and volatile compounds of cocoa fermentation. Food Res Int 64: 908-918. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.08.033
    [123] Batista NN, Ramos CL, Ribeiro DD, et al. (2015) Dynamic behavior of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Pichia kluyveri and Hanseniaspora uvarum during spontaneous and inoculated cocoa fermentations and their effect on sensory characteristics of chocolate. LWT-Food Sci Technol 63: 221-227. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.051
    [124] Mota-Gutierrez J, Botta C, Ferrocino I, et al. (2018) Dynamics and biodiversity of bacterial and yeast communities during fermentation of Cocoa beans. Appl Environ Microbiol 84: e01164-01118. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01164-18
    [125] Ardhana MM, Fleet GH (2003) The microbial ecology of cocoa bean fermentations in Indonesia. Int J Food Microbiol 86: 87-99. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00081-3
    [126] Moreira IMdV, Miguel MGdCP, Duarte WF, et al. (2013) Microbial succession and the dynamics of metabolites and sugars during the fermentation of three different cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) hybrids. Food Res Int 54: 9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.06.001
    [127] Mota-Gutierrez J, Barbosa-Pereira L, Ferrocino I, et al. (2019) Traceability of functional volatile compounds generated on inoculated Cocoa fermentation and its potential health benefits. Nutrients 11: 884. doi: 10.3390/nu11040884
    [128] Castro-Alayo EM, Idrogo-Vasquez G, Siche R, et al. (2019) Formation of aromatic compounds precursors during fermentation of Criollo and Forastero cocoa. Heliyon 5: e01157. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01157
    [129] Buamah R, Dzogbefia V, Oldham J (1997) Pure yeast culture fermentation of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L): effect on yield of sweatings and cocoa bean quality. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 13: 457-462. doi: 10.1023/A:1018536519325
    [130] Meersman E, Struyf N, Kyomugasho C, et al. (2017) Characterization and degradation of pectic polysaccharides in cocoa pulp. J Agric Food Chem 65: 9726-9734. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03854
    [131] Lefeber T, Papalexandratou Z, Gobert W, et al. (2012) On-farm implementation of a starter culture for improved cocoa bean fermentation and its influence on the flavour of chocolates produced thereof. Food Microbiol 30: 379-392. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.12.021
    [132] Visintin S, Ramos L, Batista N, et al. (2017) Impact of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii starter cultures on cocoa beans fermentation. Int J Food Microbiol 257: 31-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.06.004
    [133] Magalhaes da Veiga Moreira I, de Figueiredo Vilela L, da Cruz Pedroso Miguel MG, et al. (2017) Impact of a microbial cocktail used as a starter culture on cocoa fermentation and chocolate flavor. Molecules 22. doi: 10.3390/molecules22050766
    [134] Menezes AGT, Batista NN, Ramos CL, et al. (2016) Investigation of chocolate produced from four different Brazilian varieties of cocoa ( Theobroma cacao L.) inoculated with Saccharomyces cerevisiaeFood Res Int 81: 83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.12.036
    [135] Assi-Clair BJ, Koné MK, Kouamé K, et al. (2019) Effect of aroma potential of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation on the volatile profile of raw cocoa and sensory attributes of chocolate produced thereof. European Food Res Technol 245: 1459-1471. doi: 10.1007/s00217-018-3181-6
    [136] Songstad D, Lakshmanan P, Chen J, et al. (2009) Historical perspective of biofuels: learning from the past to rediscover the future. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol: Plant 45: 189-192. doi: 10.1007/s11627-009-9218-6
    [137] Guo M, Song W, Buhain J (2015) Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and perspective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 42: 712-725. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.013
    [138] Balat M, Balat H (2009) Recent trends in global production and utilization of bio-ethanol fuel. Applied energy 86: 2273-2282. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.03.015
    [139] John RP, Anisha GS, Nampoothiri KM, et al. (2011) Micro and macroalgal biomass: a renewable source for bioethanol. Bioresour Technol 102: 186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.139
    [140] Nigam PS, Singh A (2011) Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Progress in energy and combustion science 37: 52-68. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003
    [141] Mohd Azhar SH, Abdulla R, Jambo SA, et al. (2017) Yeasts in sustainable bioethanol production: A review. Biochem Biophys Rep 10: 52-61.
    [142] Pilgrim C, Vierhout R (2017) Status of the worldwide fuel alcohol industry. The alcohol textbook 1-22.
    [143] Walker GM, Walker RS (2018) Enhancing yeast alcoholic fermentations. Adv Appl Microbiol 68: 87-129. doi: 10.1016/bs.aambs.2018.05.003
    [144] Walker GM (2004) Metals in yeast fermentation processes. Adv Appl Microbiol 54: 197-229. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2164(04)54008-X
    [145] Flores JA, Gschaedler A, Amaya-Delgado L, et al. (2013) Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of Agave tequilana fructans by Kluyveromyces marxianus yeasts for bioethanol and tequila production. Bioresour Technol 146: 267-273. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.078
    [146] Passoth V, Blomqvist J, Schnurer J (2007) Dekkera bruxellensis and Lactobacillus vini form a stable ethanol-producing consortium in a commercial alcohol production process. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 4354-4356. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00437-07
    [147] Liang M, Damiani A, He QP, et al. (2013) Elucidating xylose metabolism of Scheffersomyces stipitis for lignocellulosic ethanol production. ACS Sustainable Chem Eng 2: 38-48. doi: 10.1021/sc400265g
    [148] Obata O, Akunna J, Bockhorn H, et al. (2016) Ethanol production from brown seaweed using non-conventional yeasts. Bioethanology 2: 134-145.
    [149] Nandy SK, Srivastava RK (2018) A review on sustainable yeast biotechnological processes and applications. Microbiol Res 207: 83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.11.013
    [150] Giudici P, Zambonelli C, Kunkee R (1993) Increased production of n-propanol in wine by yeast strains having an impaired ability to form hydrogen sulfide. Am J Enol Vitic 44: 17-21.
    [151] Nishimura Y (2016) 1-Propanol production of S. cerevisiae engineering 2-Ketobutyrate biosynthetic pathway.
    [152] Buijs NA, Siewers V, Nielsen J (2013) Advanced biofuel production by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiaeCurr Opin Chem Biol 17: 480-488. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.03.036
    [153] Schadeweg V, Boles E (2016) n-Butanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is limited by the availability of coenzyme A and cytosolic acetyl-CoA. Biotechnol biofuels 9: 44. doi: 10.1186/s13068-016-0456-7
    [154] Anthony LC, Huang LL, Rick WY (2014) Production of isobutanol in yeast mitochondria. Google Patents.
    [155] Festel G, Boles E, Weber C, et al. (2013) Fermentative production of isobutanol with yeast. Google Patents.
    [156] Urano J, Dundon CA (2012) Cytosolic isobutanol pathway localization for the production of isobutanol. Google Patents.
    [157] Walker GM (2014) Fermentation (Industrial): media for industrial fermentations. Encyclopedia of food microbiology, 2Eds Academic Press, 769-777. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384730-0.00107-5
    [158] Alvira P, Tomas-Pejo E, Ballesteros M, et al. (2010) Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: A review. Bioresour Technol 101: 4851-4861. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.093
    [159] Yang B, Dai Z, Ding SY, et al. (2011) Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass. Biofuels 2: 421-449. doi: 10.4155/bfs.11.116
    [160] Canilha L, Chandel AK, Suzane dos Santos Milessi T, et al. (2012) Bioconversion of sugarcane biomass into ethanol: an overview about composition, pretreatment methods, detoxification of hydrolysates, enzymatic saccharification, and ethanol fermentation. BioMed Res Int 2012.
    [161] Chandel AK, Chan E, Rudravaram R, et al. (2007) Economics and environmental impact of bioethanol production technologies: an appraisal. Biotechnol Mol Biol Rev 2: 14-32.
    [162] Hadiyanto H, Ariyanti D, Aini A, et al. (2013) Batch and fed-batch fermentation system on ethanol production from whey using Kluyveromyces marxianusInt J Renewable Energy Dev 2: 127-131. doi: 10.14710/ijred.2.3.127-131
    [163] Cheng NG, Hasan M, Kumoro AC, et al. (2009) Production of ethanol by fed-batch fermentation. Pertanika J Sci Technol 17: 399-408.
    [164] Ivanova V, Petrova P, Hristov J (2011) Application in the ethanol fermentation of immobilized yeast cells in matrix of alginate/magnetic nanoparticles, on chitosan-magnetite microparticles and cellulose-coated magnetic nanoparticles. arXiv preprint arXiv 11050619.
    [165] Jain A, Chaurasia SP (2014) Bioethanol production in membrane bioreactor (MBR) system: a review. Int J Environ Res Dev 4: 387-394.
    [166] Kang Q, Appels L, Tan T, et al. (2014) Bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: current findings determine research priorities. Sci World J 2014: 298153.
    [167] Caspeta L, Chen Y, Ghiaci P, et al. (2014) Biofuels. Altered sterol composition renders yeast thermotolerant. Science 346: 75-78. doi: 10.1126/science.1258137
    [168] Phisalaphong M, Srirattana N, Tanthapanichakoon W (2006) Mathematical modeling to investigate temperature effect on kinetic parameters of ethanol fermentation. Biochem Eng J 28: 36-43. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2005.08.039
    [169] Lam FH, Ghaderi A, Fink GR, et al. (2014) Biofuels. Engineering alcohol tolerance in yeast. Science 346: 71-75. doi: 10.1126/science.1257859
    [170] Trofimova Y, Walker G, Rapoport A (2010) Anhydrobiosis in yeast: influence of calcium and magnesium ions on yeast resistance to dehydration–rehydration. FEMS Microbiol Lett 308: 55-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2010.01989.x
    [171] Medina VG, Almering MJ, van Maris AJ, et al. (2010) Elimination of glycerol production in anaerobic cultures of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain engineered to use acetic acid as an electron acceptor. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 190-195. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01772-09
    [172] Lopes ML, de Lima Paulillo SC, Godoy A, et al. (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47: 64-76. doi: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.003
    [173] Carvalho-Netto OV, Carazzolle MF, Mofatto LS, et al. (2015) Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptional reprograming due to bacterial contamination during industrial scale bioethanol production. Microb Cell Fact 14: 13. doi: 10.1186/s12934-015-0196-6
    [174] Steensels J, Snoek T, Meersman E, et al. (2014) Improving industrial yeast strains: exploiting natural and artificial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev 38: 947-995. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12073
    [175] Basso LC, de Amorim HV, de Oliveira AJ, et al. (2008) Yeast selection for fuel ethanol production in Brazil. FEMS Yeast Res 8: 1155-1163. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00428.x
    [176] Kim JH, Ryu J, Huh IY, et al. (2014) Ethanol production from galactose by a newly isolated Saccharomyces cerevisiae KL17. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 37: 1871-1878. doi: 10.1007/s00449-014-1161-1
    [177] Deparis Q, Claes A, Foulquie-Moreno MR, et al. (2017) Engineering tolerance to industrially relevant stress factors in yeast cell factories. FEMS Yeast Res 17. doi: 10.1093/femsyr/fox036
    [178] Demeke MM, Foulquie-Moreno MR, Dumortier F, et al. (2015) Rapid evolution of recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae for xylose fermentation through formation of extra-chromosomal circular DNA. PLoS Genet 11: e1005010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005010
    [179] Wright SA (2017) Worldwide distilled spirits production. The alcohol textbook, 6 Eds 23-39.
    [180] Kumari R, Pramanik K (2013) Bioethanol production from Ipomoea carnea biomass using a potential hybrid yeast strain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 171: 771-785. doi: 10.1007/s12010-013-0398-5
    [181] Ariyajaroenwong P, Laopaiboon P, Jaisil P, et al. (2012) Repeated-batch ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice by Saccharomyces cerevisiae immobilized on sweet sorghum stalks. Energies 5: 1215-1228. doi: 10.3390/en5041215
    [182] Argyros DA, Stonehouse EA (2017) Yeast train improvement for alcohol production. The alcohol textbook 287-297.
    [183] Ingledew WM (2017) Very high gravity (VHG) and associated new technologies for fuel alcohol production. The alcohol textbook 363-376.
    [184] Matsushika A, Inoue H, Kodaki T, et al. (2009) Ethanol production from xylose in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 84: 37-53. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2101-x
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Klaus B. Lengeler, Vratislav Stovicek, Ross T. Fennessy, Michael Katz, Jochen Förster, Never Change a Brewing Yeast? Why Not, There Are Plenty to Choose From, 2020, 11, 1664-8021, 10.3389/fgene.2020.582789
    2. David A I Suter, Ferenc Békés, Who is to blame for the increasing prevalence of dietary sensitivity to wheat?, 2021, 49, 0133-3720, 1, 10.1007/s42976-020-00114-0
    3. Clara Navarrete, José L. Martínez, Non-conventional yeasts as superior production platforms for sustainable fermentation based bio-manufacturing processes, 2020, 7, 2375-1495, 289, 10.3934/bioeng.2020024
    4. M. Danouche, H. El Arroussi, W. Bahafid, N. El Ghachtouli, An overview of the biosorption mechanism for the bioremediation of synthetic dyes using yeast cells, 2021, 10, 2162-2515, 58, 10.1080/21622515.2020.1869839
    5. Jennifer Molinet, Francisco A. Cubillos, Wild Yeast for the Future: Exploring the Use of Wild Strains for Wine and Beer Fermentation, 2020, 11, 1664-8021, 10.3389/fgene.2020.589350
    6. Katharina Rosam, Brian C. Monk, Michaela Lackner, Sterol 14α-Demethylase Ligand-Binding Pocket-Mediated Acquired and Intrinsic Azole Resistance in Fungal Pathogens, 2020, 7, 2309-608X, 1, 10.3390/jof7010001
    7. Kwanruthai Malairuang, Morakot Krajang, Jatuporn Sukna, Krongchan Rattanapradit, Saethawat Chamsart, High Cell Density Cultivation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with Intensive Multiple Sequential Batches Together with a Novel Technique of Fed-Batch at Cell Level (FBC), 2020, 8, 2227-9717, 1321, 10.3390/pr8101321
    8. Monica Di Paola, Niccolò Meriggi, Duccio Cavalieri, Applications of Wild Isolates of Saccharomyces Yeast for Industrial Fermentation: The Gut of Social Insects as Niche for Yeast Hybrids’ Production, 2020, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.578425
    9. Rosana Chiva, Lorena Celador-Lera, José Antonio Uña, Ana Jiménez-López, María Espinosa-Alcantud, Enrique Mateos-Horganero, Soledad Vega, María Ángeles Santos, Encarna Velázquez, Mercedes Tamame, Yeast Biodiversity in Fermented Doughs and Raw Cereal Matrices and the Study of Technological Traits of Selected Strains Isolated in Spain, 2020, 9, 2076-2607, 47, 10.3390/microorganisms9010047
    10. Niccolo’ Meriggi, Monica Di Paola, Duccio Cavalieri, Irene Stefanini, Saccharomyces cerevisiae – Insects Association: Impacts, Biogeography, and Extent, 2020, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01629
    11. Jiwon Kim, Phuong Hoang Nguyen Tran, Sun-Mi Lee, Current Challenges and Opportunities in Non-native Chemical Production by Engineered Yeasts, 2020, 8, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2020.594061
    12. Wiktoria Liszkowska, Joanna Berlowska, Yeast Fermentation at Low Temperatures: Adaptation to Changing Environmental Conditions and Formation of Volatile Compounds, 2021, 26, 1420-3049, 1035, 10.3390/molecules26041035
    13. Jinjin Peng, Luan Wang, Mengge Wang, Rui Du, Shangshang Qin, Cheng-Yun Jin, Yongjun Wei, Yeast Synthetic Biology for the Production of Lycium barbarum Polysaccharides, 2021, 26, 1420-3049, 1641, 10.3390/molecules26061641
    14. Elena Benisvy-Aharonovich, Anat Zandany, Abed Saady, Yael Kinel-Tahan, Yaron Yehoshua, Aharon Gedanken, An efficient method to produce 1,4-pentanediol from the biomass of the algae Chlorella ohadi with levulinic acid as intermediate, 2020, 11, 2589014X, 100514, 10.1016/j.biteb.2020.100514
    15. Erdem Carsanba, Manuela Pintado, Carla Oliveira, Fermentation Strategies for Production of Pharmaceutical Terpenoids in Engineered Yeast, 2021, 14, 1424-8247, 295, 10.3390/ph14040295
    16. G.P. Dillon, A. Yiannikouris, C.A. Moran, Toxicological evaluation of a glycan preparation from an enzymatic hydrolysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2021, 02732300, 104924, 10.1016/j.yrtph.2021.104924
    17. Yejin Ahn, Singeun Kim, Hyung Joo Suh, Eun Young Jung, Toxicity Evaluation by Single and Repeated Administration of Yeast Hydrolysate DNF-10, 2021, 26, 2287-1098, 75, 10.3746/pnf.2021.26.1.75
    18. Ipsita Pujari, Abitha Thomas, Vidhu Sankar Babu, Native and non-native host assessment towards metabolic pathway reconstructions of plant natural products, 2021, 30, 2215017X, e00619, 10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00619
    19. Michael J. Bradshaw, Holly P. Bartholomew, Jorge M. Fonseca, Verneta L. Gaskins, Dov Prusky, Wayne M. Jurick, Delivering the goods: Fungal secretion modulates virulence during host–pathogen interactions, 2021, 17494613, 10.1016/j.fbr.2021.03.007
    20. Renan Eugênio Araujo Piraine, Vitória Sequeira Gonçalves, Alceu Gonçalves dos Santos Junior, Rodrigo Casquero Cunha, Pedro Machado Medeiros de Albuquerque, Neida Lucia Conrad, Fábio Pereira Leivas Leite, Expression cassette and plasmid construction for Yeast Surface Display in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2021, 0141-5492, 10.1007/s10529-021-03142-w
    21. Kyung-Mi Jung, Jongbeom Park, Jueun Jang, Seok-Hwa Jung, Sang Han Lee, Soo Rin Kim, Characterization of Cold-Tolerant Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cheongdo Using Phenotype Microarray, 2021, 9, 2076-2607, 982, 10.3390/microorganisms9050982
    22. Jin Xu, Mubasher Hussain, Wenfeng Su, Qian Yao, Guandong Yang, Yu Zhong, Lin Zhou, Xiaoting Huang, Zhixiang Wang, Quliang Gu, Yifei Ren, He Li, Effects of novel cellulase (Cel 906) and probiotic yeast fermentation on antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of vine tea (Ampelopsis grossedentata), 2022, 10, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1006316
    23. Zarah Walsh-Korb, Sustainability in Heritage Wood Conservation: Challenges and Directions for Future Research, 2021, 13, 1999-4907, 18, 10.3390/f13010018
    24. Mihaela Sbarciog, Philippe Bogaerts, 2022, Observability and observers for baker's yeast growth with coordinated uptake of glucose and ammonium, 978-1-6654-6746-9, 86, 10.1109/ICSTCC55426.2022.9931804
    25. Debkumar Chakraborty, Sulogna Chatterjee, Avanthi Althuri, Sankar Ganesh Palani, S. Venkata Mohan, Sustainable enzymatic treatment of organic waste in a framework of circular economy, 2023, 370, 09608524, 128487, 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128487
    26. Ji Sung Cho, Hye Ji Oh, Young Eun Jang, Hyun Jin Kim, Areum Kim, Jong‐Am Song, Eun Jung Lee, Jeewon Lee, Synthetic pro‐peptide design to enhance the secretion of heterologous proteins by Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2022, 11, 2045-8827, 10.1002/mbo3.1300
    27. Vincent Vineeth Leo, Vinod Viswanath, Purbajyoti Deka, Dwivedi Rohini Ramji, Lallawmsangi Pachuau, William Carrie, Yogesh Malvi, Garima Singh, Bhim Pratap Singh, 2021, Chapter 12, 978-3-030-67560-8, 393, 10.1007/978-3-030-67561-5_12
    28. Nastaran Allahyari, Amir Kargaran, Ali Hosseiny, G. R. Jafari, Bryan C Daniels, The structure balance of gene-gene networks beyond pairwise interactions, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0258596, 10.1371/journal.pone.0258596
    29. David Lao-Martil, Koen Verhagen, Joep Schmitz, Bas Teusink, S. Wahl, Natal van Riel, Kinetic Modeling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Central Carbon Metabolism: Achievements, Limitations, and Opportunities, 2022, 12, 2218-1989, 74, 10.3390/metabo12010074
    30. Flávia da Silva Fernandes, Érica Simplício de Souza, Lívia Melo Carneiro, João Paulo Alves Silva, João Vicente Braga de Souza, Jacqueline da Silva Batista, Clemencia Chaves Lopez, Current Ethanol Production Requirements for the Yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2022, 2022, 1687-9198, 1, 10.1155/2022/7878830
    31. Gboyega E. Adebami, Arindam Kuila, Obinna M. Ajunwa, Samuel A. Fasiku, Michael D. Asemoloye, Genetics and metabolic engineering of yeast strains for efficient ethanol production, 2022, 45, 0145-8876, 10.1111/jfpe.13798
    32. Misun Lee, Jeroen Drenth, Milos Trajkovic, René M. de Jong, Marco W. Fraaije, Introducing an Artificial Deazaflavin Cofactor in Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2022, 11, 2161-5063, 938, 10.1021/acssynbio.1c00552
    33. Evgenia Savastru, Dumitru Bulgariu, Cătălin-Ioan Zamfir, Laura Bulgariu, Application of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the Biosorption of Co(II), Zn(II) and Cu(II) Ions from Aqueous Media, 2022, 14, 2073-4441, 976, 10.3390/w14060976
    34. Darren A Fenton, Stephen J Kiniry, Martina M Yordanova, Pavel V Baranov, John P Morrissey, Development of a ribosome profiling protocol to study translation in Kluyveromyces marxianus , 2022, 22, 1567-1364, 10.1093/femsyr/foac024
    35. Seyma Hande Tekarslan-Sahin, Adaptive Laboratory Evolution of Yeasts for Aroma Compound Production, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 372, 10.3390/fermentation8080372
    36. Olivier Perruchon, Isabelle Schmitz-Afonso, Carlos Afonso, Abdelhakim Elomri, State-of-the-art in analytical methods for metabolic profiling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2021, 170, 0026265X, 106704, 10.1016/j.microc.2021.106704
    37. Jongbeom Park, In Jung Kim, Soo Rin Kim, Nonconventional Yeasts Engineered Using the CRISPR-Cas System as Emerging Microbial Cell Factories, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 656, 10.3390/fermentation8110656
    38. Gamal M. Hamad, Amr Amer, Baher El-Nogoumy, Mohamed Ibrahim, Sabria Hassan, Shahida Anusha Siddiqui, Ahmed M. EL-Gazzar, Eman Khalifa, Sabrien A. Omar, Sarah Abd-Elmohsen Abou-Alella, Salam A. Ibrahim, Tuba Esatbeyoglu, Taha Mehany, Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Charcoal, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as Aflatoxin Adsorbents in Chocolate, 2022, 15, 2072-6651, 21, 10.3390/toxins15010021
    39. Sudip Dhakal, Ian Macreadie, 2022, 51, 9780128211779, 1, 10.1016/bs.mim.2022.02.001
    40. Yunjiao Liu, Yuyun Lu, Shao Quan Liu, The potential of spent coffee grounds hydrolysates fermented with Torulaspora delbrueckii and Pichia kluyveri for developing an alcoholic beverage: The yeasts growth and chemical compounds modulation by yeast extracts, 2021, 4, 26659271, 489, 10.1016/j.crfs.2021.07.004
    41. Eleni Bozinou, Vassilis Athanasiadis, Theodoros Chatzimitakos, Christos Ganos, Olga Gortzi, Panagiota Diamantopoulou, Seraphim Papanikolaou, Ioanna Chinou, Stavros I. Lalas, Essential Oil of Greek Citrus sinensis cv New Hall - Citrus aurantium Pericarp: Effect upon Cellular Lipid Composition and Growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Antimicrobial Activity against Bacteria, Fungi, and Human Pathogenic Microorganisms, 2023, 11, 2227-9717, 394, 10.3390/pr11020394
    42. Xiaoqiu Xu, Tong Li, Ke Jin, Bioinspired and Biomimetic Nanomedicines for Targeted Cancer Therapy, 2022, 14, 1999-4923, 1109, 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051109
    43. Chunyang Wei, Chengzhuang Yu, Shanshan Li, Tiejun Li, Jiyu Meng, Junwei Li, Easy-to-Operate Co-Flow Step Emulsification Device for High-Throughput Three-Dimensional Cell Culture, 2022, 12, 2079-6374, 350, 10.3390/bios12050350
    44. Ivana Regecová, Boris Semjon, Pavlina Jevinová, Peter Očenáš, Jana Výrostková, Lucia Šuľáková, Erika Nosková, Slavomír Marcinčák, Martin Bartkovský, Detection of Microbiota during the Fermentation Process of Wine in Relation to the Biogenic Amine Content, 2022, 11, 2304-8158, 3061, 10.3390/foods11193061
    45. Ana Sofia Oliveira, Joana Odila Pereira, Carlos Ferreira, Margarida Faustino, Joana Durão, Ana Margarida Pereira, Carla Maria Oliveira, Manuela E. Pintado, Ana P. Carvalho, Spent Yeast Valorization for Food Applications: Effect of Different Extraction Methodologies, 2022, 11, 2304-8158, 4002, 10.3390/foods11244002
    46. Rostislav Boltyanskiy, Mary Ann Odete, Fook Chiong Cheong, Laura A. Philips, Label-free viability assay using in-line holographic video microscopy, 2022, 12, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-022-17098-y
    47. Eny Ida Riyanti, Edy Listanto, 2022, 2462, 0094-243X, 060006, 10.1063/5.0075157
    48. Carlos Escott, Cristian Vaquero, Carmen Lopez, Iris Loira, Juan Manuel Del Fresno, Antonio Morata, Effect of acidification biotechnologies on the production of volatile compounds, lactic acid and colour in red wines after the use of pulsed light pretreatment in grapes, 2022, 248, 1438-2377, 2497, 10.1007/s00217-022-04064-1
    49. V.O. Onyema, O.C. Amadi, A.N. Moneke, R.C. Agu, A Brief Review: Saccharomyces cerevisiae Biodiversity Potential and Promising Cell Factories for Exploitation in Biotechnology and Industry Processes – West African Natural Yeasts Contribution, 2023, 2, 2772753X, 100162, 10.1016/j.focha.2022.100162
    50. Kazuki Morimoto, Tai-Ying Chiou, Masaaki Konishi, Torulaspora quercuum shows great potential for bioethanol production from macroalgal hydrolysate, 2022, 17, 2589014X, 100952, 10.1016/j.biteb.2022.100952
    51. Maria Fernanda da Silva Santos, Cyntia Silva Freitas, Giovani Carlo Verissimo da Costa, Patricia Ribeiro Pereira, Vania Margaret Flosi Paschoalin, Identification of Antibacterial Peptide Candidates Encrypted in Stress-Related and Metabolic Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteins, 2022, 15, 1424-8247, 163, 10.3390/ph15020163
    52. Ebru ÇÖTELİ, Fikret KARATAŞ, Krom III klorür tuzuna maruz kalan mayalara C vitamini katılarak mayaların antioksidan enzimlerine etkisinin araştırılması, 2021, 2146-538X, 10.17714/gumusfenbil.909183
    53. Paola Di Gianvito, Vasileios Englezos, Kalliopi Rantsiou, Luca Cocolin, Bioprotection strategies in winemaking, 2022, 364, 01681605, 109532, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109532
    54. I.E. Mbaeyi-Nwa, N.F. Ezenwegbu, Saccharomyces cerevisiae from Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) in Table Wine Using Tamarindus indica and Passiflora edulis Blends, 2022, 21, 1682296X, 134, 10.3923/biotech.2022.134.145
    55. Jaciane Lutz Ienczak, Isabela de Oliveira Pereira, Juliane Machado da Silveira, 2023, Chapter 7, 978-3-031-17345-5, 185, 10.1007/978-3-031-17346-2_7
    56. Gislane Oliveira Ribeiro, Leticia de Alencar Pereira Rodrigues, Thiale Borges Silva dos Santos, João Pedro Santos Alves, Roseane Santos Oliveira, Tatiana Barreto Rocha Nery, Josiane Dantas Viana Barbosa, Milena Botelho Pereira Soares, Innovations and developments in single cell protein: Bibliometric review and patents analysis, 2023, 13, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1093464
    57. Kevin Castillo-Mendieta, Jimmy Arias, Fernando Gonzales-Zubiate, 2023, 0, 2631-5343, 10.5772/intechopen.109903
    58. Patricia R. Pereira, Cyntia S. Freitas, Vania M. F. Paschoalin, Saccharomyces cerevisiae biomass as a source of next‐generation food preservatives: Evaluating potential proteins as a source of antimicrobial peptides , 2021, 20, 1541-4337, 4450, 10.1111/1541-4337.12798
    59. Akihito Nakanishi, Kuan Zhang, Riri Matsumoto, Naotaka Yamamoto, Estimation of Carbon Metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Acclimatized to Glycerol Assimilation with Quantitative PCR, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 1173, 10.3390/microorganisms10061173
    60. Suwapha Sawiphak, Aroon Wongjiratthiti, Chanankarn Saengprasan, Dioscorea alata as Alternative Culture Media for Fungal Cultivation and Biomass Production, 2021, 44, 2231-8542, 10.47836/pjtas.44.2.05
    61. Lazar M. Davidovic, Jelena Cumic, Stefan Dugalic, Sreten Vicentic, Zoran Sevarac, Georg Petroianu, Peter Corridon, Igor Pantic, Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix Analysis for the Detection of Discrete, Ethanol-Induced, Structural Changes in Cell Nuclei: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, 2022, 28, 1431-9276, 265, 10.1017/S1431927621013878
    62. Wiwan Samakkarn, Khanok Ratanakhanokchai, Nitnipa Soontorngun, Irina S. Druzhinina, Reprogramming of the Ethanol Stress Response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by the Transcription Factor Znf1 and Its Effect on the Biosynthesis of Glycerol and Ethanol, 2021, 87, 0099-2240, 10.1128/AEM.00588-21
    63. Osama M. Darwesh, Aya S. Eweys, Yan-Sheng Zhao, Ibrahim A. Matter, Application of environmental-safe fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for increasing the cinnamon biological activities, 2023, 10, 2197-4365, 10.1186/s40643-023-00632-9
    64. Lohith Kunyeit, Reeta P. Rao, K. A. Anu-Appaiah, Yeasts originating from fermented foods, their potential as probiotics and therapeutic implication for human health and disease, 2023, 1040-8398, 1, 10.1080/10408398.2023.2172546
    65. Ning Tang, Xiaolong Xing, Huipin Li, Honggang Jiao, Shengxin Ji, Zhilu Ai, Effect of Alkali on the Microbial Community and Aroma Profile of Chinese Steamed Bread Prepared with Chinese Traditional Starter, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 617, 10.3390/foods12030617
    66. Chanwit Kaewtapee, Nontawut Jantra, Krittaya Petchpoung, Choawit Rakangthong, Chaiyapoom Bunchasak, Chemical composition and standardized ileal digestibility of crude protein and amino acid in whole yeast and autolyzed yeast derived from sugarcane ethanol production fed to growing pigs, 2022, 35, 2765-0189, 1400, 10.5713/ab.21.0540
    67. Philip J. L. Bell, Ferdinand E. Paras, Sophia Mandarakas, Psyche Arcenal, Sinead Robinson-Cast, Anna S. Grobler, Paul V. Attfield, An Electro–Microbial Process to Uncouple Food Production from Photosynthesis for Application in Space Exploration, 2022, 12, 2075-1729, 1002, 10.3390/life12071002
    68. Estéfani García-Ríos, José Manuel Guillamón, Genomic Adaptations of Saccharomyces Genus to Wine Niche, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 1811, 10.3390/microorganisms10091811
    69. Regina Leong Zhi Ling, Lai Kuan Kong, Lai Huat Lim, Swee Sen Teo, Hui-Suan Ng, John Chi-Wei Lan, Kuan Shiong Khoo, Identification of microorganisms from fermented biowaste and the potential for wastewater treatment, 2023, 218, 00139351, 115013, 10.1016/j.envres.2022.115013
    70. Mohammadhassan Gholami-Shabani, Masoomeh Shams-Ghahfarokhi, Mehdi Razzaghi-Abyaneh, 2023, 10.5772/intechopen.109729
    71. Natalia Kozyrovska, Oleg Reva, Olga Podolich, Olga Kukharenko, Iryna Orlovska, Vitalia Terzova, Ganna Zubova, Ana Paula Trovatti Uetanabaro, Aristóteles Góes-Neto, Vasco Azevedo, Debmalya Barh, Cyprien Verseux, Daniela Billi, Agata Maria Kołodziejczyk, Bernard Foing, René Demets, Jean-Pierre de Vera, To Other Planets With Upgraded Millennial Kombucha in Rhythms of Sustainability and Health Support, 2021, 8, 2296-987X, 10.3389/fspas.2021.701158
    72. Jing Zou, Xuedong Chang, Past, Present, and Future Perspectives on Whey as a Promising Feedstock for Bioethanol Production by Yeast, 2022, 8, 2309-608X, 395, 10.3390/jof8040395
    73. Ryan R. Cochrane, Arina Shrestha, Mariana M. Severo de Almeida, Michelle Agyare-Tabbi, Stephanie L. Brumwell, Samir Hamadache, Jordyn S. Meaney, Daniel P. Nucifora, Henry Heng Say, Jehoshua Sharma, Maximillian P. M. Soltysiak, Cheryl Tong, Katherine Van Belois, Emma J. L. Walker, Marc-André Lachance, Gregory B. Gloor, David R. Edgell, Rebecca S. Shapiro, Bogumil J. Karas, Superior Conjugative Plasmids Delivered by Bacteria to Diverse Fungi, 2022, 2022, 2693-1257, 10.34133/2022/9802168
    74. David Henriques, Eva Balsa-Canto, Irina S. Druzhinina, The Monod Model Is Insufficient To Explain Biomass Growth in Nitrogen-Limited Yeast Fermentation, 2021, 87, 0099-2240, 10.1128/AEM.01084-21
    75. Alexandra Imre, Renátó Kovács, Kitti Pázmándi, Dániel Nemes, Ágnes Jakab, Tünde Fekete, Hanna Viktória Rácz, Ilona Dóczi, Ildikó Bácskay, Attila Gácser, Károly Kovács, László Majoros, Zoltán Farkas, István Pócsi, Walter P. Pfliegler, Virulence Factors and in-Host Selection on Phenotypes in Infectious Probiotic Yeast Isolates (Saccharomyces ‘boulardii’), 2021, 7, 2309-608X, 746, 10.3390/jof7090746
    76. Vratislav Stovicek, Laura Dato, Henrik Almqvist, Marie Schöpping, Ksenia Chekina, Lasse Ebdrup Pedersen, Anna Koza, Diogo Figueira, Freddy Tjosås, Bruno Sommer Ferreira, Jochen Forster, Gunnar Lidén, Irina Borodina, Rational and evolutionary engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for production of dicarboxylic acids from lignocellulosic biomass and exploring genetic mechanisms of the yeast tolerance to the biomass hydrolysate, 2022, 15, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-022-02121-1
    77. Manuel Villalobos-Cid, César Rivera, Eduardo I. Kessi-Pérez, Mario Inostroza-Ponta, A multi-modal algorithm based on an NSGA-II scheme for phylogenetic tree inference, 2022, 213, 03032647, 104606, 10.1016/j.biosystems.2022.104606
    78. Zeinab Awada, Léo Delmarre, Françoise Argoul, Etienne Harté, Anne Devin, Pierre Argoul, Boumediene Nedjar, 2023, Chapter 12, 978-3-031-14614-5, 93, 10.1007/978-3-031-14615-2_12
    79. Ali Zein Alabiden Tlais, Kalliopi Rantsiou, Pasquale Filannino, Luca Simone Cocolin, Ivana Cavoski, Marco Gobbetti, Raffaella Di Cagno, Ecological linkages between biotechnologically relevant autochthonous microorganisms and phenolic compounds in sugar apple fruit (Annona squamosa L.), 2023, 387, 01681605, 110057, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.110057
    80. Jaeyoung Yu, Ju-Yong Park, Yang-Hoon Kim, Jiho Min, Evaluation of Growth and Utilization Potential of Rhodobacter sphaeroides in Reused Medium, 2023, 65, 1073-6085, 441, 10.1007/s12033-022-00553-6
    81. Dries Bongaerts, Jonas De Roos, Luc De Vuyst, Johanna Björkroth, Technological and Environmental Features Determine the Uniqueness of the Lambic Beer Microbiota and Production Process, 2021, 87, 0099-2240, 10.1128/AEM.00612-21
    82. Shinnosuke Okuhama, Kaoru Nakasone, Kazuki Yamanaka, Chiho Miyazaki, Tsumugi Nakamoto, Yuki Nakashima, Masataka Kusube, Vincent Bruno, Draft Genome Sequence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae DJJ01, Isolated from Dojoji Temple in Gobo, Wakayama, Japan, 2022, 11, 2576-098X, 10.1128/mra.00113-22
    83. Camila R. Vizcaino‐Almeida, Daniel Guajardo‐Flores, Rodrigo Caroca‐Cáceres, Sergio O. Serna‐Saldívar, Miriam Briones‐García, Marco A. Lazo‐Vélez, Non‐conventional fermentation at laboratory scale of cocoa beans: Using probiotic microorganisms and substitution of mucilage by fruit pulps, 2022, 57, 0950-5423, 4307, 10.1111/ijfs.15757
    84. Nerve Zhou, Thandiwe Semumu, Amparo Gamero, Non-Conventional Yeasts as Alternatives in Modern Baking for Improved Performance and Aroma Enhancement, 2021, 7, 2311-5637, 102, 10.3390/fermentation7030102
    85. Peng Wang, Shu-Lei Jia, Guang-Lei Liu, Zhe Chi, Zhen-Ming Chi, Aureobasidium spp. and their applications in biotechnology, 2022, 116, 13595113, 72, 10.1016/j.procbio.2022.03.006
    86. Ricardo A. Ribeiro, Nuno Bourbon-Melo, Isabel Sá-Correia, The cell wall and the response and tolerance to stresses of biotechnological relevance in yeasts, 2022, 13, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.953479
    87. Anjali Shenoy, Alexander R. Davis, Elijah T. Roberts, I. Jonathan Amster, Adam W. Barb, Metabolic15N labeling of the N-glycosylated immunoglobulin G1 Fc with an engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain, 2022, 76, 0925-2738, 95, 10.1007/s10858-022-00397-x
    88. Jan-Harm Barkhuizen, Gerhardt Coetzee, Eugéne van Rensburg, Johann F. Görgens, The effect of growth rate on the production and vitality of non-Saccharomyces wine yeast in aerobic fed-batch culture, 2021, 44, 1615-7591, 2655, 10.1007/s00449-021-02634-3
    89. Nicoleta-Oana Nicula, Eduard-Marius Lungulescu, Gimi A. Rîmbu, Virgil Marinescu, Viorica Maria Corbu, Ortansa Csutak, Bioremediation of Wastewater Using Yeast Strains: An Assessment of Contaminant Removal Efficiency, 2023, 20, 1660-4601, 4795, 10.3390/ijerph20064795
    90. Levi Yafetto, Christiana Naa Atsreh Nsiah-Asamoah, Emmanuel Birikorang, George Tawia Odamtten, Giorgia Spigno, Biotechnological Application of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus delbrueckii sp. bulgaricus for Protein Enrichment of Fermented Unmalted and Malted Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), 2022, 2022, 2314-5765, 1, 10.1155/2022/2264993
    91. Maryam Koupaei, Horieh Saderi, Seyed Mahmoud Amin Marashi, Hadis Fathizadeh, Parviz Owlia, Evaluation of the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the expression of enterotoxin genes in Escherichia coli O157: H7 (EHEC) and Escherichia coli H10407 (ETEC), 2022, 164, 08824010, 105450, 10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105450
    92. Paul V. Attfield, Crucial aspects of metabolism and cell biology relating to industrial production and processing of Saccharomyces biomass, 2022, 0738-8551, 1, 10.1080/07388551.2022.2072268
    93. Gustavo P. Lorca Mandujano, Henrique C. Alves, Cleiton D. Prado, Jeferson G.O. Martins, Hosana R. Novaes, João Pedro Maia de Oliveira da Silva, Gleidson Silva Teixeira, André Ohara, Mateus H.R. Alves, Isadora C. Pedrino, Iran Malavazi, Cristina Paiva de Sousa, Anderson F. da Cunha, Identification and selection of a new Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain isolated from Brazilian ethanol fermentation process for application in beer production, 2022, 103, 07400020, 103958, 10.1016/j.fm.2021.103958
    94. Patritsia M. Stathatou, Christos E. Athanasiou, Marios Tsezos, John W. Goss, L. Camron Blackburn, Filippos Tourlomousis, Andreas Mershin, Brian W. Sheldon, Nitin P. Padture, Eric M. Darling, Huajian Gao, Neil Gershenfeld, Lead removal at trace concentrations from water by inactive yeast cells, 2022, 3, 2662-4435, 10.1038/s43247-022-00463-0
    95. Christiaan Mooiman, Jonna Bouwknegt, Wijb J C Dekker, Sanne J Wiersma, Raúl A Ortiz-Merino, Erik de Hulster, Jack T Pronk, Critical parameters and procedures for anaerobic cultivation of yeasts in bioreactors and anaerobic chambers, 2021, 21, 1567-1364, 10.1093/femsyr/foab035
    96. Antoine Huet, Mihaela Sbarciog, Philippe Bogaerts, Macroscopic Modeling of Intracellular Trehalose Concentration in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fed-batch Cultures, 2022, 55, 24058963, 391, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.126
    97. Rajveer Singh, Shivani Chandel, Arijit Ghosh, Anupam Gautam, Daniel H. Huson, V. Ravichandiran, Dipanjan Ghosh, Easy efficient HDR-based targeted knock-in in Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome using CRISPR-Cas9 system, 2022, 13, 2165-5979, 14857, 10.1080/21655979.2022.2162667
    98. Sofia Michailidou, Fotini Trikka, Konstantinos Pasentsis, George Economou Petrovits, Mary Kyritsi, Anagnostis Argiriou, Insights into the evolution of Greek style table olives microbiome stored under modified atmosphere: Biochemical implications on the product quality, 2021, 130, 09567135, 108286, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108286
    99. Mengqi Hu, Hoang V. Dinh, Yihui Shen, Patrick F. Suthers, Charles J. Foster, Catherine M. Call, Xuanjia Ye, Jimmy Pratas, Zia Fatma, Huimin Zhao, Joshua D. Rabinowitz, Costas D. Maranas, Comparative study of two Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with kinetic models at genome-scale, 2023, 76, 10967176, 1, 10.1016/j.ymben.2023.01.001
    100. Mandy Man-Hsi Lin, Paul K. Boss, Michelle E. Walker, Krista M. Sumby, Vladimir Jiranek, Influence of Kazachstania spp. on the chemical and sensory profile of red wines, 2022, 362, 01681605, 109496, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109496
    101. Jun Hu, Jianwei Chen, Qiliang Hou, Xiaojian Xu, Jing Ren, Libao Ma, Xianghua Yan, Core-predominant gut fungus Kazachstania slooffiae promotes intestinal epithelial glycolysis via lysine desuccinylation in pigs, 2023, 11, 2049-2618, 10.1186/s40168-023-01468-3
    102. Sofia L.V. Nunes, Gareth J. Mannall, Andrea C.M.E. Rayat, Integrated ultra scale-down and multivariate analysis of flocculation and centrifugation for enhanced primary recovery, 2023, 09603085, 10.1016/j.fbp.2023.02.008
    103. Awais Shabbir, Muhammad Sharif, Khurram Ashfaq, Amjad Aqib, Muhammad Saeed, Alessandro Di Cerbo, Mahmoud Alagawany, Effect of Yeast-Fermented Citrus Pulp as a Protein Source on Nutrient Intake, Digestibility, Nitrogen Balance and In Situ Digestion Kinetics in Nili Ravi Buffalo Bulls, 2021, 11, 2076-2615, 1713, 10.3390/ani11061713
    104. Yu. Ya. Khlibyshyn, I. Ya. Pochapska, Study of cultivation of yeast saccharomyces cerevisiae in different mediums, 2021, 4, 26177307, 122, 10.23939/ctas2021.02.122
    105. Ameya Pankaj Gupte, Debora Casagrande Pierantoni, Angela Conti, Leonardo Donati, Marina Basaglia, Sergio Casella, Lorenzo Favaro, Laura Corte, Gianluigi Cardinali, Renewing Lost Genetic Variability with a Classical Yeast Genetics Approach, 2023, 9, 2309-608X, 264, 10.3390/jof9020264
    106. Steffen Winkler, Katharina V. Meyer, Christopher Heuer, Carlotta Kortmann, Michaela Dehne, Janina Bahnemann, In vitro biocompatibility evaluation of a heat‐resistant 3D printing material for use in customized cell culture devices , 2022, 22, 1618-0240, 699, 10.1002/elsc.202100104
    107. Yusuf Chisti, 2023, 9780081005965, 10.1016/B978-0-12-823960-5.00089-5
    108. Jacob S. Antony, John M. Hinz, John J. Wyrick, Tips, Tricks, and Potential Pitfalls of CRISPR Genome Editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2022, 10, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2022.924914
    109. Katarína Šuchová, Csaba Fehér, Jonas L. Ravn, Soma Bedő, Peter Biely, Cecilia Geijer, Cellulose- and xylan-degrading yeasts: Enzymes, applications and biotechnological potential, 2022, 59, 07349750, 107981, 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.107981
    110. Ke Xu, Yun‐feng Zhang, Dong‐yu Guo, Lei Qin, Munaza Ashraf, Nadeem Ahmad, Recent advances in yeast genome evolution with stress tolerance for green biological manufacturing, 2022, 119, 0006-3592, 2689, 10.1002/bit.28183
    111. Md. Masirul Afroz, Md. Nayeem Hasan Kashem, K. M. Prottoy Shariar Piash, Nafisa Islam, Saccharomyces Cerevisiae as an Untapped Source of Fungal Chitosan for Antimicrobial Action, 2021, 193, 0273-2289, 3765, 10.1007/s12010-021-03639-0
    112. Yusmel González-Hernández, Emilie Michiels, Patrick Perré, A Comprehensive Mechanistic Yeast Model Able to Switch Metabolism According to Growth Conditions, 2022, 8, 2311-5637, 710, 10.3390/fermentation8120710
    113. Ulrich Ramach, Jakob Andersson, Rosmarie Schöfbeck, Markus Valtiner, Q-lipid-containing membranes show high in-plane conductivity using a membrane-on-a-chip setup, 2023, 26, 25890042, 105918, 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105918
    114. Siyi (Rossie) Luo, Timothy A. DeMarsh, Dana deRiancho, Alina Stelick, Samuel D. Alcaine, Characterization of the Fermentation and Sensory Profiles of Novel Yeast-Fermented Acid Whey Beverages, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 1204, 10.3390/foods10061204
    115. Bilal Ahmed, Mohammad Shahid, Asad Syed, Vishnu D. Rajput, Abdallah M. Elgorban, Tatiana Minkina, Ali H. Bahkali, Jintae Lee, Drought Tolerant Enterobacter sp./Leclercia adecarboxylata Secretes Indole-3-acetic Acid and Other Biomolecules and Enhances the Biological Attributes of Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek in Water Deficit Conditions, 2021, 10, 2079-7737, 1149, 10.3390/biology10111149
    116. Malek G. Hajaya, Tamir Shaqarin, Multivariable advanced nonlinear controller for bioethanol production in a non-isothermal fermentation bioreactor, 2022, 348, 09608524, 126810, 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126810
    117. Mariana Petkova, Slaveya Petrova, Velichka Spasova-Apostolova, Mladen Naydenov, Tobacco Plant Growth-Promoting and Antifungal Activities of Three Endophytic Yeast Strains, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 751, 10.3390/plants11060751
    118. Zeinab Awada, Boumediene Nedjar, RETRACTED ARTICLE: Axisymmetrical viscoelastic shell modeling of yeasts under large deformation with a two-layer cell-wall approach, 2022, 0025-6455, 10.1007/s11012-022-01585-7
    119. Shiwen Zhuang, Neil Renault, Ian Archer, A brief review on recent development of multidisciplinary engineering in fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2021, 339, 01681656, 32, 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2021.07.013
    120. Ray De Villa, Joy Roasa, Yoshinori Mine, Rong Tsao, Impact of solid-state fermentation on factors and mechanisms influencing the bioactive compounds of grains and processing by-products, 2021, 1040-8398, 1, 10.1080/10408398.2021.2018989
    121. Alfred Elikem Kwami Afedzi, Kittipong Rattanaporn, Pramuk Parakulsuksatid, Impeller selection for mixing high-solids lignocellulosic biomass in stirred tank bioreactor for ethanol production, 2022, 17, 2589014X, 100935, 10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100935
    122. Diethard Mattanovich, Pablo Ivan Nikel, Dillirani Nagarajan, Ganies Riza Aristya, Yu-Ju Lin, Jui-Jen Chang, Hong-Wei Yen, Jo-Shu Chang, Microbial cell factories for the production of polyhydroxyalkanoates, 2021, 65, 0071-1365, 337, 10.1042/EBC20200142
    123. Hawnaz Najmalddin, Seyhun Yurdugül, Haider Hamzah, Screening of enzyme activities for improvement of bread quality by potato peel addition to the yeast growth medium, 2023, 51, 22124292, 102239, 10.1016/j.fbio.2022.102239
    124. Rupesh Maurya, Nisarg Gohil, Snovia Nixon, Nilesh Kumar, Santosh B. Noronha, Debarun Dhali, Heykel Trabelsi, Khalid J. Alzahrani, Shamlan M.S. Reshamwala, Mukesh Kumar Awasthi, Suresh Ramakrishna, Vijai Singh, Rewiring of metabolic pathways in yeasts for sustainable production of biofuels, 2023, 372, 09608524, 128668, 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128668
    125. Emanuela Palomba, Valentina Tirelli, Elisabetta de Alteriis, Palma Parascandola, Carmine Landi, Stefano Mazzoleni, Massimo Sanchez, Alvaro Galli, A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor, 2021, 16, 1932-6203, e0248382, 10.1371/journal.pone.0248382
    126. Luca Torello Pianale, Peter Rugbjerg, Lisbeth Olsson, Real-Time Monitoring of the Yeast Intracellular State During Bioprocesses With a Toolbox of Biosensors, 2022, 12, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2021.802169
    127. Z. Awada, B. Nedjar, Finite viscoelastic modeling of yeast cells with an axisymmetrical shell approach, 2022, 126, 00936413, 104021, 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2022.104021
    128. Lazuardi Umar, Vira Annisa Rosandi, Rahmondia Nanda Setiadi, Beny Agustirandi, Tetty Marta Linda, Bambang Kuswandi, Amperometric microbial biosensor for sugars and sweetener classification using principal component analysis in beverages, 2023, 60, 0022-1155, 382, 10.1007/s13197-022-05625-8
    129. Biruk Hirko, Haimanot Mitiku, Abukiya Getu, Role of fermentation and microbes in cacao fermentation and their impact on cacao quality, 2023, 2662-7655, 10.1007/s43393-023-00160-9
    130. Amanda I. Bradley, Nicole M. Marsh, Heather R. Borror, Kaitlyn E. Mostoller, Amber I. Gama, Richard G. Gardner, Daniel Lew, Acute ethanol stress induces sumoylation of conserved chromatin structural proteins inSaccharomyces cerevisiae, 2021, 32, 1059-1524, 1121, 10.1091/mbc.E20-11-0715
    131. Andressa Vieira de Moraes, Marco Shizuo Owatari, Eduardo da Silva, Marina de Oliveira Pereira, Marina Piola, Cláudio Ramos, Daniel Rosa Farias, Delano Dias Schleder, Gabriel Fernandez Alves Jesus, Adolfo Jatobá, Effects of microencapsulated probiotics-supplemented diet on growth, non-specific immunity, intestinal health and resistance of juvenile Nile tilapia challenged with Aeromonas hydrophila, 2022, 287, 03778401, 115286, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115286
    132. Yizengaw Mengesha, Alemu Tebeje, Belay Tilahun, James Owusu-Kwarteng, A Review on Factors Influencing the Fermentation Process of Teff (Eragrostis teff) and Other Cereal-Based Ethiopian Injera, 2022, 2022, 2314-5765, 1, 10.1155/2022/4419955
    133. Priya Sengupta, Ramya Mohan, Ian Wheeldon, David Kisailus, Charles E. Wyman, Charles M. Cai, Prospects of thermotolerant Kluyveromyces marxianus for high solids ethanol fermentation of lignocellulosic biomass, 2022, 15, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-022-02232-9
    134. Cristian Díaz-Muñoz, Luc De Vuyst, Functional yeast starter cultures for cocoa fermentation, 2022, 133, 1365-2672, 39, 10.1111/jam.15312
    135. Daniela-Mihaela Grigore, Silvia Mironeasa, Georgeta Ciurescu, Mădălina Ungureanu-Iuga, Ana Batariuc, Narcisa Elena Babeanu, Carcass Yield and Meat Quality of Broiler Chicks Supplemented with Yeasts Bioproducts, 2023, 13, 2076-3417, 1607, 10.3390/app13031607
    136. Verônica Sayury Nishida, Adenise Lorenci Woiciechowski, Kim Kley Valladares-Diestra, Luis Alberto Zevallos Torres, Luciana Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, Arion Zandona Filho, Carlos Ricardo Soccol, Bioethanol and succinic acid co-production from imidazole-pretreated soybean hulls, 2021, 172, 09266690, 114060, 10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.114060
    137. Ramesh Doreswamy, Rajib Deb, Sachinandan De, Potential use of piggery excreta as a viable source of bioethanol production, 2021, 316, 09596526, 128246, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128246
    138. Elina Bondareva, Yuri Dekhtyar, Vladislavs Gorosko, Hermanis Sorokins, Alexander Rapoport, Correlation of Statistical Distributions of the Dimension of Yeast Cells Attached to the Substrate and Its Surface Electrical Potential, 2021, 15, 1996-1944, 6, 10.3390/ma15010006
    139. Runqi Fu, Chan Liang, Daiwen Chen, Gang Tian, Ping Zheng, Jun He, Jie Yu, Xiangbing Mao, Yuheng Luo, Junqiu Luo, Bing Yu, Yeast hydrolysate attenuates lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory responses and intestinal barrier damage in weaned piglets, 2023, 14, 2049-1891, 10.1186/s40104-023-00835-2
    140. Maria Kazou, Lena Pagiati, Elissavet Dotsika, Niki Proxenia, Yorgos Kotseridis, Effie Tsakalidou, Serge Delrot, The Microbial Terroir of the Nemea Zone Agiorgitiko cv.: A First Metataxonomic Approach, 2023, 2023, 1755-0238, 1, 10.1155/2023/8791362
    141. Kazuki Morimoto, Tai-Ying Chiou, Masaaki Konishi, Torulaspora Quercuum Shows Great Potential for Bioethanol Production from Macroalgal Hydrolysate, 2021, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.3971705
    142. Marcus Schmidt, Marianna Raczyk, FODMAP reduction strategies for nutritionally valuable baking products: current state and future challenges, 2023, 1040-8398, 1, 10.1080/10408398.2023.2195026
    143. Frank Uriel Lizarazo Suarez, Gonçalo Pereira, Fellipe da Silveira Bezerra de Mello, Enhanced Xylitol Production by a Recombinant Industrial Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Strain Using Sugarcane Straw Hydrolysate, 2022, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.4056977
    144. Guilherme Pavão, Isabela Sfalcin, Diego Bonatto, Biocontainment Techniques and Applications for Yeast Biotechnology, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 341, 10.3390/fermentation9040341
    145. Queency N. Okechukwu, Osman N. Kanwugu, Parise Adadi, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Elena G. Kovaleva, Potential of Chlorella vulgaris powder to enhance ethanol-cultured Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2023, 17, 1658-3655, 10.1080/16583655.2023.2187602
    146. Rika Indri Astuti, Muhammad Eka Prastya, Rahayu Wulan, Khairul Anam, Anja Meryandini, Current trends and future perspective of probiotic yeasts research in Indonesia, 2023, 23, 1567-1364, 10.1093/femsyr/foad013
    147. Frank Uriel Lizarazo Suarez, Gonçalo Pereira, Fellipe da Silveira Bezerra de Mello, Strategies for Improved Xylitol Production in Batch Fermentation of Sugarcane Hydrolysate Using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae, 2022, 1556-5068, 10.2139/ssrn.4100902
    148. Megha Sethi, I. B. Prasher, Sunita Kapila, 2023, Chapter 2, 978-981-19-9102-8, 39, 10.1007/978-981-19-9103-5_2
    149. Peizhou Yang, Wenjing Wu, Jianchao Chen, Suwei Jiang, Zhi Zheng, Yanhong Deng, Jiuling Lu, Hu Wang, Yong Zhou, Yuyou Geng, Kanglin Wang, Thermotolerance improvement of engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae ERG5 Delta ERG4 Delta ERG3 Delta, molecular mechanism, and its application in corn ethanol production, 2023, 16, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-023-02312-4
    150. Lanlan Hu, Xueao Ji, Jiacong Li, Yangyang Jia, Xiaohong Wang, Xiuyan Zhang, Selection of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Isolates from Helan Mountain in China for Wine Production, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 376, 10.3390/fermentation9040376
    151. Emmeran Bieringer, Uxía García Vázquez, Luisa Klein, Núria Moretó Bravo, Matthias Tobler, Dirk Weuster-Botz, Bioproduction and applications of aldobionic acids with a focus on maltobionic and cellobionic acid, 2023, 1615-7591, 10.1007/s00449-023-02872-7
    152. Tahina Onina Ranaivoarisoa, Wei Bai, Rengasamy Karthikeyan, Hope Steele, Miriam Silberman, Jennifer Olabode, Eric Conners, Brian Gallagher, Arpita Bose, Gemma Reguera, Overexpression of RuBisCO form I and II genes in Rhodopseudomonas palustris TIE-1 augments polyhydroxyalkanoate production heterotrophically and autotrophically , 2024, 90, 0099-2240, 10.1128/aem.01438-24
    153. Adewale Allen Sokan-Adeaga, Godson R.E.E. Ana, Abel Olajide Olorunnisola, Micheal Ayodeji Sokan-Adeaga, Hridoy Roy, Md Sumon Reza, Md. Shahinoor Islam, Ethanol production from cassava peels using Saccharomyces cerevisiae via ethanologenic fermentation process, 2024, 1985-9899, 10.1108/AGJSR-06-2023-0264
    154. Mohd Nor Latif, Wan Nor Roslam Wan Isahak, Alinda Samsuri, Siti Zubaidah Hasan, Wan Nabilah Manan, Zahira Yaakob, Recent Advances in the Technologies and Catalytic Processes of Ethanol Production, 2023, 13, 2073-4344, 1093, 10.3390/catal13071093
    155. Ekta Tyagi, Anjali Sachan, Prema Kumari, 2024, 9781394185863, 479, 10.1002/9781394186631.ch23
    156. Moubonny Das, Somasri Dam, Evaluation of probiotic efficacy of indigenous yeast strain, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y-89 isolated from a traditional fermented beverage of West Bengal, India having protective effect against DSS-induced colitis in experimental mice, 2024, 206, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-024-04128-8
    157. Mohsen Rahmanian, Fatemeh Oroojalian, Elham Pishavar, Prashant Kesharwani, Amirhossein Sahebkar, Nanogels, nanodiscs, yeast cells, and metallo-complexes-based curcumin delivery for therapeutic applications, 2023, 196, 00143057, 112215, 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2023.112215
    158. Chiara Leal‐Alves, Sebastien Dumont, Zhiyang Deng, Sarah Alkhaldi, Ziuwin Leung, Michelle Oeser, Steve C. C. Shih, A Microfluidic Multiplex Sorter for Strain Development, 2024, 2365-709X, 10.1002/admt.202401209
    159. Xiaoxuan Sun, Leilei Yu, Meifang Xiao, Chengcheng Zhang, Jianxing Zhao, Arjan Narbad, Wei Chen, Qixiao Zhai, Fengwei Tian, Exploring Core fermentation microorganisms, flavor compounds, and metabolic pathways in fermented Rice and wheat foods, 2025, 463, 03088146, 141019, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141019
    160. Aditya Tyagi, Bhaswati Banerjee, Swati Tyagi, 2025, 9780443214332, 81, 10.1016/B978-0-443-21433-2.00014-1
    161. Abigail John Onomu, Grace Emily Okuthe, The Application of Fungi and Their Secondary Metabolites in Aquaculture, 2024, 10, 2309-608X, 711, 10.3390/jof10100711
    162. Yijian Wu, Sai Feng, Zeao Sun, Yan Hu, Xiao Jia, Bin Zeng, An outlook to sophisticated technologies and novel developments for metabolic regulation in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae expression system, 2023, 11, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1249841
    163. Nathalie Ballet, Sarah Renaud, Hugo Roume, Fanny George, Pascal Vandekerckove, Mickaël Boyer, Mickaël Durand-Dubief, Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Multifaceted Applications in One Health and the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, 2023, 3, 2673-8392, 602, 10.3390/encyclopedia3020043
    164. Uta Gutbier, Juliane Korp, Lennart Scheufler, Kai Ostermann, Genetic modules for α‐factor pheromone controlled growth regulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 24, 1618-0240, 10.1002/elsc.202300235
    165. Yongjun Wei, 2024, 9780443155840, 229, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15584-0.00001-X
    166. Krystian Klimczak, Monika Cioch-Skoneczny, Aleksander Poreda, Evaluation of Non-Saccharomyces Yeast for Low-Alcohol Beer Production, 2024, 14, 2076-3417, 6755, 10.3390/app14156755
    167. Satwika Das, Kriti Sharma, Debosmita Sharmmah, Shagun Sharma, Surajbhan Sevda, Ashish A. Prabhu, Metabolic rewiring of microbial cell factories for improved production of succinic acid, 2024, 1, 2948-2348, 10.1186/s44316-024-00012-z
    168. Ziwen Wang, Jiaxuan Fang, Shigao Zu, Qianru Sun, Zixin Song, Jiman Geng, Dongdong Wang, Meng Li, Changtao Wang, Protective Effect of Panax notoginseng Extract Fermented by Four Different Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains on H2O2 Induced Oxidative Stress in Skin Fibroblasts, 2024, Volume 17, 1178-7015, 621, 10.2147/CCID.S443717
    169. Tariq Aziz, Zahir Shah, Abid Sarwar, Najeeb Ullah, Ayaz Ali Khan, Manal Y. Sameeh, Cui Haiying, Lin Lin, Production of bioethanol from pretreated rice straw, an integrated and mediated upstream fermentation process, 2023, 2190-6815, 10.1007/s13399-023-04283-w
    170. Meihong Zhang, Jinjia Zhang, Maoqi Hou, Shujuan Zhao, Comparative metabolomic and transcriptomic analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae W303a and CEN.PK2-1C, 2023, 39, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-023-03736-8
    171. Stellah Byakika, Ivan Muzira Mukisa, Microbial diversity, aflatoxin M1 contamination and potential lactic acid starters for commercially produced traditional fermented dairy beverages, a case of Bongo from Uganda, 2024, 159, 09586946, 106069, 10.1016/j.idairyj.2024.106069
    172. Ju-Hyeong Jung, Vinoth Kumar Ponnusamy, Gopalakrishnan Kumar, Bartłomiej Igliński, Vinod Kumar, Gergorz Piechota, Industrial–scale production of various bio–commodities by engineered MCFs: Strategies of engineering in microbial robustness, 2024, 13858947, 157679, 10.1016/j.cej.2024.157679
    173. Bilna Joseph, M. Bhavadharani, M. Lavanya, S. Nivetha, N. Baskaran, S. Vignesh, Comparative analysis of LAB and non‐LAB fermented millet drinks fortified with Chlorella sp., 2024, 3, 2770-2081, 352, 10.1002/fbe2.12102
    174. Fang Zhang, Jing Zhang, Yue Sun, Influence of an indigenous yeast, CECA, from the Ningxia wine region of China, on the fungal and bacterial dynamics and function during Cabernet Sauvignon wine fermentation, 2024, 104, 0022-5142, 8693, 10.1002/jsfa.13696
    175. Anica Dadwal, Shilpa Sharma, Tulasi Satyanarayana, Thermostable Recombinant Cellulases of the Thermophilic Mold Myceliophthora thermophila in the Bioconversion of Paddy Straw and Sugarcane Bagasse to Ethanol, 2023, 17, 1939-1242, 1029, 10.1007/s12155-023-10698-0
    176. Seiji Buma, Syun-ichi Urayama, Rei Suo, Shiro Itoi, Shigeru Okada, Akihiro Ninomiya, Mycoviruses from Aspergillus fungi involved in fermentation of dried bonito, 2024, 01681702, 199470, 10.1016/j.virusres.2024.199470
    177. Rasika Pawar, Athiya Kauser Awati, Vasudeo Zambare, Mohd Fadhil Md Din, Santhana Krishnan, Shreeshivadasan Chelliapan, 2024, Chapter 13, 978-981-97-4158-8, 249, 10.1007/978-981-97-4159-5_13
    178. Ngoc My Tieu Le, Kum-Kang So, Dae-Hyuk Kim, Oral immunization against foot-and-mouth disease virus using recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae with the improved expression of the codon-optimized VP1 fusion protein, 2024, 296, 03781135, 110192, 10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110192
    179. Luisa Frusciante, Michela Geminiani, Behnaz Shabab, Tommaso Olmastroni, Giorgia Scavello, Martina Rossi, Pierfrancesco Mastroeni, Collins Nyaberi Nyong’a, Laura Salvini, Stefania Lamponi, Maria Laura Parisi, Adalgisa Sinicropi, Lorenzo Costa, Ottavia Spiga, Alfonso Trezza, Annalisa Santucci, Exploring the Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Potential of Saffron (Crocus sativus) Tepals Extract within the Circular Bioeconomy, 2024, 13, 2076-3921, 1082, 10.3390/antiox13091082
    180. Xi Sun, Xin Zhou, Ran Yu, Xiaofang Zhou, Jun Zhang, Teng Xu, Jianmei Wang, Mengqi Li, Xiaoting Li, Min Zhang, Jian Xu, Jia Zhang, Assessing the physiological properties of baker's yeast based on single-cell Raman spectrum technology, 2025, 10, 2405805X, 110, 10.1016/j.synbio.2024.09.004
    181. Viswanada R. Bysani, Ayesha S. Alam, Arren Bar-Even, Fabian Machens, Engineering and evolution of the complete Reductive Glycine Pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for formate and CO2 assimilation, 2024, 81, 10967176, 167, 10.1016/j.ymben.2023.11.007
    182. Diksha Gour, Asha Arora, 2024, Chapter 5, 978-981-99-8528-9, 113, 10.1007/978-981-99-8529-6_5
    183. Balaji Doolam, Bishwambhar Mishra, Divyamshu Surabhi, Sanjeeb Kumar Mandal, Spoorthi Sada, Naru Rakesh Reddy, Jibanjyoti Panda, Sarvesh Rustagi, Awdhesh Kumar Mishra, Yugal Kishore Mohanta, A systematic review of potential bioactive compounds from Saccharomyces cerevisiae: exploring their applications in health promotion and food development, 2024, 1573-2975, 10.1007/s10668-024-04969-9
    184. Junaid Abid, G. Padmapriya, Diksha Thakur, Jadhav Balaji, Ashish Singh Chauhan, Mohd Asif Shah, Acetic fermentation and health effects: an in-depth examination of grain vinegars and their production technologies: a review, 2024, 22, 1947-6337, 10.1080/19476337.2024.2393758
    185. Jingrong Xie, Chufan Xiao, Yuyang Pan, Songlyu Xue, Mingtao Huang, ER stress‐induced transcriptional response reveals tolerance genes in yeast, 2024, 19, 1860-6768, 10.1002/biot.202400082
    186. Mengxin Wang, Dongmei Xia, Lijuan Yu, Qiang Hao, Mingxu Xie, Qingshuang Zhang, Yajie Zhao, Delong Meng, Yalin Yang, Chao Ran, Tsegay Teame, Zhen Zhang, Zhigang Zhou, Effects of solid-state fermentation product of yeast supplementation on liver and intestinal health, and resistance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) against spring viraemia carp virus, 2024, 18, 24056545, 408, 10.1016/j.aninu.2024.04.017
    187. Yinfeng Li, Peipei Ding, Xiaoyu Tang, Wenli Zhu, Mingzheng Huang, Mei Kang, Xiaozhu Liu, Screening and oenological property analysis of ethanol-tolerant non-Saccharomyces yeasts isolated from Rosa roxburghii Tratt, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1202440
    188. Lisa Marie Schmitz, Nicolai Kreitli, Lisa Obermaier, Nadine Weber, Michael Rychlik, Largus T. Angenent, Power-to-vitamins: producing folate (vitamin B9) from renewable electric power and CO2 with a microbial protein system, 2024, 01677799, 10.1016/j.tibtech.2024.06.014
    189. Claire L. Timlin, Fiona B. Mccracken, Sarah M. Dickerson, Patrick M. Skaggs, Jason W. Fowler, Sangita Jalukar, Craig N. Coon, Effects of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae-Derived Postbiotic in Adult Labrador Retrievers Undergoing Exercise and Transport Stress, 2024, 1, 2813-9372, 350, 10.3390/pets1030025
    190. Haohui Xie, Quliang Gu, Weiji Chen, Xiangyu Meng, Zhenyu Guo, Yue Zhang, He Li, Mitigation of oxidative stress and inflammatory factors, along with the antibrowning and antimicrobial effects of cassia seed microbial fermentation solution, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1400505
    191. Ali Raza Ishaq, Rabia Batool, Shouwen Chen, Dongbo Cai, , 2023, 978-1-83916-709-6, 355, 10.1039/9781837670291-00355
    192. Dina Yousif, Yan Wu, Alexandria Azul Gonzales, Christa Mathieu, Yan Zeng, Lee Sample, Sabrina Terando, Ting Li, Jin Xiao, Anti-Cariogenic Effects of S. cerevisiae and S. boulardii in S. mutans–C. albicans Cross-Kingdom In Vitro Models, 2024, 16, 1999-4923, 215, 10.3390/pharmaceutics16020215
    193. Alexander O’Brien, Hongwei Zhang, Daniel M. Allwood, Andy Rawsthorne, From Data to Draught: Modelling and Predicting Mixed-Culture Beer Fermentation Dynamics Using Autoregressive Recurrent Neural Networks, 2024, 5, 2673-3951, 201, 10.3390/modelling5010011
    194. Aikaterini P. Tzamourani, Vasileios Taliadouros, Ioannis Paraskevopoulos, Maria Dimopoulou, Developing a novel selection method for alcoholic fermentation starters by exploring wine yeast microbiota from Greece, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1301325
    195. Flávio Augusto de Oliveira Duarte, Kazumi Kawazaki Ramos, Chiara Gini, Rafaela Martins Morasi, Nathália Cristina Cirone Silva, Priscilla Efraim, Microbiological characterization of kombucha and biocellulose film produced with black tea and cocoa bean shell infusion, 2024, 190, 09639969, 114568, 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114568
    196. Sanni M. A. Färkkilä, Monika Mortimer, Raivo Jaaniso, Anne Kahru, Valter Kiisk, Arvo Kikas, Jekaterina Kozlova, Imbi Kurvet, Uno Mäeorg, Maarja Otsus, Kaja Kasemets, Comparison of Toxicity and Cellular Uptake of CdSe/ZnS and Carbon Quantum Dots for Molecular Tracking Using Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a Fungal Model, 2023, 14, 2079-4991, 10, 10.3390/nano14010010
    197. Eugen–Dan Radu, Vlad Mureșan, Teodora Emilia Coldea, Elena Mudura, Unconventional raw materials used in beer and beer-like beverages production: Impact on metabolomics and sensory profile, 2024, 183, 09639969, 114203, 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114203
    198. Qianming Jiang, Danielle N. Sherlock, Ahmed A. Elolimy, Ilkyu Yoon, Juan J. Loor, Feeding a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product during a gut barrier challenge in lactating Holstein cows impacts the ruminal microbiota and metabolome, 2024, 107, 00220302, 4476, 10.3168/jds.2023-24147
    199. Keisha Harrison, Roxana Navarro, Kristen Jensen, Will Cayler, Tom Nielsen, Chris Curtin, Live, Probiotic, or Neither? Microbial Composition of Retail-Available Kombucha and “Hard” Kombucha in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, 2023, 9, 2306-5710, 59, 10.3390/beverages9030059
    200. Letícia Tereza Ferla, Igor de Albuquerque Vassalli, Marcus Vinícius Gonçalves Silva, Fernanda Pinheiro Moreira Freitas, Pedro Oliveira Teixeira, Eduardo Luís Menezes de Almeida, Monique Renon Eller, Co-cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains JP14 and IM8 as strategy for high-quality mead production, 2024, 250, 1438-2377, 1093, 10.1007/s00217-023-04448-x
    201. Dominik Geier, Markus Mailänder, Iain Whitehead, Thomas Becker, Non-Invasive Characterization of Different Saccharomyces Suspensions with Ultrasound, 2024, 24, 1424-8220, 6271, 10.3390/s24196271
    202. Abdulrahman Alahmed, Senay Simsek, Enhancing Mechanical Properties of Corn Bran Arabinoxylan Films for Sustainable Food Packaging, 2024, 13, 2304-8158, 1314, 10.3390/foods13091314
    203. Jiao Zhang, Ariane Perez-Gavilan, Adriana Cunha Neves, Optimization of Solid-State Fermentation Conditions With Mixed Strains Using Box-Behnken Design for the Production of brewers’ Spent Grain Protein, 2024, 82, 0361-0470, 468, 10.1080/03610470.2024.2325748
    204. Noureddine El Messaoudi, Zeynep Ciğeroğlu, Zeynep Mine Şenol, Amal Bouich, Emine Sena Kazan-Kaya, Laila Noureen, Juliana Heloisa Pinê Américo-Pinheiro, 2024, 10, 9780443221651, 305, 10.1016/bs.apmp.2023.06.016
    205. Bruna Leal Maske, Ignácio Ruiz, Alexander da Silva Vale, Vitória de Mello Sampaio, Najua Kêmil El Kadri, Carlos Ricardo Soccol, Gilberto Vinícius Pereira, Predicting the Microbiome and Metabolome Dynamics of Natural Apple Fermentation Towards the Development of Enhanced Functional Vinegar, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 552, 10.3390/fermentation10110552
    206. Omolara Faith Amubieya, Gabriel Kehinde Olawepo, 2024, Chapter 17, 978-981-97-2427-7, 533, 10.1007/978-981-97-2428-4_17
    207. Maria do Socorro Mascarenhas, Larissa Pires Mueller, Margareth Batistote, Stress factors and cytotoxic and genotoxic action of ethanol in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 46, 2179-460X, e83730, 10.5902/2179460X83730
    208. Disha Dutta, Sombodhi Bhattacharya, Sisir Nandi, 2024, Chapter 11, 978-981-97-4234-9, 261, 10.1007/978-981-97-4235-6_11
    209. İnci Cerit, Evaluation of the Effects of Plasmolysis, Solvent, and Ultrasonication on Encapsulation of Lycopene in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cells, 2024, 1935-5130, 10.1007/s11947-024-03611-w
    210. Katharina O. Barros, Megan Mader, David J. Krause, Jasmyn Pangilinan, Bill Andreopoulos, Anna Lipzen, Stephen J. Mondo, Igor V. Grigoriev, Carlos A. Rosa, Trey K. Sato, Chris Todd Hittinger, Oxygenation influences xylose fermentation and gene expression in the yeast genera Spathaspora and Scheffersomyces, 2024, 17, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-024-02467-8
    211. Paulo Henrique Claudino, Alice Chiapetti Bolsan, Alex Batista Trentin, Deborah Catharine de Assis Leite, Naiana Cristine Gabiatti, 2024, Chapter 5, 978-3-031-71999-8, 135, 10.1007/978-3-031-72000-0_5
    212. Hoang V. Dinh, Costas D. Maranas, Evaluating proteome allocation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae phenotypes with resource balance analysis, 2023, 77, 10967176, 242, 10.1016/j.ymben.2023.04.009
    213. Muiz O Akinyemi, Obinna T Ezeokoli, Doctor M N Mthiyane, Rasheed A Adeleke, Chibundu N Ezekiel, Bacterial and yeast communities in raw milk from three dairy animal species in Nigeria, 2023, 76, 1472-765X, 10.1093/lambio/ovac010
    214. Meng-Xin Hu, Fei He, Cheng-Kai Tu, Zhe-Xin Chen, Hui Teng, Xin Shao, Ge-Rui Ren, Ya-Xin Guo, Edible electrospun zein nanofibrous scaffolds close the gaps in biofilm formation ability between microorganisms, 2023, 56, 22124292, 103394, 10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103394
    215. Ye Ji Son, Min‐Seung Jeon, Hye Yun Moon, Jiwon Kang, Da Min Jeong, Dong Wook Lee, Jae Ho Kim, Jae Yun Lim, Jeong‐Ah Seo, Jae‐Hyung Jin, Yong‐Sun Bahn, Seong‐il Eyun, Hyun Ah Kang, Integrated genomics and phenotype microarray analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae industrial strains for rice wine fermentation and recombinant protein production, 2023, 16, 1751-7915, 2161, 10.1111/1751-7915.14354
    216. Julie T. Millard, Ronald F. Peck, Tina M. Beachy, Victoria L. Hepburn, Fermentation Gone Wild: A Biochemistry Laboratory Experiment, 2023, 100, 0021-9584, 3076, 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00499
    217. Zhiluo Que, Shengnan Wang, Mengyuan Wei, Yulin Fang, Tingting Ma, Xiaoyu Wang, Xiangyu Sun, The powerful function of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in food science and other fields: a critical review, 2024, 3, 2836-774X, 167, 10.48130/fia-0024-0016
    218. Anqi Chen, Tianzhi Qu, Jeremy R. Smith, Jianghua Li, Guocheng Du, Jian Chen, Osmotic tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Implications for food and bioethanol industries, 2024, 60, 22124292, 104451, 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104451
    219. Kevin R. Stindt, Megan N. McClean, Babak Momeni, Tuning interdomain conjugation to enable in situ population modification in yeasts , 2024, 9, 2379-5077, 10.1128/msystems.00050-24
    220. Isabel Marie Grambusch, Caroline Schmitz, Cláudia Schlabitz, Rodrigo Gay Ducati, Daniel Neutzling Lehn, Claucia Fernanda Volken de Souza, Encapsulation of Saccharomyces spp. for Use as Probiotic in Food and Feed: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, 2024, 1867-1306, 10.1007/s12602-024-10331-2
    221. Yunhee Hwang, Myung Hyun Noh, Gyoo Yeol Jung, Recent advancements in flavonoid production through engineering microbial systems, 2024, 29, 1226-8372, 792, 10.1007/s12257-024-00125-2
    222. Akaraphol Watcharawipas, Kanokarn Kocharin, Weerawat Runguphan, 2023, 9780323954495, 331, 10.1016/B978-0-323-95449-5.00020-5
    223. Mohammad Danish, Mohammad Shahid, Mohammad Altaf, Anshika Tyagi, Sajad Ali, Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and biocontrol agents triggered plant defence responses against phytopathogenic fungi and improved rice growth, 2024, 133, 08855765, 102337, 10.1016/j.pmpp.2024.102337
    224. Vasudeo Zambare, Mohd Fadhil Md Din, Editorial: Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a model organism for biochemical engineering and bioprocesses, 2023, 5, 2673-2718, 10.3389/fceng.2023.1267210
    225. Paweł Chlipała, Julia Bienia, Marcelina Mazur, Monika Dymarska, Tomasz Janeczko, Efficient Production of 4’-Hydroxydihydrochalcones Using Non-Conventional Yeast Strains, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 10735, 10.3390/ijms251910735
    226. Anahit Shirvanyan, Satenik Mirzoyan, Karen Trchounian, Relationship between proton/ potassium fluxes and central carbon catabolic pathways in different Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains under osmotic stress conditions, 2023, 133, 13595113, 309, 10.1016/j.procbio.2023.09.015
    227. Larissa Escalfi Tristão, Lara Isensee Saboya de Sousa, Beatriz de Oliveira Vargas, Juliana José, Marcelo Falsarella Carazzolle, Eduardo Menoti Silva, Juliana Pimentel Galhardo, Gonçalo Amarante Guimarães Pereira, Fellipe da Silveira Bezerra de Mello, Unveiling genetic anchors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: QTL mapping identifies IRA2 as a key player in ethanol tolerance and beyond, 2024, 299, 1617-4615, 10.1007/s00438-024-02196-5
    228. Qun Li, Bin Lin, Jie Tang, Longxu An, Wei Jiang, Rui Li, Gang Zhang, Qiang Yang, Shengzhi Yang, Shenxi Chen, Studying on genetic diversity and metabolic differences of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Baijiu, 2024, 250, 1438-2377, 1619, 10.1007/s00217-024-04489-w
    229. Zeinab Awada, Boumediene Nedjar, Amine Ammar, Mechanical modeling of growth applied to Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cells, 2023, 24, 2257-7777, 29, 10.1051/meca/2023028
    230. Akihito Nakanishi, Natsumi Omino, Tomoyo Nakamura, Saki Goto, Riri Matsumoto, Misaki Yomogita, Naoki Narisawa, Manami Kimijima, Kohei Iritani, Evaluation of Cellular Responses of Heterotrophic Escherichia coli Cultured with Autotrophic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii as a Nutrient Source by Analyses Based on Microbiology and Transcriptome, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 452, 10.3390/microorganisms12030452
    231. Anqi Chen, Qiqi Si, Qingyun Xu, Chenwei Pan, Yuhan Cheng, Jian Chen, Phenotypic Characterization of Fermentation Performance and Stress Tolerance in Commercial Ale Yeast Strains, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 364, 10.3390/fermentation10070364
    232. Samina Shabbir, Weiting Wang, Mohsin Nawaz, Prerona Boruah, Muhammad Fakhar-e-Alam Kulyar, Mao Chen, Bo Wu, Panting Liu, Yonghua Dai, Lingling Sun, Qiyu Gou, Renbin Liu, Guoquan Hu, Tahira Younis, Mingxiong He, Molecular mechanism of engineered Zymomonas mobilis to furfural and acetic acid stress, 2023, 22, 1475-2859, 10.1186/s12934-023-02095-1
    233. Berna Kavakcıoğlu Yardımcı, Naringenin and caffeic acid increase ethanol production in yeast cells by reducing very high gravity fermentation-related oxidative stress, 2024, 1517-8382, 10.1007/s42770-024-01525-5
    234. Mati Ullah, Muhammad Rizwan, Ali Raza, Yutong Xia, Jianda Han, Yi Ma, Huayou Chen, Snapshot of the Probiotic Potential of Kluveromyces marxianus DMKU-1042 Using a Comparative Probiogenomics Approach, 2023, 12, 2304-8158, 4329, 10.3390/foods12234329
    235. Sahya Maulu, Sheu Odu-Onikosi, Sherilyn Abarra, Taofik Momoh, Felicia Joshua, Mark Rawling, 2024, Chapter 3, 978-981-97-4278-3, 43, 10.1007/978-981-97-4279-0_3
    236. Nazanin Abbaspour, Fermentation's pivotal role in shaping the future of plant-based foods: An integrative review of fermentation processes and their impact on sensory and health benefits, 2024, 4, 27725022, 100468, 10.1016/j.afres.2024.100468
    237. Yinfeng Li, Hubing Zhao, Xiaozhu Liu, Influence of inoculation with different non-Saccharomyces yeasts and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the aroma chemical composition and sensorial features of red dragon fruit wine, 2024, 1556-3758, 10.1515/ijfe-2024-0025
    238. Bruno Xavier, 2024, 9780323916523, 599, 10.1016/B978-0-323-91652-3.00014-9
    239. Yue Yang, Jing Hou, Jian Luan, Resistance mechanisms of Saccharomyces cerevisiae against silver nanoparticles with different sizes and coatings, 2024, 186, 02786915, 114581, 10.1016/j.fct.2024.114581
    240. Junping Zhou, Yinan Xue, Zheng Zhang, Yihong Wang, Anyi Wu, Xin Gao, Zhiqiang Liu, Yuguo Zheng, Cell factories for biosynthesis of D-glucaric acid: a fusion of static and dynamic strategies, 2024, 40, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-024-04097-6
    241. Fernanda Palladino, Flavia B. M. Alvarenga, Rita de Cássia Lacerda Brambilla Rodrigu, Igor Jorge Boggione Santos, Carlos Augusto Rosa, Diversity of Native Yeasts Isolated in Brazil and Their Biotechnological Potential for the Food Industry, 2023, 1, 2662-8473, 81, 10.1007/s43555-023-00011-7
    242. Viviana Nguyen, Yifei Li, Ting Lu, Emergence of Orchestrated and Dynamic Metabolism of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 13, 2161-5063, 1442, 10.1021/acssynbio.3c00542
    243. Manish Tiwari, Akansha Tiwari, Ankita Kataria, Komal Chauhan, 2023, Chapter 7, 978-3-031-40307-1, 147, 10.1007/978-3-031-40308-8_7
    244. Paul V. Attfield, Philip J. L. Bell, Anna S. Grobler, Reducing Carbon Intensity of Food and Fuel Production Whilst Lowering Land-Use Impacts of Biofuels, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 633, 10.3390/fermentation9070633
    245. Anqi Chen, Jifeng Yuan, 2024, 9780443155840, 153, 10.1016/B978-0-443-15584-0.00006-9
    246. Arturo Siller-Sánchez, Cristóbal N. Aguilar, Mónica L. Chávez-González, Juan A. Ascacio-Valdés, Deepak Kumar Verma, Miguel Aguilar-González, Solid-State Fermentation-Assisted Extraction of Flavonoids from Grape Pomace Using Co-Cultures, 2024, 12, 2227-9717, 2027, 10.3390/pr12092027
    247. Martin Bereta, Michal Teplan, Tomáš Zakar, Hoang Vuviet, Michal Cifra, Djamel Eddine Chafai, Biological autoluminescence enables effective monitoring of yeast cell electroporation, 2024, 19, 1860-6768, 10.1002/biot.202300475
    248. Dong My Lieu, Ly Thi Kim Vo, Han Gia Le, Tien Thi Bich Nguyen, Thuy Thi Kim Dang, Yeast cell as a potential microcapsule of bioactive compounds: an overview, 2024, 49, 2316-7874, 10.1186/s41110-024-00257-8
    249. Marcelinus Christwardana, Zahra Fauziah, Purbowatiningrum Ria Sarjono, Investigating the influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on microbial fuel cell performance through bioelectrochemical and biochemical approaches under varied operating conditions, 2024, 2190-6815, 10.1007/s13399-024-05734-8
    250. Parissa Taheri, Saeed Tarighi, Farah K. Ahmed, 2024, 9780443239502, 151, 10.1016/B978-0-443-23950-2.00001-1
    251. Kaidi Wang, Jing Chen, Jay Martiniuk, Xiangyun Ma, Qifeng Li, Vivien Measday, Xiaonan Lu, Edward G. Dudley, Species identification and strain discrimination of fermentation yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces uvarum using Raman spectroscopy and convolutional neural networks , 2023, 89, 0099-2240, 10.1128/aem.01673-23
    252. Jaffar Z. Thraeib, Ammar B. Altemimi, Alaa Jabbar Abd Al‐Manhel, Rawaa H. Tlay, Mohamed Ibrahim Younis, Tarek Gamal Abedelmaksoud, Production and characterization of bioemulsifier from local isolate of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain JZT351: Antioxidant and antimicrobial effects, 2024, 5, 2666-3066, 10.1002/efd2.70001
    253. Oluwaferanmi Esther Bamisi, Clement Olusola Ogidi, Bamidele Juliet Akinyele, Antimicrobial metabolites from Probiotics, Pleurotus ostreatus and their co-cultures against foodborne pathogens isolated from ready-to-eat foods, 2024, 74, 1869-2044, 10.1186/s13213-024-01776-5
    254. Dan Bahadur Pal, Sudeep Yadav, Sumit Kumar Jana, Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2024, Chapter 4, 978-981-97-0839-0, 75, 10.1007/978-981-97-0840-6_4
    255. Abdul Basit Haneef, Faisalul Ameen K, Muhammad Uvais P K, A review article on the microbes used for industrial and waste water treatment purposes, 2023, 10, 2394-546X, 187, 10.18231/j.ijmr.2023.034
    256. Tien T. Sword, Ghaeath S. K. Abbas, Constance B. Bailey, Cell-free protein synthesis for nonribosomal peptide synthetic biology, 2024, 3, 2813-2602, 10.3389/fntpr.2024.1353362
    257. Fatimah I. Jumare, Madihah Md. Salleh, Nurashikin Ihsan, Huszalina Hussin, Cassava waste as an animal feed treatment: past and future, 2024, 23, 1569-1705, 839, 10.1007/s11157-024-09701-7
    258. Wei Zhong, Hailong Li, Yajie Wang, Design and Construction of Artificial Biological Systems for One-Carbon Utilization, 2023, 5, 2693-1257, 10.34133/bdr.0021
    259. Suéllen P.H. Azambuja, Allan H.F. de Mélo, Bruno G. Bertozzi, Heitor P. Inoue, Viviane Y. Egawa, Carlos A. Rosa, Liliana O. Rocha, Gleidson S. Teixeira, Rosana Goldbeck, Performance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains against the application of adaptive laboratory evolution strategies for butanol tolerance, 2024, 190, 09639969, 114637, 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114637
    260. Vadim B. Krylov, Anton N. Kuznetsov, Alina V. Polyanskaya, Pavel V. Tsarapaev, Dmitry V. Yashunsky, Nikolay E. Kushlinskii, Nikolay E. Nifantiev, ASCA-related antibodies in the blood sera of healthy donors and patients with colorectal cancer: characterization with oligosaccharides related to Saccharomyces cerevisiae mannan, 2023, 10, 2296-889X, 10.3389/fmolb.2023.1296828
    261. Madhura Roy, Sonali Karhana, Md Shamsuzzaman, Mohd. Ashif Khan, Recent drug development and treatments for fungal infections, 2023, 54, 1517-8382, 1695, 10.1007/s42770-023-00999-z
    262. Eduarda Santa Helena, Anna De Falco, Daphne S. Cukierman, Adriana Gioda, Carolina Rosa Gioda, Nicolás A. Rey, Cardiotoxicity and ROS Protection Assessment of three Structure‐Related N‐Acylhydrazones with Potential for the Treatment of Neurodegenerative Diseases, 2024, 21, 1612-1872, 10.1002/cbdv.202400356
    263. Mercedes Fabiana Vargas, María Victoria Mestre, Cristina Vergara, Paola Maturano, Diego Petrignani, Virginia Pesce, Fabio Vazquez, Residual brewer’s Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts as biofertilizers in horticultural seedlings: towards a sustainable industry and agriculture, 2024, 2, 2813-7809, 10.3389/finmi.2024.1360263
    264. Razieh Sadat Mirmahdi, Tahmineh Mahoozi, Alaleh Zoghi, Naim Montazeri, Kianoush Khosravi-Darani, The roles of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds, 2024, 40, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-024-04026-7
    265. Samuel Kofi Tulashie, Clement Akonnor Osei, Rebecca Kwofie, Mavis Olayemi Olorunyomi, Hope Attagba, Oscar Opoku Boateng, Richard Adade, Precious Mattah, The potential production of biofuel from Sargassum sp.: turning the waste catastrophe into an opportunity , 2024, 15, 1759-7269, 849, 10.1080/17597269.2024.2306008
    266. Zhilong Lu, Ling Guo, Xiaoling Chen, Qi Lu, Yanling Wu, Dong Chen, Renzhi Wu, Ying Chen, Omics Sequencing of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strain with Improved Capacity for Ethanol Production, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 483, 10.3390/fermentation9050483
    267. Luca Belleggia, Andrea Osimani, Fermented fish and fermented fish-based products, an ever-growing source of microbial diversity: A literature review, 2023, 172, 09639969, 113112, 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113112
    268. Ronnie G. Willaert, Yeast Biotechnology 6.0, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 172, 10.3390/fermentation10030172
    269. Xingcun Fan, Lingfeng Cao, Xuefeng Yan, Sensitivity analysis and adaptive mutation strategy differential evolution algorithm for optimizing enzymes' turnover numbers in metabolic models, 2023, 120, 0006-3592, 2301, 10.1002/bit.28493
    270. Qianming Jiang, Danielle N Sherlock, Ahmed A Elolimy, Mario Vailati-Riboni, Ilkyu Yoon, Juan J Loor, Impact of aSaccharomyces cerevisiaefermentation product during an intestinal barrier challenge in lactating Holstein cows on ileal microbiota and markers of tissue structure and immunity, 2023, 101, 0021-8812, 10.1093/jas/skad309
    271. Cong-Han Wang, Jie Hou, Hong-Kuan Deng, Li-Juan Wang, Microbial production of mevalonate, 2023, 370, 01681656, 1, 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2023.05.005
    272. Niccolò Carlino, Aitor Blanco-Míguez, Michal Punčochář, Claudia Mengoni, Federica Pinto, Alessia Tatti, Paolo Manghi, Federica Armanini, Michele Avagliano, Coral Barcenilla, Samuel Breselge, Raul Cabrera-Rubio, Inés Calvete-Torre, Mairéad Coakley, José F. Cobo-Díaz, Francesca De Filippis, Hrituraj Dey, John Leech, Eline S. Klaassens, Stephen Knobloch, Dominic O’Neil, Narciso M. Quijada, Carlos Sabater, Sigurlaug Skírnisdóttir, Vincenzo Valentino, Liam Walsh, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Pablo Alvarez, Livio Antonielli, Elke Arendt, Federica Armanini, Aurelie Aubry, Jacob Baelum, Coral Barcenilla, Alejandro Belanche, Yaiza Benavent-Gil, Tony Blake, Aitor Blanco-Míguez, Radhika Bongoni, Mickael Boyer, Fiona Brennan, Samuel Breselge, Helgi Briem, Derek Butler, Inés Calvete-Torre, Omar Cristobal Carballo, Mireille Cardinal, Niccolò Carlino, Christian Chervaux, Christine Chopin, Natallia Clotaire, Mairead Coakley, José Francisco Cobo-Díaz, Jim Codd, Stephen Conroy, Karla Fabiola Corral-Jara, Karla-Fabiola Corral-Jara, Paul D. Cotter, Gerard Coyne, Gerard Coyne, Chris Creevey, Patricia D. Cuevas, Brendan Curran, Susana Delgado, Liesbeth Derde, Muriel Derrien, Danilo Ercolini, Ruth Gomez Exposito, María Mercedes López Fernández, Francesca De Filippis, Daniel Fordham, Hubert Galy, Asimenia Gavriilidou, Oddur Gunnarsson, Buck Hanson, Gerben Hermes, Rongcai Huang, Sharon Huws, Israel Ikoyi, Alice Jaeger, Ian Jeffery, Marc Jérôme, Pierre-Alexandre Juan, David Kenny, Annelies Kers, Karim-Franck Khinouche, Stuart Kirwan, Eline S. Klaassens, Stephen Knobloch, Kristinn Kolbeinsson, Laetitia Kolypczuk, Tanja Kostic, Fabio Ledda, John Leech, Doerte Lehmann, Françoise Leroi, Eva Lewis, Johanna Ley, Eva Lucic, Kieran Lynch, Sabrina Mace, Iain MacLaren-Lee, Lisa Mahler de Sanchez, Juergen Marchart, Abelardo Margolles, Viggó Thór Marteinsson, Giulia Masetti, Fiona McGovern, Noirin McHugh, Steven McLoughlin, Dara Meehan, Lars Mølbak, Thomas Monin, Javier Moreno, Diego Morgavi, Steven Morrison, Steffen Müench, Ana Rute Ramos Neves, Emma Neylon, Laura Nyhan, Rhona O’Kelly, Dominic O’Neil, Paul O’Toole, Abimael Ortiz-Chura, Juan Manuel Palma, Edoardo Pasolli, Delphine Passerini, Milica Pastar, Federica Pinto, Walter Pirovano, Olga Plans, Marion Policht, Aurel Pop, Bianca Pop, Milka Popova, Miguel Prieto, Narciso M. Quijada, Antje Reiss, Pedro Romero, Patricia Ruas-Madiedo, Francesco Rubino, Raul Cabrera Rubio, Lorena Ruiz, Angela Ryan, Clodagh Ryan, Carlos Sabater, Aylin Sahin, Cecile Salaun, Fernanda Godoy Santos, Carolin Schneider, Nicola Segata, Evelyne Selberherr, Angela Sessitsch, Sigurlaug Skírnisdóttir, Hauke Smidt, Paul Smith, Markus Sprenger-Haussels, Ilma Tapio, Julien Tap, Vincenzo Valentino, Martin Wagner, Aaron Walsh, Liam Walsh, Sinead M. Waters, Spike Willcocks, David R. Yáñez-Ruiz, Tianhai Yan, Min Yap, Emanuele Zannini, Véronique Zuliani, Avelino Alvarez-Ordóñez, Francesco Asnicar, Gloria Fackelmann, Vitor Heidrich, Abelardo Margolles, Viggó Thór Marteinsson, Omar Rota Stabelli, Martin Wagner, Danilo Ercolini, Paul D. Cotter, Nicola Segata, Edoardo Pasolli, Unexplored microbial diversity from 2,500 food metagenomes and links with the human microbiome, 2024, 187, 00928674, 5775, 10.1016/j.cell.2024.07.039
    273. Hongting Tang, Lianghuan Wu, Shuyuan Guo, Wenbing Cao, Wenhui Ma, Xiang Wang, Junfeng Shen, Menglin Wang, Qiannan Zhang, Mingtao Huang, Xiaozhou Luo, Jie Zeng, Jay D. Keasling, Tao Yu, Metabolic engineering of yeast for the production of carbohydrate-derived foods and chemicals from C1–3 molecules, 2023, 7, 2520-1158, 21, 10.1038/s41929-023-01063-7
    274. Elizabeth G. Silva, Pedro H.F. Rodrigues, Gabriel L. Castiglioni, Carlos A.G. Suarez, Vanessa G.P. Severino, Inti D.C. Montano, Process intensification of continuous xylitol production in a 3D printing fixedbed microbioreactor by immobilized co-culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Pachysolen tannophilus, 2023, 192, 02552701, 109522, 10.1016/j.cep.2023.109522
    275. Nunzio A. Fazio, Nunziatina Russo, Paola Foti, Alessandra Pino, Cinzia Caggia, Cinzia L. Randazzo, Inside Current Winemaking Challenges: Exploiting the Potential of Conventional and Unconventional Yeasts, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 1338, 10.3390/microorganisms11051338
    276. Romina D. Ceccoli, Dario A. Bianchi, Sofía B. Zocchi, Daniela V. Rial, Mapping the field of aroma ester biosynthesis: A review and bibliometric analysis, 2024, 146, 13595113, 587, 10.1016/j.procbio.2024.10.002
    277. Mariana Mesta-Corral, Ricardo Gómez-García, Nagamani Balagurusamy, Cristian Torres-León, Ayerim Y. Hernández-Almanza, Technological and Nutritional Aspects of Bread Production: An Overview of Current Status and Future Challenges, 2024, 13, 2304-8158, 2062, 10.3390/foods13132062
    278. Abdulkadir Özel, Alican Topaloğlu, Ömer Esen, Can Holyavkin, Mehmet Baysan, Zeynep Petek Çakar, Transcriptomic and Physiological Meta-Analysis of Multiple Stress-Resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae Strains, 2024, 4, 2673-7140, 714, 10.3390/stresses4040046
    279. Qianming Jiang, Valentino Palombo, Danielle N Sherlock, Mario Vailati-Riboni, Mariasilvia D’Andrea, Ilkyu Yoon, Juan J Loor, Alterations in ileal transcriptomics during an intestinal barrier challenge in lactating Holstein cows fed a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product identify potential regulatory processes, 2023, 101, 0021-8812, 10.1093/jas/skad277
    280. Junming Long, Jian Cai, Xiu Gao, Yu-Chen Wang, Xian-Min Huang, Ling Zhu, Investigation on screening, identification, and fermentation characteristics of Yunnan olive in the fermented liquid utilizing five strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 206, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-024-03882-z
    281. Dawid Dygas, Wiktoria Liszkowska, Aleksandra Steglińska, Michael Sulyok, Dorota Kręgiel, Joanna Berłowska, Rapeseed Meal Waste Biomass as a Single-Cell Protein Substrate for Nutritionally-Enhanced Feed Components, 2023, 11, 2227-9717, 1556, 10.3390/pr11051556
    282. Georgia Antonopoulou, Maria Kamilari, Dimitra Georgopoulou, Ioanna Ntaikou, Using Extracted Sugars from Spoiled Date Fruits as a Sustainable Feedstock for Ethanol Production by New Yeast Isolates, 2024, 29, 1420-3049, 3816, 10.3390/molecules29163816
    283. Evelyn Maluleke, Maleho Annastasia Lekganyane, Kgabo L. Maureen Moganedi, Microbial Diversity of Marula Wine during Spontaneous Fermentation, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 862, 10.3390/fermentation9100862
    284. Seung Hwan Lee, Alexander Chou, Maren Nattermann, Fayin Zhu, James M. Clomburg, Nicole Paczia, Tobias J. Erb, Ramon Gonzalez, Identification of 2-Hydroxyacyl-CoA Synthases with High Acyloin Condensation Activity for Orthogonal One-Carbon Bioconversion, 2023, 13, 2155-5435, 12007, 10.1021/acscatal.3c02373
    285. Takahiro Bamba, Yoshimi Hori, Kyohei Umebayashi, Chieko Soh, Tomohiro Hakozaki, Kazumi Toyama, Masako Osumi, Akihiko Kondo, Tomohisa Hasunuma, Comprehensive metabolic profiling of Geotrichum candidum and comparison with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 137, 13891723, 9, 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2023.10.004
    286. Vratislav Stovicek, Klaus B. Lengeler, Toni Wendt, Magnus Rasmussen, Michael Katz, Jochen Förster, Modifying flavor profiles of Saccharomyces spp. for industrial brewing using FIND-IT, a non-GMO approach for metabolic engineering of yeast, 2024, 82, 18716784, 92, 10.1016/j.nbt.2024.05.006
    287. Kimil Acosta-Pagán, Benjamín Bolaños-Rosero, Cynthia Pérez, Ana P. Ortíz, Filipa Godoy-Vitorino, Ecological competition in the oral mycobiome of Hispanic adults living in Puerto Rico associates with periodontitis, 2024, 16, 2000-2297, 10.1080/20002297.2024.2316485
    288. Guotao Chen, Guohui Shi, Yi Dai, Ruilin Zhao, Qi Wu, Graph-Based Pan-Genome Reveals the Pattern of Deleterious Mutations during the Domestication of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2024, 10, 2309-608X, 575, 10.3390/jof10080575
    289. Alane Beatriz Vermelho, Jean Vinícius Moreira, Athayde Neves Junior, Claudia Ramos da Silva, Veronica da Silva Cardoso, Ingrid Teixeira Akamine, Microbial Preservation and Contamination Control in the Baking Industry, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 231, 10.3390/fermentation10050231
    290. William Beeson, Kyle Gabriel, Christopher Cornelison, Fungi as a source of eumelanin: current understanding and prospects, 2023, 50, 1367-5435, 10.1093/jimb/kuad014
    291. Alexandru Vasile Rusu, Monica Trif, João Miguel Rocha, Microbial Secondary Metabolites via Fermentation Approaches for Dietary Supplementation Formulations, 2023, 28, 1420-3049, 6020, 10.3390/molecules28166020
    292. Chengli Jia, Yulong Wei, Junyan Shi, Huimin Zhang, Yuhang Xiao, Zhilin Gan, Guoliang Jia, Xiaolin Qian, Weiman Gao, Yijia Zhang, Ziyi Liu, Jingyue Zhang, Wenli Luan, Aidong Sun, Allergenic risk assessment of enolase leaked from Saccharomyces cerevisiae under pressurization, 2023, 56, 22124292, 103399, 10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103399
    293. Pedro Fernandez Mendoza, Katherine A. Thompson-Witrick, Skylar R. Moreno, Santiago Cárdenas-Pinto, Zhen Jia, Lincoln Zotarelli, Boce Zhang, Andrew J. MacIntosh, Brewing Beer in Microgravity: The Effect on Rate, Yeast, and Volatile Compounds, 2024, 10, 2306-5710, 47, 10.3390/beverages10020047
    294. Nagarjuna Prakash Dalbanjan, Manjunath P. Eelager, Shivayogi S. Narasagoudr, Microbial protein sources: A comprehensive review on the potential usage of fungi and cyanobacteria in sustainable food systems, 2024, 3, 29498244, 100366, 10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100366
    295. David Henriques, Romain Minebois, David dos Santos, Eladio Barrio, Amparo Querol, Eva Balsa-Canto, Sandi Orlic, A Dynamic Genome-Scale Model Identifies Metabolic Pathways Associated with Cold Tolerance in Saccharomyces kudriavzevii, 2023, 11, 2165-0497, 10.1128/spectrum.03519-22
    296. Maximilian W. D. Raas, Julien Y. Dutheil, The rate of adaptive molecular evolution in wild and domesticated Saccharomyces cerevisiae populations, 2024, 33, 0962-1083, 10.1111/mec.16980
    297. Anita E. Nwaefuna, Teun Boekhout, Mar Garcia‐Aloy, Urska Vrhovsek, Nerve Zhou, Diversity of dung beetle‐associated yeasts from pristine environments of Botswana, 2023, 40, 0749-503X, 182, 10.1002/yea.3852
    298. Lidia Tsigoriyna, Chakarvati Sango, Daniela Batovska, An Update on Microbial Biosynthesis of β-Caryophyllene, a Sesquiterpene with Multi-Pharmacological Properties, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 60, 10.3390/fermentation10010060
    299. J. Marín-Sánchez, A. Berzosa, I. Álvarez, C. Sánchez-Gimeno, J. Raso, Selective extraction of biomolecules from Saccharomyces cerevisiae assisted by high-pressure homogenization, pulsed electric fields, and heat treatment: Exploring the effect of endogenous enzymes, 2024, 207, 00236438, 116614, 10.1016/j.lwt.2024.116614
    300. Atif Khurshid Wani, Farida Rahayu, Ita Yustina, Gatot Suharto Abdul Fatah, I Ketut Kariada, Sri Satya Antarlina, Akhmad Jufri, Dicky Pamungkas, Contribution of yeast and its biomass for the preparation of industrially essential materials: A boon to circular economy, 2023, 23, 2589014X, 101508, 10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101508
    301. Pardis Sadat Mirseyed, Sareh Arjmand, Moones Rahmandoust, Shahpour Kheirabadi, Rojin Anbarteh, Green synthesis of yeast cell wall-derived carbon quantum dots with multiple biological activities, 2024, 10, 24058440, e29440, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29440
    302. Belal S. Obeidat, Meran M. Alwaked, The role of olive leaves and saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation in enhancing the performance and economic feasibility of fattening lambs, 2024, 56, 0049-4747, 10.1007/s11250-024-04040-9
    303. Nurul Izni Rusli, Ruben Van den Eeckhoudt, Catarina Fernandes, Filippo Franceschini, Dimitrios Konstantinidis, Kevin J. Verstrepen, Frederik Ceyssens, Michael Kraft, Irene Taurino, Towards yeast fermentation monitoring: Enhanced sensing performance with nanostructured platinum integrated microsensors array, 2024, 46, 22141804, 100709, 10.1016/j.sbsr.2024.100709
    304. Nataly Oliveira Dos Santos Neves, Juliano De Dea Lindner, Larissa Stockhausen, Fernanda Regina Delziovo, Mariana Bender, Letícia Serzedello, Luiz Augusto Cipriani, Natalia Ha, Everton Skoronski, Enric Gisbert, Ignasi Sanahuja, Thiago El Hadi Perez Fabregat, Fermentation of Plant-Based Feeds with Lactobacillus acidophilus Improves the Survival and Intestinal Health of Juvenile Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Reared in a Biofloc System, 2024, 14, 2076-2615, 332, 10.3390/ani14020332
    305. Chunjun Zhan, Xiaowei Li, Guangxu Lan, Edward E. K. Baidoo, Yankun Yang, Yuzhong Liu, Yang Sun, Shijie Wang, Yanyan Wang, Guokun Wang, Jens Nielsen, Jay D. Keasling, Yun Chen, Zhonghu Bai, Reprogramming methanol utilization pathways to convert Saccharomyces cerevisiae to a synthetic methylotroph, 2023, 6, 2520-1158, 435, 10.1038/s41929-023-00957-w
    306. Paulo Eduardo Piemontez de Oliveira, Andre Martins de Souza, Julio Cezar Heker Junior, Fernando de Souza Sidor, Fernando Braga Cristo, Luísa da Costa, Mariana Quintino Nascimento, Adriana Nogueira Figueiredo, Ricardo Pereira Manzano, Mikael Neumann, Saccharomyces cerevisiae como cultura de levedura com meio fermentativo melhora o desempenho de bovinos confinados, 2023, 44, 1679-0359, 1393, 10.5433/1679-0359.2023v44n4p1393
    307. Gary Spedding, 2023, 1455, 9780841297180, 135, 10.1021/bk-2023-1455.ch007
    308. Hyungseok Choi, In-Seok Yeo, Godfrey Mwiti, Toan Nguyen Song Dinh, Hyein Kang, Chang Sup Kim, Jaehan Kim, Optimization of Microbial Glycogen Production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae CEY1, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 388, 10.3390/fermentation10080388
    309. Cassandra Suther, 2023, 9781119849971, 245, 10.1002/9781119850007.ch8
    310. Rohit Das, Buddhiman Tamang, Ishfaq Nabi Najar, Marngam Bam, Prabal Khesong Rai, Probiotic yeast characterization and fungal amplicon metagenomics analysis of fermented bamboo shoot products from Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India, 2024, 10, 24058440, e39500, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39500
    311. João Mota, Alice Vilela, Exploring Microbial Dynamics: The Interaction between Yeasts and Acetic Acid Bacteria in Port Wine Vinegar and Its Implications on Chemical Composition and Sensory Acceptance, 2024, 10, 2311-5637, 421, 10.3390/fermentation10080421
    312. Nadia Guajardo, Rodrigo A. Schrebler, Upstream and Downstream Bioprocessing in Enzyme Technology, 2023, 16, 1999-4923, 38, 10.3390/pharmaceutics16010038
    313. Emmanuel M. Papamichael, Efstathios Hatziloukas, Amalia-Sofia Afendra, Panagiota-Yiolanda Stergiou, Violeta Maltabe, The Effect of Clarification Protocols on the Vinification of White Wines with Papain and Bromelain Immobilized on Glutaraldehyde Activated Chitosan, 2024, 14, 2073-4344, 788, 10.3390/catal14110788
    314. Jaime David Acosta-España, Rida Ali, Dolly Montaño, Phoebe Chin Xiu Yin, Jana-Sophie Niegisch, Kerstin Voigt, 2024, Chapter 1, 978-3-031-64852-6, 3, 10.1007/978-3-031-64853-3_1
    315. Gilberto Vinícius de Melo Pereira, Natan Wile, Maria Giovana Binder Pagnoncelli, João Paulo Martins Miranda, Fernanda Menegon Rosário, Samara Silva de Souza, Luz Adriana Puentes Jácome, Carlos Ricardo Soccol, 2025, 9780443139666, 1, 10.1016/B978-0-443-13966-6.00017-8
    316. Victor Loegler, Anne Friedrich, Joseph Schacherer, G Brown, Overview of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae population structure through the lens of 3,034 genomes, 2024, 2160-1836, 10.1093/g3journal/jkae245
    317. Bohlooli Shahnaz, Ramezan Yousef, Hosseini Hedayat, Eskandari Soheyl, Esfarjani Fatemeh, Action plan strategies for a new approach to the combination of yeast and ultrasonic waves for the reduction of heavy metal residues in rice, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-79560-3
    318. Jeong-Byoung Chae, Amy D. Schoofs, Jodi L. McGill, Beneficial effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation postbiotic products on calf and cow health and plausible mechanisms of action, 2024, 5, 2673-6225, 10.3389/fanim.2024.1491970
    319. Yusmel González-Hernández, Emilie Michiels, Patrick Perré, Heat of reaction in individual metabolic pathways of yeast determined by mechanistic modeling in an insulated bioreactor, 2024, 17, 2731-3654, 10.1186/s13068-024-02580-8
    320. Guoli Wang, Mingkai Li, Mengyu Ma, Zhenke Wu, Xiqin Liang, Qiusheng Zheng, Defang Li, Tianyue An, Increased accumulation of fatty acids in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae by co-overexpression of interorganelle tethering protein and lipases, 2025, 85, 18716784, 1, 10.1016/j.nbt.2024.11.005
    321. Thanaphong Tangwanaprai, Surisa Suwannarangsee, Kan Tulsook, Sa-ngapong Plupjeen, Chompunuch Glinwong, Warawut Chulalaksananukul, Genomic analysis and overexpressing the acetyl-CoA carboxylase of oleaginous Saccharomyces cerevisiae CU-TPD4 for enhanced lipid production from agricultural residues, 2024, 62, 18788181, 103450, 10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103450
    322. Alejandro Lopez-Barbera, Nerea Abasolo, Helena Torrell, Nuria Canela, Salvador Fernández-Arroyo, Integrative Transcriptomic and Target Metabolite Analysis as a New Tool for Designing Metabolic Engineering in Yeast, 2024, 14, 2218-273X, 1536, 10.3390/biom14121536
    323. Chenlin Hu, Hong Shen, Microbes in Health and Disease: Human Gut Microbiota, 2024, 14, 2076-3417, 11354, 10.3390/app142311354
    324. H Helmi, R Kusmiadi, R G Mahardika, E Karsiningsih, L Nia, H Septiani, Amylolytic, cellulolytic and lactic acid bacteria isolated from porang (Amorphophalus oncophylus) fermented water as potential starter for fermented porang flour, 2024, 1413, 1755-1307, 012080, 10.1088/1755-1315/1413/1/012080
    325. My Rebecca, Gupte Ameya Pankaj, Bizzotto Edoardo, Frizzarin Martina, Antoniali Paolo, Campanaro Stefano, Favaro Lorenzo, Unveiling the fitness of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for lignocellulosic bioethanol: a genomic exploration through fermentation stress tests, 2024, 18716784, 10.1016/j.nbt.2024.12.004
    326. Angela Alves dos Santos, Viviani Tadioto, Anderson Giehl, Stéfany Kell Bressan, Larissa Werlang, Camila Girardi Oliveira, Mariana Da Costa Diniz, Triciane Tornai Pereira, Izabella Thaís Silva, Gislaine Fongaro, Sérgio Luiz Alves Jr., 2024, 9786599841859, 65, 10.56041/9786599841859-5
    327. Anqi Chen, Chenwei Pan, Jian Chen, Comparative Analysis of Bread Quality Using Yeast Strains from Alcoholic Beverage Production, 2024, 12, 2076-2607, 2609, 10.3390/microorganisms12122609
    328. Hosam Elhalis, Expanding the Horizons of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Nutrition, Oenology, and Bioethanol Production, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 11151, 10.3390/su162411151
    329. Nhien Nguyen, Tuyet-Mai Hoang, Tun-Yu Huang, Lam-Duc-Huy Nguyen, Hsiao-Huan Chang, Yen Chang, Mai Thanh Thi Nguyen, Kun-Ju Lin, Chun-Chieh Chen, Hsing-Wen Sung, Macrophage-hitchhiked, effervescence-induced nanoemulsions for enhanced oral chemotherapy and immunotherapy: Impact on absorption route, 2025, 316, 01429612, 123019, 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2024.123019
    330. A. V. Maslov, Z. S. Mingaleeva, O. V. Starovoitova, L. I. Agzamova, O. A. Reshetnik, Prospects for the use of complex additive to improve biotechnological characteristics of yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiae, 2024, 86, 2310-1202, 96, 10.20914/2310-1202-2024-3-96-101
    331. Mallari Praveen, Simone Brogi, Microbial Fermentation in Food and Beverage Industries: Innovations, Challenges, and Opportunities, 2025, 14, 2304-8158, 114, 10.3390/foods14010114
    332. Zixuan Xu, Chun Ying, Pengxiang Bai, Shirchin Demberel, Bazarragchaa Tumenjargal, Lan Yang, Dacheng Liu, Microbial dynamics, metabolite profiles, and chemical composition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces marxianus Co-culture during solid-state fermentation, 2025, 64, 22124292, 105849, 10.1016/j.fbio.2025.105849
    333. Sanaz Kazemi, Aziz Homayouni-Rad, Hossien Samadi Kafil, Vahideh Sarabi-aghdam, Payam Zeynolabedini, Bahareh pour Agha, Sevda Allah Madadi, Selection of appropriate probiotic yeasts for use in dairy products: a narrative review, 2025, 7, 2661-8974, 10.1186/s43014-024-00293-x
    334. Tania María Guzmán-Armenteros, Luis Santiago Guerra, Jenny Ruales, Luis Ramos-Guerrero, Ecuadorian Cacao Mucilage as a Novel Culture Medium Ingredient: Unveiling Its Potential for Microbial Growth and Biotechnological Applications, 2025, 14, 2304-8158, 261, 10.3390/foods14020261
    335. Maria Erna Kustyawati, Tegar Suryawan, Samsul Rizal, Esa Ghanim Fadhallah, Khairun Nisa Berawi, In vivo Evaluation of Saccharomyces-Modified Tempeh as Potential Prebiotic and Probiotic Food using Mus musculus as an Animal Model, 2025, 5, 2774-3047, 218, 10.47352/jmans.2774-3047.242
    336. Selvakumar Vijayalakshmi, Ramachandran Chelliah, Kaliyan Barathikannan, Ghazala Sultan, Deog-Hwan Oh, 2025, 9780443221880, 181, 10.1016/B978-0-443-22188-0.00011-5
    337. Manisha Joshi, Ipsheta Bose, Anoushka Tyagi, Somesh Sharma, 2025, 9780443132636, 223, 10.1016/B978-0-443-13263-6.00009-2
    338. Elisabetta Trossolo, Ali Zein Alabiden Tlais, Stefano Tonini, Pasquale Filannino, Marco Gobbetti, Raffaella Di Cagno, Fermentation of a wine pomace and microalgae blend to synergistically enhance the functional value of protein- and polyphenol-rich matrices, 2025, 202, 09639969, 115785, 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.115785
    339. Chenghan Yang, Yilin Ren, Li Zhang, Yina Li, Chunxia Wang, Haifeng Hang, Xiwei Tian, Ali Mohsin, Ju Chu, Yingping Zhuang, Alterations in Protein Phosphorylation and Arginine Biosynthesis Metabolism Confer β‐Phenylethanol Tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2025, 0006-3592, 10.1002/bit.28936
    340. Gabriella Leite Magalhães, Gabriela Silva Mendes Coutinho, Larissa Silva Couto, Greicy Hellen Ferreira Cabral, Marcella Elyza Teodoro Gonçalves, Márcio Caliari, Manoel Soares Soares Júnior, Fermented corn germ flour with Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Physicochemical and technological characteristics as a function of yeast concentration and incubation temperature, 2025, 65, 22124292, 106043, 10.1016/j.fbio.2025.106043
    341. Yawen Gao, Yufeng Guo, Jianing Pang, Mingkai Liu, Tengdan Yuan, Qinhong Wang, Jingsheng Liu, Comparative Genomics and Characterisation of the Role of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Respiration in the Fermentation of Chinese Steamed Bread, 2025, 11, 2309-608X, 114, 10.3390/jof11020114
    342. María Belén Mazzucco, Milena Jovanovich, María Eugenia Rodríguez, Juan Martín Oteiza, Christian Ariel Lopes, Pichia kudriavzevii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Inoculation Strategies for Cider Elaboration from Acidic Apples, 2025, 11, 2311-5637, 79, 10.3390/fermentation11020079
    343. Kevin E. Sepúlveda León, Oscar M. Hernández Calderón, Cristian Alarid García, Maritza E. Cervantes Gaxiola, Eusiel Rubio Castro, Jesús R. Ortiz del Castillo, Erika Y. Rios Iribe, Optimization of bioethanol production from sorghum green malt and cane molasses using Saccharomyces bayanus in submerged cultivation, 2025, 0008-4034, 10.1002/cjce.25640
    344. Khanh Ha, Seunghyun Ryu, Cong T. Trinh, Alpha ketoacid decarboxylases: Diversity, structures, reaction mechanisms, and applications for biomanufacturing of platform chemicals and fuels, 2025, 07349750, 108531, 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2025.108531
    345. Ming Liu, Ran Xiao, Xiaolin Li, Yingyu Zhao, Jihong Huang, A comprehensive review of recombinant technology in the food industry: Exploring expression systems, application, and future challenges, 2025, 24, 1541-4337, 10.1111/1541-4337.70078
    346. Victor Arokia Doss, Gowtham Subramaniam, Keerthana Manoharan, Quercetin inhibits steroid-induced hypergluconeogenesis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 2025, 11, 2314-7253, 10.1186/s43094-025-00777-8
    347. Aksyniia Tsaruk, Kamila Filip, Andriy Sibirny, Justyna Ruchala, Native and Recombinant Yeast Producers of Lactic Acid: Characteristics and Perspectives, 2025, 26, 1422-0067, 2007, 10.3390/ijms26052007
    348. Dongqi Li, Yaqiong Wan, Xiaohan Zhou, Juanjuan Cheng, Jieping Zhang, Jianghua Cheng, Yayuan Xu, Dynamic Changes in Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Diversity During the Fermentation of Mao-Tofu, 2025, 14, 2304-8158, 775, 10.3390/foods14050775
    349. Gamal M. Hamad, Mukhtar M.F. Abushaala, Asmaa H.M. Moneeb, Taha Mehany, Wahid I. El-Desoki, Mohamed A.H. Nagm El-diin, Mohammed A. Abd-Elmonem, Marwa I. El-Toukhy, Amira Hussein El-Baz, Samy E. Elshaer, Mahmoud Abd Ella Ahmed, Adel Abd Elaziz, Raghda M.S. Moawad, Detection and reduction of aflatoxin M1 in milk by nanoencapsulation cocktail of biological and chemical adsorbents, 2025, 08891575, 107392, 10.1016/j.jfca.2025.107392
    350. Haojie Gong, Fengjia Liang, Chunyan Cai, Xuemei Ding, Shiping Bai, Keying Zhang, Qiufeng Zeng, Yan Liu, Yue Xuan, Shengyu Xu, Xiangbing Mao, Jianping Wang, Dietary Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product improved egg quality by modulating intestinal health, ovarian function, and cecal microbiota in post-peak laying hens, 2025, 00325791, 104979, 10.1016/j.psj.2025.104979
    351. Fumikazu Akamatsu, Yukio Osafune, Akiko Fujita, Surina Boerzhijin, Masayuki Takahashi, Atsuko Isogai, Activated carbon treatment to minimize VOC interferences in oxygen stable isotope analysis of beverages, 2025, 2193-4126, 10.1007/s11694-025-03170-4
    352. Tadeja Vajdič, Marjanca Starčič Erjavec, Harnessing Environmental Yeasts—Pichia kudriavzevii Strain ZMUM_K002: The Quest for Isolates with Properties for Efficient Biotechnological Applications, 2025, 5, 2673-8007, 30, 10.3390/applmicrobiol5010030
    353. Guilherme H. S. Ghiraldelli, Rodrigo M. Iost, Graziela C. Sedenho, Rafael N. P. Colombo, Frank N. Crespilho, Yeast biofilm synapse: an intra-kingdom pathway to high-density current output in bioelectronic devices, 2025, 2050-750X, 10.1039/D4TB02472A
    354. Haoyu Niu, Xilong Zhou, Chenang Lyu, Dapeng Wang, Jian Zheng, JiYu Cheng, Ran An, Evaluating the effects of a pectinolytic probiotic strain as replacement of enzymatical treatments in melon juice pre-alcohol fermentation, 2025, 435, 01681605, 111171, 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111171
    355. Cristobal A. Onetto, Jane McCarthy, Simon A. Schmidt, A Rapid Growth Rate Underpins the Dominance of Hanseniaspora uvarum in Spontaneous Grape Juice Fermentations, 2025, 0749-503X, 10.1002/yea.4000
    356. Luki Anugrah Wati, Ulfa Meila Anggriani, Dea Andara, Putri Atikah, Rifqi Sufra, Elda Melwita, Novia Novia, Potassium hydroxide microwave-assisted pretreatment and simultaneous saccharification fermentation of banana trunk (Musa paradisiaca) for bioethanol production, 2025, 11, 26660164, 101209, 10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101209
    357. Antoine Huet, Mihaela Sbarciog, Philippe Bogaerts, A Mathematical Model for the Intracellular Accumulation of two Energy Reserve Carbohydrates in S. cerevisiae Cultures, 2025, 59, 24058963, 409, 10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.03.070
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(27877) PDF downloads(2552) Cited by(357)

Figures and Tables

Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog