New Giveaway - Wort Monster Conical Fermenter!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Fermentation & Yeast > lab yeast




Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2012, 01:42 AM   #1
backsweat
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: durham, nc
Posts: 4
Default lab yeast

Does anyone have experience with yeast commonly used in research? Specifically I am wondering about W303, Sigma, and S288C.



__________________
backsweat is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2012, 01:47 AM   #2
pabloj13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 1,553
Liked 90 Times on 78 Posts
Likes Given: 109

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by backsweat View Post
Does anyone have experience with yeast commonly used in research? Specifically I am wondering about W303, Sigma, and S288C.
I think they're pretty different from brewing strains. Why would you be interested in using them?


__________________

Kegged Two Hearted, Dragonmead Final Absolution
Bottled Robust porter, Founder's Breakfast Stout, Ommegawd Hellepin, Ed Wort's Apfelwein
RIP Snake Dog IPA, Biermuncher's OktoberFAST, Falconer's Flight IPA, Two-Hearted clone (Culturing Bell's Yeast), Noberon wheat, Skeeter Pee using dry yeast, Smooth Oatmeal Stout


Simple and easy wort aeration - Harvest yeast from your blowoff - Homebrew Spicy Mustard
pabloj13 is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2012, 12:26 PM   #3
diegobonatto
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
diegobonatto's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul
Posts: 98
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Yes, lab. strains are pretty different (genetic and phenotipically speaking) when compared to brewing strains. For example:
1. Most lab. strains are genetically modified by inserting (or deleting) gene markers. In this sense, many lab. strains can be unable to synthesize determined amino acids, which made then useful for lab. research;
2. Lab. strains are mostly haploid, with a single complete set of chromossomes (16 in total). In contrast, brewing strains can be diploids, aneuploids, or poliploids;
3. Lab. yeast strains belong to S. cerevisiae species. Brewing strains can belong to S. cerevisiae, S. pastorianus, and S. bayanus species (consider also S. pastorianus and S. bayanus are also hybrid species formed from the mating of different Saccharomyces species);
4. Lab. strains are unable to growth at lager temperature

But considering the OP, W303 is a lab. strain with auxotrophic genetic markers originated from selective mutagenesis and back-crossing. S288C is the prototype yeast strain used for yeast genome sequencing, and is derived from Sigma strains. New wild-type (WT) strains also included the BY series (BY4741, 4742, and 4743) and FY, which contain auxotrophic markers generated by gene replacement.

__________________
diegobonatto is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2012, 07:37 PM   #4
corax
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 147
Liked 16 Times on 16 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by backsweat View Post
Does anyone have experience with yeast commonly used in research? Specifically I am wondering about W303, Sigma, and S288C.
I have heard of people using S288C. Supposedly it produced something not entirely unlike beer.

You'd probably be best off using a diploid with no auxotrophies, and don't count on very high attenuation. I think most/all lab strains are also flo-, so don't count on any flocculation.

But why bother, apart from novelty value?
__________________
corax is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2012, 11:23 PM   #5
backsweat
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: durham, nc
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corax View Post
But why bother, apart from novelty value?
Novelty, they're easily accessed, they smell nice when growing on rich media, first steps toward making a fluorescent beer. Any reason, really. Isn't this the forum where someone documented fermentation of ovaltine? I'm a little surprised to be asked why.

The auxotrophy comment is interesting. I would expect that wort would be a pretty complete medium and they wouldn't be much of an issue. Is this the wrong impression to have, or is your comment just reflecting the thought that it'd be best to have something closer to a natural strain?
__________________
backsweat is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2012, 11:50 PM   #6
lou2row
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
lou2row's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NW Ohio, Ohio
Posts: 528
Liked 40 Times on 29 Posts
Likes Given: 24

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diegobonatto View Post
Yes, lab. strains are pretty different (genetic and phenotipically speaking) when compared to brewing strains. For example:
1. Most lab. strains are genetically modified by inserting (or deleting) gene markers. In this sense, many lab. strains can be unable to synthesize determined amino acids, which made then useful for lab. research;
2. Lab. strains are mostly haploid, with a single complete set of chromossomes (16 in total). In contrast, brewing strains can be diploids, aneuploids, or poliploids;
3. Lab. yeast strains belong to S. cerevisiae species. Brewing strains can belong to S. cerevisiae, S. pastorianus, and S. bayanus species (consider also S. pastorianus and S. bayanus are also hybrid species formed from the mating of different Saccharomyces species);
4. Lab. strains are unable to growth at lager temperature

But considering the OP, W303 is a lab. strain with auxotrophic genetic markers originated from selective mutagenesis and back-crossing. S288C is the prototype yeast strain used for yeast genome sequencing, and is derived from Sigma strains. New wild-type (WT) strains also included the BY series (BY4741, 4742, and 4743) and FY, which contain auxotrophic markers generated by gene replacement.

+1
(smartest. sounding. +1. ever.)
__________________
Do you know the place
Where my home brew waits for me?
refrigerator
lou2row is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-18-2012, 12:43 AM   #7
diegobonatto
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
diegobonatto's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul
Posts: 98
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts

Default

The major problem that I see in to make a fluorescent beer is the fact that the fermentation will be made by a GMO yeast (and this brings a lot of regulamentations and laws regarding the use of GMO for food fermentation).
BUT, in an experimental sense, the generation of fluorescence in beer should not be so straightforward as you possible thinking. First, I imagine that you will express a fluorescent protein in beer (e.g., GFP). So, you will need an integrative plasmid (as stated, wort should be plenty of nutrients, and this could lead to the lost of non-integrative plasmids with time, like episomal plasmids). After all, your integrative plasmid should contain the coding sequence of GFP cloned under the control of a strong promoter (and it should be constitutive in order to avoid the use of promoter-activating chemical compounds). Moreover, as you want a fluorescent beer, the protein should be excreted in the wort during fermentation, requiring the gene to contain a sequence coding extracellular signal fused to the protein coding sequence.
In addition, the fluorescent protein should be stable against different proteases excreted by yeasts after the active phase of fermentation (requiring a non-natural GFP construction).
Important to note that the protein should be fluorescent under visible light, which can be difficult with GFP and derivative proteins that are fluorescent only under ultraviolet light. Of course, there are fluorescent protein that works with visible light, but these proteins have a very complicated structure, which can impairs its expression in yeast. Assuming that you have the right plasmid construction, an stable and efficient mechanism for synthesis and excretion of fluorescent protein, an stable maintenance of protein even in the presence of proteases, so, it can work....

Phew....lots of work to do.....

__________________
diegobonatto is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-19-2012, 10:06 PM   #8
corax
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 147
Liked 16 Times on 16 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by backsweat View Post
The auxotrophy comment is interesting. I would expect that wort would be a pretty complete medium and they wouldn't be much of an issue. Is this the wrong impression to have, or is your comment just reflecting the thought that it'd be best to have something closer to a natural strain?
I wouldn't count on typical wort being complete (or at least staying complete through the full course of fermentation).

Note also that S288C is mal-:

http://wiki.yeastgenome.org/index.php/Commonly_used_strains#S288C

That ain't gonna get you very far in an all-malt wort.


__________________
corax is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mocktoberfest (marzen)- should i make a yeast starter with harvested yeast? mhayden37 Fermentation & Yeast 12 02-22-2012 01:24 PM
Nottingham vs Safale S04 vs Coopers Yeast (Which is best to prevent yeast bite) Robms88 Fermentation & Yeast 20 02-17-2012 05:38 PM
Sierra Nevada Ovila Saison yeast = Kellerweis yeast? Bsquared Fermentation & Yeast 5 12-06-2011 12:36 AM
Is it a good idea to harvest yeast from 3gen washed yeast? bratrules Fermentation & Yeast 5 04-26-2011 03:29 PM
Easiest way to start an ongoing yeast culture from dry yeast? Symbiote Fermentation & Yeast 2 07-10-2010 01:46 AM