Quantcast

Interesting genome sequencing of some yeasts

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Andre3000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
261
Reaction score
120
Location
Seattle
To the best of my own abilities and with very low volume fanfare, I have absorbed and processed the latest data from Langdon et al. and suregork in a new living permalink here (and it also includes a handful of other tweaks) -- for convenience the latest July-October 2019 genomic-related updates have been highlighted in purple:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16XRUloO3WXqH9Ixsf5vx2DIKDmrEQJ36tLRBmmya7Jo/edit?usp=sharing

This is a tool and labour of love, intended mostly for my own use, but if you like it that's cool too. The usual caveats apply... strains listed together are not necessarily exactly equivalent... however, you might perhaps find them "close enough, for most intents and purposes", which has always been my primary intent. If you don't like this or find it useful, ignore it. For those interested, from here on out I am going to attempt to maintain the link above as the final permanent link, as a living document, no longer just a snapshot in time, but continually being tweaked at least about once or twice per month or as necessary based on new inputs, which is how it's been going all year long since I started this in January 2019.

Cheers all and happy yeasting. :)
Dude I just realized how much I love this list. Nice work.
 

JohnnyHa

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
Location
Graz, Austria
Excellent thread!

I have recently cottoned on to suregork's most recent findings and made a couple of postings under his latest blog post from October 2019:
http://beer.suregork.com/?p=4112

I found the observations regarding Frohberg and Saaz strains most interesting and noticed, amongst other things: in the 19th century, lager beers seem to have exhibited much lower apparent attenuation (AA) figures, and I was wondering whether this could be an indication for a much wider use of Saaz strains back then as many (but by no means all of them as I have learned since!!) are not capable of utilising maltotriose.

Ron Pattinson has collated a lot of data:

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2014/10/munich-winterbier-in-1843.html
Munich Winterbier: AA 49-68%, average value 61%

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2017/10/munich-export-1879-1899.html
Munich Export 1879-1899: AA 53-74%, average value 64%

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2016/07/munich-helles-in-1902-and-2014.html
Munich Helles 1902: AA 66-76%, average value 72%, a bit higher already!

https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2008/06/salvator.html
Salvator-type Bock beers pre-1900: AA 45-66%, average value 57%

https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2008/06/bayerisches-lagerbier.html
A single dark Bavarian lagerbier (from 1865 or before): AA 46%.

Perhaps something changed "post-Hansen", and now practically no Saaz strains seem to be used?
 

Robert65

Major Obvious (recently promoted)
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
2,363
Location
Akron, Ohio
An interesting thought. Analyses of a massive number of beers, from the 1860s to 1900, published by Wahl and Henius, show typical AA in the mid 60s to low 70s. North American beers do appear to come in a bit higher on average than continental beers, possibly because of the mashing methods employed (step infusion or double mash rather than decoction.) But these attenuation rates are all lower than what we might expect today. Their data on Danish beers are sadly deficient.
 

Vale71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
1,390
Malt has changed a lot in the past century, thanks to industrialization and modern agricultural techniques. One consequence of this is higher average AA. FYI even modern darker malts like Munich have lower attenuation than moder light malts.
 

Robert65

Major Obvious (recently promoted)
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
2,363
Location
Akron, Ohio

JohnnyHa

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
Location
Graz, Austria
Ha! And I was just now busy photographing all those pages... PITA! Thanks for providing that. I figured the nerds here would be interested. Pages 823-830 BTW.
Thanks for pointing me to those pages!

This particular tomb is nearly 1300 pages long, so that helps a lot!!

Malt has changed a lot in the past century, thanks to industrialization and modern agricultural techniques. One consequence of this is higher average AA. FYI even modern darker malts like Munich have lower attenuation than moder light malts.
I'm aware of that, thanks. It might still be worth considering whether yeast pre- and post-Hansen has been a contributing or perhaps important factor. Some AA figures in the 19th century were as low as 46%.
 

Vale71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
2,731
Reaction score
1,390
I'm aware of that, thanks. It might still be worth considering whether yeast pre- and post-Hansen has been a contributing or perhaps important factor. Some AA figures in the 19th century were as low as 46%.
Those would be typical values for spontaneous or semi-spontaneous fermentations. Let's not forget that yeast isolation and propagation techniques were developed and propagated (pun intended) in the course of the 19th Century and presumably not simultaneously across the world.
 

JohnnyHa

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
Location
Graz, Austria
Those would be typical values for spontaneous or semi-spontaneous fermentations. Let's not forget that yeast isolation and propagation techniques were developed and propagated (pun intended) in the course of the 19th Century and presumably not simultaneously across the world.
These particularly low figures are from Bavaria, but definitely pre-Hansen's isolation techniques. See post #83 for sources.

I think we can relatively safely assume that many Bavarian brewers of the mid-19th century, having already worked with bottom-fermenting yeast for several centuries at this point, knew what they were doing and didn't rely on spontaneous fermentation.

(edited to make my point a bit clearer)
 
Last edited:

brewbama

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
3,527
Reaction score
2,035
I noticed some Danstar Yeasts are identified on the ‘yeast wheel’ (Nottingham, Windsor, Munich, etc) but others aren’t (BRY97). Is ‘beer097’ BRY97?

Adjustments.jpg
 

Robert65

Major Obvious (recently promoted)
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
2,363
Location
Akron, Ohio
Beer097, etc., are designations from one of the papers; BRY97 is originally the accession number from the Siebel yeast bank, so no.

BRY97 *was* up in the Mixed clade in the previous tree (with beer097 right where you note,) but is missing from the Oct 2019 version. So, hmm. Nothing I can find in comments on suregork's blog to indicate what happened. Where'd it go? Anybody?
20200206_202617.jpg
 
Last edited:

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
2,289
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Different studies looked at different yeasts. There have been at least 4 or 5 recent studies that I know of. The last one, Langdon, didn't look at BRY-97. Many yeast strains have never been evaluated at all. And the "beer0xx" designations have no ties with the manufacturer's numberings, so no, beer097 is not BRY-97.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,156
Location
UK
BRY97 *was* up in the Mixed clade in the previous tree (with beer097 right where you note,) but is missing from the Oct 2019 version. So, hmm. Nothing I can find in comments on suregork's blog to indicate what happened. Where'd it go?
A bunch of strains got left out of that update, I think partly just because the focus was on the newly released sequences and I guess he was just trying to reduce supercomputer time. But also in the past IIRC BRY-97 got left out of one run just because he hadn't noticed it was in the list of hundreds of sequences that were released in one go. So I don't think it's anything sinister.

But you do highlight an interesting part of the tree that I don't think people have looked at closely enough. Lallemand's work has BRY-97 along with Belle Saison (so 3711 and WLP545????) and their version of Conan being less rubbish than most cerevisae at biorelease of glycosides, I've found T-58 is active at converting hop flavours, WLP050 Tennessee Whisky has some fun esters. I keep meaning to have more of a play with yeast in that bit of the tree as I think they have a lot to offer modern style beers, but that potential is overlooked as they're not as sexy as some yeasts.
 

barleyhaus

New Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I see the strain VTT A-63015 cited a lot in brewing research. Is there a way to confirm which commercial strain this translates?
 

suregork

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
88
Reaction score
111
Location
Helsinki, Finland
I see the strain VTT A-63015 cited a lot in brewing research. Is there a way to confirm which commercial strain this translates?
It's a lager strain from a Finnish brewery. It is quite similar to W34/70. The 63 in the beginning of the code means it came to VTT's culture collection in 1963.
 

suregork

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
88
Reaction score
111
Location
Helsinki, Finland
I noticed some Danstar Yeasts are identified on the ‘yeast wheel’ (Nottingham, Windsor, Munich, etc) but others aren’t (BRY97). Is ‘beer097’ BRY97?

View attachment 665499
A bunch of strains got left out of that update, I think partly just because the focus was on the newly released sequences and I guess he was just trying to reduce supercomputer time. But also in the past IIRC BRY-97 got left out of one run just because he hadn't noticed it was in the list of hundreds of sequences that were released in one go. So I don't think it's anything sinister.

But you do highlight an interesting part of the tree that I don't think people have looked at closely enough. Lallemand's work has BRY-97 along with Belle Saison (so 3711 and WLP545????) and their version of Conan being less rubbish than most cerevisae at biorelease of glycosides, I've found T-58 is active at converting hop flavours, WLP050 Tennessee Whisky has some fun esters. I keep meaning to have more of a play with yeast in that bit of the tree as I think they have a lot to offer modern style beers, but that potential is overlooked as they're not as sexy as some yeasts.
I left out a couple of strains in the newest update because they were sequenced to a very low coverage and with quite short reads. In practice, this means the quality was quite bad and results could therefore be unreliable. If I remember correctly, BRY-97 was one of these strains. It's in the Mixed clade, but exact placement might not be completely accurate.
 

barleyhaus

New Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Has anyone looked at L17 or OYL-114, the purported Augustiner strains? Based on the way they’ve thrown sulfur and their fermentation character, I’m curious if they also fall into the 838 camp being cerevisiae strains.
 

couchsending

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1,562
Yeah interesting to note that two of the most popular commercial lager strains (at least in craft) here in the US, Augustiner and Andechs, aren’t listed or at least easily identified in these studies? Or did I miss something.
 
OP
sykesey

sykesey

Active Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
33
Has anyone looked at L17 or OYL-114, the purported Augustiner strains? Based on the way they’ve thrown sulfur and their fermentation character, I’m curious if they also fall into the 838 camp being cerevisiae strains.
I think it will take a while before we have sequencing data on that. It would be possible to do a PCR on the yeast to at least see if it contained eubayanus/pastorianus primers, but until someone either runs it through PCR, illumina or nanopore it's guesswork at this point.

and to top it off augustiner has a ton of yeast banks all probably with slightly different properties - wlp860, l17, oyl114, wyeast 2352PC, BSI augustiner...
 

Andre3000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
261
Reaction score
120
Location
Seattle
Different studies looked at different yeasts. There have been at least 4 or 5 recent studies that I know of. The last one, Langdon, didn't look at BRY-97. Many yeast strains have never been evaluated at all. And the "beer0xx" designations have no ties with the manufacturer's numberings, so no, beer097 is not BRY-97.
Is there a functional difference between "2121" and "W34/70"? In your sheet you've stated W34/70 as being a high flocc'er (which fermentis also states), but Wyeast states 2124 as Low-Medium.

I'm trying to decide which of the two I should keep as my go-to lager yeast :confused:.
 

Robert65

Major Obvious (recently promoted)
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
2,363
Location
Akron, Ohio
W-34/70 is the designation of a culture in the yeast bank at Weihenstephan (indicates isolate no. 34 of strain no. 70; there are also other isolates in their catalog.) It has been acquired and made available by many manufacturers, who maintain their cultures in their own yeast banks. Examples are WY 2124, WLP 830, and Saflager W-34/70. But as with any yeast from any source, they can change over time in the posession of each individual lab, and the particulars of each manufacturer's handling and production process can lead to selection favoring different performance characteristics. So there may be functional differences between various descendants of fhe original W-34/70, as received from different manufacturers. (Note the veritable zoo of "Chicos" out there.) I believe that the three I mentioned behave differently enough to matter to some brewers, though largely similar. See for yourself. (JFTR, though I've used the various 34/70s probably hundreds of times, I really don't care for any of them and don't use them anymore.)
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
2,289
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Is there a functional difference between "2121" and "W34/70"? In your sheet you've stated W34/70 as being a high flocc'er (which fermentis also states), but Wyeast states 2124 as Low-Medium.

I'm trying to decide which of the two I should keep as my go-to lager yeast :confused:.
I haven’t used 2124 yet. My advice is to try them both and form your own opinion.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,156
Location
UK
W-34/70 is the designation of a culture in the yeast bank at Weihenstephan (indicates isolate no. 34 of strain no. 70; there are also other isolates in their catalog.)
Other way round, W34 is the original, 34/70 is a specific isolate, as is W34/78. There's also W34/70-6.94 as an isolate of the isolate.

Weihenstephan strain names all begin with W, so for instance W68 is the most famous wheat beer strain that also has various "named" isolates like W68-6.94.
 

Franktalk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
211
Reaction score
124
Other way round, W34 is the original, 34/70 is a specific isolate, as is W34/78. There's also W34/70-6.94 as an isolate of the isolate.

Weihenstephan strain names all begin with W, so for instance W68 is the most famous wheat beer strain that also has various "named" isolates like W68-6.94.
Is WB-06 from Weihenstephan? If so, for what beer style is it used?
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
2,289
Location
Two Rivers, WI
Is WB-06 from Weihenstephan? If so, for what beer style is it used?
NO. WB-06 is actually Belgian in origin, and a diastaticus variant, would probably be okay in a saison, and is popular also for NEIPA, probably due to its poor flocculation mostly, but of course NEIPA people will tell you it's all about "biotransformation", if you believe in that sort of thing.
 

Northern_Brewer

British - apparently some US company stole my name
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,156
Location
UK
NO. WB-06 is actually Belgian in origin, and a diastaticus variant, would probably be okay in a saison, and is popular also for NEIPA, probably due to its poor flocculation mostly, but of course NEIPA people will tell you it's all about "biotransformation", if you believe in that sort of thing.
Since we would have not beer if yeast did not biotransform barley into alcohol, I don't think the fact of biotransformation is in much doubt. Whether it is useful for your beer is another matter.

Actually the biotransformation capability of WB-06 is a disaster for NEIPAs, as it's the Megatron of biotransformers, it trashes all hop flavour. But the likes of Treehouse appear to be using it or a close relative as a very small part of a yeast blend, <5% to contribute esters and other yeast flavours.

WB is just a Fermentis designation for wheat beer (even though it's part of the saison family and not a hefe yeast), nothing to to with Weihenstephan.
 

Andre3000

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
261
Reaction score
120
Location
Seattle
@dmtaylor a notification popped of on my phone randomly of your spreadsheet getting a bunch of attention on Reddit. Apparently I wasn't the only one stoked on it. Low key proud of you haha. It's a good spreadsheet. I reference it a lot.

Question to anyone: I really wanted to try A30 Corporate. I emailed Imperial and they said they didn't release it this year as homebrew packets. What's my next closest available to BRY-96? WY1217 won't be released until Q2.

Edit: WLP001?
 
Last edited:

couchsending

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 21, 2016
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1,562
@dmtaylor a notification popped of on my phone randomly of your spreadsheet getting a bunch of attention on Reddit. Apparently I wasn't the only one stoked on it. Low key proud of you haha. It's a good spreadsheet. I reference it a lot.

Question to anyone: I really wanted to try A30 Corporate. I emailed Imperial and they said they didn't release it this year as homebrew packets. What's my next closest available to BRY-96? WY1217 won't be released until Q2.

Edit: WLP001?
In my experience Corporate kinda sucked. It was a big diacetyl producer and took quite some time to clean up after itself. I reached out to the guys at Cloudburst and they even mentioned that it was a bit slow and you had to be careful.

Midwestern Ale (Bells) from The Yeast Bay and Old Newark Ale (Ballantine) from East Coast Yeast are way better options for something in the American Ale family tree. I would use them both over 001/1056 every time. They ferment faster and flocc better.
 

dmtaylor

Lord Idiot the Lazy
HBT Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
2,289
Location
Two Rivers, WI
@dmtaylor a notification popped of on my phone randomly of your spreadsheet getting a bunch of attention on Reddit. Apparently I wasn't the only one stoked on it. Low key proud of you haha. It's a good spreadsheet. I reference it a lot.

Question to anyone: I really wanted to try A30 Corporate. I emailed Imperial and they said they didn't release it this year as homebrew packets. What's my next closest available to BRY-96? WY1217 won't be released until Q2.

Edit: WLP001?
Thanks Andre. I'm happy that even more people are finding it useful. And now I've received even more technical feedback and made a couple more tweaks based on others' knowledge and experience which is really great.

Sorry I haven't dug into all the Imperial yeasts yet to add to the table; Imperial is a project for some point in my future. That being said...

A30 Corporate is derived from good old BRY-96, "Chico". So WLP001 or 1056 would both be pretty darn good substitutes. I might steer away from US-05 because of its much higher attenuation, unless you like it more dry and higher alcohol than A30 would give. Some sources including a truly awesome genomic chart:



Cheers.
 

Latest posts

Top