Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Yeast bioprospecting versus synthetic biology–which is better for innovative beverage fermentation?|
|Citation:||Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2020; 104(5):1939-1953|
|Lucien Alperstein, Jennifer M Gardner, Joanna F Sundstrom, Krista M Sumby, Vladimir Jiranek|
|Abstract:||Producers often utilise some of the many available yeast species and strains in the making of fermented alcoholic beverages in order to augment flavours, aromas, acids and textural properties. But still, the demand remains for more yeasts with novel phenotypes that not only impact sensory characteristics but also offer process and engineering advantages. Two strategies for finding such yeasts are (i) bioprospecting for novel strains and species and (ii) genetic modification of known yeasts. The latter enjoys the promise of the emerging field of synthetic biology, which, in principle, would enable scientists to create yeasts with the exact phenotype desired for a given fermentation. In this mini review, we compare and contrast advances in bioprospecting and in synthetic biology as they relate to alcoholic fermentation in brewing and wine making. We explore recent advances in fermentation-relevant recombinant technologies and synthetic biology including the Yeast 2.0 Consortium, use of environmental yeasts, challenges, constraints of law and consumer acceptance.|
|Keywords:||Bioprospecting; yeast; synthetic biology; yeast 2.0; CRISPR; wine|
|Rights:||© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020|
|Appears in Collections:||Agriculture, Food and Wine publications|
ARC Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production publications
Aurora harvest 4
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.