Disruption of bakers’ yeast using a disrupter of simple and novel geometry

Lovitt, Robert W.; Jones, Martin V.; Collins, Susan E.; Coss, G.M; Yau, C.P; Attouch, C

doi:10.1016/s0032-9592(00)00223-5

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The SDF shape for wine yeasts (bayanus) studied in this work was noticeably different from the previously reported SDF shape for baker yeasts (Shamlou et al, 1995;Lovitt et al, 2000;El Zakhem et al, 2006a,b). The baker yeasts displayed more narrow range of sizes below 10 lm, d max % 5.1 lm and untreated suspensions were largely disaggregated.…”

Section: Comparison Of Pef Hved and Hph Modes Of Treatmentcontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanical methods are most appropriate for large-scale disruption and allow attaining of high recovery. However, they are restricted by temperature elevation, require multiple passes with supplementary cooling, and final products contain large quantity of cell debris (Brookman, 1974;Mogren et al, 1974;Engler, 1985;Chisti and Moo-Young, 1986;Kula and Schutte, 1987;Shamlou et al, 1995;Siddiqi et al, 1996;Lovitt et al, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electrically-assisted extraction of bio-products using high pressure disruption of yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)

Shynkaryk

Lebovka

Lanoisellé

et al. 2009

Journal of Food Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison Of Pef Hved and Hph Modes Of Treatmentcontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrically-assisted extraction of bio-products using high pressure disruption of yeast cells (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)

Shynkaryk

Lebovka

Lanoisellé

et al. 2009

Journal of Food Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The cells were then washed several times in buffer ͑20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5͒, finishing in a minimum volume of buffer. The cells were disrupted using a cell disruptor ͑Constant Systems Ltd, Daventry, UK͒, 38 after which the solution was centrifuged at 12 000 g for 1 h to remove cellular debris. High speed centrifugation ͑131 000 g͒ was used to sediment the vesicles; these were subsequently solubilized in Tris-EDTA buffer ͑20 mM Tris-HCl, 0.5 mM EDTA, pH 7.5͒.…”

Section: B Isolation Of E Coli Inner Membranementioning

confidence: 99%

Native E. coli inner membrane incorporation in solid-supported lipid bilayer membranes

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solid-supported bilayer lipid membranes (SBLMs) containing membrane protein have been generated through a simple lipid dilution technique. SBLM formation from mixtures of native Escherichia coli bacterial inner membrane (IM) vesicles diluted with egg phosphatidylcholine (egg PC) vesicles has been explored with dissipation enhanced quartz crystal microbalance (QCM-D), atomic force microscopy (AFM), attenuated total internal-reflection Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR), and fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP). QCM-D studies reveal that SBLM formation from vesicle mixtures ranging between 0% and 100% IM can be divided into two regimes. Samples with ≤40% IM form SBLMs, while samples of greater IM fractions are dominated by vesicle adsorption. FRAP experiments showed that the bilayers formed from mixed vesicles with ≤40% IM were fluid, and comprised a mixture of both egg PC and IM. ATR-FTIR measurements on SBLMs membranes formed with 30% IM confirm that protein is present. SBLM formation was also explored as a function of temperature by QCM-D and FRAP. For samples of 30% IM, QCM-D data show a decreased mass and viscoelasticity at elevated temperatures, and an increased fluidity is observed by FRAP measurements. These results suggest improved biomimetic characteristics can be obtained by forming and maintaining the system at, or close to, 37 °C.

show abstract

“…Mechanical methods are most appropriate for the large-scale disruption of cells and allow high recovery of intracellular material. However, they are restricted by temperature elevation, they require high power consumption and multiple passes with supplementary cooling, and their final products contain large quantities of cell debris (Brookman 1974;Engler 1985;Lovitt et al 2000;Middelberg 2000;Wuytack et al 2002). Cryogenic grinding at -196°C is a promising technology for protein release, which has allowed a nearly 100% release of soluble protein from yeasts (S. cerevisiae), with a small degree of protein denaturation (≈18%); however, this method was inefficient for DNA release (Singh et al 2009).…”

Section: Cell Disruption Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%