Fungal dynamic during apricot wine spontaneous fermentation and aromatic characteristics of Pichia kudriavzevii for potential as starter

Chen, Yu; Qi, Jiali; Yang, Hanyu; Lei, Xingmeng; Jiang, Jiao; Song, Yuyang; Qin, Yi; Liu, Yan-Lin

doi:10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100862

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(63 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…bayanus ; H. osmophila X25-5, T. quercuum X24-4; S. cerevisiae WLP775, S. cerevisiae WLS21; Wickerhamomyces anomalus YN6 Bandić et al ( 2019 ), Fan et al ( 2006 ), Lorenzini et al ( 2019 ), Ruppert et al ( 2021 ), Wei et al ( 2020 ), Xu et al ( 2022a , b ), and Ye et al ( 2014b ) Apricot Pichia kudriavzevii LQD20, P. kudriavzevii LQD5; S. cerevisiae var. bayanus EC-1118 Chen et al ( 2023 ) and Choi et al ( 2020 ) Bilberry S. cerevisiae 1116, T. delbrueckii 291, T. delbrueckii 70526, Schizosaccharomyces pombe 3796, S. pombe 70572 Liu et al ( 2019a , b ) Blackberry S. cerevisiae ICV K1, S. cerevisiae Enoferm T306, S. cerevisiae Vitilevure CM4457, S. cerevisiae Greroche Rhona L3574 Bautista-Rosales et al ( 2014 ) Black raspberry S. cerevisiae Lalvin RHST, T. delbrueckii Viniflora Prelude™, Oenococcus oeni Viniflora Oenos Liu et al ( 2020b ) Blueberry S. cerevisiae Actiflore F33, Lalvin QA23, T. delbrueckii Zymaflore ® Alpha Wang et al ( 2022 ) Cherry S. cerevisiae Lalvin RC212, T. delbrueckii 49; S. cerevisiae Lalvin GRE, O. oeni 31MBR, Lb. plantarum SGJ-24 Sun et al ( 2016a ) and Sun et al ( 2016b ) Fig S. cerevisiae RV002, RV171, BV818, PHYT, LM-8, and FM-sc-08 Ma et al ( 2022...…”

Section: Impact Of Wine Fermenting Microbes On Volatile Profiles and ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The formation of volatiles in fruit wine process and its impact on wine quality

Tan,

Ji,

Gong

et al. 2024

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fruit wine is one of the oldest fermented beverages made from non-grape fruits. Owing to the differences in fruit varieties, growing regions, climates, and harvesting seasons, the nutritional compositions of fruits (sugars, organic acids, etc.) are different. Therefore, the fermentation process and microorganisms involved are varied for a particular fruit selected for wine production, resulting in differences in volatile compound formation, which ultimately determine the quality of fruit wine. This article reviews the effects of various factors involved in fruit wine making, especially the particular modifications differing from the grape winemaking process and the selected strains suitable for the specific fruit wine fermentation, on the formation of volatile compounds, flavor and aroma profiles, and quality characteristics of the wine thus produced. Key points • The volatile profile and fruit wine quality are affected by enological parameters. • The composition and content of nutrients in fruit must impact volatile profiles. • Yeast and LAB are the key determining factors of the volatile profiles of fruit wines.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Wine Fermenting Microbes On Volatile Profiles and ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The formation of volatiles in fruit wine process and its impact on wine quality

Tan,

Ji,

Gong

et al. 2024

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…kudriavzevii has also been used to obtain rice beer ("gora"), apple cider, and wines from grapes, oranges, and apricots. Various reports have confirmed that this strain provides aromatic profiles that are not generated by Saccharomyces yeasts [27,28,[31][32][33][34]. Other Pichia species, such as P. jadinii and P. kluyveri PkCid1, have been studied to obtain mead and cider, respectively [9,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Kinetic Evaluation of the Production of Mead from a Non-Saccharomyces Strain

Jose-Salazar,

Ballinas-Cesatti,

Hernández-Martínez

et al. 2024

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing market for craft beverages with unique flavors. This study aimed to obtain a palate-pleasing mead derived from Pichia kudriavzevii 4A as a monoculture. Different culture media were evaluated to compare the fermentation kinetics and final products. The crucial factors in the medium were ~200 mg L−1 of yeast assimilable nitrogen and a pH of 3.5–5.0. A panel of judges favored the mead derived from Pichia kudriavzevii 4A (fermented in a medium with honey initially at 23 °Bx) over a commercial sample produced from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, considering its appearance, fruity and floral flavors (provided by esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols), and balance between sweetness (given by the 82.91 g L−1 of residual sugars) and alcohol. The present mead had an 8.57% v/v ethanol concentration, was elaborated in 28 days, and reached a maximum biomass growth (2.40 g L−1) on the same fermentation day (6) that the minimum level of pH was reached. The biomass growth yield peaked at 24 and 48 h (~0.049 g g−1), while the ethanol yield peaked at 24 h (1.525 ± 0.332 g g−1), in both cases declining thereafter. The Gompertz model adequately describes the kinetics of sugar consumption and the generation of yeast biomass and ethanol. Pathogenic microorganisms, methanol, lead, and arsenic were absent in the mead. Thus, Pichia kudriavzevii 4A produced a safe and quality mead with probable consumer acceptance.

show abstract