Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 743–747 | Cite as

Achievement of rapid osmotic dehydration at specific temperatures could maintain high Saccharomyces cerevisiae viability

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Various methods have been tried to prevent cell mortality during dehydration, but the reasons why microorganisms die when submitted to dehydration and rehydration are not well understood. The aim of this study was to further investigate the reasons for yeast mortality during dehydration. Osmotic dehydration and rehydration of Saccharomyces cerevisiae W303-1A were performed at different temperatures. Two different approaches were used: isothermic treatments (dehydration and rehydration at the same temperature), and cyclic treatments (dehydration at an experimental temperature and rehydration at 25°C), with significant differences in viability found between the different treatments. Dehydration at lower and higher temperatures gave higher viability results. These experiments allowed us to propose a hypothesis that relates mortality to a high water flow through an unstable membrane during phase transition.

Keywords

Methylene Blue Osmotic Pressure Phase Transition Temperature Osmotic Shock Osmotic Dehydration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anand JC, Brown AD (1968) Growth rate patterns of the so-called osmophilic and non-osmophilic yeasts in solutions of polyethylene glycol. J Gen Microbiol 52:205–212Google Scholar
  2. Becker MJ, Rapoport AI, (1987) Conservation of yeasts by dehydration. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 35:127–171Google Scholar
  3. Beney L, Marechal PA, Gervais P (2001a) Coupling effects of osmotic pressure and temperature on the viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:513–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beney L, Martinez de Marañon I, Marechal PA, Moundanga S, Gervais P (2001b) Osmotic destruction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae is not related to a high water flow rate across the membrane. Biochem Eng J 9:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron DG, Dluhy RA (1987) In: Gendreau RM (ed) Spectroscopy in the biomedical sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 53–86Google Scholar
  6. Chapman D (1994) The role of water in biomembranes structure. J Food Eng 22:367–380Google Scholar
  7. Chirife J, Ferro-Fontan C (1980) A study of the water activity lowering behavior of polyethylene glycols in the intermediate moisture range. J Food Sci 45:1717–1719Google Scholar
  8. Crowe JH, Crowe LM (1992) Membrane integrity in anhydrobiotic organisms: toward a mechanism for stabilizing dry cells. In: Somero GN, Osmond CB, Bolis CL (eds) Water and life. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 87–103Google Scholar
  9. Crowe JH, Crowe LM, Chapman D (1984a) Preservation of membranes in anhydrobiotic organisms: the role of trehalose. Science 223:701–703Google Scholar
  10. Crowe JH, Crowe LM, Chapman D (1984b) Infrared spectroscopic studies on interactions of water and carbohydrates with a biological membrane. Arch Biochem Biophys 232:400–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowe JH, Crowe LM, Hoekstra FA (1989a) Phase transitions and permeability changes in dry membranes during rehydration. J Bioenerg Biomembr 21:77–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowe JH, Hoekstra FA, Crowe LM (1989b) Membrane phase transitions are responsible for imbibitional damage in dry pollen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:520–523Google Scholar
  13. Crowe LM, Reid DS, Crowe JH (1996) Is trehalose special for preserving dry biomaterials? Biophys J 71:2087–2093PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eleutherio ECA, Araujo PS, Panek AD (1993) Protective role of trehalose during heat stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cryobiology 30:591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Esener A, Bol G, Kossen N, Roels JA (1981) Effect of water activity on microbial growth. In: Moo Young M, Robinson CW, Vesina C (eds) Advances in biotechnology. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 339–344Google Scholar
  16. Gervais P, Beney L (2001) Osmotic mass transfer in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Cell Mol Biol 47:831–839Google Scholar
  17. Gervais P, Marechal PA (1994) Yeast resistance to high levels of osmotic pressure: influence of kinetics. J Food Eng 22:399–407Google Scholar
  18. Gervais P, Marechal PA, Molin P (1992) Effects of the kinetics of osmotic pressure variation on yeast viability. Biotechnol Bioeng 40:1435–1439Google Scholar
  19. Gervais P, Martínez de Marañon I (1995) Effect of the kinetics of temperature variation on Saccharomyces cerevisiae viability and permeability. Biochim Biophys Acta 1235:52–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammoudah MM, Nir S, Bentz J, Mayhew E, Stewart TP, Hui S, Kurian RJ (1981) Interactions of La2+ with phosphatidylserine vesicles: binding, phase transition, leakage, 31P-NMR and fusion. Biochim Biophys Acta 645:102–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hottiger T, Schmutz P, Wiemken A (1987) Heat-induced accumulation and futile cycling of trehalose in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol 169:5518–5522PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones RP (1987) Measures of yeast death and deactivation and their meaning. Process Biochem 22:118–128Google Scholar
  23. Kets EPW, De Bont JAM (1994) Protective effect of betaine on survival of Lactobacillus plantarum subjected to drying. FEMS Microbiol Lett 116:251–256Google Scholar
  24. Laroche C, Marechal PA, Beney L, Gervais P (2001) The effect of osmotic pressure on the membrane fluidity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at different physiological temperatures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 56:249–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Leslie SB, Teter SA, Crowe LM, Crowe JH (1994) Trehalose lowers membrane phase transition in dry yeast cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1192:7–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leslie SB, Israeli E, Lighthart B, Crowe JH, Crowe LM (1995) Trehalose and sucrose protect both membranes and proteins in intact bacteria during drying. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:3592–3597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marechal PA, Gervais P (1994) Yeast viability related to water potential variation: influence of the transient phase. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 42:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martínez de Marañon I, Chaudansson N, Joly N, Gervais P (1999) Slow heat rate increases yeast thermotolerance by maintaining the plasma membrane integrity. Biotechnol Bioeng 65:176–181Google Scholar
  29. Norrish RS (1966) An equation for the activity coefficients and equilibrium relative humidities of the water in confectionery syrups. J Food Technol 1:25–39Google Scholar
  30. Poirier I, Marechal PA, Gervais P (1997) Effects of the kinetics of water potential variation on bacteria viability. J Appl Microbiol 82:101–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Poirier I, Marechal PA, Richard S, Gervais P (1999) Saccharomyces cerevisiae viability is strongly dependent on rehydration kinetics and the temperature of dried cells. J Appl Microbiol 86:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Scott WJ (1957) Water relations of food spoilage microorganisms. Adv Food Res 7:83–127Google Scholar
  33. Suutari M, Liukkonen K, Laakso S (1990) Temperature adaptation in yeasts: the role of fatty acids. J Gen Microbiol 136:1469–1474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas BJ, Rothstein R (1989) Elevated recombination rates in transcriptionally active DNA. Cell 56:619–630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Walton EF, Pringle JR (1980) Effect of growth temperature upon heat sensitivity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Arch Microbiol 124:285–287PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb MS, Hui SW, Steponkus PL (1993) Dehydration-induced lamellar-to-hexagonal-II phase transitions in DOPE/DOPC mixtures. Biochim Biophys Acta 1145:93–104PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés Alimentaires et BiotechnologiquesE.N.S.B.A.N.A.DijonFrance

Personalised recommendations