Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Yeast bioprospecting versus synthetic biology—which is better for innovative beverage fermentation?

  • Mini-Review
  • Published:
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The University of Adelaide is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster (http://www.thewaite.org.waite-partners/wine-innovation-cluster/).

Funding

This project was supported by funding from Wine Australia (UA1803-2.1) and The Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production (www.ARCwinecentre.org.au; IC170100008), which is funded by the Australian Government with additional support from Wine Australia and industry partners. LA received a scholarship from the Playford Memorial Trust Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladimir Jiranek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alperstein, L., Gardner, J.M., Sundstrom, J.F. et al. Yeast bioprospecting versus synthetic biology—which is better for innovative beverage fermentation?. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 104, 1939–1953 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10364-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10364-x

Keywords

Navigation