Abstract
Yeast flocculation has been found to be important in many biotechnological processes. It has been suggested that flocculation is promoted by decreasing electrostatic repulsion between cells. In this study, we used an unconventional rapid technique—permittivity test—for determination of the flocculation properties and surface charge values of three industrial yeast strains with well-known flocculation characteristics: Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC 1017 (brewery, ale), S. pastorianus NCYC 680 (brewery, lager), and Debaryomyces occidentalis LOCK 0251 (unconventional amylolytic yeast). The measurements of permittivity were compared with the results from two classical methods for determination of surface charge: Alcian blue retention and Sephadex DEAE attachment. The permittivity values for particular strains correlated directly with the results of Alcian blue retention (r = 0.9). The results also confirmed a strong negative relationship between the capacitance of yeast suspensions and their flocculation abilities. The highest permittivity was noted for the ale strain NCYC 1017, with weak flocculation abilities, and the lowest for the flocculating lager yeast NCYC 680. This paper is the first to describe the possibility of using a rapid permittivity test to evaluate the surface charge of yeast cells and their flocculation abilities. This method is of practical value in various biotechnological industries where flocculation is applied as a major method of cell separation.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
For many industrial applications in which Saccharomyces sp. is used, e.g., beer, wine, and ethanol production, appropriate flocculation behavior is certainly one of the most important characteristics of a good production strain. Yeast cell flocculation has been the subject of numerous studies, but knowledge concerning this process is still incomplete. This phenomenon is a very complex process that depends on both the expression of specific flocculation genes such as FLO1, FLO5, FLO8, and FLO11 and factors that affect cell wall composition [30, 38, 39].
Yeast cell wall makes up between 10 and 25 % of cell volume, being composed mostly of fibrous β-1,3 glucan and mannoproteins, which are extensively O- and N-glycosylated [17, 18]. Phosphorylation of the mannosyl side chains gives yeast its anionic surface charge [6, 20]. Therefore, forces that influence cell-to-cell binding may also include electrostatic interactions [5, 33, 36, 37].
Flocculation is not only stimulated by the makeup of the yeast cell wall, but is also the result of the physical and chemical parameters of the fermentation medium. The degree of flocculation in brewery yeasts depends on the gravity of the wort, temperature, yeast pitching rate, and oxygen content [3]; For example, low temperatures generally promote cell–cell binding, but osmotic and ethanol stress, as well as continuous mild heat shock, may have a negative impact on the phenotypic expression of flocculation [7].
Yeast flocculation has been found to be important not only in brewing but also in other areas, such as medicine (cytodiagnosis, interactions of pathogens with animal host tissues, determination of organic implant acceptance), industry (biofilm formation, contamination), and biotechnology (sedimentation, attachment of yeasts to solid carriers, wastewater treatment) [14, 24, 31, 36].
Several studies have indicated that the cell surface charge changes when flocculation commences; i.e., a decrease in the cell surface charge occurs at the onset of flocculation. It was suggested that such a decrease in cell surface charge promotes flocculation by decreasing the electrostatic repulsion between cells [39]. Microbial surface charge is often determined using electrostatic chromatography by measurement of the electrophoretic motility or determination of the zeta potential [25, 40]. Alcian blue retention (ABR) or Sephadex attachment assays represent other classical methods for determining this parameter [11, 29].
Yeast cells, due to their surface charge, act as dielectric materials [8, 12, 16, 25]. Numerous studies have demonstrated electrical detection and characterization of the cell surface charge by studying cell attachment to different carbon electrodes or by using combined hydrodynamic flow systems with special impedance spectroscopy techniques [1, 2, 10, 22, 26, 28, 40]. The measurement of the dielectric properties of microbial cell suspensions is based on the ability of biological cells to accumulate charges when exposed to an electrical field. The well-known term “conductivity” reflects the concentration of aqueous ions, their mobility and valence, whilst “permittivity” provides knowledge about the polarization-relaxation response of cells to an external electric field as a function of excitation frequency [9]. The permittivity of living cell suspensions depends on the electrical field frequency, and falls in a series of steps, also called dispersions, as frequency increases [15]. At radiofrequencies, between 0.1 and 20 MHz, the dispersion results from the buildup of charges at cell membranes. A way to interpret this phenomenon is to compare the frequency of the electric field with the rate of cell polarization. At low frequencies (below 0.1 MHz), the field changes direction slowly enough to enable complete polarization of the cells. Accordingly, the measured permittivity is maximal. At high frequencies (above 20 MHz), the cells no longer have time to polarize. The residual permittivity is minimal, and corresponds essentially to the permittivity of the culture medium alone (Fig. 1a) [33]. Permittivity is also closely related to the age, shape, size, chemical composition, and cell density [28, 33, 35] (Fig. 1b). Therefore, valuable insight into the physiology of different eukaryotic cells can be obtained by studying their dielectric properties [2, 4, 9, 13, 15, 22, 23, 33, 43]. The results of these studies stimulated our research.
In this work, permittivity tests were conducted on two brewery yeast strains with different, well-known flocculation characteristics. Additionally, the unconventional strain Debaryomyces occidentalis was used as control material. The yeast surface charge was assessed based on an alternative rapid technique that measures the permittivity of yeast cell suspensions. The flocculation properties and surface charge values of the tested strains were compared with the results obtained from two classical methods: ABR and Sephadex attachment.
Materials and methods
Yeast strains, media, and culture conditions
In research work, three different strains from the NCYC collection (UK) and the LOCK105 collection (Poland) were used: Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCYC 1017 (brewery, ale strain), Saccharomyces pastorianus NCYC 680 (brewery, lager strain), and D. occidentalis LOCK 0251 (unconventional yeast). The yeasts were stored on wort agar slants at room temperature. Directly, before the experiment, they were activated by passage on fresh agar slants and incubated at 30 °C for 48 h. Propagation of yeasts was done in wort broth (Merck), in 500-ml round-bottomed flask filled with 50 ml medium (pH 5.0) on a laboratory shaker (220 rpm) at temperature of 30 °C for 48 h. After growth, cells were harvested by centrifugation (2,000×g) and finally resuspended in deionized water. The number of yeast cells in prepared suspensions was checked by analysis of microscopic images using an Olympus BX41 microscope with digital camera, Thoma counting chamber, and WinMeasure software (version 1.00).
Evaluation of cell surface charge
Cell surface charge was determined using the ABR assay. Standardized 1 ml yeast suspensions (5 × 107 cells/ml) in 0.02 M sodium acetate buffer (pH 4.0) in silicone tubes (2 ml) were resuspended in 1.8 ml Alcian blue dye (Sigma-Aldrich) buffer solution (50 mg/l; 0.02 M sodium acetate buffer; pH 4.0). The suspensions were incubated for 30 min at 25 °C and centrifuged (25 °C, 10 min, 2,000×g), and the amount of free dye remaining in the supernatant was measured spectrophotometrically at wavelength of 615 nm using a SPEKOL 220 spectrophotometer (Carl Zeiss Jena) and compared with a dye standard curve. The surface charge of cells was expressed as ABR equal to the amount of Alcian blue adsorbed by 5 × 107 cells [11].
Additionally, cell surface charge was assessed by attachment to Sephadex DEAE (positive) anion exchanger (Sigma-Aldrich). Samples of 4 ml yeast suspensions (5 × 107 cells/ml) in 0.2 M sodium phosphate buffer were mixed in test silicone tubes with 1 ml Sephadex gel. Cell–bead suspensions were incubated for 30 min at 25 °C with frequent agitation. After shaking, beads and attaching cells were left for 1 min to sediment. Supernatant with nonadherent cells was enumerated with Thoma counting chamber. The cell surface charge was expressed as the amount of cells (%) adsorbed on Sephadex DEAE beads [29].
Measurement of yeast permittivity
Permittivity tests were carried out in a flat capacitor (Fig. 1c). The measurement chamber had the form of a cylinder 1.8 mm high and 21.2 mm in diameter. All measurements were done at room temperature of 21 °C. The measurements were done using yeast cell suspensions (109 cells/ml) in redistilled water. The control sample was an identical volume of redistilled water, placed in the same testing chamber. The relative permittivity ε of the tested yeasts was the ratio of the capacitance C x of a capacitor in which the space between and around the electrodes is entirely and exclusively filled with the material in question, to the capacitance C 0 of the same configuration of electrodes where the space was filled with the solution without yeasts. The tests were carried out using the QuadTech 1693 RLC Digibridge, microprocessor-controlled, automatic, programmable RLC measuring instrument. The basic accuracy of capacitance measurement was 0.02 %. For all samples, the measurements of condenser capacitance were carried out at a frequency of measurement current of 1 kHz and at a frequency in the range from 100 Hz to 100 kHz. The maximum value of the measurement current voltage amounted to 1 V in all cases. For each frequency a measurement of the comparative sample capacitance was performed [32].
Statistical analysis
Results are reported as the mean of three independent experiments. Correlation coefficients (r values) between the surface charge results obtained using the three different analytical methods were calculated using Microsoft Office Excel 2007.
Results
The series of tests was carried out for all three yeast strains. The permittivity values ε were calculated based on the ratio of the capacitance of the capacitor with the tested sample, containing in each case 1 × 109 cells/ml of yeast suspension, to the capacitance of the analogous capacitor without the yeast content. The electrical permittivity of the yeast suspension depended strongly on frequency, reaching the level of 20 for the flocculating lager NCBY 680 strain and 83 for the ale NCBY 1017 strain, at 100 kHz (Fig. 2a). The highest permittivity was noted for the nonflocculating ale strain NCBY 1017, which at 1 kHz reached the value of 3.08 × 104 (Fig. 2b). The ε values measured for individual strains showed a strong correlation with the values of ABR (r = 0.90). Saccharomyces cerevisiae ale strain NCYC 1017 exhibited the highest surface charge (0.09 mg Alcian blue adsorbed per 5 × 107 cells). S. pastorianus NCYC 680 strain, described in the catalog of NCBY as a lager yeast, showed the lowest cell surface charge (0.04 mg per 5 × 107 cells). Strain D. occidentalis LOCK 0251 was characterized by a medium negative charge (0.06 mg per 5 × 107 cells) (Fig. 2c). The results obtained for these yeast strains with the use of the Sephadex method were not so diverse as in the case of the Alcian blue assay (Fig. 2d). We could observe spatially hindered access of yeast cells to the Sephadex surface (Fig. 2e), which could explain the weak positive correlation found between the yeast permittivity and cell attachment to Sephadex DEAE beads (r = 0.37).
Discussion
Membrane potential is an effect of accumulation of mobile electric charge carriers at membrane surfaces. When living cells are placed in time-oscillating electric fields, these charges move on the membrane surface, giving rise to extremely high polarizations. Within this range, the permittivity of live cell suspensions can be as high as 106 [26, 27]. At frequency <1 GHz or so, the electrical properties of ionic solutions are frequency independent, and may be assessed by measuring the capacitance and conductance of a sample held between two electrodes. In contrast to those of simple ionic solutions, the electrical properties of biological cells generally, and microbial suspensions in particular, are strongly frequency dependent. Additionally, it has been shown that the permittivity is linear with yeast biomass concentration [13]. A linear relationship was also found for the number of viable cells [22]. In this study, we confirmed this effect, as the most well-differentiated permittivity results were obtained at very low frequency of 1 kHz for all the tested strains.
Flocculation, a property of the yeast cell wall, is strongly correlated to the physical surface properties of the cell. It is usually observed at the end of fermentation. The cell surface charge was previously described as an important factor that promotes yeast flocculation. A decrease in the cell surface charge was suggested as a factor promoting flocculation by decreasing the electrostatic repulsion between cells [30, 38]. This was confirmed in our study for different selected brewery yeast strains with specific flocculation characteristics. In the experiments, the concentration of yeast cells, kind of medium, temperature, and phase of growth were kept the same. Therefore, we can suppose that the membrane potential of the tested yeast strains was varied and could influence the results of the permittivity test.
Adsorption of positively charged Alcian blue to yeast cells is a typical electrostatic interaction. Thus, the ABR parameter is an indicator of the overall negative charge of the yeast cell surface [41]. Interestingly, this strong correlation was not observed for the results obtained using another classical test—Sephadex DEAE assay. This may be due to (1) changes in the localization of elementary surface charges as a result of the contact of a cell with Sephadex anion exchanger, and (2) spatially hindered access of yeast cells to the Sephadex surface. This latter supposition was confirmed by the microscopic images.
Different dielectric methods provided fast immediate information about cell concentration, changes in cell volume, and cell viability [1, 8, 21, 25]. In recent years, permittivity has been exploited for the development of novel bioinstrumentation. This measurement has been widely used in medicine to differentiate normal from malignant tissues and to determine the state of different organs [10]. In biotechnology, one of the major applications was in online measurement of cellular biomass during fermentation [9, 19] or in control of cell death in stress conditions [33]. Additionally, permittivity can be used as a highly sensitive separation method for isolation of particular cell types [34].
Since the cell concentration increases exponentially with cell growth and levels off at the stationary phase, the relative permittivity of the yeast culture in broth showed an exponential increase followed by a plateau. Therefore, the trace of permittivity was similar to typical growth curves. In whisky fermentation, the changes in relative permittivity of the fermenting wort showed four distinct phases. In the first phase, the permittivity increased owing to the increase in the cell number. After the increase in the cell number stopped, an increase in ε was still observed (the second phase), being explained in terms of the increase in cell volume. In the third phase, there was a decrease in ε due to both the decrease in cell volume and the increase in the number of lifeless cells. In the final phase the relative permittivity became the same value as that of the medium, indicating that most cells were defunct because dead cells with leaky plasma membranes are not polarized. In beer fermentation, dielectric monitoring suggested that cells were alive throughout fermentation and that cell growth was highly synchronized [1].
The relationship between dielectric properties and viable cell count was examined, demonstrating that the definition of viability was critical when analyzing biomass online. The results obtained by Opel et al. [22] indicated that the assumptions of dielectric properties were not valid during cell processes. Different dielectric characteristics of intra- and extracellular medium (e.g., ion concentration, presence of organelles) or cell size and shape still have a measurable influence on the dielectric spectrum [15]. Among other possible mechanisms leading to variations of the internal conductivity, the role of trehalose and glycogen deserves some attention: these sugars are accumulated in fairly large amounts by S. cerevisiae, either as reserve carbohydrates before entering the stationary phase, or as heat-protecting agents. As storage materials they can both represent up to 30 % of cell dry weight, equivalent to an average intracellular concentration of 150–300 g/l, able to affect the cytosol viscosity and ion mobility. Finally, the intracellular pH could also play a role, since it modulates the level of protonation and hence the charge of molecules with ionizable functions. It is well accepted that the intracellular pH varies with the culture phase: being close to neutrality in exponential phase, it tends to balance the pH of the medium during lag phase or stationary phase [33]. Additionally, the major source of the nonlinear dielectricity may be also H(+)-ATPase [42]. The activity of this enzyme depends on different cell-associated and environmental factors. However, the findings demonstrated that dielectric methods, which are not a substitute for viable cell counts, may be a complementary measurement of workable biomass, providing useful auxiliary information about the physiological state of a culture.
Conclusions
The obtained investigation results confirm the initial presumptions made by the authors that there is a dependence between the permittivity of brewery strains and their flocculation abilities. These preliminary studies can be a source of inspiration for future studies on the application of permittivity tests for assessing the flocculation ability of different yeasts. The authors will monitor the permittivity characteristics of industrial yeast strains under conditions similar to those used in fermentation processes to confirm the results obtained in model conditions using appropriate time-oscillating electric fields. The first results may provide a base to consider that this unconventional method of surface charge determination can be used not only in brewery industry, but also in production of other alcoholic beverages, as well as in production of biofuels, in modern biotechnology, and in numerous other applications where flocculation is used as an important process of cell separation.
References
Asami K (2002) Characterization of biological cells by electric spectroscopy. J Non-Cryst Solids 305:268–277
Asami K, Sekine K (2007) Dielectric modelling of cell division for budding and fission yeast. J Phys D 40:1128–1133
Benabdesselam FM (2010) Malt factor induced flocculation in Saccharomyces uvarum. Sci Res Essays 17:2595–2602
Bunthawin S, Wanichapichart P, Gimsa J, Songklanakarin J (2007) An investigation of dielectric properties of biological cells using RC-model. Sci Technol 29:1163–1181
Caridi A (2006) Enological functions of parietal yeast mannoproteins. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 89:417–422
Cerbon J, Calderon V (1990) Interfacial pH modulation of membrane protein function in vivo. Effect of anionic phospholipids. Biochim Biophys Acta 1028:261–267
Claro FB, Rijsbrack K, Soares EV (2007) Flocculation onset in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: effect of ethanol, heat and osmotic stress. J Appl Microbiol 102:693–700
Crane JS, Pohl HA (1978) The dielectric properties of single yeast cells. J Electrostat 5:11–19
Davey CL, Mark GH, Kell DB (1993) On the dielectric method of monitoring cellular viability. Pure Appl Chem 65:1921–1926
Dean DA, Ramanathan T, Machado D, Sundararajan R (2008) Electrical impedance spectroscopy study of biological tissues. J Electrostat 66:165–177
Fukudome K, Sado M, Takata Y, Kuroda H, Watari J, Takashiio M (2002) Evaluation of yeast physiological state by alcian blue retension. J Am Soc Brew Chem 60:149–152
Goncharenko AV, Chang Y-C (2009) Effective dielectric properties of biological cells: generalization of the spectral density function approach. J Phys Chem B 113:9924–9931
Harris CM, Todd RW, Bungard SJ, Lovitt RW, Morris JG, Keli DB (1987) Dielectric permittivity of microbial suspensions at radio frequencies: a novel method for the real-time estimation of microbial biomass. Enzyme Microb Technol 9:181–186
Huang Y-X, Wu Z-J, Mehrishi J, Huang B-T, Chen X-Y, Zheng X-J, Liu WJ, Luo M (2011) Human red blood cell aging: correlative changes in surface charge and cell properties. J Cell Mol Med 15:2634–2642
Huclova S, Erni D, Fröhlich J (2010) Modelling effective dielectric properties of materials containing diverse types of biological cells. J Phys D 43. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/43/36/365405
Kawanishi G, Fukuda N, Muraji M (2009) Nonlinear dielectric properties of yeast cells cultured in different environment conditions. Electron Comm Jpn 92:47–52
Klis FM, Boorsma A, De Groot PWJ (2006) Cell wall construction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 23:185–202
Klis FM, Mol P, Hellingwerf K, Brul S (2002) Dynamics of cell wall structure in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Microbiol Rev 26:239–256
Krommenhoek EE, Gardeniers JGE, Bomer JG, Van den Berg A, Li X, Ottens M, van der Wielen LAM, van Dedem GWK, Van Leeuwen M, van Gulik WM, Heijnen JJ (2006) Monitoring of yeast cell concentration using a micromachined impedance sensor. Sens Actuators B 115:384–389
Lipke PN, Ovalle R (1998) Cell wall architecture in yeast: new structure and new challenges. J Bacteriol 180:3735–3740
Matanguihan RM, Konstantinov KB, Yoshida T (1994) Dielectric measurement to monitor the growth and the physiological states of biological cells. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 11:213–222
Opel CF, Li J, Amanullah A (2010) Quantitative modeling of viable cell density, cell size, intracellular conductivity, and membrane capacitance in batch and fed-batch CHO processes using dielectric spectroscopy. Biotechnol Prog 26:1187–1199
Palanisami A, Mercier GT, Fang J, Miller JH (2011) Nonlinear impedance of whole cells near an electrode as a probe of mitochondrial activity. Biosensors 1:46–57
Palmer J, Flint S, Brooks J (2007) Bacterial cell attachment, the beginning of a biofilm. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 34:9577–9588
Patel PM, Bhat A, Markx GH (2008) A comparative study of cell death using electrical capacitance measurements and electrophoresis. Enzyme Microb Tech 43:523–530
Prodan C, Mayo F, Claycomb JR, Miller JH, Benedik MJ (2004) Low-frequency, low-field dielectric spectroscopy of living cell suspensions. J Appl Phys 95:3754–3756
Prodan E, Prodan C, Miller JH (2008) The dielectric response of spherical live cells in suspension: an analytic solution. Biophys J 95:4174–4182
Ron A, Singh RR, Fishelson N, Shur I, Socher R, Benayahu D, Shacham-Diamand Y (2008) Cell-based screening for membranal and cytoplasmatic markers using dielectric spectroscopy. Biophys Chem 135:59–68
Santamaría C, Iglesias FJ, Domínguez A (1985) Dielectrophoretic deposition in suspensions of macromolecules: polyvinylchloride and sephadex G-50. J Colloid Interf Sci 103:508–515
Soares EV (2011) Flocculation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a review. J Appl Microbiol 110:1–18
Stratton HM, Brooks PR, Griffiths PC, Seviour RJ (2002) Cell surface hydrophobicity and mycolic acid composition of Rhodococcus strains isolated from activated sludge foam. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 28:264–267
Szubzda B, Kregiel D, Berlowska J, Mazurek B, Adamowska M, Ambroziak W (2007) Dielectric properties of biological structures exemplified on yeast cells. Scientific Papers of the Institute of Electrical Engineering Fundamentals of Wroclaw Technical University Conferences 46:230–234
Tibayrenc P, Preziosi-Belloy L, Ghommidh C (2011) On-line monitoring of dielectrical properties of yeast cells during a stress-model alcoholic fermentation. Process Biochem 46:193–201
Valero A, Braschler T, Demierre N, Renaud P (2010) A miniaturized continuous dielectrophoretic cell sorter and its applications. Biomicrofluidics 4:022807. doi:10.1063/1.3430542
Valero A, Braschler T, Rauch A, Demierre N, Barralb Y, Renaud P (2011) Tracking and synchronization of the yeast cell cycle using dielectrophoretic opacity. Lab Chip 11:754–1760
Van Holle A, Machado MD, Soares EV (2012) Flocculation in ale brewing strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: re-evaluation of the role of cell surface charge and hydrophobicity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 93:1221–1229
Vernhert A, Pellerin P, Prieur C, Osmianski J, Moutounet M (1996) Charge properties of some grape and wine polysaccharide and polyphenolic fractions. Am J Enol Viticult 47:25–29
Verstrepen KJ, Derdelinckx G, Verachtert H, Delvaux FR (2003) Yeast flocculation: what brewers should know. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 61:197–205
Vidgren V, Londesborough J (2011) 125th anniversary review: yeast flocculation and sedimentation in brewing. J Inst Brew 117:475–487
Vu DL, Sýs M, Červenka L (2011) The effect of various potentials on the attachment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Staphylococcus epidermidis to carbon paste electrodes. Int J Electrochem Sci 6:5265–5274
White JS, Walker GM (2011) Influence of cell surface characteristics on adhesion of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to the biomaterial hydroxylapatite. Antonie van Leeuwenhoeck 99:201–209
Woodward AM, Kell DB (1991) Confirmation by using mutant strains that the membrane-bound H(+)-ATPase is the major source of non-linear dielectricity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. FEMS Microbiol Lett 68:91–95
Wu L, Yung L-YL, Lim K-M (2012) Dielectrophoretic capture voltage spectrum for measurement of dielectric properties and separation of cancer cells. Biomicrofluidics 6:014113 doi:10.1063/1.3690470
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Kregiel, D., Berlowska, J. & Szubzda, B. Novel permittivity test for determination of yeast surface charge and flocculation abilities. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39, 1881–1886 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-012-1193-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-012-1193-y