Yeasts and wine off-flavours: a technological perspective

Review article. Part of the special issue "Wine microbiology and safety: from the vineyard to the bottle (Microsafety Wine)", 19-20 Nov. 2009, ItalyIn wine production, yeasts have both beneficial and detrimental activities. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the yeast mainly responsible for turning grape juice into wine but this species and several others may also show undesirable effects in wines. Among such effects, technologists are particularly concerned with the production of offflavours that may occur during all stages of winemaking. Typical spoiling activities include the production of ethyl acetate by apiculate yeasts before fermentation, hydrogen sulphide by S. cerevisiae during fermentation phases, acetaldehyde by film-forming yeasts during bulk storage, and volatile phenols by Dekkera bruxellensis during storage or after bottling. The occurrence of these hazards depends on the technological operations designed to obtain a given type of wine and most can be avoided by current preventive or curative measures. On the contrary, good manufacturing practices must be strengthened to deal with the problem of volatile phenol production in red wines. Appropriate monitoring of D. bruxellensis populations and quantification of 4-ethylphenol is advised during storage, particularly when oak barrels are used, and absence of viable cells must be guaranteed in bottled wines. This work, which is based on our experience at winery level, aims to provide information on appropriate technological strategies to deal with the problem of off-flavours produced by yeasts

Aspects of molecular phenotype and its correlations with breast cancer behaviour and taxonomy

The assessment of breast cancer morphology remains an important element in the evaluation of prognosis and therapeutic planning for this disease. The tumour morphology reflects the molecular profile that produced it and consequently each can be predictive of the other

Immunological resilience and biodiversity for prevention of allergic diseases and asthma

Increase of allergic conditions has occurred at the same pace with the Great Acceleration, which stands for the rapid growth rate of human activities upon earth from 1950s. Changes of environment and lifestyle along with escalating urbanization are acknowledged as the main underlying causes. Secondary (tertiary) prevention for better disease control has advanced considerably with innovations for oral immunotherapy and effective treatment of inflammation with corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and biological medications. Patients are less disabled than before. However, primary prevention has remained a dilemma. Factors predicting allergy and asthma risk have proven complex: Risk factors increase the risk, while protective factors counteract them. Interaction of human body with environmental biodiversity with micro-organisms and biogenic compounds as well as the central role of epigenetic adaptation in immune homeostasis have given new insight. Allergic diseases are good indicators of the twisted relation to environment. In various non-communicable diseases, the protective mode of the immune system indicates low-grade inflammation without apparent cause. Giving microbes, pro- and prebiotics, has shown some promise in prevention and treatment. The real-world public health programme in Finland (2008-2018) emphasized nature relatedness and protective factors for immunological resilience, instead of avoidance. The nationwide action mitigated the allergy burden, but in the lack of controls, primary preventive effect remains to be proven. The first results of controlled biodiversity interventions are promising. In the fast urbanizing world, new approaches are called for allergy prevention, which also has a major cost saving potential.Peer reviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Review of solar energetic particle models

Solar Energetic Particle (SEP) events are interesting from a scientific perspective as they are the product of a broad set of physical processes from the corona out through the extent of the heliosphere, and provide insight into processes of particle acceleration and transport that are widely applicable in astrophysics. From the operations perspective, SEP events pose a radiation hazard for aviation, electronics in space, and human space exploration, in particular for missions outside of the Earth’s protective magnetosphere including to the Moon and Mars. Thus, it is critical to improve the scientific understanding of SEP events and use this understanding to develop and improve SEP forecasting capabilities to support operations. Many SEP models exist or are in development using a wide variety of approaches and with differing goals. These include computationally intensive physics-based models, fast and light empirical models, machine learning-based models, and mixed-model approaches. The aim of this paper is to summarize all of the SEP models currently developed in the scientific community, including a description of model approach, inputs and outputs, free parameters, and any published validations or comparisons with data.</p