Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 21;16:66. doi: 10.1186/s12934-017-0679-8

Table 2.

Modelled (A, μ, λ) and measured (dry mass) fermentation and growth parameters of the fermentation assays that were performed at different temperatures (10 and 20 °C) and supplemented ethanol levels (0 and 8% (v/v) EtOH)

Strain and condition A (°brix) μ (°brix h−1) λ (hours) Dry mass (g L−1)
10 °C, 0% EtOH P1 6.85 (±0.18)ab 0.132 (±0.0107)ab 160 (±2.3)b 9.2 (±0.65)cd
P2 6.63 (±0.13)b 0.140 (±0.0172)a 122 (±2.3)c 9.8 (±0.05)bcd
P3 7.10 (±0.15)a 0.108 (±0.0064)bc 97 (±2.2)e 11.0 (±0.33)abc
H1 (P1 × P3) 7.02 (±0.18)ab 0.089 (±0.0059)c 111 (±3.1)d 12.2 (±1.62)ab
H2 (P2 × P3) 7.13 (±0.19)a 0.106 (±0.0083)c 118 (±3.2)c 12.6 (±0.14)a
H3 (P1 × P2) 6.87 (±0.16)ab 0.095 (±0.0058)c 120 (±2.6)c 7.5 (±1.75)d
T1 (H1 × P2) 7.01 (±0.14)ab 0.095 (±0.0054)c 106 (±2.5)d 12.7 (±0.39)a
T2 (T1 segregant) 7.05 (±0.13)ab 0.093 (±0.0015)c 182 (±0.7)a 10.9 (±0.16)abc
20 °C, 0% EtOH P1 6.63 (±0.02)b 0.403 (±0.0069)a 36 (±0.1)b 12.5 (±3.12)a
P2 6.86 (±0.05)a 0.470 (±0.0630)a 31 (±0.6)c 11.6 (±0.16)a
P3 6.83 (±0.07)a 0.501 (±0.1218)a 30 (±0.8)cd 10.6 (±0.58)a
H1 (P1 × P3) 6.83 (±0.04)a 0.435 (±0.0406)a 29 (±0.3)de 13.9 (±1.55)a
H2 (P2 × P3) 6.80 (±0.03)a 0.426 (±0.0470)a 22 (±0.7)f 10.6 (±0.18)a
H3 (P1 × P2) 6.74 (±0.06)ab 0.428 (±0.1647)a 27 (±0.7)e 13.3 (±1.88)a
T1 (H1 × P2) 6.87 (±0.05)a 0.392 (±0.0494)a 23 (±1.0)f 13.1 (±0.80)a
T2 (T1 segregant) 6.77 (±0.08)ab 0.357 (±0.0292)a 42 (±0.4)a 11.5 (±0.22)a
10 °C, 8% EtOH P1 3.45 (±0.53)d 0.009 (±0.0007)bc 569 (±14.9)ab 4.3 (±0.4)bc
P2 0.32 (±0.03)e 0.001 (±0.0001)d 186 (±28.3)d 0.3 (±0.04)bc
P3 7.50 (±0.20)a 0.027 (±0.0010)a 446 (±5.7)c 15.7 (±1.97)a
H1 (P1 × P3) 6.45 (±0.96)ab 0.017 (±0.0082)b 596 (±58.9)a 8.1 (±5.26)b
H2 (P2 × P3) 4.22 (±0.63)cd 0.004 (±0.0008)cd 559 (±43.5)ab 6.4 (±0.24)b
H3 (P1 × P2) 5.14 (±0.60)bc 0.010 (±0.0008)bc 561 (±16.6)ab 3.3 (±0.09)bc
T1 (H1 × P2) 1.53 (±0.51)e 0.002 (±0.0005)cd 464 (±66.3)bc 3.3 (±0.70)bc
T2 (T1 segregant) NA NA NA NA
20 °C, 8% EtOH P1 6.69 (±0.11)b 0.068 (±0.0036)b 171 (±2.8)b 7.5 (±1.53)b
P2 1.00 (±0.01)d 0.020 (±0.0011)c 56 (±1.3)d 1.5 (±0.08)c
P3 0.31 (±0.01)e 0.013 (±0.0031)cd 57 (±2.9)d 0.8 (±0.10)c
H1 (P1 × P3) 7.09 (±0.19)a 0.095 (±0.0068)a 220 (±2.9)a 14.9 (±0.10)a
H2 (P2 × P3) 0.50 (±0.01)e 0.015 (±0.0033)cd 49 (±4.1)d 1.5 (±0.06)c
H3 (P1 × P2) 1.29 (±0.03)c 0.015 (±0.0014)cd 58 (±4.4)d 1.5 (±0.09)c
T1 (H1 × P2) 0.51 (±0.01)e 0.016 (±0.0037)cd 49 (±4.4)d 1.1 (±0.06)c
T2 (T1 segregant) 1.14 (±0.03)cd 0.007 (±0.0005)d 70 (±4.5)c 1.3 (±0.04)c

NA not available

The growth curves were modelled using the logistic model in the ‘grofit’ package for R. Values were determined from three independent cultivations (standard deviation in parentheses). Values in the same group in the same column with different superscript letters (a–f) differ significantly (p < 0.05 as determined with one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test)