Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0248382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248382

A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor

Emanuela Palomba 1,#, Valentina Tirelli 2,#, Elisabetta de Alteriis 3, Palma Parascandola 4, Carmine Landi 4, Stefano Mazzoleni 5, Massimo Sanchez 2,*
Editor: Alvaro Galli6
PMCID: PMC8191950  PMID: 34111115

Abstract

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a reference model system and one of the widely used microorganisms in many biotechnological processes. In industrial yeast applications, combined strategies aim to maximize biomass/product yield, with the fed-batch culture being one of the most frequently used. Flow cytometry (FCM) is widely applied in biotechnological processes and represents a key methodology to monitor cell population dynamics. We propose here an application of FCM in the analysis of yeast cell cycle along the time course of a typical S. cerevisiae fed-batch culture. We used two different dyes, SYTOX Green and SYBR Green, with the aim to better define each stage of cell cycle during S. cerevisiae fed-batch culture. The results provide novel insights in the use of FCM cell cycle analysis for the real-time monitoring of S. cerevisiae bioprocesses.

Introduction

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is widely used in many industrial processes, including those related to its fermentation capacity. It is used in the food industry (brewing, winemaking, baking and food additives), in the production of biofuel and medically relevant biomolecules for therapeutic applications [1,2].

Due to the biotechnological importance of S. cerevisiae, yeast cultivation strategies have been improved to optimize the maximum achievable cell density in bioreactors. In particular, to increase the biomass yield, the cultural strategy of the “extended batch” or “fed-batch” culture [3,4] has been developed to prolong the classic batch culture by a continuous or intermittent supply of fresh medium to the vessel so to achieve a high cell density [5]. This process has been traditionally used to produce baker’s yeast [6].

Further, different mathematical models have been developed and implemented to describe S. cerevisiae growth in different cultural conditions, to infer on and to predict yeast performance [710].

Developed mainly for medical and clinical purposes, flow cytometry (FCM) is a powerful technology that is finding application in agriculture and food science, including pro-biotic research and genetically modified organism development [11].

Moreover, it has been outlined how FCM technology can support other fields such as cytogenomics [12], proteomics [13], and marine cell biology [14,15].

FCM has been successfully applied in food microbiology for the assessment of safety during all steps of the food production chain, and widely used for the analysis of alcoholic beverages and dairy products [11,1618]. Indeed, FCM analytical approaches allow high throughput detection, quantification, monitoring and, where necessary, the separation (i.e. cell sorting) of physiologically diverse microbial subpopulations in liquid food samples [19].

Given the positive outcome of these applications, different analysis systems have recently become available on the market to control the entire productive process or directly the final product [18].

S. cerevisiae growth can be efficiently monitored by FCM through the analysis of both the cell size and different cell properties (e.g: viability, vitality, apoptotic index, free radicals production, protein and nucleic acids content). This gives the possibility to correlate cellular attributes to yeast growth performance and predict the overall outcome of the bioprocess of interest [2022].

In particular, protein and nucleic acids content showed a correlation with the growth phase and growth rate [23,24], and with the amount of recombinant proteins produced by a yeast population growing in both continuous and fed-batch cultures [19].

It is well known that in yeast the differences in DNA content are correlated within the major phases of the cell cycle [25], so the progression of a proliferating population of yeast through the cell cycle can be monitored on the basis of the differences in DNA content and cellular size (Fig 1). In particular, FCM allows the identification of the pre-replicative phases (G0 and G1), DNA synthesis stage (S), post-replicative and mitotic (G2+M) phases. Moreover, cells with fractional DNA content typical of apoptosis can be further identified as a ‘‘sub-G1” population [25,26]. For example, the analysis of cells blocked in G0/G1 phase by using SYBR Green dye, gives information on nitrogen influence during alcoholic fermentation in S. cerevisiae [27]. By using the propidium iodide (PI), Jayakody and co-authors revealed that fermentation inhibitors impact S. cerevisiae population by blocking cells in G2/M phase [28]. Salma et al. [29] studied the cell cycle of S. cerevisiae in synthetic wine during viable but non-culturable state, so allowing the detection of cells which are not identified with routine laboratory methods.

Fig 1. Schematic view of budding yeast cell cycles: Stages (a) and size (b).

Fig 1

Scale bar on the left of panel B represents 2 μm. Images adapted from [30] (a) and [31] (b).

Interestingly, Delobel et al., [32] used FCM to quantify the relative proportions of yeast cells in each cell cycle stage at different points of the growth curve of a population in batch culture by combining the data on cell size with the outputs obtained with different DNA binding dyes: SYTOX Green, PI, TO-PRO-3, 7- aminoactinomycin D and SYBR Green I. The authors concluded that SYTOX Green performs better than the other dyes in the identification of all the different cell cycle stages, also giving information on the percentage of cells in G0 phase, and allowing a clear discrimination between G0 and G1. Indeed, they stated that the peak commonly called “sub-G1” would not be representative of apoptotic cells but of the population fraction in G0 phase. Nevertheless, they concluded by recommending to use for yeast cell cycle analysis both SYTOX Green and SYBR Green I, under defined conditions and with appropriate reference samples [32].

In this work, we propose a FCM analysis of yeast cell cycle along the time course of a different type of S. cerevisiae cultivation, the fed-batch culture, based on the use of the two recommended DNA binding dyes (SYTOX Green and SYBR Green) and cell size. By comparing the results obtained with the two dyes, we define a suitable strategy of analysis for real-time monitoring of a yeast fed-batch bioprocess.

Materials and methods

The strain used for the experimental work was Saccharomyces cerevisiae CEN.PK2-1C (MATa ura3-52 his3-D1 leu2-3, 112 trp1-289 MAL2-8c SUC2) purchased at EUROSCARF collection (www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb15/mikro/euroscarf).

The experimental workflow is represented in Fig 2. The fed-batch culture was performed in a stirred 2 L working volume bioreactor (Bioflo 110, New Brunswick Scientific), as already described [7]. Briefly, the bioreactor filled with the medium was inoculated with an adequate aliquot of yeast pre-culture and growth was allowed to occur in batch mode. After 15 h (corresponding to time 0 of feeding phase), the feeding was started with a solution of 50% w/v glucose and salts, trace elements, glutamic acid and vitamins. The initial specific feeding rate was 0,16 h-1, which was progressively decreased along the time course of the experiment, according to a logistically decreasing specific growth rate, as predicted by the model by Mazzoleni et al. [7].

Fig 2. Overview of the experimental workflow.

Fig 2

A fed-batch culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was performed in a stirred bioreactor (a) and sampled at different times during the cultivation starting from time 0 corresponding to a 15 h batch-cultivation (b). Fixed cells were stained (c) with either SYTOX Green or SYBR Green dyes for DNA detection. Finally, cells were analyzed by flow cytometer (d) as described in Materials and Methods.

Cell samples were collected at different times during the cultivation run up to 26 h of the feeding phase (see also Fig 2a) to determine cell mass (optical density at 590 nm and dry weight determination) and perform FCM analysis.

In parallel to the fed-batch culture, a batch culture was set up with the same culture medium to collect yeast cells at 0.D.590 = 0,6 (exponential cells) and after 7 days (starved cells), to be used as reference samples in FCM analysis.

For FCM analysis, samples were centrifuged (500 g, 5 min) to pellet cells and discard the culture medium. Then, cells were re-suspended and fixed in 75% ethanol, added dropwise under continuous vortexing to avoid cell agglomeration.

Fixed cell were centrifuged, treated with 1 mg ml-1 DNase-free RNAse A (Sigma) and stained with SYTOX Green (1 μM, Invitrogen, λex 504 nm/ λem 523 nm) or SYBR Green (1 μM, Invitrogen, λex 497 nm⁄λem 518 nm). Cells were acquired by Gallios Flow cytometer, equipped with 3 lasers (405 nm, 488 nm, 633 nm, Beckman Coulter, Milan, Italy) and data were analysed with Kaluza Analysis Software v. 2.1 (Beckman Coulter).

Results

Identification of cell cycle stages in a fed-batch culture of S. cerevisiae

The fed-batch culture, which allowed yeast population to increase up to a maximal value of biomass, was sampled at different times of the feeding phase (from 0 to 26 h). From each sample, cells were isolated and stained either with SYBR or SYTOX Green dyes in order to assess the dynamic changes of DNA content during S. cerevisiae cell cycle (Fig 2) which together with the evaluation of cell size allowed the identification of the different cell cycle phases.

In parallel, both stains were used to identify cell cycle profiles of exponential and starved yeast cells. In particular, the exponential cells, collected from a 15 h batch culture, was regarded as reference sample (Fig 3). Here, the distribution of cell sizes (forward scatter, FSC-A) and the content of cellular DNA (green fluorescence, FL1-A) individually plotted vs cell count or combined in dot plots (FSC-A vs FL1-A) are reported for exponential (Fig 3a) and starved cells (Fig 3b), respectively.

Fig 3. Flow cytometric analysis of S. cerevisiae cells from a batch culture, during exponential (a) and final starvation (b) phases, stained with SYTOX Green and SYBR Green dyes.

Fig 3

Dashed rectangles group the mono-dimensional analysis of forward scatter signal (FSC-A) and green fluorescence (FL1-A), representing cell size and DNA content per cell, respectively, vs cell count. In the dot plots on the right of each panel, G0, G1, S, and G2/M cell cycle stages are identified according to both FSC-A and FL1-A.

For all the analysed stages, the percentage of cells in each cell cycle stage was similar for both dyes. The graphical results of SYBR Green and SYTOX Green staining for exponential cells were comparable: both dyes allowed a clear and precise definition of the cell cycle phases (G1, S, M and G2/M), as evidenced by the dot plots of FSC-A vs FL1-A and the histograms of FSC-A and FL1-A signals. The DNA content distribution of exponential cells will be used as reference for subsequent analyses.

Conversely, in the case of starved cells (Fig 3b) a more complex situation was evident. Indeed, considering the cell size (FSC-A), the staining with both SYBR Green and SYTOX Green highlighted a substantial increase and a less homogeneous distribution in both S and G0 phases. In detail, as clearly shown in the relative histograms, the FSC-A of S phase identified one population with a wider distribution of cell sizes, whereas the FSC-A of G0 phase identified two different populations with two single peaked values. Interestingly, while the cell cycle profile of samples stained with SYTOX Green was consistent with the expected distribution of DNA content, the FL1-A signal was affected by the size distribution (FCS-A signal) in samples stained with SYBR Green (Fig 3b, FL1-A histograms).

From Fig 3, it is clear that an easier and more accurate analysis of the yeast cell cycle comes from the simultaneous evaluation of DNA content and cell size (significant variable during the yeast growth). Consequently, to analyse the progression of the cell cycle over time, the mono-dimensional analysis (histogram) cannot be used alone. The bi-dimensional analysis represented by dot plots (FL1-A vs FSC-A), by considering also cell dimension, becomes fundamental for a clearer and more accurate interpretation of the results, thus avoiding the non-informative artefacts of mono-dimensional analysis (especially after staining with SYBR Green).

We then analysed the cell cycle phases of cells collected during the fed-batch run, represented by a yeast population grown under a continuous but progressively decreasing supply of nutrients. In Fig 4, the analysis of some representative cell samples collected at different times (0, 6, 12, 22, 26 h) during the feeding phase is shown, to make a comparison of the SYBR Green and SYTOX Green outputs. Moreover, in Fig 4 FL1-A histograms are shown in parallel to dot plots in order to confirm that the bi-dimensional analysis gives rise to an easier identification of cell cycle phases. Interestingly, the distribution of cell size in S phase gradually widens from time 0 of the feeding run, corresponding to a batch culture of a 15 h (see Material and Methods), up to 26 h, and probably was fated to widen even more reaching the distribution observed in the reference starved culture (Fig 3b). Of note, the presence of two different populations in the G0 phase is not observed in the 0–26 h interval, probably indicating a phenomenon occurring in a more advanced culture or in starved conditions.

Fig 4. Analysis of S. cerevisiae cell cycle during the feeding phase of the cultivation by either SYTOX Green or SYBR Green staining.

Fig 4

The figure shows both bi-dimensional (dot plots, FL1-A vs FSC-A) and mono-dimensional analysis (histograms of FL1-A).

The green fluorescence intensity is directly proportional to the amount of DNA present in each cell, and we used the green fluorescence intensity of the exponential phase as a reference value. Considering the fluorescent signal (FL1-A on the y axis of the dot plot), in Fig 3b and in Fig 4, SYTOX Green and SYBR Green showed a different behaviour. Indeed, if we consider the characteristics of DNA content during the entire cell cycle (e.g. G2 cells have twice as much nuclear DNA as G1 cells) [25], the fluorescent signals of cells stained with SYTOX Green were more in line with those expected. Differently, when stained with SYBR Green, the fluorescence signal showed an apparent correlation with the cell size particularly in G0 and S phase where the fluorescence intensity becomes higher as the cell size increases (Figs 3b and 4).

In Fig 5 the percentage of cells in each phase of the cell cycle during the feeding phase, detected using SYTOX Green, is reported showing the overall trend over the run.

Fig 5. Distribution of cells in different cycle stages during the feeding phase of a S. cerevisiae cultivation.

Fig 5

Only positive standard deviations are reported in the graph.

Of note, the population of cells in G0 increases with the proceeding of the feeding run while that in S phase showed an opposite trend, particularly evident from 10 h after the beginning of the run. Moreover, in the last point of the feeding run (26 h) the percentage of cells in each cell cycle phase was comparable to that of the starved phase. In detail, by comparing the values of the 26 h feeding run and those of the starved reference sample (% GO = 82,28±3,7 vs 81,88±2,94; % G1 = 3,20±0,77 and 2,43±2,05, % S = 13,61±2,45 and 15,19±4,85; % G2/M = 0,91±0,51 and 0,50±0,14), it is evident that the percentage of cells in each phase of the yeast population cultured in fed-batch approached a starvation condition, in concomitance with the progressive reduction of the nutrient feeding rate along the run.

Discussion

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a reference model for biological systems widely used in many industrial applications [1,2]. The CEN.PK 2-1C strain used in the study can be considered as a reference strain. Indeed, it belongs to the CEN.PK family of isogenic laboratory strains with all possible combinations of the auxotrophic markers ura3, his3, leu2, and trp1. The CEN.PK strain family was constructed with the express aim of meeting the requirements of physiologists, geneticists, and engineers [33]. These strains display good performance in standard transformation tests and cultivation under well-defined conditions, so they are commonly used in studies related to cell growth rates and product formation, such as heterologous protein production.

In the context of industrial processes, where a critical point is the real-time monitoring of the bioprocess, FCM has been applied to control the microbial performance in bioreactors [18,34].

Recently, FCM has been used as a sensitive and reliable tool for the real-time monitoring of the relative proportion of cells for each cell cycle stage in different times of an S. cerevisiae batch culture [32]. Since this study recommended SYTOX and SYBR Green as most suitable DNA-binding dyes [32], we used both and the cell size parameter to determine the different phases of the cell cycle of a S. cerevisiae population growing in a fed-batch bioreactor and compared results to define the best method of analysis.

The bi-dimensional analysis represented by dot plots of FSC-A and FL1-A (cell size and green fluorescence, respectively) and also suggested by Zhang et al. [35] allows the rapid evaluation of two parameters the changing of which characterizes the cell cycle of budding yeast and avoids the confusing artefacts of the mono-dimensional analysis.

Our results highlighted two main features. The first one is related to the fluorescent signal. Although SYTOX Green and SYBR Green outputs are comparable in the exponential phase (Fig 3a), the SYTOX Green performs better than SYBR Green. In fact, as shown in Figs 3b and 4, the SYTOX Green staining allows to clearly identify all phases of cell cycle in yeast starved culture as well as during the whole feeding run. SYTOX Green identifies better the differences in the DNA content between S and G2/M phase, which are expected to be higher in G2/M phase [25].

Both the two dyes, SYTOX Green and SYBR Green, bind with high affinity the DNA [36,37]. The main difference is that SYBR green penetrates also fixed intact cells, while SYTOX Green easily penetrates cells with compromised membranes [3840]. This is not a problem since cell membranes are permeabilized by the fixative process in our experiments. Further, the staining with SYBR Green has been found to be more affected than SYTOX Green by non-specific binding of the dye to sediments and debris [4143], so the increased fluorescent signal that we found after staining yeast cells with SYBR green can be explained by a specific interaction of the dye with residual particles present in the samples. Moreover, it is known that SYBR green binds both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA [44] and it could be also possible that it binds even preferentially to mitochondrial DNA [45]. Nevertheless, further analysis is required to completely clarify the different affinity for mitochondrial and nuclear DNA of the two dyes.

The second feature is related to the cell size, and it is common to both stains: the less homogeneous distribution of cell size in S and G0 phase (Figs 3b and 4). This can be related to the gradual increase of cellular asynchrony [4648]. Considering the fraction represented by G0 cells, the heterogeneous size is expected according to previous findings identifying in stationary cultures sub-populations characterized by different morphologic and physiological properties, i.e smaller and larger cells [4952].

Regarding the S phase, since during that phase most of cell growth occurs in the bud [53], we can assume that the different cellular size detected in S phase depends on the different sizes of emerging buds.

Interestingly, if we consider the dimension of cells in the G1 phases as a standard for a cell after cytokinesis, from our results, we can assume that in the S phase two phenomena coexist (Figs 3b and 4). Firstly, an overall increase in cell dimension that could be dependent from a weaker control of cellular size and secondly, the growth of bud cells can be not accompanied by a proper cellular division, as previously observed [46]. Consequently, even if ready to divide, the mother and the daughter remain physically bound and the FCM device fails to consider them as two single and separate events.

Of note, it has been demonstrated that yeast cells can enter in G0 from each cell cycle phase [54]. Hence, the fact that the distribution of dimensions in G0 phase shows a profile similar to that of cells in S phase could be an evidence that the major proportion of cells in our culture entering G0 derives from S phase.

This phenomenon could probably explain the presence of two different G0 populations in the starved culture. Cells smaller in size are failing to re-enter the cell cycle while those bigger in size can represent the population of cells which exit cell cycle during the S phase. Finally, from 10 h after the beginning of the feeding phase, for each sampled time, the increment of G0 fraction and the reduction of S fraction are quantitatively comparable (Fig 5). This reinforces the hypothesis that most of the cells in G0 phase derive from S phase.

Conclusions

In this study, the cell cycle along the time course of a S. cerevisiae fed-batch culture has been evaluated on the basis of cell size and DNA content variation by using the two recommended dyes SYBR Green and SYTOX Green. Despite the comparable outputs in batch exponential phase of growth, SYTOX Green staining performed better than SYBR Green in the identification of all cell cycle phases of a starved culture, as well as during the whole feeding phase of a S. cerevisiae fed-batch culture. Despite the difficulties in fully standardizing the analytical methods to obtain comparable results, the bi-dimensional representation has proven to be effective for characterizing the cell cycle of budding yeast grown in a fed-batch bioreactor and thus inferring on its physiological status. This could pave the way for the development of a suitable strategy of analysis in the perspective of a real-time monitoring of a yeast fed-batch bioprocess applicable with minimal effort to industrial processes.

Data Availability

The data are available on the public repository Flow Repository, the URL is: https://flowrepository.org/id/RvFrh23lz1PIoA8cb0yfMOqshSYSsKaoQnAwXegVmOjxo9rP7W6UzfchDWZgl0fl.

Funding Statement

Emanuela Palomba is supported by a PhD fellowship founded by Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn and by the NOSELF s.r.l (https://www.noself.it/) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Parapouli M, Vasileiadis A, Afendra A-S, Hatziloukas E. Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications. AIMS Microbiol. 2020;6(1):1–31. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nandy SK, Srivastava RK. A review on sustainable yeast biotechnological processes and applications. Microbiol Res [Internet]. 2018;207:83–90. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944501317308674. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tsao GT. Principles of microbe and cell cultivation, S. John Pirt, Halsted Press, Division of John Wiley and Sons, New York, 274 pages, $34.00. AIChE J [Internet]. 1976;22(3):621. Available from: https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aic.690220342. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mattanovich D, Branduardi P, Dato L, Gasser B, Sauer M, Porro D. Recombinant protein production in yeasts. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;824:329–58. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-433-9_17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Riesenberg D, Guthke R. High-cell-density cultivation of microorganisms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol [Internet]. 1999;51(4):422–30. Available from: 10.1007/s002530051412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Reed G, Nagodawithana TW. Baker’s yeast production. In: Yeast technology. Springer; 1991. p. 261–314. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mazzoleni S, Landi C, Cartenì F, de Alteriis E, Giannino F, Paciello L, et al. A novel process-based model of microbial growth: self-inhibition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae aerobic fed-batch cultures. Microb Cell Fact. 2015. Jul;14:109. doi: 10.1186/s12934-015-0295-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Barford JP, Hall RJ. A mathematical model for the aerobic growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a saturated respiratory capacity. Biotechnol Bioeng [Internet]. 1981;23(8):1735–62. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bit.260230806. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lei F, Rotbøll M, Jørgensen SB. A biochemically structured model for Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biotechnol [Internet]. 2001;88(3):205–21. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168165601002693. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(01)00269-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jones KD, Kompala DS. Cybernetic model of the growth dynamics of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in batch and continuous cultures. J Biotechnol. 1999;71(1–3):105–31. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1656(99)00017-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vembadi A, Menachery A, Qasaimeh MA. Cell Cytometry: Review and Perspective on Biotechnological Advances. Front Bioeng Biotechnol [Internet]. 2019;7:147. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00147. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Paiva B, Gutiérrez NC, Rosiñol L, Vídriales M-B, Montalbán M-Á, Martínez-López J, et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012. Jan;119(3):687–91. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-07-370460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gauthier DJ, Sobota JA, Ferraro F, Mains RE, Lazure C. Flow cytometry-assisted purification and proteomic analysis of the corticotropes dense-core secretory granules. Proteomics [Internet]. 2008;8(18):3848–61. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pmic.200700969. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200700969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Phinney DA, Cucci TL. Flow cytometry and phytoplankton. Cytometry. 1989. Sep;10(5):511–21. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990100506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Marie D, Simon N, Guillou L, Partensky F, Vaulot D. Flow Cytometry Analysis of Marine Picoplankton. In 2000. p. 421–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brehm-Stecher BF. Flow Cytometry. In: Batt CA, Tortorello M Lou, editors. Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology (Second Edition) [Internet]. Second Edi. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. p. 943–53. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123847300001270. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vees CA, Veiter L, Sax F, Herwig C, Pflügl S. A robust flow cytometry-based biomass monitoring tool enables rapid at-line characterization of S. cerevisiae physiology during continuous bioprocessing of spent sulfite liquor. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2020. Apr;412(9):2137–49. doi: 10.1007/s00216-020-02423-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Díaz M, Herrero M, García LA, Quirós C. Application of flow cytometry to industrial microbial bioprocesses. Biochem Eng J [Internet]. 2010;48(3):385–407. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369703X09002563. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lú Chau T, Guillán A, Roca E, Núñez MJ, Lema JM. Population dynamics of a continuous fermentation of recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae using flow cytometry. Biotechnol Prog. 2001;17(5):951–7. doi: 10.1021/bp010090r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bridier A, Hammes F, Canette A, Bouchez T, Briandet R. Fluorescence-based tools for single-cell approaches in food microbiology. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015. Nov;213:2–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Longin C, Petitgonnet C, Guilloux-Benatier M, Rousseaux S, Alexandre H. Application of flow cytometry to wine microorganisms. Food Microbiol. 2017. Apr;62:221–31. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sommer S. Monitoring the Functionality and Stress Response of Yeast Cells Using Flow Cytometry. Microorganisms. 2020. Apr;8(4). doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8040619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alberghina L, Ranzi BM, Porro D, Martegani E. Flow cytometry and cell cycle kinetics in continuous and fed-batch fermentations of budding yeast. Biotechnol Prog [Internet]. 1991;7(4):299–304. Available from: 10.1021/bp00010a002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alberghina L, Porro D. Quantitative flow cytometry: analysis of protein distributions in budding yeast. A mini-review. Yeast. 1993. Aug;9(8):815–23. doi: 10.1002/yea.320090802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rosebrock AP. Analysis of the Budding Yeast Cell Cycle by Flow Cytometry. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2017. Jan;2017(1). doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot088740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nicoletti I, Migliorati G, Pagliacci MC, Grignani F, Riccardi C. A rapid and simple method for measuring thymocyte apoptosis by propidium iodide staining and flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods. 1991. Jun;139(2):271–9. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(91)90198-o [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mendes-Ferreira A, Sampaio-Marques B, Barbosa C, Rodrigues F, Costa V, Mendes-Faia A, et al. Accumulation of non-superoxide anion reactive oxygen species mediates nitrogen-limited alcoholic fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010. Dec;76(24):7918–24. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01535-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jayakody LN, Kadowaki M, Tsuge K, Horie K, Suzuki A, Hayashi N, et al. SUMO expression shortens the lag phase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast growth caused by complex interactive effects of major mixed fermentation inhibitors found in hot-compressed water-treated lignocellulosic hydrolysate. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015. Jan;99(1):501–15. doi: 10.1007/s00253-014-6174-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Salma M, Rousseaux S, Sequeira-Le Grand A, Divol B, Alexandre H. Characterization of the Viable but Nonculturable (VBNC) State in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e77600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cui J. Visualization of the Budding Yeast Cell Cycle. In 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ferrezuelo F, Colomina N, Palmisano A, Garí E, Gallego C, Csikász-Nagy A, et al. The critical size is set at a single-cell level by growth rate to attain homeostasis and adaptation. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1012. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Delobel P, Tesnière C. A Simple FCM Method to Avoid Misinterpretation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cell Cycle Assessment between G0 and Sub-G1. PLoS One [Internet]. 2014;9(1):1–8. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.van D JP, Bauer J, Brambilla L, Duboc P, Francois JM, Gancedo C, et al. An interlaboratory comparison of physiological and genetic properties of four Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Enzyme Microb Technol. 2000. Jun;26(9–10):706–14. doi: 10.1016/s0141-0229(00)00162-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schuler M. Real-time monitoring and control of the specific growth rate in yeast fed-batch cultures based on Process Analytical Technology monitoring tools such as biocalorimetry and spectroscopy. In 2012.
  • 35.Zhang H, Siede W. Analysis of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell cycle by morphological criteria and flow cytometry. Methods Mol Biol. 2004;241:77–91. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-646-0:77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thakur S, Cattoni DI, Nöllmann M. The fluorescence properties and binding mechanism of SYTOX green, a bright, low photo-damage DNA intercalating agent. Eur Biophys J. 2015. Jul;44(5):337–48. doi: 10.1007/s00249-015-1027-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dragan AI, Pavlovic R, McGivney JB, Casas-Finet JR, Bishop ES, Strouse RJ, et al. SYBR Green I: fluorescence properties and interaction with DNA. J Fluoresc. 2012. Jul;22(4):1189–99. doi: 10.1007/s10895-012-1059-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lebaron P, Catala P, Parthuisot N. Effectiveness of SYTOX Green stain for bacterial viability assessment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998. Jul;64(7):2697–700. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.7.2697-2700.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Roth BL, Poot M, Yue ST, Millard PJ. Bacterial viability and antibiotic susceptibility testing with SYTOX green nucleic acid stain. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997. Jun;63(6):2421–31. doi: 10.1128/aem.63.6.2421-2431.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jones LJ, Singer VL. Fluorescence microplate-based assay for tumor necrosis factor activity using SYTOX Green stain. Anal Biochem. 2001. Jun;293(1):8–15. doi: 10.1006/abio.2001.5116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wobus A, Bleul C, Maassen S, Scheerer C, Schuppler M, Jacobs E, et al. Microbial diversity and functional characterization of sediments from reservoirs of different trophic state. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003. Dec;46(3):331–47. doi: 10.1016/S0168-6496(03)00249-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Morono Y, Terada T, Kallmeyer J, Inagaki F. An improved cell separation technique for marine subsurface sediments: applications for high-throughput analysis using flow cytometry and cell sorting. Environ Microbiol. 2013. Oct;15(10):2841–9. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.SANTIBÁÑEZ PA, McCONNELL JR, PRISCU JC. A flow cytometric method to measure prokaryotic records in ice cores: an example from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide drilling site. J Glaciol [Internet]. 2016/05/02. 2016;62(234):655–73. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/flow-cytometric-method-to-measure-prokaryotic-records-in-ice-cores-an-example-from-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-divide-drilling-site/5D6EA2194D34D57E05AB3C4C70187CFB. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Briggs C, Jones M. SYBR Green I-induced fluorescence in cultured immune cells: a comparison with Acridine Orange. Acta Histochem. 2005;107(4):301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2005.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jevtic V, Kindle P, Avilov S V. SYBR Gold dye enables preferential labelling of mitochondrial nucleoids and their time-lapse imaging by structured illumination microscopy. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203956. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Johnston GC, Pringle JR, Hartwell LH. Coordination of growth with cell division in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Exp Cell Res. 1977. Mar;105(1):79–98. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(77)90154-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Johnston GC, Ehrhardt CW, Lorincz A, Carter BL. Regulation of cell size in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Bacteriol. 1979. Jan;137(1):1–5. doi: 10.1128/jb.137.1.1-5.1979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Müller S, Harms H, Bley T. Origin and analysis of microbial population heterogeneity in bioprocesses. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2010. Feb;21(1):100–13. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2010.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Allen C, Büttner S, Aragon AD, Thomas JA, Meirelles O, Jaetao JE, et al. Isolation of quiescent and nonquiescent cells from yeast stationary-phase cultures. J Cell Biol. 2006. Jul;174(1):89–100. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200604072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Aragon AD, Rodriguez AL, Meirelles O, Roy S, Davidson GS, Tapia PH, et al. Characterization of differentiated quiescent and nonquiescent cells in yeast stationary-phase cultures. Mol Biol Cell. 2008. Mar;19(3):1271–80. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e07-07-0666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Davidson GS, Joe RM, Roy S, Meirelles O, Allen CP, Wilson MR, et al. The proteomics of quiescent and nonquiescent cell differentiation in yeast stationary-phase cultures. Mol Biol Cell. 2011. Apr;22(7):988–98. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E10-06-0499 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Svenkrtova A, Belicova L, Volejnikova A, Sigler K, Jazwinski SM, Pichova A. Stratification of yeast cells during chronological aging by size points to the role of trehalose in cell vitality. Biogerontology. 2016. Apr;17(2):395–408. doi: 10.1007/s10522-015-9625-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Soifer I, Robert L, Amir A. Single-Cell Analysis of Growth in Budding Yeast and Bacteria Reveals a Common Size Regulation Strategy. Curr Biol. 2016. Feb;26(3):356–61. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wei W, Nurse P, Broek D. Yeast cells can enter a quiescent state through G1, S, G2, or M phase of the cell cycle. Cancer Res. 1993. Apr;53(8):1867–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alvaro Galli

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-06261

A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sanchez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'Emanuela Palomba is supported by a PhD fellowship founded by Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn and by the NOSELF s.r.l (https://www.noself.it/)'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: NOSELF s.r.l

a. Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

b. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

c. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement and Funding statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of “A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor”

I have reviewed this manuscript and find it to be a useful contribution to the methodology of bulk culture analysis. In reviewing the paper I downloaded the data using the link provided, and am glad to see that the authors are making that data available.

One concern I had is that the analysis was carried out on a single strain, and the results may differ significantly If this method is applied to a range of industrial S. cerevisiae strains. Still, it is made clear in the manuscript that this work is based on a single strain.

The manuscript is well written, and and appropriate for PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #3: This paper presents an experimental result on using the flow cytometry to monitor the distribution of yeast cells among different phases of yeast budding cycle over the course of a fed-batch cultivation. Results from two different DNA dyes, SYTOX green and SYBR green were compared, and the paper concluded that SYTOX green performs better than SYBR green.

It is not clear what contribution this paper brings. Using flow cytometry and DNA dyes to monitoring yeast budding cycle have been studied extensively in the field. In addition, there is lack of quantitative, statistical analysis to support the conclusions drawn in the paper. the major concerns are listed below:

1. The paper stated that “both dyes allowed a clear and precise definition of the cell cycle phases (G1, S, M, G2) as evidenced by the dot plots of FSC-A vs FL1-A” (page 5, line 133-135). However, the different phases depicted in Figure 3 (and other figures) are G0, G1, S and G2. None of the figures depicted the population of phase M.

2. All figures are blurry, and difficult to examine the detail.

3. There is no information on how the different phases were separated from each other. How were the boundaries among different phases determined? Were they determined in an ad hoc fashion? Why were there no cells identified for phase M? Were there any experimental validations to confirm that the sorted populations of different phases were truly the cells in the labelled phases?

4. During the exponential growth, one would expect cells from all phases of a budding cycle to show up, and the population distribution would be proportional to the duration of each phase within a cycle. It is not clear why phase M was not detected at all. Was it because the duration of phase M is extremely short, or the flow cytometer method cannot differentiate cells in phase M from other phases, such as those in phase G0?

5. In fig. 3 (b), the flow cytometry results using the two dyes showed different distribution of cell counts, particular for FL1-A, and the authors claimed that SYTOX worked better than SYBR, without any quantitative evidence. To claim one dye is better than the other, the authors should have a clear case with known population to validate their claims.

6. There is a lack of explanation and validation of the results presented. For example, why the majority of the cells were classified in G0 and S in the later part of the fed batch growth? What caused the bimodal distribution of the starved cell for phase G0?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review_2021_1.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0248382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248382.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 May 2021

We thank the editor and reviewers for their comments and according to that we modified our manuscript.

Following the answers to each comment which are olso reported in the uploaded file "Response to reviewers".

Sincerely,

Dr. Massimo Sanchez

PONE-D-21-06261

Dear Editor,

please find attached our revised version of the manuscript, where we indicated all the revisions we included as suggested by the reviewers, as tracked changes in the document “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”.

As you may see, we wish to add another author (Palma Parascandola) for his contribution to the initial experimental set up and during the revision process that is also indicated in tracked changes in the list of authors of the manuscript with track changes and in the new Cover letter.

In the following text, the answers to all criticisms and comments provided by reviewers are reported point by point.

Sincerely,

Dr. Massimo Sanchez.

Reviewer #1: Review of “A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor”

I have reviewed this manuscript and find it to be a useful contribution to the methodology of bulk culture analysis. In reviewing the paper I downloaded the data using the link provided, and am glad to see that the authors are making that data available.

One concern I had is that the analysis was carried out on a single strain, and the results may differ significantly If this method is applied to a range of industrial S. cerevisiae strains. Still, it is made clear in the manuscript that this work is based on a single strain.

The manuscript is well written, and and appropriate for PLOS ONE.

Comment for the Reviewer #1

The CEN.PK 2-1C strain used in the study can be considered as a reference strain. Indeed, it belongs to the CEN.PK family of isogenic laboratory strains with all possible combinations of the auxotrophic markers ura3, his3, leu2, and trp1. The CEN.PK strain family was constructed with the express aim of meeting the requirements of physiologists, geneticists, and engineers (JP van D, Bauer J, Brambilla L, Duboc P, Francois JM, Gancedo C, et al. An interlaboratory comparison of physiological and genetic properties of four Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Enzyme Microb Techno,2000). These strains display good performance in standard transformation tests and cultivation under well-defined conditions, so they are commonly used in studies related to cell growth rates and product formation, such as heterologous protein production.

This information and relative reference on CEN.PK strain has been added to the revised manuscript from line 199 to 203.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #3: This paper presents an experimental result on using the flow cytometry to monitor the distribution of yeast cells among different phases of yeast budding cycle over the course of a fed-batch cultivation. Results from two different DNA dyes, SYTOX green and SYBR green were compared, and the paper concluded that SYTOX green performs better than SYBR green.

It is not clear what contribution this paper brings. Using flow cytometry and DNA dyes to monitoring yeast budding cycle have been studied extensively in the field. In addition, there is lack of quantitative, statistical analysis to support the conclusions drawn in the paper. the major concerns are listed below:

Reviewer #3 Question 1

The paper stated that “both dyes allowed a clear and precise definition of the cell cycle phases (G1, S, M, G2) as evidenced by the dot plots of FSC-A vs FL1-A” (page 5, line 133-135). However, the different phases depicted in Figure 3 (and other figures) are G0, G1, S and G2. None of the figures depicted the population of phase M.

Reviewer #3 Answer 1

The FCM analysis of cell cycle is based on measure DNA content by staining cells with SYBR Green and SYTOX green dye (in our experimental procedure) and reveals cells distribution among G1, S and G2/M phases. It is common to show the DNA distribution by histograms where the peak with higher fluorescent intensity is represented by G2/M phases. The DNA content in these two phases is the same and only by other analytical approach it is possible to clearly distinguish G2 from M (for example through the analysis of cyclins expression or microscopy for the identification of the cell cycle progression).

With the label G2, we actually mean both cells in G2 and M phases. Therefore, we thank the reviewer for its comment and according to that, we modified the images by substituting G2 with G2/M in figures and in the text.

In the text, we made the following changes:

-Line 136 we changed “(G1, S, M and G2)” in “(G1, S and G2/M)”.

-Line 180 we changed “% G2” in “% G2/M”.

-Line 188 (in the figure 3 legends) we changed “In the dot plots on the right of each panel, G0, G1, S, and G2 cell cycle stages” with “In the dot plots on the right of each panel, G0, G1, S, and G2/M cell cycle stages”.

-From line 216 to 218: we changed the sentence “SYTOX Green identifies better the differences in the DNA content between S and G2 phase, which are expected to be higher in G2 phase” with “SYTOX Green identifies better the differences in the DNA content between S and G2/M phase, which are expected to be higher in G2/M phase”

Reviewer #3 Question 2

All figures are blurry, and difficult to examine the detail.

Reviewer #3 Answer 2.

We apologize for the poor quality. The resolution of figures has been increased by using the Plos one suggested tool “PACE” to check the figures quality.

Reviewer #3 Question 3.1

There is no information on how the different phases were separated from each other. How were the boundaries among different phases determined? Were they determined in an ad hoc fashion?

Reviewer #3 Answer 3.1

The protocol consists in staining cells with a dye that binds DNA stoichiometrically and the fluorescent signal is proportional to the amount of DNA: once defined the G1 phase (the peak with low green fluorescence), the G2 phase peak is gated in a “position” with a double fluorescence. With Saccharomyces it is difficult to apply the algorithms (i.e. Michael H.Fox or J.V. Watson) that are normally used for the definition of the cell cycle with higher eukaryotic cells. We find linearity in the response during the exponential phase, which in fact we use as a reference to identify the different phases: G0, G1, S and G2/M. As indicated in the text, to precisely define the phases of the cell cycle at the different times of the culture, we propose a two-dimensional analysis that differentiates cell cycle phases on the basis of both cell size and DNA content (FSC vs green fluorescence, respectively).

Moreover, we changed the text as following:

-From line 85 to 86 we changed “based on the use of the two recommended DNA binding dyes (SYTOX Green and SYBR Green)” in “based on the use of the two recommended DNA binding dyes (SYTOX Green and SYBR Green) and the cell size”

- From line 127-128 we changed “in order to assess the dynamic changes of DNA content during S. cerevisiae cell cycle (Fig 2).” In “in order to assess the dynamic changes of DNA content during S. cerevisiae cell cycle (Fig 2) which together with the evaluation of cell size allowed the identification of the different cell cycle phases.”

-From line 208 to line 209 we changed “we used both to determine the different phases of the cell cycle of a S. cerevisiae population” in “we used both and the cell size parameter to determine the different phases of the cell cycle of a S. cerevisiae population”

Reviewer #3 Question 3.2

Why were there no cells identified for phase M?

Reviewer #3 Answer 3.2

The answer to this question is present in the Answer 1.

Reviewer #3 Question 3.3

Were there any experimental validations to confirm that the sorted populations of different phases were truly the cells in the labelled phases?

Reviewer #3 Answer 3.3

The work we propose is inspired by a work previously published by Delobel et al. in 2014 (A Simple FCM Method to Avoid Misinterpretation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cell Cycle Assessment between G0 and Sub-G1, 2014, Plos One), where different dye were compared in defining yeast cell cycle phases.

The aim of this work is to propose a method to follow the proceeding of a yeast fed-batch culture during time the as a potential real-time monitoring system in industrial application. The analysis with FCM here performed identified the different phases on the basis of two parameters: the DNA content and the cellular size by using as reference cell cycle profiles of exponential and starved yeast cells. To characterize cells in each phases, different analysis would be required (for example cell sorting followed by molecular analysis of cyclins expression in sorted populations) that we will consider to perform in future works to further validate this method.

Reviewer #3 Question 4.

During the exponential growth, one would expect cells from all phases of a budding cycle to show up, and the population distribution would be proportional to the duration of each phase within a cycle. It is not clear why phase M was not detected at all. Was it because the duration of phase M is extremely short, or the flow cytometer method cannot differentiate cells in phase M from other phases, such as those in phase G0?

Reviewer #3 Answer 4.

Since the G2 and M phases are not clearly separated through flow cytometric analysis, what in the plot we indicate “G2” is actually an ensemble of cells that have the same probability to be in the growth phase (G2) as well as in one of the mitosis stages (M). To be more precise, we made some changes in figures and in the text according with this observation as specified in the answer 1.

Beside the FCM analysis, if the discrimination between cells in G2 and M stages is specifically required or requested during the analysis of a microbial population, additional methods are required. For instance, after sorting of cells in G2/M, the microscopic observation of cells or antibodies directed against markers specific of the M stages could be used to further define this point.

Reviewer #3 Question 5.

In fig. 3 (b), the flow cytometry results using the two dyes showed different distribution of cell counts, particular for FL1-A, and the authors claimed that SYTOX worked better than SYBR, without any quantitative evidence. To claim one dye is better than the other, the authors should have a clear case with known population to validate their claims.

Reviewer #3 Answer 5.

From a quantitative point of view, the percentage of cells identified from the two dyes in each cell cycle phase is more or less similar. In order to better clarify this point, we made the following changes in the text:

-From line 134 to line 135: we added “For all the analyzed stages, the percentage of cells in each cell cycle stage was similar for both dyes. The graphical results of…”

The SYTOX worked better than SYBR green in that the SYBR green fluorescence intensity is not linearly correlated with that expected for some phases of cell cycle (G0 and S, particularly) producing a shift of signal becoming more evident during the observation feeding run up to the condition of starvation.

Reviewer #3 Question 6. 1

There is a lack of explanation and validation of the results presented. For example, why the majority of the cells were classified in G0 and S in the later part of the fed batch growth?

Reviewer #3 Answer 6.1

The analysis of the cell cycle during the fed batch culture showed an increasing percentage of cells in G0 together with a decreasing of cells in S phase.

The condition of nutrient starvation in the batch culture (in the starved reference, fig 3) as well as the progressive decreasing feeding and the accumulation of toxic by-products in the fed-batch (fig. 4, 5) may block cells before the S phase and thus forcing them to enter in GO phase. Indeed, the entering into G0 phase has been demonstrated to occur from each cell cycle phase, as we reported from line 235 to line 240. From the analysis of cell size, we can identify clearly that the two populations are dimensionally similar. The hypothesis is that a part of cells, as the feeding run proceeds, were blocked in S phase and exit the cell cycle entering in G0 phase.

Reviewer #3 Question 6. 2

What caused the bimodal distribution of the starved cell for phase G0?

Reviewer #3 Answer 6.2

The bimodal distribution of G0 in the starved culture showed in our results highlighted the coexistence of populations with two different ranges of cell size within the G0 phase. The population with bigger dimension could derive from cells entering G0 by S phase while the smaller one could represent cells that are simply unable to start a new cell cycle for the lack of nutrient characterizing the starved phase of the batch culture.

To better clarify this point we added in the test from line 248 to line 250 the following sentences:

“This phenomenon could probably explain the presence of two different G0 populations in the starved culture. Cells smaller in size are failing to re-enter the cell cycle while those bigger in size can represent the population of cells which exit cell cycle during the S phase.”

Nevertheless, further investigations to clarify the reason of the bimodal distribution in G0 phase and to characterize the nature of cells are required and goes beyond the scope of this paper whose aim is to propose a real-time monitoring tool of the status of a yeast culture.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alvaro Galli

27 May 2021

A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor

PONE-D-21-06261R1

Dear Dr. Sanchez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I am happy with the revision. The authors have addressed all the comments carefully. The ms can be accepted at its current format.

Reviewer #3: The authors response to my comments are acceptable, although it would be desirable that additional experiments be performed to validate their claim, i.e, the labled phases from the proposed approach are indeed what the labels indicate.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Alvaro Galli

1 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-06261R1

A cytofluorimetric analysis of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae population cultured in a fed-batch bioreactor

Dear Dr. Sanchez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alvaro Galli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review_2021_1.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data are available on the public repository Flow Repository, the URL is: https://flowrepository.org/id/RvFrh23lz1PIoA8cb0yfMOqshSYSsKaoQnAwXegVmOjxo9rP7W6UzfchDWZgl0fl.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES