Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => Yeast and Fermentation => Topic started by: hopfenundmalz on May 02, 2018, 11:43:58 PM

Title: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 02, 2018, 11:43:58 PM
I came across a post on “Milk the Funk” that started some travel down a rabbit hole. I know from a previous dive down the yeast genome rabbit hole that Wyeast 1056 was not the same as WLP-001. The first link says 1056 is the same as Wlp-051.
The second link is from White Labs. Go to Wlp-051. It says that it is now classified as a Sach. Pastorianus strain I.e. a lager strain. So 1056 and WLP-051 are said to be classified as lager strains now. Some lager strains were previously said to be found as ale strains.
Mind blown!

Oh, and yeast originated in China. Saw that before.

The Chico strain has been said to be from Ballantine’s “beer” brewery, the Bry-97/Wlp-051 was from the Ballantine Ale Brewery. Now it is said that the Ale yeast is actually a lager yeast.  If S. Cervisiae was still active, I would be interested on his take on this.

http://beer.suregork.com/?p=4000

https://www.whitelabs.com/sites/default/files/White%20Labs%202018%20Catalog.pdf

Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 02, 2018, 11:48:47 PM
I'm not Mark, but I'm not at all surprised by the idea that 1056 might be a lager strain. If not it's an ale strain that is so clean it might as well be, and it's an ale strain that works well at 50F...

Edit:
Once this is settled, it will rock the beer world when people are forced to admit that SNPA is actually an American Pilsner.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 12:10:23 AM
I'm not Mark, but I'm not at all surprised by the idea that 1056 might be a lager strain. If not it's an ale strain that is so clean it might as well be, and it's an ale strain that works well at 50F...

Edit:
Once this is settled, it will rock the beer world when people are forced to admit that SNPA is actually an American Pilsner.

The Chico strain has been said to be similar to WLP-001, 1056 was found to be different from 001.

Founders said that they use 1056 at the NHC in Grand Rapids. That is the rock the beer world fact, Founders is a Lager Brewey! Well if you think yeast defines a lager or ale brewery.

One thing that has been said, in a few years we will rethink the difference between Ales and lagers.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dannyjed on May 03, 2018, 12:22:16 AM
Very interesting information. I currently have been just using WY 1056 and WY 2124 over and over again. I guess I’ve been using two Lager strains or maybe 2124 is actually an Ale strain because I’ve fermented it at 60-62 and it was still clean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 03, 2018, 12:23:18 AM
I just tried Fat Heads new seasonal, Starlight German Lager.  Of all the macro-ish craft lagers on the scene lately, this was far and away the cleanest and most authentically lager-like I've tried.  Now, their other lagers are all made with 34/70.  Imagine my surprise when I went to Fat Heads website and found this one lists the yeast as "American Ale."  Or, would have been surprised if I hadn't also seen some of these genomics studies.  An interesting xBmt would be a four-way split, two yeasts (34/70 and 1056) and two temps ("lager" and "ale.")
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 03, 2018, 12:25:47 AM
I guess you had some typos then. You say 1056 = 051 = bry-97 = Chico. But Chico does not equal 1056?

Things that are equal to other things are also equal to eachother, usually.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Phil_M on May 03, 2018, 12:55:40 AM
I'm really curious where the ale/lager line will be redrawn, and how that line is split when it comes to top cropping...

As a rule, I tend to not care for warm bottom fermenting "ale" strains, 1450 being a notable standard exception and 1056 being the standard of dislike. Going to be interesting if this data shows me a thread to tie all this together...
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 12:57:57 AM
I guess you had some typos then. You say 1056 = 051 = bry-97 = Chico. But Chico does not equal 1056?

Things that are equal to other things are also equal to eachother, usually.

I said this.
“The Chico strain has been said to be from Ballantine’s “beer” brewery, the Bry-97/Wlp-051 was from the Ballantine Ale Brewery. Now it is said that the Ale yeast is actually a lager yeast.  If S. Cervisiae was still active, I would be interested on his take on this.”
Mark had said Chico=BRY-96 from the beer brewery. The Ale Brewery used BRY-97 which is the same as WLP-051 (Anchors “Ale” strain. If BRY-97 as dry strain is a lager, the long lag times may be due to that, I.e. we need to pitch a lot more.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 03, 2018, 01:04:41 AM
I guess you had some typos then. You say 1056 = 051 = bry-97 = Chico. But Chico does not equal 1056?

Things that are equal to other things are also equal to eachother, usually.

I said this.
“The Chico strain has been said to be from Ballantine’s “beer” brewery, the Bry-97/Wlp-051 was from the Ballantine Ale Brewery. Now it is said that the Ale yeast is actually a lager yeast.  If S. Cervisiae was still active, I would be interested on his take on this.”
Mark had said Chico=BRY-96 from the beer brewery. The Ale Brewery used BRY-97 which is the same as WLP-051 (Anchors “Ale” strain. If BRY-97 as dry strain is a lager, the long lag times may be due to that, I.e. we need to pitch a lot more.
I was going off this... "The first link says 1056 is the same as Wlp-051.
The second link is from White Labs. Go to Wlp-051. It says that it is now classified as a Sach. Pastorianus strain I.e. a lager strain. So 1056 and WLP-051 are said to be classified as lager strains now." In conjunction with the rest. So... whatever.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: a10t2 on May 03, 2018, 01:22:08 AM
The Ale Brewery used BRY-97 which is the same as WLP-051 (Anchors “Ale” strain.

Well now I just want to know what BSI-72/WY1272 is...
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: BrewBama on May 03, 2018, 01:56:37 AM
All confusion aside, this is interesting. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 02:25:06 AM
The Ale Brewery used BRY-97 which is the same as WLP-051 (Anchors “Ale” strain.

Well now I just want to know what BSI-72/WY1272 is...
Yeah same here.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 02:30:51 AM
I guess you had some typos then. You say 1056 = 051 = bry-97 = Chico. But Chico does not equal 1056?

Things that are equal to other things are also equal to eachother, usually.

I said this.
“The Chico strain has been said to be from Ballantine’s “beer” brewery, the Bry-97/Wlp-051 was from the Ballantine Ale Brewery. Now it is said that the Ale yeast is actually a lager yeast.  If S. Cervisiae was still active, I would be interested on his take on this.”
Mark had said Chico=BRY-96 from the beer brewery. The Ale Brewery used BRY-97 which is the same as WLP-051 (Anchors “Ale” strain. If BRY-97 as dry strain is a lager, the long lag times may be due to that, I.e. we need to pitch a lot more.
I was going off this... "The first link says 1056 is the same as Wlp-051.
The second link is from White Labs. Go to Wlp-051. It says that it is now classified as a Sach. Pastorianus strain I.e. a lager strain. So 1056 and WLP-051 are said to be classified as lager strains now." In conjunction with the rest. So... whatever.

If all of the study is correct, then.

WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 03, 2018, 02:41:43 AM
Works for me thanks!
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 03, 2018, 04:52:18 PM
I'm not Mark, but I'm not at all surprised by the idea that 1056 might be a lager strain. If not it's an ale strain that is so clean it might as well be, and it's an ale strain that works well at 50F...

Edit:
Once this is settled, it will rock the beer world when people are forced to admit that SNPA is actually an American Pilsner.

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation?  Using 2124 as my "house" strain, I know it can be warmed up to make old-timey American "ales" (cream ale, etc.)  Kind of curious if 1056 could be used the other way around, in a conventional lager fermentation.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 03, 2018, 06:22:53 PM
I'm not Mark, but I'm not at all surprised by the idea that 1056 might be a lager strain. If not it's an ale strain that is so clean it might as well be, and it's an ale strain that works well at 50F...

Edit:
Once this is settled, it will rock the beer world when people are forced to admit that SNPA is actually an American Pilsner.

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation?  Using 2124 as my "house" strain, I know it can be warmed up to make old-timey American "ales" (cream ale, etc.)  Kind of curious if 1056 could be used the other way around, in a conventional lager fermentation.

I have often started 1056 at 52F with no problems.  I've used 1007 as low as 48F.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: ynotbrusum on May 03, 2018, 06:25:15 PM
I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 03, 2018, 06:37:41 PM
I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: a10t2 on May 03, 2018, 06:57:44 PM
My experience with US-05 is the opposite; we'd pitch in the upper 50s and it would steadily cool to 48-52°F depending on the season. We were able to run pretty normal ale fermentation schedules that way.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 03, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.
A lot of us have anecdotal evidence that dry strains don't perform like their wet sources even when there is no question of the origin (I'm one of the dry 34/70 skeptics.) As dry yeast becomes more and more favored by breweries, maybe this will be an area of research. 

As far as experimenting with 1056 in lager fermentation,  well, next time I decide to buy a new pitch,  I guess it's 1056 instead of 2124!  Brewing tomorrow, so a bit late for that now....but I'm eager to try this.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 07:31:33 PM
I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.
I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 03, 2018, 08:22:36 PM
I think it is experiment time ....It stands to reason that 1056 would handle lager temps.  However it also points to the need to toss out a lot of the yeast substitution charts that are out there.  US - 05 does not perform well at lager temps based on my experiences and now seeing that it definitively isn’t the equivalent of Wy1056, it makes sense.

Yet, according to a lawsuit when 05 came out, it comes directly from 1056.  I agree with your observation, but I can't explain it.
I remember it was US-56 or US-056 at first, then the name changed. Was it a full lawsuit, or a C&D?

My understanding is that it was a full on suit.  The name change was a result of it.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 03, 2018, 10:17:04 PM
I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 03, 2018, 10:35:56 PM
I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?
Question EVERYTHING!
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 03, 2018, 10:46:14 PM
You betcha.  And I'm definitely trying this.  Tomorrow is a reference beer as a baseline for the following brew, where I'm trying a local malthouse's products.  But that means a month from now I'll be ready to change something else, and I think the plan should be, brew batch 3 of this same Dortmunder recipe, but with 1056/051 at lager temps.  And if it drops bright better than 2124 I just might have my new house yeast.  The Fat Heads lager made with it has already almost sold me.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: narcout on May 03, 2018, 11:38:24 PM
I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation? 

I've never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 03, 2018, 11:43:37 PM
I hadn't paid close enough attention to this:

•WLP-051=Wyeat 1056= BRY-97 = Ballantine’s Ale strain/ Anchor’s Ale strain, which is now found to be a lager strain.

•WLP-001 = BRY-96 = Ballantine’s Beer Strain = Chico Ale yeast. Still classified as Ale as far as I know.

So Ballantine was making its ale with pastorianus and its lager ("beer" in the old parlance with cerevisiae?  (A quick look at their history suggests the products were segregated between the two breweries in Newark, unless I'm missing something.)  It was backwards from the start?

The thinking before was that BRY-97 = Wyeast 1272 = WLP051 = Ballantine Ale, and that BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056 = WLP001 = Ballantine Beer, right?

Any idea, anybody, if it works well pitched at 50°F, maybe at lager pitch rates, or does it just keep going if temperature is dropped during fermentation? 

I've never pitched 1056 that low, but I once tried to crash a starter of it at high krausen in the fridge, and it just kept chugging along.

Things have been turned upside down. It might be a few years before all of the dust settles.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: ynotbrusum on May 04, 2018, 02:30:11 AM
Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 04, 2018, 02:44:35 AM
Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"  But yeah, I think I've about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn't  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: BrodyR on May 04, 2018, 02:55:55 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 04, 2018, 03:11:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

See Jeff's reply #26 where he puts it nicely.  The world's gone topsy turvy; or has it?  The old theory makes sense only if we keep our old assumptions that we can distinguish cerevisiae and pastorianus by certain organoleptic qualities in beers.  Which it seems clear we can't do.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 04, 2018, 03:26:09 PM
Over the past couple months and again last week, I dove into the results pretty deep.  I still have a lot of questions about what's what and whether it's all truly valid.  I believe a lot of the so-called "equivalents" are either NOT equivalent, or are closely related but again, NOT equivalent.  However there might be some that are indeed one & the same.  I have a lot of notes at home on this (not here at work) and if I can find some time this weekend, I'll dive in again and see if I can figure out what's what regarding all the California/American "ale" strains.  As to whether any of them are truly lager yeasts, I honestly have a lot of doubts.  There's too much conflicting information bouncing around to make sense of it all.  Bottom line is I think we're going to need more research over the next year or 3 to confirm for certain which ones are lagers vs. ales.  I really question some of the declarations of "this is really a lager!"  Maybe true, but I remain skeptical.  It's not adding up.

Sorry I don't have more details to share right at this moment, but please wait a day or two and hopefully I can help stir the mud even more (vice clear it up!).  And anyone else, please feel free of course.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 04, 2018, 03:47:16 PM
Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"  But yeah, I think I've about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn't  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: BrewBama on May 04, 2018, 03:56:18 PM
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 04, 2018, 04:07:18 PM
Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"  But yeah, I think I've about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn't  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.
Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up! :)
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: mainebrewer on May 04, 2018, 04:08:57 PM
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 04, 2018, 05:15:10 PM
Denny quoted the car talk guys - Tom Magliozzi I think - to the effect that reality astonishes theory a lot of the time!  Yeast is what it is and we are just now getting an understanding of the reality of those critters.....and our old theories may go by the boards.
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"  But yeah, I think I've about been pushed over the edge on classifications of both yeast and, more importantly, beer, in this direction:  It doesn't  matter how it was made it or out of what.  We should only be concerned with how we perceive the finished beer.  Any categories need to be subjective and truly descriptive.

Drew and I are trying to be the Click and Clack of the beer world.
Big shoes, Denny, but keep it up! :)

Indeed, but I'm getting close to the goofy laugh.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: ynotbrusum on May 04, 2018, 05:54:03 PM
Damn, I miss "Click and Clack!"

Me too!  I loved those guys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here in Maine, Tom and Ray always kept me company on my Saturday AM brew times.

Me, too, I listened to them every show while brewing and even before I took up brewing way back when... and, yes, I now listen to Denny and Drew while I brew.  I guess it was a natural kind of substitution that occurrred without any conscious connection on my part (I am not that smart), but yeah, it is nearly parallel.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 04, 2018, 06:44:44 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 04, 2018, 07:09:06 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

AFAIK, WY1056 came from Sierra Nevada, cultured from a bottle.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 04, 2018, 07:22:31 PM
One thing that bothers me about the identification of 1056 with 051 is that White labs describes 051 as flocculent, producing bright beers without filtration, while Wyeast says the opposite about 1056.  I've never used 051 so can't make a real comparison myself, but agree 1056 is rather powdery.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 04, 2018, 07:33:17 PM
One thing that bothers me about the identification of 1056 with 051 is that White labs describes 051 as flocculent, producing bright beers without filtration, while Wyeast says the opposite about 1056.  I've never used 051 so can't make a real comparison myself, but agree 1056 is rather powdery.

Although it's entirely possible they have the same source but the characteristics have diverged over the years, isn't it?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 04, 2018, 08:11:50 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the working hypothesis is now that -

Ballantine Ale became BRY 97 and was sold to Anchor. This is sold to us as Wyeast 1056, WLP051, or S-05. White Labs confirmed this is indeed technically a lager strain.

Ballantine Beer became BRY96 and was sold to Sierra Nevada. This is sold to us as WLP001.

A few questions:
1) Would this imply that Ballantine was using an ale strain for lager and a lager strain for ale?
2) Is this is the reverse of Mark's theory (which made sense) that Sierra was using a lager strain?
3) Is their a Wyeast or dry equivalent for Sierra Nevada?

I would assume we got it mixed up except for White Labs confirming.

1. Maybe.
2. Yes
3. I don’t know.

I see the second link in my post no longer works.

AFAIK, WY1056 came from Sierra Nevada, cultured from a bottle.
I looked at the tree in the first link. 1056 and 001 are not far apart on the branches. Are they closely related?
I don’t know.

It will take time before all of this is sorted out.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 05, 2018, 04:38:18 AM
Okay guys..... I spent a good 3 or 4 hours staring at all the genome data, and here's what I *think* I've figured out:

The original link contains 3 places on the tree for "WLP019/WLP051/WY1056".  I do NOT take this to mean that these 3 yeasts are identical!  Far from it!  I think they just weren't sure which one went where.  3 yeasts, 3 slots.  More sleuthing will be needed to figure which one goes where.  And I think I've figured it out, maybe.  My thoughts:

As I just said, to be clear, WLP051 and Wyeast 1056 are NOT equivalent.  They are very very distant cousins.

BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056, AND NOTHING ELSE!  NOTHING else is exactly equivalent!  1056 is unique!

BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272, AND NOTHING ELSE!  Nothing else is exactly equivalent!  And if I'm right in my interpretation as explained above, then all 3 of these might be pastorianus, including 1272 and the dry version!(?)

WLP001 and WLP051 are close sisters or cousins, both from one origin (in the 1950s or whatever), which presumably is Ballantine, which might actually be Uncle WLP019 which is a relatively old strain.

BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272 didn't have any babies yet, if I'm right.  This branch of the tree is unique.  And even if BRY-97, WLP051, and 1272 aren't exactly the same, they should be really close.  The family tree isn't clear enough and really only spelled out White Labs strains clearly, and very few dry yeasts, but not Wyeast ones, so this is a bit of a guess.

Wyeast 1056 is on a completely separate branch from all others, and US-05 is a very distant descendant of 1056.  These two strains actually aren't super closely related to any of the others discussed above, or even to each other.

1056 and US-05 *might* be lagers, but I have never seen evidence in that regard on suregork's site or other sources.  However... if I were a betting man, I *might* be willing to bet a 6-pack that they are pastorianus, maybe.  If that's the case...

It's possible that maybe ALL of these are pastorianus?!  But I am not savvy enough to figure that out yet.  I haven't bothered yet to look whether each of these were "confirmed to definitely be cerevisiae".  If they were, then the pastorianus *might* indeed be limited to just BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272.  I really don't know where the mutation from c. to p. event occurred.  Could be a good question for suregork & qq if we can't find it ourselves.

I'm tired, I'm going to bed.  Curious to think if you all find this to make any sense, or not, or what.  Talk to you later.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 05, 2018, 11:16:00 AM
Thanks for the effort, Dave.  I'll buy your interpretation.   (Or at least put a down payment on the lease.)  It'll be interesting times ahead.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 05, 2018, 11:57:02 AM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?

Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 05, 2018, 12:03:08 PM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?
For one thing, I think it highlights the need to rely on the empirical.  In choosing a yeast, knowing the source and lineage of a yeast bank's strain seems to tell you very little about how it will perform.  "Equivalents" are right out the window.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 05, 2018, 12:06:30 PM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?
For one thing, I think it highlights the need to rely on the empirical.  In choosing a yeast, knowing the source and lineage of a yeast bank's strain seems to tell you very little about how it will perform.  "Equivalents" are right out the window.

Right. That’s what I was driving at. Actual usage data and fermentation characteristics coupled with cell counting is the way to be.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 05, 2018, 01:08:04 PM
It tells me that if I don't like US-05 or 1056, then I might still want to try WLP001 because that one is TOTALLY different.  Any similarities are like the difference between you and your 4th cousin twice-removed or something.

And this is only one scaffold of an enormous tree.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 05, 2018, 01:12:44 PM
It tells me that if I don't like US-05 or 1056, then I might still want to try WLP001 because that one is TOTALLY different.  Any similarities are like the difference between you and your 4th cousin twice-removed or something.

And this is only one scaffold of an enormous tree.

I definitely agree with you to a certain degree Dave, but difference between supposedly equivalent strains isn’t really new information. Certainly the additional depth shown here is new so I guess I am seeing it from the other side of the coin after all.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 05, 2018, 01:27:51 PM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?

Okay, then... see HERE for MUCH more potentially bizarre relationships!:

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=31743.msg410914#msg410914

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/wlp030-thames-valley-wlp515-antwerp-are-super-chicos.643337/

Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 05, 2018, 02:57:59 PM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?

Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking, too.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 05, 2018, 02:59:19 PM
It tells me that if I don't like US-05 or 1056, then I might still want to try WLP001 because that one is TOTALLY different.  Any similarities are like the difference between you and your 4th cousin twice-removed or something.

And this is only one scaffold of an enormous tree.

But Dave, that's already well known and documented.  Knowing the genetic history doesn't change anything.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: a10t2 on May 05, 2018, 04:13:51 PM
BRY-97, WLP051, and 1272 aren't exactly the same, they should be really close.

Haven't tried BRY-97, but the genetics made sense to me from a sensory standpoint, because WLP051 is markedly different from 1272 (or BSI-72 or Imperial A15, which are all the same strain according to the Imperial guys).
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 05, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
So, where are we on whether 1056 is Sierra Nevada?  I have half a mind to try 1056 as a lager yeast, but the (dimmer?) half of my mind says to be sure, culture up from a bottle of SNPA.  But that of course introduces its own uncertainties.  (Addressing not the deep history of the strain back to Ballantine or wherever, but simply whether SN is really using a lager yeast.)
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 05, 2018, 04:52:40 PM
So, where are we on whether 1056 is Sierra Nevada?  I have half a mind to try 1056 as a lager yeast, but the (dimmer?) half of my mind says to be sure, culture up from a bottle of SNPA.  But that of course introduces its own uncertainties.  (Addressing not the deep history of the strain back to Ballantine or wherever, but simply whether SN is really using a lager yeast.)

AFAIK, Wyeast cultured it from a bottle of SNPA.  But I don't think there's any reason to assume it's identical at this point.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 05, 2018, 04:55:16 PM
So, where are we on whether 1056 is Sierra Nevada?  I have half a mind to try 1056 as a lager yeast, but the (dimmer?) half of my mind says to be sure, culture up from a bottle of SNPA.  But that of course introduces its own uncertainties.  (Addressing not the deep history of the strain back to Ballantine or wherever, but simply whether SN is really using a lager yeast.)

AFAIK, Wyeast cultured it from a bottle of SNPA.  But I don't think there's any reason to assume it's identical at this point.
So good reason to build up a starter from a bottle, then?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 05, 2018, 05:13:13 PM
So, where are we on whether 1056 is Sierra Nevada?  I have half a mind to try 1056 as a lager yeast, but the (dimmer?) half of my mind says to be sure, culture up from a bottle of SNPA.  But that of course introduces its own uncertainties.  (Addressing not the deep history of the strain back to Ballantine or wherever, but simply whether SN is really using a lager yeast.)

AFAIK, Wyeast cultured it from a bottle of SNPA.  But I don't think there's any reason to assume it's identical at this point.
So good reason to build up a starter from a bottle, then?

If that's what your curiosity drives you to do, sure.  I don't think I would.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 05, 2018, 06:40:32 PM
This is all pretty interesting in the theoretical/analytical sense, and knowledge is never a bad thing, but why do we care in the empirical/real world sense? Is this really telling us anything we didn’t already know from actually using these Yeasts?

Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking, too.

If we keep agreeing on things Denny, we may cause a disturbance in the space-time continuum. 😂
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 05, 2018, 09:56:24 PM
If we keep agreeing on things Denny, we may cause a disturbance in the space-time continuum. 😂

Naw, I hope it hasn't come to the point where discussions are viewed as adversarial.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 05, 2018, 11:15:49 PM
If we keep agreeing on things Denny, we may cause a disturbance in the space-time continuum. 😂

Naw, I hope it hasn't come to the point where discussions are viewed as adversarial.

I hope you know that was just in jest. I think we align on a great many things. 😁
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 06, 2018, 12:36:55 AM
I hate you both, if it helps
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 06, 2018, 12:54:12 AM
I hate you both, if it helps

Atta boy Jim!
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 06, 2018, 01:20:20 AM
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Big Monk on May 06, 2018, 01:36:33 AM


I’m starting to enjoy this place again. I hope it’s contagious.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 06, 2018, 01:38:49 AM
This forum certainly moves in fits, starts, & spurts.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: erockrph on May 06, 2018, 02:09:22 PM
I've been watching this thread from afar with interest, but I'm just now able to post. My apologies if this is a bit disjointed.

A) In my experience, I can buy that BRY-97 ≈ WLP051 and WY1056 ≈ US-05 (I don't have enough experience with 1272 or 001 to include my opinion here), but I can't see all 4 being the same. Their performance in hoppy beers is just too different for me (97 and 051 seem to scalp some hop flavor where 1056 and US-05 don't).

B) Regarding the real world application of this data, while the genetics in no way supercedes what we know through years of empiric practice, I'm always looking for new ideas to try out. For example, in my case I've been brewing a lot of lagers with dry yeast lately. 34/70 is great for accelerated fermentations, but doesn't produce any sulfur (which I enjoy a hint of). S-189 produces the right amount of sulfur for me, but throws fusels when I ramp the temps too high or fast. If BRY-97 is potentially a Pastorianus strain, then this could be a new option for me. It's certainly worth a try, and the seed of the idea has come from this piece of information from the genetics.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 06, 2018, 02:33:14 PM
Couple things.  One, erockrph says dry "34/70" doesn't produce sulphur.  But wet versions (2124 and 830) most certainly do.  Which goes to the issue of changes in performance in dry versions, and I wonder if other differences in the way yeast is handled and grown less extreme than dry yeast production (just the SOPs of different labs)  might similarly lead to changes in performance of two (originally) identical strains.

And my curiosity has got the better of me.  Put the dregs of a few SNPAs in 250mL of starter wort on the stir plate last night.  Will step it up in the coming days and see what it looks like.  Then decide if I will try a lager fermentation with it.  Won't know for sure which commercial strain (if any) is "equivalent," but I am curious as to whether it might be pastorianus in SNPA. Or maybe who cares if it's pastorianus, just will it make a "lager?"
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 06, 2018, 03:53:40 PM
I hate you both, if it helps

doesn't hurt...;)
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: hopfenundmalz on May 06, 2018, 04:10:21 PM
The study had commercial yeasts, but those were coded. There are people who say they have cracked the codes. After looking this over, I wonder how accurate the code cracking was.

The White Labs .pdf is here.
https://www.whitelabs.com/sites/default/files/White%20Labs%202018%20Web%20Catalog.pdf
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 06, 2018, 09:13:03 PM
The study had commercial yeasts, but those were coded. There are people who say they have cracked the codes. After looking this over, I wonder how accurate the code cracking was.

The White Labs .pdf is here.
https://www.whitelabs.com/sites/default/files/White%20Labs%202018%20Web%20Catalog.pdf

Exactly.  By comparison I agree their guesses appear mostly accurate.  Mostly.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 07, 2018, 11:38:35 AM
Smarter people, help me.  I notice that the Cell study notes with interest that 10 of the cerevisiae strains in the study are used commercially to make lager, which had been thought to be accomplished only with the related pastorianus.  Indications are that all of the strains on the tree are in fact cerevisiae.  So does this mean that WLP051 either a) has not in fact been identified as pastorianus or b) does not in fact appear on the tree?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 07, 2018, 11:52:06 AM
Smarter people, help me.  I notice that the Cell study notes with interest that 10 of the cerevisiae strains in the study are used commercially to make lager, which had been thought to be accomplished only with the related pastorianus.  Indications are that all of the strains on the tree are in fact cerevisiae.  So does this mean that WLP051 either a) has not in fact been identified as pastorianus or b) does not in fact appear on the tree?

Excellent question!  This is so confusing to me too -- I thought only ales were on the charts, but the experts continue to insist that WLP051 was among those tested and they made 3 slots of where it might be.  So now I don't know what to think.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 11, 2018, 11:57:54 AM
Well, building up whatever's in a bottle of SNPA, as I posted above.  It is clearly a top fermenting yeast (crappy pic):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdiBFYtdSdx7C269ES3VdC3baDFEzaF1/view?usp=drivesdk
But that said, it actually smells less estery at this point than a starter of 2124 would.  So.  Whatever this tells.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 17, 2018, 10:34:49 PM
Well, building up whatever's in a bottle of SNPA, as I posted above.  It is clearly a top fermenting yeast (crappy pic):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdiBFYtdSdx7C269ES3VdC3baDFEzaF1/view?usp=drivesdk
But that said, it actually smells less estery at this point than a starter of 2124 would.  So.  Whatever this tells.
Don't feel confident I have quite enough for a lager pitch after my last step-up -- so tomorrow's pre-Prohibition lager just got redesignated a pre-Prohibition "sparkling ale."  Then I'll have plenty, and next time hope to do a "lager" fermentation, and see if it seems plausible this yeast once made "lagers" at Ballantine.  Will follow up at that time.  (See, now I feel like putting "lager" and "ale" in quotes from now on...)
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: klickitat jim on May 17, 2018, 11:19:28 PM
Well, building up whatever's in a bottle of SNPA, as I posted above.  It is clearly a top fermenting yeast (crappy pic):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdiBFYtdSdx7C269ES3VdC3baDFEzaF1/view?usp=drivesdk
But that said, it actually smells less estery at this point than a starter of 2124 would.  So.  Whatever this tells.
Don't feel confident I have quite enough for a lager pitch after my last step-up -- so tomorrow's pre-Prohibition lager just got redesignated a pre-Prohibition "sparkling ale."  Then I'll have plenty, and next time hope to do a "lager" fermentation, and see if it seems plausible this yeast once made "lagers" at Ballantine.  Will follow up at that time.  (See, now I feel like putting "lager" and "ale" in quotes from now on...)
Up until recently, in Texas, "ale" meant over 5% ABV. So ale... lager... IPA... these are all meaningless terms
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: ynotbrusum on May 18, 2018, 11:35:14 AM
Even “hybrid” can now have different meanings - a Kölsch style hybrid ale using lager yeast? Or a Kölsch style ale using hybrid yeast? It depends on the yeast...but then the yeast itself has to be genotyped for “certainty”?
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 20, 2018, 11:01:52 PM
Well, building up whatever's in a bottle of SNPA, as I posted above.  It is clearly a top fermenting yeast (crappy pic):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdiBFYtdSdx7C269ES3VdC3baDFEzaF1/view?usp=drivesdk
But that said, it actually smells less estery at this point than a starter of 2124 would.  So.  Whatever this tells.
Don't feel confident I have quite enough for a lager pitch after my last step-up -- so tomorrow's pre-Prohibition lager just got redesignated a pre-Prohibition "sparkling ale."  Then I'll have plenty, and next time hope to do a "lager" fermentation, and see if it seems plausible this yeast once made "lagers" at Ballantine.  Will follow up at that time.  (See, now I feel like putting "lager" and "ale" in quotes from now on...)

Well something strange.  After just 36 hours the yeast had quit and flocced out, at only 36%AA.  Never seen anything like this in all my years of brewing.  What's more, the beer was completely insipid -- no hop or malt aroma or flavor, just a little bready yeastiness, no apparent foam capacity -- weird.  Suspect either the yeast in the bottle isn't the yeast in the ferment (though it may have been years ago) or it's just not adapted to my fermentation conditions (needs open fermentation?) Or something I haven't thought of, I'm stumped. Anyway, it was a fun idea, but it's a dumper, as I'll have time to brew again this week.

(Think I'll buy some 1056 though...)
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on May 21, 2018, 03:47:28 PM
Well, building up whatever's in a bottle of SNPA, as I posted above.  It is clearly a top fermenting yeast (crappy pic):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TdiBFYtdSdx7C269ES3VdC3baDFEzaF1/view?usp=drivesdk
But that said, it actually smells less estery at this point than a starter of 2124 would.  So.  Whatever this tells.
Don't feel confident I have quite enough for a lager pitch after my last step-up -- so tomorrow's pre-Prohibition lager just got redesignated a pre-Prohibition "sparkling ale."  Then I'll have plenty, and next time hope to do a "lager" fermentation, and see if it seems plausible this yeast once made "lagers" at Ballantine.  Will follow up at that time.  (See, now I feel like putting "lager" and "ale" in quotes from now on...)

Well something strange.  After just 36 hours the yeast had quit and flocced out, at only 36%AA.  Never seen anything like this in all my years of brewing.  What's more, the beer was completely insipid -- no hop or malt aroma or flavor, just a little bready yeastiness, no apparent foam capacity -- weird.  Suspect either the yeast in the bottle isn't the yeast in the ferment (though it may have been years ago) or it's just not adapted to my fermentation conditions (needs open fermentation?) Or something I haven't thought of, I'm stumped. Anyway, it was a fun idea, but it's a dumper, as I'll have time to brew again this week.

(Think I'll buy some 1056 though...)

I guarantee you that the yeast in the bottle is the same yeast they ferment with.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 21, 2018, 06:00:37 PM
^^^^^
I'll buy that.  Probably was too big an ask for it to adapt to totally different conditions right out of the gate. It was off like a rocket, then flocced, and I had no means of rousing it.  Anyway, I picked up a pitch of 051, which I wouldn't have been inspired to do either if not for this topic.   :)

EDIT At least I've seen that SNPA yeast is emphatically top fermenting and top cropping --  it ain't a lager yeast. FWIW.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on May 22, 2018, 02:08:33 AM
As I'd indicated previously (and copied below), based on my reviews of the genome study results, I didn't think 1056 and WLP051 could be equivalent.  I wasn't sure if 1056 might be a lager yeast, while WLP051 probably IS a lager yeast.

EDIT: And... forgot to mention... I *do* believe Sierra Nevada is 1056.  WLP051 on the other hand is supposedly Anchor Liberty.  Source: http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm

...to be clear, WLP051 and Wyeast 1056 are NOT equivalent.  They are very very distant cousins.

BRY-96 = Wyeast 1056, AND NOTHING ELSE!  NOTHING else is exactly equivalent!  1056 is unique!

BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272, AND NOTHING ELSE!  Nothing else is exactly equivalent!  And if I'm right in my interpretation as explained above, then all 3 of these might be pastorianus...

...the pastorianus *might* indeed be limited to just BRY-97 = WLP051 = 1272...

EDIT #2: Hell... now expert "qq" says he doesn't think 1272 is actually the same as WLP051, but rather is more closely related to WLP002 and WLP007... and "German" ale yeast WLP029!  He found a different study separating 1272 from WLP051.  To be clear: Of all these, WLP051 is the only one identified verily as pastorianus.  http://beer.suregork.com/?p=4000

Hmm.... gonna be a while longer before we get all this stuff straight.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Robert on May 22, 2018, 02:49:48 AM
Well, my 051 starter is behaving just like I'd expect of my usual 2124 starters.  As sure as I am that the SNPA (bottle) yeast (by any other name) is an "ale" yeast, I, inveterate lager brewer, am gonna bet 051 is a "lager" yeast.  Whatever that means.  It's like asking a prospective employee for their family's work history instead of assessing their own skills.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: Northern_Brewer on November 15, 2018, 01:07:46 PM
The original link contains 3 places on the tree for "WLP019/WLP051/WY1056".  I do NOT take this to mean that these 3 yeasts are identical!  Far from it!  I think they just weren't sure which one went where.

Exactly - Suregork et al did a remarkable job of guessing most of the White Lab strains based on a handful of database hits and then just spotting patterns in the countries of origin - California/England/Germany/Ireland is a slightly weird combination of countries but it perfectly matches WLP001-4 for instance. But there were problems with a bunch of sequences described as from "California" or the US.

There were a couple of unidentified sequences from California and a couple of Californian WLPs that hadn't been placed, so it was just guessed that the two "gaps" corresponded somehow. Unfortunately White Labs didn't include them in the strains they unblinded in response to Suregork's work - the thought is that they may have actually sequenced variants that were banked by local Californian breweries and so were covered by confidentiality clauses. So we don't know for certain about those ones, but most of the other identities we can be fairly sure about.

But the picture is becoming clearer on the main US strains involved in the
Ballantine's ->Siebel BRY-96/97 -> Anchor/Sierra Nevada
chain. Bear in mind that :
Strains get mixed up, labels get switched, beer gets contaminated, stuff happens.
If Ballantine's was _anything_ like British breweries of the time, it would have been using a blend of at least two strains in its ale fermentations, but may well have been using just one for its lager.
Siebel would presumably have purified them down to single strains.
The West Coast breweries could easily end up with multistrains, either deliberately or by contamination.
Yeast evolve over time. Not hugely, but enough to be different at the DNA level and eventually at the beer level.

So what is the DNA telling us?

First - only WLP051 seems to be a lager strain, the rest seem to be ale strains. If WLP051 came from Anchor as is claimed, I'd guess it somehow came from Anchor Steam and not Liberty.

The latest sequencing puts Lallemand BRY-97 in the Mixed group - ie a distant cousin of Windsor/S-33 and nothing to do with the main group of brewery yeasts that includes the Chicos and Whitbread B. There needs to be more analysis of exactly how it fits in though. Since Lallemand own Siebel, presumably they got it direct from the banked version.

The main "Chico" group seems to have a single origin and is most closely related to WLP025 Southwold, presumably from Adnams. Adnams are interesting, they got their yeast from Morgans in Norwich in 1942 after an infection, in the 1970s it was 5 strains that they reduced down to two after stability problems.  But the relationship isn't close - the split could have happened 300 years ago if you believe the Gallone timings (which I don't entirely).

WLP008 East Coast ("Sam Adams") is a distant cousin of the Chicos which could have split off in the mid 19th century.

The remaining Chicos are much more tightly related, they might have split from each other within the last 30-40 years, some more recently than that. In that group you have WLP001, US-05, WLP090 San Diego and Pacman for certain. I don't think we have something that definitively ties 1056 to that group but I would expect it to be in there - it's subtly different to WLP001 but not that different. Although I don't have a definitive source, the Chicos are commonly claimed to be diploid (ie two sets of chromosomes like us) but Pacman for one is definitely tetraploid (four sets). Doubling the chromosome count is something that's quite "easy" to do and seems to be quite common in domestication, particularly in yeast.

We don't have sequence data for 1272, all we have are some basic interdelta "fingerprints" from Richard Priess which suggest it's close to WLP002 and WLP007 in the Whitbread B family. It's worth emphasising that this can only be tentative even with perfect data and in this case the gels are a bit contradictory, but the family does include "clean" yeasts like WLP029 Kolsch and WLP030 Thames Valley so it's plausible. We can be reasonably confident that 1272 is an ale yeast, which means it's nothing to do with WLP051. But the identification in the Whitbread B family is not certain, there's maybe a 25% chance it's something else, which opens up the possibility that it's similar to BRY-97 but it's not probable.

An intriguing option would be to do some DNA work on the East Coast Yeast strains that supposedly come from Ballantine - ECY-10 Old Newark Ale and ECY-12 Old Newark Beer are meant to be the ale and beer strains respectively. Unfortunately they only seem to be produced sporadically, and ECY don't distribute to Europe AFAICT - I don't suppose anyone happens to have some in a fridge/freezer/beer? Given the huge differences between Chico, BRY-97 and WLP051 it should be possible to distinguish them using pretty basic DNA techniques.

It's worth emphasising that although this stuff is really interesting from geek and historical points of view, you shouldn't sweat it too much from a brewing point of view. As others have said, it's brewing performance that matters. But DNA can open fresh perspectives - like using WLP051 California V Ale to make a classic low-temperature pilsner, or adapting an APA that you normally make with 1272 American Ale II to use the better-floccing WLP030 Thames Valley instead. Neither of those would be obvious things to do if you just looked at the names, but make perfect sense from a DNA point of view.




Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on November 15, 2018, 10:23:46 PM
We don't have sequence data for 1272, all we have are some basic interdelta "fingerprints" from Richard Priess which suggest it's close to WLP002 and WLP007 in the Whitbread B family. It's worth emphasising that this can only be tentative even with perfect data and in this case the gels are a bit contradictory, but the family does include "clean" yeasts like WLP029 Kolsch and WLP030 Thames Valley so it's plausible. We can be reasonably confident that 1272 is an ale yeast, which means it's nothing to do with WLP051. But the identification in the Whitbread B family is not certain, there's maybe a 25% chance it's something else, which opens up the possibility that it's similar to BRY-97 but it's not probable.

Your insights, as always, are very insightful.  Thanks and kudos.

My latest hypothesis that I would like to gather more data for is that perhaps 1272=WLP019 Cal Ale IV.

Another hypothesis I have is that US-05 is actually a lager yeast possibly related to WLP810 San Fran Steam yeast.

Another hypothesis of mine is that WLP051 is a recent branch off Chico.  It only turned into a lager in the last 40 years or so, and did so on its own and has no other known progeny.

All these hypotheses are again based on several hours worth of staring at last year's research and trying to make sense of it all.  I'm probably wrong on most of them, but odds are that I might possibly be correct on at least one of them.  Crossing fingers and waiting for more research results.

I'd certainly be curious to hear your or anyone's thoughts on these.  Go ahead and refute, I can handle it.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: denny on November 15, 2018, 10:27:03 PM
Another hypothesis I have is that US-05 is actually a lager yeast possibly related to WLP810 San Fran Steam yeast.

I know for a fact where 05 came from and that ain't it!
Title: Re: Interesting Data from the yeast Genome Study
Post by: dmtaylor on November 15, 2018, 11:28:30 PM
Aw man!  It was a longshot.  It wasn't identified as a lager yeast so, yeah.  Would like to know where it's from if you're allowed to share.  It does have its own evolutionary branch.