## 3 Results and Discussion
### Wine-Making of Selected Strains/Microaerophilic/Anaerobic Experiments
It appears that the trials under microaerophilic/anaerobic conditions favored the production of ethanol, with this type of result being strain dependent according to the results found in the literature [7; 24]. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [24], in accordance with our results, demonstrated that the cultures of various _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ strains performed on previously pasteurized grape musty aerobic conditions was always accompanied by the biosynthesis of ethanol with lower \(Y_{\text{EOH/TS}}\) values, compared to equivalent anaerobic experiments [24]. In fact, according to the authors, this was a strategy developed in order to produce wines under aerobic conditions, since this method was proposed to reduce the ethanol content of the produced wine. It is noted that low alcohol-titer wines (\(\leq\)10.5% \(v/v\)) are novel products that due to multiple reasons (modern lifestyle, social reasons, economic motives, etc.) have been gradually gaining the interest of consumers and market in the last decade [24]. On the other hand, in other cases, cultures of wild-type _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ strains on grape musts or glucose-enriched media under aerobic conditions resulted in the production of ethanol in substantial quantities (in some cases in concentrations \(\geq\) 110 g/L) with simultaneous very high \(Y_{\text{EOH/TS}}\) values (i.e., \(\geq\)0.40 g/g, in some instances these values were \(\approx\)0.49 g/g-very close to the maximum theoretical values) [26; 42; 43; 52], providing evidence that trials of _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ under full aerobic conditions can also lead to the significant production of ethanol. In Table 3, the metrics for ethanol production and the initial sugar content of various _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ strains cultured on different carbon sources are presented and compared with results from the current study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Yeast Strain** & **Carbon Source** & **Initial Sugar (g/L)** & **EtOH (g/L)** & **Reference** \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ AXAZ-1 & Microalgae biomass and raisin extract & 257 & 111 & [14] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ AXAZ-1 & Pomegranate residue hydrolysate & 37 & 13 & [17] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ LMBF-Y 16 & Grape must & 250 & 112 & [26] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ LMBF-Y 18 & Grape must & 250 & 125 & [26] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ MAK-1 & Grape musts & 250 & 106–119 & [52] \\ \hline Bakers’ yeast & Carob pod & 200–350 & 62 & [54] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ & Carob Pod Extracts & 200 & 95 & [55] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ NP01 & Sweet sorghum juice & 280–300 & 134 & [56] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ BY4741 & Sweet sorghum juice & 278.6 & 113 & [57] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ NP01 & Sucrose & 280 & 95 & [58] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ 27817 & Glucose & 50–200 & 5–91 & [59] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ 2.399 & Glucose & 32 & 13 & [60] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ 24860 & Glucose & 150 & 48 & [61] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ CM237 & Sugar & 160 & 70 & [62] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ EC1118 & Grape must & 280 & 105 & [63] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ DBVPG 1014 & Grape must & 270 & 115 & [64] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ BP2-17 & Grape must & 225 & 89 & [21] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ BP2-33 & Grape must & 225 & 89 & [21] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ PP2-22 & Grape must & 225 & 86 & [21] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ MPr2-42 & Grape must & 225 & 87 & [21] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ PR50 & Grape must & 220 & 72 & [24] \\ \hline _S. cerevisiae_ PR543 & Grape must & 220 & 85 & [24] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Metrics for ethanol production of _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ different strains cultured on various carbon sources in comparison with results from the current study.