Talk:Saccharomyces cerevisiae

message: The following pages might redirect to this one:
*Brewer's yeast, Brewer's Yeast
*Brewers yeast, Brewers Yeast
*Brewers' yeast, Brewers' Yeast
*Baker's yeast, Baker's Yeast
*Bakers yeast, Bakers Yeast
*Bakers' yeast, Bakers' Yeast
*Budding yeast, Budding Yeast
You can see which ones exist already (the italicized ones, as I type this). The titles in bold used to be stub articles. Brewer's Yeast was a copyvio that was tagged but apparently never listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I guess that page should be deleted and the redirect recreated? Baker's yeast was a one-liner; see its history if you're really interested. - dcljr 20:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects, real and imagined 

message: I changed "classical times" to "ancient times" again.  According to Beer#History, beer is definitely known from about 3500 or 4000 B.C., long before any time called "classical" (maybe 1000 or 500 B.C.)  If anyone wants to change it back, please give your reasons, as I have.  —JerryFriedman 16:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical and ancient 

message: This is a much more extensive article than the current one on yeast, and there don't appear to be articles on other types of yeast.  Saccharomyces cerevisiae is commonly referred to simply as "yeast," and I suspect that most people who type "yeast" in the Go box are trying to find this article.  Therefore, I suggest integrating this page's information on the yeast page, and making this page a redirect.  --LostLeviathan 19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Saccharomyces cerevisiae" should not be merged with Yeast, because there are many different types of yeast. Brewer's yeast and Baker's yeast, however, are simply common names for S. cerevisiae and should probably be merged. —Keenan Pepper 22:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, maybe not Brewer's yeast, but definitely Yeast (baking). —Keenan Pepper 22:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with yeast 

message: Saccharomyces cerevisiae should not be merged with Yeast, because there are many different kinds of yeast. Yeast (baking), however, is unquestionably the same thing. It even says "known as Saccharomyces cerevisiae". Any objections to merging? —Keenan Pepper 16:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make more sense to remove the non-baking information from Yeast (baking), and link each article from the other. Someone wanting to know about bakers' yeast will get lost in the detail of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae article, and someone interested in Saccharomyces cerevisiae may be more interested in beer or genomics than bread.--Curtis Clark 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly a possibility, but let me point out that in a well-organized article, it should be easy to find a specific aspect of the subject. There would certainly be subsections about yeast's roles in baking and brewing. —Keenan Pepper 23:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of counterexamples, usually when (1) a single article would be too long, or (2) there are aspects that are of interest to different audiences. Considering the importance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to biologists, a single article would need that name. Yeast (baking) could redirect to the subsection about the use of the species in baking. I'd have no objection to this.--Curtis Clark 01:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  S cerevesiae is a very important topic and needs its own article.  The various applications of yeast probably necessitate a separate article. Garrettcobb 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better suggestion: Merge with [[Yeast (baking)]] 

message: Human disease
Saccharomyces cerevisiae can cause disease in humans. In particular, it is marketed as a probiotic supplement (Ultralevura®) for the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis. Unfortunately, its use can cause fungaemia in critically ill patients.[1]
The first two sentences don't make sense together.  I presume it's supposed to read 'Saccharomyces cerevisiae can _cure_ disease in humans.', or it just needs to be re-written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danregan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Human disease' section is unclear 

message: What is the optimum temperature for the growth of this species? Mrug2 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Perhaps info could be added that there are 28 strains of S. cerevisiae...
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8987451)
24.108.216.23 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strains? 

message: I read a science encyclopedia that said that commercial breadmakers have a bread rise time between ten to twenty minutes rather than three or four hours as a result of adding cysteine to the bread  Cysteine is a limiting nutrient to bread yeast thus a surplus of cysteine is commercially use to create much faster rise times that transformed breadmaking from batch to continuous process a huge efficieny gain  
I've actually added a supplement tablet of N acetyl cysteine to a yeast nutrient solution  It produces bubbles much much more rapidly than the yeast plus nutrient solution  Thus I think the effect is real  
I mention this as researchers using S. cerevisiae may find this of use  Perhaps cysteine affects the growth rate of other fungi as well also  the that factory bread is immediate rather than batch as a result of yeast nutrition is of value at the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.215.179 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cysteine as a yeast accelerant 

message: ==========ARICLE NEEDS UPDATING: Saccharomyces cerevisiae BEING USED AS VITAMIN D SOURCE==========
SEE THE FOLLOWING LINKS.  IS THIS AN APPROPIATE SOURCE FOR VITAMIN D?  I AM SURPRISED THERE IS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THIS IN THE ARTICLE.  PLEASE UPDATE.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "IS THIS AN APPROPIATE SOURCE FOR VITAMIN D?" BASED ON THE RESEARCH LINKS BELOW.  I AM UNABLE TO INTERPRET THE SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL.
PLEASE ALSO COMPARE AND CONTRAST Saccharomyces cerevisiae TO Cholecalciferol AND ergocalciferol AS SOURCES FOR VITAMIN D.  BOTH OF THESE HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES.
(PLEASE NOTE, FYI: Saccharomyces cerevisiae IS USED BY VEGETARIANS AS A SOURCE OF VITAMIN D.)
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!  I AM GLAD WE CAN UPDATE THIS ARTICLE!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC362399/pdf/molcellb00056-0373.pdf
http://www.megafood.com/products/vitamin-formulas/vitamin-d3-1000iu/
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Statement/ans_ej1148_VitaminDenrichedyeast_st_en.pdf?ssbinary=true
Using yeast as a source of vitamin D is a minor detail in the context of the organism as a whole. Also, links without explanation should not be included in the article. This has been removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.97.5.34 (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''==========ARICLE NEEDS UPDATING: Saccharomyces cerevisiae BEING USED AS VITAMIN D SOURCE==========''' 

message: Why is there no i nfo on the religious signifigance of yeast? Bread/Wine were crucial to various ceremonies, especially in The Bible.156.34.166.44 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the species, not about "yeast". And the significance of bread and wine in religious ceremonies should be in the articles about bread and wine. Sasata (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious signifigance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304070340/http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14716.html to http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14716.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316100755/http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/innovative_technologies/life to http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/innovative_technologies/life/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This section has multiple significant and pervasive issues. First, its citations are not really citations. Three are merely links to searches on arabic Google Scholar, not to actual papers or articles, and the fourth is to a faculty recommendation blurb that points to an actual paper and not the paper itself (which I lack the expertise to determine if it supports the sentence attached to that cite). Second, while others have tried to clean this up, the grammar and spelling is still in need of attention. Finally, the whole section is of questionable relevance. Wikipedia already has an (better written) article on Sup35p (which is actually included in the Category:Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes link under the See Also section), and this appears to at least duplicate some of that, so it could be replaced with a direct link. It's also given unduly prominent placement as the very first main section even though it deals with a very narrow and domain-specific topic, and should, if kept, be moved to a subsection of the proper already existing section, or at least moved down so it isn't the first section.
I have added relevant templates to this section on the page. Esoteric bearcat (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sup35 Section