This is a tricky post for me to write, but being that I have a background in TV News I do think this is a story that professional brewers and home brewers need to be aware of.
Is WLP644 Brettanomyces Trois actually Brettanoymces? This is a question that was raised in a discussion group I am a part of for wild yeast and bacteria brewers. It’s a discussion that I have pretty much stayed out of, but have watched unfold with much interest. I am going to post this entry as a basic timeline overview of the events so far. I feel like it is in the best interest of brewing if there is a page that had all the info accurately listed from the beginning. Hopefully this will curb “the telephone game” effect as more people research and discuss. I won’t be making any comments on to use or not to use this strain. It is not my place in this story. I am only providing this information so you can make an informed decision.
The background:
On December 7th Omega Yeast Labs which is based out of Chicago posted on the company Facebook page
“Some news relating to our Brettanomyces blends. We had the two primary strains in all three blends sequenced to learn a little more about them and it turns out that the sources of these two strains inaccurately classified them as Brettanomyces. They are in fact Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Thus, Blend #1 currently contains no Brettanomyces species, while Blends 2 and 3 are currently blends of Saccharomyces and the Brettanomyces strains listed in the descriptions. Rest assured that the blends do create the results advertised, however. Future lots of Blend #1 will include some new mild Brett strains that we are isolating from various sources in addition to the two Saccharomyces strains currently comprising the blend.”
On that same post a brewer asked “Is it the well known tropical fruit oft-used 100% Brett IPA strain?”, to which Omega confirmed “That’s the one”.
The following day news of this hit the discussion group. People asked is it was WLP644 and the answer was yes. This group includes multiple chemists and biologists with many years of experience. They immediately started doing, well what any scientist does: breaking everything in the experiment down. How was the sample prepared? What was the source of the sample? Comparing sequences and looking at chromatograms. A few Seq graphs were posted, with mixed views on the accuracy of these readings.
Brett Trois ITS4 sequence (64-ITS4.ab1) and two Sacc seqs. Courtesy: Samuel Aeschlimann Eureka Brewing
The next day (12/10/14) Lance (owner of Omega Labs) posted he had sent Brettanomyces Bruxellensis Trois (WLP644) lot number 1010492 to Charles River Laboratories to use their Accugenix Microbial ID and Strain Typing service.
On that same day Chris White and Neva Parker posted an update to the White Labs website about WLP644:
“We have received some questions as to whether White Labs WLP644 Brettanomyces bruxellensis Trois is not a strain of Brettanomyces. We obtained the original culture from a reputable source, identified as a species of Brettanomyces.
We have been doing experiments on this in-house and sending the strain to independent laboratories for some time. When we have a definitive genetic answer we will be happy to share that information.
In addition, we have had a 2-year collaborative research project to completely sequence more than 96 of our yeast strains, both Brettanomyces and Saccharomyces, which we hope to begin publishing in 2015. The complete sequencing of brewers yeast strains in this magnitude has never been done before, and we expect it will change the way many yeast strains, this one included, are currently categorized and understood.
Chris White and Neva Parker, White Labs”
Today (12/11/14) An update on the Microbial ID and Strain Typing was posted by Lance, the results for the sample of WLP644 Trois that were sent to the independent lab read “Saccharomyces cerevisiae”.
I am looking forward to seeing the results of Chris and Neva’s project at White Labs. I would ask this of people reading this article: Please don’t bombard White Labs with messages or calls about this. They are very much aware of this story and are working to get a definite answer on their end.
Embrace The Funk 
Great post – full of useful information and very little speculation. These are uncommon traits in news stories these days. This is a fascinating turn of events because it makes you wonder how many Sacch. species out there would impart unique characteristics if they were used like some Brett strains are (e.g. added at bottling in a hostile environment of high alcohol and low pH). I look forward to hearing more about this.
Thanks. I know this is going to be a point of discussion for the foreseeable future. I wanted to make sure a proper timeline and proper science was available to everyone.
The level of interest in the biology part of brewing is really exciting. Many chemists and professors at top schools are making these things part of their curriculum now which will only make us better brewers!
Absolutely agree. Better science about beer/brewing and an increase in scientific understanding among brewers/drinkers only elevates the craft. To better beer!
This would be like finding out your favorite dinosaur was actually just a bird after all.
So the earth is or isn’t flat? 🙂
Quality post, very informative, zero sensationalism. Excellent job.
Quality post. Informative, zero sensationalism. Excellent job!
I’m secretly hoping that it turns out to be sacc. It will make me feel much better about my sensory analysis skills.
Haha. I was that brewer that asked (in so many words) if it was trois/Drei. Also, can I get an invite to your wild/sour group? Sounds awesome. I make sour and wild/spontaneous ales professionally and have a microbio background. Hit me up, I’m always trying to absorb as much info as I can and am happy to share what I know.
Drei isn’t the same as Trois. The group is Milk The Funk on FB, and you are welcome to join! https://www.facebook.com/groups/MilkTheFunk/
As the person who both initiated and put together the team for the 96-strain sequencing project that White Labs referred, I can assure you that one can take any 100 brewers strains that were characterized on a macro level (attenuation, flocculation, flavor etc.) and find some surprises. The genomic sequencing may help understand the genetic makeup of the strains, but the expression level of the genes (RNAseq or exosome sequencing) under respiration and fermentation conditions will identify when these genes actually contribute to a beer. It is indeed exciting times but brewers should not be too concerned about the species tagging via full genome sequencing. If your yeast produces a beer you’re happy with, calling it Brett instead of S. cerevisiae will not change the outcome of a fermentation.
It is great to see WL responding to this confusion. If your own sequencing efforts do reveal that this strain is NOT Brettanomyces though (as the consensus and some pretty good analysis I’ve followed closely is showing) will you relabel this product? Or will you still call it Brett because “”A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”? It seems to me that all people want is accuracy and there are real world implications to this not being a Brett strain. For example, I am starting a contract brewery in DC in two months but am not allowed to use Brett on the equipment. Knowing more information and the accurate strain could have HUGE implications on small operations with restrictions such as these placed on them.
Thanks for the sequencing project in general though. I am really looking forward to your results. As a professional molecular biologist, I can’t wait to see the differences between the strains.
Matt
https://matthumbard.wordpress.com/
Hi Loren,
Thanks for taking the time to respond publicly.
I agree that if we as brewers have had good fermentation with wlp644, and have received the requisite desired flavor profile, we should be happy with the strain.
Being happy with the flavor is not my concern. My concern is with the time and money that may have been spent with wlp644.
1) I know that a 3 liter pitch of wlp644 is more money than say WLP001
2) I know I have to wait longer for the pitch, and schedule my brews more selectively when using Brett
3) I know that my CIP, and cleaning regiment in my brewery adds an additional 8 hours worth of man hours to my brewery’s weekly schedule when dealing with Brett
4) And lastly I know that I cannot claim on a label something that I know to be un-true. Like that I made a Brett IPA, when I know that it is not.
My question to you is how should I approach my customers if I’ve used wlp644? What should I do with labels that I’ve ordered? Will you and White Labs refund anyone that has used the product?
There are a myriad of monetary issues that come from wlp644 not being Brett.
I don’t know much about DNA sequence matching. Is a DNA sequence alignment of < 1% supposed to be a match? Should be there be a comparison with Brettanomyces strains, too?
The <1% indicates the differences in sequence between Trois and the cerevisiae type strain. In other words, over a stretch of 800 DNA base pairs, the 0.48% difference indicates only 4 base pairs were different between the two — all others were identical. The difference would be much larger with Brett.
Thanks for the post. How do you think this will change our perception of what sach yeast can do?
Thanks for the valuable clarification so far. Though, speaking as a homebrewer, cleaning and public relations are a non issue for me. I find this a really neat strain phenotypically – no matter what the sequence show. It certainly behaves much differently than most Bretts and also differently than most of our Sacc yeasts. Its attenuation, flocculation, aroma and flavor profile is unique. This yeast is getting a ton of attention in the homebrew community.
Pingback: ITS-PCR of WLP644 Brettanomyces bruxellensis trois | Suregork Loves Beer
Hello,
am I confused or does the phylogramm not correspond to the actual relationship?
I read it as that Trois is closer to Saccharomyces (cerevisae) boulardii than to normal S. cerevisae , differing by 0.24% compared to 0.48%.
But the phylogramm says its a sister of Vanilla S. cerevisae.
This also interest me as Trois usually produces compounds that remind of overripe tropical fruit.
S. boulardii actually lives on tropical fruit.
Best Regards
Pingback: Wednesday Reads 12/17/14 | ode to zymase
Pingback: THS 44: Wiggly Bridge Distillery - The Tap Handle Show
Pingback: 100 %* Brett * IPA, Check Out The Big Brain on Brett! | Amerikone Homebrewing
Pingback: Hoppy Rye Saison with Brett Trois - Recipe and Review - The Pour Report
Pingback: Brettanomyces Phylogenetic II & WLP Brett Trois crisis | Eureka Brewing
Pingback: Catching Up | The Mark of the Yeast
Results are in. White Labs says it is a wild sacc strain.
Pingback: Blinded by Science: Brettanomyces or Not? | F. H. Steinbart Co.
Pingback: Rock on Beer Blog – Where’s the Brett?- WLP644 Brett Trois