Dmtaylor's yeast chart

I just noticed that DMT shared his yeast comparison chart as a part of another thread. But I think perhaps it should have its own so that we can discuss. I am particularly interested in how DMT and friends came up with the comparisons, and what the color-coding means, etc.

The source papers cited are abstracted from the brewing strains in the sense that they don’t say, ‘here is the genomic data for Wyeast 1056 and WLP 001’, so how did you guys go about figuring that part out?

Link: YEAST MASTER by David M. Taylor 2019-01-12 - Google Sheets

For some background, there was this thread
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=31732.0

And much of the process is available directly or in references and, especially comments, in a couple of articles on Kristoffer Krogerus’  blog Suregork Loves Beer, cited in Dave’s references: http://beer.suregork.com/

Those two starting points should get you well down the rabbit hole.

And you’re right, now that Dave has collated so much of this information into a concise form that should facilitate further discussion,  a new thread is a good idea.

Thanks, gws, for the new thread.

Primary sources were the ancient list from Kristen England on MrMalty.com, and from there dozens of hours of digestion by myself and by suregork and qq on the suregork website of the Gallone and Fay genomic research results.  One magic bullet was when suregork figured out that nearly all the White Labs strains were numbered in order in the Gallone study.  Without that magic key, we wouldn’t be talking so much like this here today.

Beyond all those sources, I’ve brewed a good ~150 batches with many many different yeasts over the years, and so I’ve incorporated some of my own real-world experiences including attenuation and flavor data to help figure out which ones were which.  And beyond that, well, I used my own intuitive thinking to try to figure others out.  Am I right on all my guesses?  Hell no.  Am I pretty damn close on most of them?  You be the judge.

The color coding means essentially nothing.  It had some meaning to me personally once upon a time, but now, not so much.  I should probably clear all that out to avoid confusion.  The yellow ones are slightly useful in that they are all 50/50 odds of one match versus another.

Special note that I should add to the sheet:  These matches aren’t all 100% identical.  Divergent evolution will happen when multiple manufacturers source the same yeast strains.  And some might have sourced theirs 50 years ago, some 15 years ago, some within the last couple years.  I have no way of knowing when they sourced their stuff, and frankly, nor do I care.  I figure, sometimes good enough really is good enough.  And that was my goal with all of this:  Good enough.  I thought it was at a point that’s good enough for most intents and purposes.  Is it good enough for you?  Again, you be the judge.  I’m just sharing because I think it’s the right thing to do.

Sorry that I don’t have a better website or blog site to put it on, and I don’t intend to.  Maybe one day.  I dunno.  I’m just a dork.  I don’t really care to publicize it or fancy it up all that much.  It is what it is.  Take it for what it is… one guy’s obsessive intuitive list of stuff that might be equivalent, and hopefully a vast improvement of what was previously available out there.  That was my selfish goal.  If others can benefit, great.  If not, oh well.

Cheers.

In any or all of those cases, you seem to have found your niche, so follow it, and see where it leads. We will all benefit, I’m sure.

Dave,

Any interesting insight to share on how you have decided to split BRY-97 off all on its own?  Last I recall you thought it might be closely related or even “equivalent” to at least one other.

The new Fay study found this out:

33113325118_76dd53ea5c_z.jpg

http://beer.suregork.com/?p=4030

BRY-97 is miles away from any English yeasts besides Munton’s and Windsor… all of which seem to have far more in common with bread yeasts, and NOTHING to do with the typical WLP002/007 or American stuff.

I’m not sure I understand how to properly read this chart. For example is it saying Windsor and S-33 are the same or are related?

I had seen where BRY-97 (surprisingly?) fits on the tree.  So I guess the question more accurately is, how do you identify 019 and 1272 and distinguish them from BRY-97?  I don’t see them on the tree, and don’t recall seeing any hints in the comments on suregork’s blog.  (But I’ve missed things there before.)  At least we’re miles away from the notion of a connection between 051, 1272, and 97 that still gripped us so recently.  As far as 051 is concerned, that is.

They are very very closely related.  My table is intended to indicate “equivalency”, in a very general sense.  Whether these yeasts are in fact “equivalent” depends on performance and subjective opinion.  In my opinion, they are “close enough”.  That’s all I was ever going for: “close enough”.  But they are indeed extremely closely related.  Like sisters, or mother & daughter.  Very very close.

If two strains have separate places on the tree, they’re different – now.  But they may have evolved divergently just since the two labs acquired the same original culture.

‘Close enough’ has a home in my brewery. Thanks!

It will be interesting to see if they add Mangrove Jacks strains as well as Imperial and others over time.

Edit: the rumor is MJ rebrand Lallemand and Fermentis (and others) into their MJ product line. So they do not offer any new yeast strains that are not already purchasable from their competitors.

There is yet another study that qq references at bottom of the first link… 1272 is linked to WLP002 in second link:

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

https://www.biorxiv.org/sites/all/libraries/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/27/194969.full.pdf#page=29

I’m having a hard time digging up how I figured out WLP019 and 1272 might be equivalent.  Maybe they’re not.  Try a side by side experiment and let me know your results!?

I think this may apply to both posts #11 and #12…  The caveat that “close enough” or “equivalent,” thanks to that divergence in the hands of two labs, means they may not perform the same at all.  One of the takeaways I had from the big thread last year was, it’s informative to know the genetics and provenance of yeast strains, but not dispositive.  Each strain from each manufacturer really needs to be evaluated on its own.

I really can’t argue with that.  Certainly many of the so-called equivalents aren’t much alike at all.  However, I haven’t used them all yet side by side to know for sure which ones aren’t!  :slight_smile:

Thanks, I do keep missing or forgetting things.  I forgot about the Preiss, et al. paper, I guess I had seen where they place 1272.  That’s taken care of at least.  I think my brain has been scrambled from staring at these dendrographs for too many hours.  :wink:

In the comments Suregork says. ”… that even though strains are closely related, they may still differ phenotypically (especially on the aroma side as you mention). The tree can still be useful for finding substitutes though, but should of course not be trusted blindly.”

Hey, nice work dmtaylor!

A couple pairs of strains that Kris equated but are not the same:

1187/WLP 005 – Both are supposedly single-strain isolates from Ringwood. But Ringwood is a multi-strain culture and these are definitely not the same yeast.

1187’s history is that Wyeast had 1187 Ringwood Ale and also 1742 Swedish Porter. 1742 was from the famed Carnegie Porter (Pripp’s). Kris even says that in his chart. But then when Wyeast sequenced 1187 and 1742, it turned out they are the same, and Wyeast ended up discontinuing 1742. It’s not surprising that the same strain ended up in Ringwood and in the Carnegie brewery, because yeast lending and trading was common in the British Isles, and the entrepreneur who owned Carnegie (David Carnegie) was back and forth between Scotland and Sweden.

If you read the yeast specs, it’s clear that the performance specs are quire different. White Labs admits that WLP005 is adapted for conical fermentation. Meanwhile, 1187 is the yeast that brewpubs in the 1980s and 1990s loved for its legendary speed (fermentation kinetics and clearing) and expressive ale character, and it doesn’t take much experimentation to realize it does in open fermentation and would likely do poorly in conicals.

1178/WLP028 - maybe this one is a bit closer call. Doubtless they both came from McEwan’s. It just seems based on fermentation performance and flavor profile that for whatever reason, selection of individuals for the master culture, drift, or something else, these are nowhere near identical strains. 1178 is adapted to very cold fermentation, can ferment (slowly) at even lager fermentation temps (50-55°C), and from what I’ve heard it seems more closely adapted to what modern Scottish breweries are doing. WLP028, on the other hand, won’t ferment as cool and is not as clean at any temperature. The other interesting thing is that 1178 is a great IPA yeast and plays well with hops, while WLP028 seems to diminish hop character (maybe due to flocculation characteristics). Anyway, this is a tougher call to claim the two strains are completely differentiated – but they’ve certainly drifted apart quite a bit.

Anyway, I appreciate your keeping the chart up to day. Cheers!

I might as well set this here, since someone on another forum asked for it.  Yes, I’ve been maintaining my list regularly, but hadn’t published an updated version since January… until now I suppose. Here’s the latest including what little I know about the newest studies just came out this month:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14zvCCukT0xiTN2sWtTNa3ptHlBaPstRa/view?usp=sharing

OR

(pick the Google version you prefer)

Primary references for the newest updates found here – I believe we might have already had an AHA thread here on it as well, and if not, well now we do:

Interestingly, 1187 Ringwood is most likely a pastorianus strain.  Nobody saw that one coming!  And so is WLP029 Kolsch.  That one makes more sense.  And WLP838 lager might be a cerevisiae strain!?  Yikes.  etc.

My spreadsheet is compiled mainly for my own personal gratification. I don’t blog, don’t have a website, don’t really care what people think of it. But if it can help anybody out, please enjoy and feel free to share. :slight_smile:

Cheers all.

Thanks for keeping it updated, Dave!  I think you’ll be kinda busy here in the next few months…

Kudos, Dave!  You have done an immense amount of work to create this yeast chart.  Thank you for that!