Background/Objectives: Translation and the formation of membraneless organelles are linked mechanisms to promote cell stress surveillance. LncRNAs responsive to ethanol stress transcr_9136 of the SEY6210 strain and transcr_10027 of the BY4742 strain appear to act on tolerance to ethanol in these strains. Here, we investigate whether the ethanol responsiveness of transcr_9136 and transcr_10027 and their role in ethanol stress are associated with protein biogenesis and membraneless organelle assembly. Methods: SEY6210 transcr_9136∆ and BY4742 transcr_10027∆ and their wild-type counterparts were subjected to their maximum ethanol-tolerant stress. The expression of the transcr_9136, transcr_10027, ILT1, RRP1, 27S, 25S, TIR3, and FAA3 genes was accessed by qPCR. The level of DCP1a, PABP, and eIF4E proteins was evaluated by Western blotting. Bioinformatics analyses allowed us to check whether transcr_9136 may regulate the expression of RRP1 and predict the interaction between transcr_10027 and Tel1p. The cell death rate of SEY6210 strains under control and ethanol stress conditions was assessed by flow cytometry. Finally, we evaluated the total protein yield of all strains analyzed. Results: The results demonstrated that transcr_9136 of SEY6210 seems to control the expression of RRP1 and 27S rRNA and reduce the general translation. Furthermore, transcr_9136 seems to act on cell membrane integrity. Transcr_10027 of BY4742 appears to inhibit processing body formation and induce a general translation level. Conclusions: This is the first report on the effect of lncRNAs on yeast protein synthesis and new mechanisms of stress-responsive lncRNAs in yeast, with potential industrial applications such as ethanol production.

Background: The polymerase chain reaction of upper respiratory tract swab samples was established as the gold standard procedure for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID pandemic. However, saliva collection has attracted attention as an alternative diagnostic collection method. The goal of this study was to compare the use of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Ninety-nine paired samples were evaluated for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by saliva and swab for a qualitative diagnosis and quantitative comparison of viral particles. Furthermore, the detection limits for each sample collection technique were determined. The cycle threshold (C_T) values of the saliva samples, the vaccination status, and the financial costs associated with each collection technique were compared. Results: The results showed qualitative equivalence in diagnosis (96.96%) comparing saliva and swab collection, although there was low quantitative agreement. Furthermore, the detection limit test demonstrated equivalence for both collection methods. We did not observe a statistically significant association between C_T values and vaccination status, indicating that the vaccine had no influence on viral load at diagnosis. Finally, we observed that the use of saliva incurs lower financial costs and requires less use of plastic materials, making it more sustainable. Conclusions: These findings support the adoption of saliva collection as a feasible and sustainable alternative to the diagnosis of COVID-19.