Consumers’ emotional responses elicited by wines according to organoleptic quality

Consumption of wine/alcoholic beverages remains a topic of great uncertainty and controversy worldwide. The term “no safe level” dominates the media communication and policy ever since population studies in 2018 [1,2] were published, which denied the existence of a J-curve and suggested that ANY consumption of an alcoholic beverage is harmful to health. The scientific evidence accumulated during the past decades about the health benefits of moderate wine consumption, were questioned and drinking guidelines considered to be too loose.

Wine dealcoholisation has been practised since the early 1900s and has gained importance due to climate change
and shifting consumer preferences for lower-alcohol beverages. Rising temperatures are accelerating grape
ripening, increasing sugar content and, consequently, raising the alcohol strength of wines.

The quality of wine is difficult to define. This is most certainly accredited to everyone´s different perception of quality. Some of the indicators of high-quality wines are complexity, balance, color and intensity. Color is one of the most crucial attributes of quality, not only for the obvious implications for their perception but also because they are indicators of other aspects related to its aroma and taste. Phenolic compounds are the main responsible for wine color, being anthocyanin and tannins the most determinant compounds in red wines. In addition to color, wine aroma is another important attribute linked with quality and consumer preferences.

Stomata are microscopic pores mainly located in leaf epidermis, allowing gas exchanges between plants and atmosphere. Stomatal initiation relies on the transcription factor SPEECHLESS which is mainly regulated by the MAP kinase cascade, in turn controlled by small signaling peptides, the Epidermal Patterning Factors (EPF and EPF-Like), namely EPF1, EPF2 and EPFL9. While EPF1 and EPF2 induce the inhibition of SPEECHLESS, their antagonist, EPFL9, stabilizes it, leading to stomatal formation. In grapevine, there are two paralogs for EPFL9, VviEPFL9-1 and VviEPFL9-2. Despite their structural similarity, it remains unclear whether they are differentially regulated and have distinct roles.

A great variability in the amount of polysaccharides recovered at the end of fermentations carried out by pure cultures of 89 non-Saccharomyces yeasts was observed. The utilization of the best polysaccharides producers in mixed cultures with S. cerevisiae resulted in considerable increases in the final concentration of polysaccharides and showed a strain dependent effect on glycerol production as compared to pure culture of S. cerevisiae.