IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Effect of different pH values on the interaction between yeast mannoproteins and grape seed flavanols

Effect of different pH values on the interaction between yeast mannoproteins and grape seed flavanols

Abstract

The consequences of the global climate change in the vitiviniculture are revealed as a gap between phenolic and technological grape maturities, higher grape sugar concentration that leads to high wine alcohols levels, lower acidities and high pH values, among others. The unbalanced phenolic maturity caused in this scenario leads to harsh astringency and to instable colour of wines. Previous studies have reported that the addition of yeast mannoproteins (MPs) to wines may have positive effects on these two organoleptic properties due to their capability to interact with wine polyphenols [1]; however, studies about the effect of the pH on these interactions have not been carried out so far.

 MPs are located in the outer layer of yeast cell wall (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and they are naturally released into the wine during alcoholic fermentation when yeast is actively growing or during aging when cell wall breaks down in the process known as autolysis. Also, commercial MPs can be added during winemaking and/or ageing. The aim of this work was to study the effect of different pH values (pH 3.0 and 4.0) on the interactions between a flavanol extract from Vitis vinifera L. Tempranillo seeds and the MPs obtained from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Here, the isolation of MPs from the cell walls of S. cerevisiae was performed using Zymolyase 20T enzyme. MPs were purified by using ethanol, temperature and dialysis. The obtained MPs were characterized by SDS-PAGE and their molecular weights (MWs) were determined by HRSEC-RID [2]. The protein percentage was determined by the Lowry method. The monosaccharide composition was determined by HPLC-MS after derivatisation with 1-phenyl-3-methyl-5-pyrazolone (PMP) [3]. Four main MP fractions were identified: F1 (~2%), with a MW 528.8 kDa, F2 (~12%) (174.1 kDa), F3 (~61 %) (61.0 kDa) and F4 (~25 %) (<10 kDa). The MP–flavanol interactions were performed at pH=3 and pH=4 and studied by means of HPLC-DAD-MS, HRSEC-RID and Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC). The results showed noticeably differences in the interactions between the MPs fractions and the flavanol extract depending on the pH values. 

References

[1] C. Alcalde-Eon, et al. (2019). Food Res. Int., 126; 108650.
[2] E. Manjón, et al. (2020). J. Agric. Food Chem. 25; 13459
[3] Y. Ruiz-García et al. (2014). Carbohydr Polym. 114; 102.

DOI:

Publication date: June 27, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Manjón Elvira1, Bosch-Crespo Diana Marelys1, Dueñas Montserrat1 and Escribano-Bailón Mará Teresa1

1Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Science, Universidad de Salamanca.

Contact the author

Keywords

Saccharomyces cerevisiae, climate change, mannoproteins, flavanols, astringency.

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Sustaining wine identity through intra-varietal diversification

With contemporary climate change, cultivated Vitis vinifera L. is at risk as climate is a critical component in defining ecologically fitted plant materiel. While winegrowers can draw on the rich diversity among grapevine varieties to limit expected impacts (Morales-Castilla et al., 2020), replacing a signature variety that has created a sense of local distinctiveness may lead to several challenges. In order to sustain wine identity in uncertain climate outcomes, the study of intra-varietal diversity is important to reflect the adaptive and evolutionary potential of current cultivated varieties. The aim of this ongoing study is to understand to what extent can intra-varietal diversity be a climate change adaptation solution. With a focus on early (Sauvignon blanc, Riesling, Grolleau, Pinot noir) to moderate late (Chenin, Petit Verdot, Cabernet franc) ripening varieties, data was collected for flowering and veraison for the various studied accessions (from conservatory plots) and clones. For these phenological growing stages, heat requirements were established using nearby weather stations (adapted from the GFV model, Parker et al., 2013) and model performances were verified. Climate change projections were then integrated to predict the future behaviour of the intra-varietal diversity. Study findings highlight the strong phenotypic diversity of studied varieties and the importance of diversification to enhance climate change resilience. While model performances may require improvements, this study is the first step towards quantifying heat requirements of different clones and how they can provide adaptation solutions for winegrowers to sustain local wine identity in a global changing climate. As genetic diversity is an ongoing process through point mutations and epigenetic adaptations, perspective work is to explore clonal data from a wide variety of geographic locations.

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Short-term relationships between climate and grapevine trunk diseases in southern French vineyards

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Effect of vigour and number of clusters on eonological parameters and metabolic profile of Cabernet Sauvignon red wines

Vegetative growth and yield are reported to affect grape and wine quality. They can be controlled through different techniques linked to vine management. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of vine vigour and number of clusters per vine on physicochemical composition and phenolic profile of red wines. The experiment was carried out during two vegetative cycles, with cv. Cabernet Sauvignon grafted onto Paulsen 1103. Three vine vigour were defined, according to shoot weight at previous harvests, being low, medium and high. Five treatments of number of clusters were used for each vigour, with 15, 22, 29, 36, and 45 clusters per vine. Grapes from all treatments were harvested in the same day from Brix and total acidity criteria. Thirty days after bottling, classical analyzes and phenolic compounds were performed. As results, different responses were obtained from each vintage. In 2020, a dry season from veraison to harvest, grapes and wines obtained from low vigour treatment and 45 clusters per vine was the highest in sugar and alcohol content respectively, while grapes and wines from high vigour and 15 clusters presented the lowest sugar and alcohol content. Total anthocyanins were higher in treatment with low vigour and 15 clusters, while the lowest amounts were found in low vigour with 45 clusters, as well as medium and high vigour with 36 clusters per vine. Total tannins were higher in high vigour with 22 clusters and medium vigour with 29 clusters, while were lower in low vigour with 36 clusters. In 2021, a wet season at harvest, responses were different, and great variations were observed between treatments. As conclusions, yield and vine vigour had strong influence on grape and wine quality, promoting different enological potentials on which can be indicated/used for aging strategies of red and even rosé wines.