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…

Phenolic and volatile profiles of south tyrolean pinot blanc musts and young wines

AIM. Assess the impact of different vineyards and winemaking variables on the phenolic and volatile profiles of Pinot Blanc musts and young wines from South Tyrol.

Moderate wine consumption – part of a balanced diet or a health risk?

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.

Inert gases persistence in wine storage tank blanketing

It is common to find tanks in the winery with wine below their capacity due to wine transfers between tanks of different capacities or the interruption of operations for periods of a few days. This situation implies the existence of an ullage space in the tank with prolonged contact with the wine causing its absorption/oxidation. Oxygen uptake from the air headspace over the wine due to differences in the partial pressure of O2 can be rapid, up to 1.5 mL of O2 per liter of wine in one hour and 100 cm2 of surface area1 and up to saturation after 4 hours.

The ability of wine yeasts fermenting by the addition of exogenous biotin

Research is focused on the increase of the field of obtaining the wine yeast, under physical and chemical conditions. Study of different influences on yeast production is very important for the promotion

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.