Are dicysteinyl polysulfanes responsible for post-bottling release of hydrogen sulfide?

Water status impact in viticulture has been widely explored, as it strongly affects grapevine physiology and grape chemical composition. It is considered as a key component of vitivinicultural terroir. Most of the studies concerning grapevine water status have focused on either physiological traits, or berry compounds, or traits involved in wine quality. Here, the response of grapevine to water availability during the ripening period is assessed through non-targeted metabolomics analysis of grape berries by ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry. The grapevine water status has been assessed during 2 consecutive years (2019 & 2020), through carbon isotope discrimination on juices from berries collected at maturity (21.5 brix approx.) for 2 Vitis vinifera cv. Pinot noir (PN) and Chardonnay (CH). A total of 220 grape juices were collected from 5 countries worldwide (Italy; Argentina; France; Germany; Portugal). Measured δ13C (‰) varied from -28.73 to -22.6 for PN, and from -28.79 to -21.67 for CH. These results also clearly revealed higher water stress for the 2020 vintage. The same grape juices have been analysed by Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FT-ICR-MS) and Liquid Chromatography coupled to Mass Spectrometry (LC-qTOF-MS), leading to the detection of up to 4500 CHONS containing elemental compositions, and thus likely tens of thousands of individual compounds, which include fatty acids, organic acids, peptides, phenolics, also with high levels of glycosylation. Multivariate statistical analysis revealed that up to 160 elemental compositions, covering the whole range of detected masses (100 –1000 m/z), were significantly correlated to the observed gradients of water status. Examples of chemical markers, which are representative of these complex fingerprints, include various derivatives of the known abscisic acid (ABA), such as phaesic acid or abscisic acid glucose ester, which are significantly correlated with higher water stress, regardless of the variety. Cultivar-specific behaviours could also be identified from these fingerprints. Our results provide an unprecedented representation of the metabolic diversity, which is involved in the water status regulation at the grape level, and which could contribute to a better knowledge of the grapevine mitigation strategy in a climate change context.

Because terroir and cultivar are drivers of wine quality, is essential to investigate theirs effects on polyphenolic profile before promoting the implantation of a red minority variety in a specific area. This work, included in MINORVIN project, focuses in the polyphenolic profile of 7 red grapevines minority varieties of Vitis vinifera L. (Morate, Sanguina, Santafe, Terriza Tinta Jeromo Tortozona Tinta) and Tempranillo) from six typical viticulture Spanish areas: Aragón (A1), Cataluña (A2), Castilla la Mancha (A3), Castilla –León (A4), Madrid (A5) and Navarra (A6) of 2020 season. Polyphenolic substances were extracted from grapes. 35 compounds were identified and quantified (mg subtance/kg fresh berry) by HPLC and grouped in anthocyanins (ANT) flavanols (FLAVA), flavonols (FLAVO), hydroxycinnamic (AH), benzoic (BA) acids and stilbenes (ST). Antioxidant activity (AA, mmol TE /g fresh berry) was determined by DPPH method. The results were submitted to a two-way ANOVA to investigate the influence of variety, area and their interaction for each polyphenolic family and cluster analysis was used to construct hierarchical dendrograms, searching the natural groupings among the samples. Sanguina (A3) had the most of total polyphenols while Tempranillo (A5) those of ANT. Sanguina (A2) and (A3) reached the highest values of FLAVO, FLAVA and AA. These two last samples had also the maximum of AA. The effect cultivar and area were significant for all polyphenolic families analyzed. A high variability due to variety (>50%) was observed in FLAVA and the maximum value of variability due to growing area was detected in AA (86.41%), ANT and FLAVO (51%); the interaction variety*zone was significant only for ANT, FLAVO, EST and AA. Finally, dendrograms presented five cluster: i) Sanguina (A2); ii) Sanguina (A3); iii) Tempranillo (A5); iv) Tempranillo (A3); Terriza (A3,A5), Morate (A5,A6); v) Santafé (A1,A6); Tortozona tinta (A1,A3,A6); Tinta Jeromo (A3,A4).

[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"...

Terroir is not only a geographical site, but it is a more complex concept able to express the “collective knowledge of the interactions” between the environment and the vines mediated through human action and “providing distinctive characteristics” to the final product (OIV 2010). It is often treated and accepted as a “black box”, in which the relationships between wine and its origin have not been clearly explained. Nevertheless, it is well known that terroir expression is strongly dependent on the physical environment, and in particular on the interaction between soil-plant and atmosphere system, which influences the grapevine responses, grapes composition and wine quality. The Terroir studying and mapping are based on viticultural zoning procedures, obtained with different levels of know-how, at different spatial and temporal scales, empiricism and complexity in the description of involved bio-physical processes, and integrating or not the multidisciplinary nature of the terroir. The scientific understanding of the mechanisms ruling both the vineyard variability and the quality of grapes is one of the most important scientific focuses of terroir research. In fact, this know-how is crucial for supporting the analysis of climate change impacts on terroir resilience, identifying new promised lands for viticulture, and driving vineyard management toward a target oenological goal. In this contribution, an overview of the last findings in terroir studies and approaches will be shown with special attention to the terroir resilience analysis to climate change, facing the use and abuse of terroir concept and new technology able to support it and identifying the terroir zones.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.