Accumulation of deleterious mutations in grapevine and its relationship with traits of interest for wine production and resilience

Rootstocks were the first sustainable and environmentally friendly strategy to cope with a major threat for Vitis vinifera cultivation. In addition to providing Phylloxera resistance, they play an important role in protecting against other soil-borne pests, such as nematodes, and in adapting V. vinifera to limiting abiotic conditions. Today viticulture has to adapt to ongoing climate change whilst simultaneously reducing its environmental impact. In this context, rootstocks are a central element in the development of agro-ecological practices that increase adaptive potential with low external inputs. Despite the apparent diversity of the Vitis genus, only few rootstock varieties are used worldwide and most of them have a very narrow genetic background. This means that there is considerable scope to breed new, improved rootstocks to adapt viticulture for the future.

The use of oenological additives is becoming a common practice due to the technological and sensory properties they provide to the wines. However, the number of studies focused on the impact that these additives might induce on wine flavor perception during wine tasting is still quite scarce. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of three different types of common oenological additives: two oenotannins (ellagitannin and gallotannin) and a commercial preparation of yeast mannoproteins on the long-lasting flavor perception (aroma and astringency).

Targeted analytical methods can overlook compounds that are a priori unknown to play a role in the mouthfeel sensations. This limitation can be overcome with the information provided by untargeted metabolomic analysis using UPLC‐QTOF-MS. To this end, an untargeted metabolomic approach applied to 42 red wines has allowed development of a model with predictive capacity by cross-validation for the “dry”, “oily” and “unctuous” sensations perceived by a sensory panel. The optimal PLS model for “dry” retained compounds with positive regression coefficients (≥ 0.17) including a trimer procyanidin, a peptide, and four anthocyanins.

Every year, viticulture is facing several outbreaks caused by established diseases, such as downy mildew and grey mould, which possess different life cycles and modes of infection. To cope with these different aggressors, grapevine must recognize them and arm itself with an arsenal of defense strategies.
The regulation of secondary metabolites is one of the first reactions of plants upon pathogen challenge. Their rapid biosynthesis can highly contribute to strengthen the defense mechanisms allowing the plant to adapt, defend and survive.

Top quality sparkling wines (SW) are mostly produced using the traditional method that implies a second fermentation into the bottle[1]. That is the case of sparkling wines of reputed AOC such as Champagne, Cava or Franciacorta. However, it seems that the first SW was elaborated using the ancestral method in which only one fermentation takes place[2]. That is the case of the classical SW from the AOC Blanquette de Limoux[3]. In both cases, SW age in the bottle during some time in contact with lees favoring yeast’s autolysis[4]. There is a lot of information about traditional method but only few exists about ancestral method. The aim of this work was to compare SW made by the ancestral method with SW made by the traditional method.