terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 International Congress on Grapevine and Wine Sciences 9 2ICGWS-2023 9 A sensometabolomic approach to understand wine mouthfeel percepts

A sensometabolomic approach to understand wine mouthfeel percepts

Abstract

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 UPLCQTOF-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. The compounds with negative contribution were flavonols, hydroxycinnamic acids, and malvidin-ethyl-flavan-3-ol, which agreed with the results of the PLS model obtained from targeted analysis. The relevance of phenolics to the “dry” sensation was sensible, but the predictive models obtained for “unctuous” and “oily” also showed that the chemical composition analyzed was involved in both mouthfeel sensations. The UPLCQTOF-MS has allowed to identify a tripeptide with important implication in “dry”, develop “oily” and “unctuous” models and confirm again the involvement of anthocyanins in mouthfeel perception of red wines. This sensometabolomic approach has found strong correlations between some perceived sensations and the chemical compounds analyzed. The role of the key compounds identified will need to be confirmed in future studies.

Acknowledgements: MICIN (AGL-2017-87373-C3-3-R & PID2021-126031OB-C22 FEDER, UE). SFT: University of La Rioja (predoctoral fellowship, UR-CAR-2018). MPSN: MICIN (RYC2019-027995-I/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 & CAS21/00221). PA & FM: (AdP 2019 by the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy).

DOI:

Publication date: October 13, 2023

Issue: ICGWS 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Sara Ferrero-del-Teso1, Panagiotis Arapitsas2,3, David W. Jeffery4, Chelo Ferreira5, Fulvio Mattivi2, Purificación Fernández-Zurbano1*, María-Pilar Sáenz-Navajas1

1Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino (UR-CSIC-GR) Department of Enology, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain

2Unit of Metabolomics, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, via E. Mach 1, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy.

3Department of Wine, Vine and Beverage Sciences, School of Food Science, University of West Attica, Ag. Spyridonos 28, Egaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece.

4School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, and Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia.

5Laboratorio de Análisis del Aroma y Enología (LAAE), Instituto Universitario de Matemáticas y Aplicaciones (IUMA-UNIZAR), Universidad de Zaragoza, c/ Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.

Contact the author*

Keywords

untargeted analysis, metabolomics, PLS regression, sensory analysis, UPLCQTOF

Tags

2ICGWS | ICGWS | ICGWS 2023 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

REGAVID a decision tool to deficit irrigation in a temperate climate (DO Monterrei – Spain)

In temperate climates, such as in the North of Spain, the use of irrigation in the vineyard has not been required, due to the usual rainfall from June to August. In some large vineyards, irrigation management has been carried out, based on occasional support irrigation, or for the application of nutrients (fertigation). Currently it is necessary to implement decision support models to manage irrigation water in real time and avoid misuse of a scarce resource. Moreover, quality standards must be achieved, as in the previous rainfed viticulture.

Oenological compatibility of biocontrol yeasts applied to wine grapes 

Antagonistic yeasts applied to wine grapes must be compatible with the thereafter winemaking process, avoiding competition with the fermentative Saccharomyces cerevisiae or affecting wine flavour. Therefore, fifteen epiphytic yeasts (6 Metschnikowia sp., 6 Hanseniaspora uvarum, 3 Starmerella bacillaris) previously selected for its biocontrol ability against Alternaria on wine grapes were evaluate for possible competition with S. cerevisiae by the Niche Overlap Index (NOI) employing YNB agar media with 10 mM of 17 different carbonate sources present in wine grapes (proline, asparagine, alanine, glutamic acid, tirosine, arginine, lisine, methionine, glicine, malic acid, tartaric acid, fructose, melibiose, raffinose, rhamnose, sucrose, glucose).

Effects of heat and water stress on grapevine health: primary and secondary metabolism

Grapevine resilience to climate change has become one of the most pressing topics in the Viticulture & Enology field. Vineyard health demands understanding the mechanisms that explain the direct and indirect interactions between environmental stressors. The current climate change scenario, where drought and heat-wave are more frequent and intense, strongly demands improving our knowledge of environmental stresses. During a heatwave, the ambient temperature rises above the plant’s average tolerance threshold and, generally, above 35 oC plant’s adaptation to heat stress is activated.

Genetic variation among wild grapes native to Japan

Domesticated grapes are assumed to have originated in the Middle East. However, a considerable number of species are native in East Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan as well. Evidence suggests that a total of seven species and eight varieties have been found to be native to Japan. A wide level variation in morphology, genetic and fruit composition exist in wild grape native to Japan.

Control of bacterial growth in carbonic maceration winemaking through yeast inoculation

Controlling the development of the bacterial population during the winemaking process is essential for obtaining correct wines[1]. Carbonic Maceration (CM) wines are recognised as high-quality young wines. However, due to its particularities, CM winemaking implies a higher risk of bacterial growth: lower SO2 levels, enrichment of the must in nutrients, oxygen trapped between the clusters… Therefore, wines produced by CM have slightly higher volatile acidity values than those produced by the destemming/crushing method[2].