terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 ANTIOXIDANT CAPACITY OF INACTIVATED NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS

ANTIOXIDANT CAPACITY OF INACTIVATED NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS

Abstract

The importance of the non-Saccharomyces yeasts (NSY) in winemaking has been extensively reviewed in the past for their aromatic or bioprotective capacity while, recently their antioxidant/antiradical potential has emerged under winemaking conditions. In the literature the antioxidant potential of NSY was solely explored through their capacity to improve glutathione (GSH) content during alcoholic fermentation [1], while more and more studies pointed out the activity of the non-glutathione soluble fraction released by yeasts [2].

Our study proposed to combine untargeted UHPLC-Q-ToF MS based metabolomic analysis with DPPH antiradical activity [3] to explore the antioxidant capacity of compounds released by inactivated non-Saccharomyces yeast (INSY) in wine like model solution. In our experimental plan, 3 INSY species were compared to one inactivated Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast (ISY) selected for its high antioxidant capacity [4]. In that way, both the species and the production process were evaluated for their impact on the metabolic fingerprint and the antioxidant capacity. Then, unsupervised analysis has been used to extract ions correlated with the antioxidant capacity of the INSY.

Our results show that, all the INSY can accumulate GSH during the specific production process with yields ranging from +170% to +360% compared to the corresponding classical production process. Among the tested INSYs, one presenting equivalent antioxidant capacity to the control ISY while was 4 times less concentrated in GSH (4.73+/-0.09 mg/g against 20.95+/-0.34 mg/g, respectively). The principal component analysis of the 3511 ions detected by UHPLC-Q-ToF MS clearly grouped INSY by species, independently of the production process. 73 specific ions presenting strong and significant spearman correlation (rho < -0.6, p-value < 0.05) with the DPPH scores, clustered the most antioxidant INSY and the control Saccharomyces in different groups, indicating that the antioxidant capacity of these two products should be driven by different pools of compounds.

These results are very valuable for future research perspectives while they point out that, first, GSH alone is not relevant to explain the antioxidant capacity of INSY soluble fraction and other more reactive compounds must be considered. Second, they support the fact that INSY antioxidant capacity is essentially driven by a specie specific metabolism and opens an avenue for the selection new species with great enological potential.

 

1. R.L. Binati, I. Larini, E. Salvetti, S. Torriani, Glutathione production by non-Saccharomyces yeasts and its impact on winema-king: A review, Food Res. Int. 156 (2022) 111333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111333.
2. F. Bahut, Y. Liu, R. Romanet, C. Coelho, N. Sieczkowski, H. Alexandre, P. Schmitt-Kopplin, M. Nikolantonaki, R.D. Gougeon, Metabolic diversity conveyed by the process leading to glutathione accumulation in inactivated dry yeast: A synthetic media study, Food Res. Int. 123 (2019) 762–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.06.008.
3. F. Bahut, R. Romanet, N. Sieczkowski, P. Schmitt-Kopplin, M. Nikolantonaki, R.D. Gougeon, Antioxidant activity from inac-tivated yeast: Expanding knowledge beyond the glutathione-related oxidative stability of wine, Food Chem. 325 (2020) 126941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126941.
4. R. Romanet, C. Coelho, Y. Liu, F. Bahut, J. Ballester, M. Nikolantonaki, R.D. Gougeon, The Antioxidant Potential of White Wines Relies on the Chemistry of Sulfur-Containing Compounds: An Optimized DPPH Assay, Molecules. 24 (2019) 1353. https://doi. org/10.3390/molecules24071353.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Article

Authors

Florian Bahut1,4, Nathalie Sieczkowski¹, Rémi Schneider², Zhigen Zhang³, Maria Nikolantonaki⁴ and Régis D. Gougeon⁴

1. Lallemand SAS, 19 rue des Briquetiers, BP59, 31702 Blagnac, France
2. Oenobrands, 2196 Boulevard de la Lironde, Monferrier-sur-Lez, France
3. Lallemand Inc., 1620 rue préfontaine, Montréal, Canada
4. Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Institut Agro Dijon, PAM UMR A 02.102, Institut Universitaire de la Vigne et du Vin – Jules Guyot, F-21000 Dijon, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

Yeast derivatives, Antioxidant, Wine stability, Non-Saccharomyces

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF TRANSITION METAL IONS IN THE EVOLUTION OF ESTERS COMPOSITION OF YOUNG WHITE WINE DURING AGEING

Young white wines are typically released to the market a few months after harvest, to be consumed within a year, when their fresh fruity aromas are still dominant and appealing to modern consumers. Esters, particularly higher alcohol acetates (HAAs) and ethyl esters of fatty acids (EEFAs), play a central role in the fruity expression of young white wines [1]. However, these esters are known to undergo significant hydrolysis during the first months of aging [1, 2].

INFLUENCE OF GRAPE RIPENESS ON MACROMOLECULES EXTRACTABILITY FROM GRAPE SKIN TISSUES AND GRAPE SEEDS DURING WINEMAKING

A consequence of climate change is the modification of grape harvest quality and physico-chemical parameters of the obtained wine: increase in alcoholic degree, decrease in pH, and modification of the extractability of macromolecules, which leads to problems of microbiological, tartaric, colour and colloidal stability. In order to respond to these problems, the winemaking processes must be anticipated and adapted with a better knowledge of macromolecule extractability in grapes and their evolution, according to the grape variety, vintage and winemaking process. The purpose of this study was to understand 1) how the harvest date can influence the extractability of macromolecules, polysaccharides and phenolic compounds, which are responsible for wine stability 2) how to adapt the winemaking process to the harvest date in order to optimise wine quality.

VOLATILE AND GLYCOSYLATED MARKERS OF SMOKE IMPACT: EVOLUTION IN BOTTLED WINE

Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors. The impact on wine aroma is mainly attributed to volatile phenols, while in-mouth hydrolysis of glycosylated forms may be responsible for long-lasting “ashy” aftertastes (1).

ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION DRIVES THE SELECTION OF OENOCOCCUS OENI STRAINS IN WINE

Oenococcus oeni is the predominant lactic acid bacteria species in wine and cider, where it performs the malolactic fermentation (MLF) (Lonvaud-Funel, 1999). The O. oeni strains analyzed to date form four major genetic lineages named phylogroups A, B, C and D (Lorentzen et al., 2019). Most of the strains isolated from wine, cider, or kombucha belong to phylogroups A, B+C, and D, respectively, although B and C strains were also detected in wine (Campbell-Sills et al., 2015; Coton et al., 2017; Lorentzen et al., 2019;

BIOSORPTION OF UNDESIRABLE COMPONENTS FROM WINE BY YEAST-DERIVED PRODUCTS

4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis.
Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.