EVALUATION OF A SEAWEED EXTRACT OF RUGULOPTERYX OKAMURAE AGAINST ERYSIPHE NECATOR IN GRAPEVINE

Phenolic, volatile and nitrogen compounds are key to wine quality. On one hand, phenolic compounds are related to wine color, mouthfeel properties, ageing potential. and are associated with beneficial health properties. On the other hand, wine aroma is influenced by hundreds of volatile compounds. Fermentative aromas represent, quantitatively, the wine aroma, and among these volatile compounds, esters, higher alcohols and acids are mainly responsible for the fermentation bouquet.

Grape quality potential for wine production is strongly influenced by environmental parameters such as climate and agronomic factors such as rootstock. Several studies underline the effect of rootstock on vegetative growth of the scions [1] and on berry composition [2, 3] with an impact on wine quality. Rootstocks are promising agronomic tools for climate change adaptation and in most grape-growing regions the potential diversity of rootstocks is not fully used and only a few genotypes are planted. Little is known about the effect of rootstock genetic variability on the aromatic composition in wines; thus further investigations are needed.

Most of the effects of ultrasound (US) result from the collapse of bubbles due to cavitation. The shockwave produced is associated with shear forces, along with high localised temperatures and pressures. However, the high-speed stream, radical species formation, and heat generated during sonication may also affect the stability of some enzymes and proteins, depending on their chemical structure. Recently, Ce-lotti et al. (2021) reported the effects of US on protein stability in wines. To investigate this further, the effect of temperature (40°C and 70°C; 60s), sonication (20 kHz and 100 % amplitude, for 20s and 60s, leading to the same temperatures as above, respectively), in combination with Aspergillopepsins I (AP-I) supplementation (100 μg/L), was studied on unstable protein concentration (TLPs and chitinases) using HPLC with an UV–Vis detector in a TLPs-supplemented model system and in an unstable white wine.

Malic acid has a strong impact on wine pH and the contribution of fermenting yeasts to modulate its concentration has been intensively investigated in the past. Recent advances in yeast genetics have shed light on the unexpected property of some strains to produce large amounts of malic acid (“acidic strains”) while most of the wine starters consume it during the alcoholic fermentation. Being a key metabolite of the central carbohydrate metabolism, malic acid participates to TCA and glyoxylate cycles as well as neoglucogenesis. Although present at important concentrations in grape juice, the metabolic fate of malic acid has been poorly investigated.

Nowadays, the rapid growth of vineyards with organic practices and the use of copper as the only fun-gicide against downy mildew raises again the question of the effect of copper on varietal thiols in wine, especially 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and its acetate (3SHA). A few decades ago, several works indicated that the use of copper in the vineyard had a negative effect on the content of varietal thiols in Sauvignon blanc wines [1, 2]. However, these studies only considered the concentration of the reduced form (RSH) of varietal thiols, without quantifying the oxidised ones. For this purpose, we proposed to monitor both reduced and oxidised forms of varietal thiols in wine under copper stress during alcoholic fermentation to have a more complete picture of the biological and chemical mechanisms.