EXPLORING RED WINE TYPICITY OF CORBIÈRES: EVALUATION OF THE DEGREE OF IMPACT OF VINIFICATION PROCESS ON THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND ORGANOLEPTIC PROPERTIES OF WINES FROM DIFFERENT TERROIR

Chitin is the main structural component of a large number of organisms (i.e., mollusks, insects, crustaceans, fungi, algae), and marine invertebrates including crabs and shrimps. The main derivative of chitin is chitosan (CH), produced by N-deacetylation of chitin in alkaline solutions. Over the past decade, the OIV/OENO 338A/ 2009 resolution approved the addition of allergen-free fungoid CH to must and wine as an adjuvant for microbiological control, prevention of haziness, metals chelation and ochratoxins removal (European Commission. 2011). Despite several studies on application of CH in winemaking, there are still very limited and controversial data on its interaction with acidic components in wine (Colan-gelo et al., 2018; Castro Marin et al., 2021).

Enzymatic browning (BE) of must is caused by polyphenol oxidases (PPOs), tyrosinase and laccase. Both PPOs can oxidize diphenols such as hydroxycinnamic acids (HA) to quinones, which can later polymerize to form melanins [1], which are responsible of BE in white wines and of oxidasic haze in red wines. SO₂ is the main tool used to protect must from BE thanks to its capacity to inhibit PPOs [2]. However, the current trend in winemaking is to reduce and even eliminate this unfriendly additive. Among the different possible alternatives for protecting must against BE, the inoculation with a selected Metschnikowia pulcherrima MP1 is without any doubt one of the most promising ones.

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.

Malolactic fermentation (MLF)¹, the decarboxylation of L-malic acid into L-lactic acid, is performed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). MLF has a deacidifying effect that may compromise freshness or microbiological stability in wines² and can be inhibited by fumaric acid [E297] (FA). In wine, can be added at a maximum allowable dose of 0.6 g/L³. Its inhibition with FA is being studied as an alternative strategy to minimize added doses of SO₂⁴. In addition, wine yeasts are capable of metabolizing and storing small amounts of FA and during alcoholic fermentation (AF).