INSIGHTS ON THE ROLE OF GENES ON AROMA FORMATION OF WINES

Smoke impacts on wines are becoming a worldwide problem; the size and severity of wildfires increasing due to influences from changing climates.¹ For over a century, wines have been known to have a unique issue of absorbing chemical compounds derived from wildfire smoke wherein the flavor of the subsequent wine becomes ashy, rubbery, campfire-like, and smoky.² The economic impacts of a smoke-impacted wine can last for years depending on the grape varietal, costing Oregon and Washington states in the United States over a billion dollars from the 2020 wildfires, as an example.³ While years of research have indicated elevated concentrations of smoke-related compounds, such as guaiacol and syringol, in wines after smoke events, unfortunately, replicating the sensory experience using smoke-associated phenols has not had much success.⁴

Mannoproteins (MPs) are proteoglycans from the outmost layer of yeast cell walls released into wine during alcoholic fermentation and ageing on lees processes. The use of commercial preparations of mannoproteins as additives to improve wine stability with regards to the crystallization of tartaric salts and to prevent protein haze in the case of white and rosé wines is authorized by the OIV.
Regarding red wines and polyphenols, mannoproteins are described as able to improve their colloidal stability and modulate the astringent effect of condensed tannins. The latter interact with salivary proteins forming insoluble aggregates that cause a loss of lubrication in the mouth and promote a drying and puckering sensation. However, neither the interaction mechanisms involved in mannoproteins capacity to impact astringency nor the structure-function relationships related to this property are fully understood.

Botrytis cinerea Pers., the causal agent of grey mould disease, is responsible for substantial economic losses, as it causes reduction of grape and wine quality and quantity. Exploitation of antagonistic yeasts is a promising strategy for controlling grey mould incidence and limiting the usage of synthetic fungicides. In our previous studies, 119 different indigenous yeasts were screened for putative multidimensional modes of action against filamentous fungus B. cinerea [1]. The most promissing biocontrol yeast was Pichia guilliermondii ZIM624, which exhibited several anatagonistic traits (production of cell wall degrading enzymes, chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase; demonstration of in vitro inhibitory effect on B. cinerea mycelia radial growth; production of antifungal volatiles, assimilation of a broad diversity of carbon sources, contributing to its competitivnes in inhabiting grapes in nature).

Champagne wines are produced via a two-step process: the first is an initial alcoholic fermentation of grape must that produces a still base wine, followed by a second fermentation in bottle – the prise de mousse – that produces the effervescence. This appellation produces non-vintage sparkling wines composed of still base wines assembled from different vintages, varieties, and regions. These base wines, or “reserve wines,” are typically conserved on their fine lies and used to compensate for quality variance between vintages (1). Continuously blending small amounts of these reserve wines into newer ones also facilitates preserving the producer’s “house style.”

Ultrafiltration is a process that fractionates mixtures using semipermeable membranes, primarily on the basis of molecular weight. Depending on the nominal molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) specifications of the membrane, smaller molecules pass through the membrane into the ‘permeate’, while larger molecules are retained and concentrated in the ‘retentate’. This study investigated applications of ultrafiltration technology for enhanced wine quality and profitability. The key objective was to establish to what extent ultrafiltration could be used to manage phenolic compounds (associated with astringency or bitterness) and proteins (associated with haze formation) in white wine.