Can wine composition predict quality? A metabolomics approach to assessing Pinot noir wine quality as rated by experts

Far from complicated discussions on the relevant way to define « terroir », this article deals with the social perception that French young adults (aged from 18 to 30) have of this concept and the way it can help them to become wine consumers.

Non-Saccharomyces yeasts have been associated, for many years, with challenging alcoholic fermentation processes. However, during the last decade the use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in wine production has become increasingly widespread due to the advantages they can offer in mixed inoculations with Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc). In this respect, Hanseniaspora vineae (Hv), in synergy with Saccharomyces spp, represents an interesting opportunity to impart a positive contribution to the aroma complexity of wines. In fact, it is a well-known producer of pleasant esters, such as 2-phenylethyl acetate. This study compares the performances of Hv (strain Hv-205) in sequential inoculation modality to Sc in three Chardonnay musts for base sparkling wine production. No significant differences were observed in basic chemical parameters between wines except for titratable acidity, with a significantly decrease (up to 1.5 g/L) in Hv processes due to malic acid degradation. The analysis of the aroma compounds revealed remarkable differences in concentration of volatile metabolites, among others up to 37-fold increase of 2-phenylethyl acetate. In contrast, lower concentration of its alcohol were detected, suggesting higher acetylation activity by Hv.

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

AIM: Grape flavanols are involved in wine quality markers such as in-mouth sensations and colour stability.

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