WINE FERMENTATION METABOLITES PRODUCED BY TWO TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII STRAINS ISOLATED FROM OKANAGAN VALLEY, BC, CANADA VINEYARDS

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

Barrel fermentation and barrel-ageing of wine are commonly utilised practices in premium wine production. The wine aroma compounds related to barrel contact are varied and can enhance a range of wine aromas and flavours, such as ‘struck flint’, ‘caramel’, ‘red berry’, ‘toasty’ and ‘nutty’, as well as conventional oaky characters such as ‘vanilla’, ‘spice’, ‘smoky’ and ‘coconut’. A survey of commercially produced premium Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay wines was conducted, assessing the prevalence of compounds that have been proposed as barrel-ageing markers¹ including oak lactones, volatile phenols, furanones, aldehydes, thiazoles2,3, phenylmethanethiol⁴ and 2-furylmethanethiol.⁵

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.

The evolution of wine during bottle ageing has been of great interest to ensure consistent quality over time. While the role of wine closures on the amount of oxygen is well-known [1], closures could also play other roles such as the scalping phenomenon of flavour compounds. Flavour scalping has been described as the sorption of flavour compounds by the packaging material, which could result in losses of flavour intensity. It has been reported in the literature that volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) can be scalped on wine closures depending on the type of closure (traditional and agglomerated cork, screw-cap, synthetic [2]).

The composition of grape berry cell walls was studied on two grape varieties, two years and two maturation levels at the same time as the extraction of anthocyanins and tannins. The chemical composition of skins, seeds, and pulps, focused on polyphenols and polysaccharides, was compared to the chemical composition in polyphenols after extraction from the skins in model solutions or after wine making of the berries. Polyphenols were mainly characterized by UPLC-MS and HPLC-SEC. Polysaccharides were characterized by analysis of the neutral sugar compositions, and also by the CoMPP (comprehensive micropolymer profiling) analysis, a new method which targets the functional groups of cell wall polysaccharides.