EFFECT OF DIFFERENT VITICULTURAL AND ENOLOGICAL PRACTICES ON THE PHENOLIC COMPOSITION OF RED WINES

Bordeaux is the largest appellation vineyard in France. This contrasting vineyard with varied terroirs offers all styles of wine, resulting from the blending of several grape varieties. If these different profiles make the renown of Bordeaux wines, it can appear as a constraint when the aim is to study Bordeaux wines in their diversity. The selection of a representative sample can be performed by a sensory analysis carried out by trained panelists or by wine professionals, which can take several forms: consensus among experts, conventional descriptive analysis, typicality or quality evaluation. However, because of time, economic, and logistical constraints, these methods have limited applications. As an alternative to classical descriptive analysis, more intuitive methods that do not require training have been proposed recently to describe wines using an expert panel such as Napping, Free Choice or Flash Profiling, CATA or RATA.

It is a well-established fact that premature oxidation is noxious for wine aromatic quality and longevity. Although some oxidation-related aroma molecules have been previously identified, there are not works carrying out systematic research about the changes in the profiles of odour-active volatiles during wine oxidation.

The structural diversity is one of the most remarkable characteristics of proanthocyanidins (PA). Indeed, PA in wines may vary in the B-ring and C-ring substitutes, the C-ring stereochemistry, the degree of polymerization (DP) and the linkage between the monomers. Knowing in detail the structural characteristics of the PA of a wine can help us to understand and modulate several sensorial characteristics of the wine, such as color, antioxidant properties, flavor, and mouthfeel properties. In the last years was discovered and confirmed the presence of sulfonated monomeric and oligomeric flavan-3-ols in wine [1], as well as was pointed out their importance in wine quality [1,2].

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

Yeast cell walls (CWs) may adsorb wine components with a significant impact on wine quality. When dealing with red wines, this adsorption is mainly related to physicochemical interactions between wine polyphenols and cell wall mannoproteins. However, mannoproteins are a heterogeneous family of complex peptidoglycans including long and highly branched N-linked oligosaccharides and short linear O-linked oligosaccharides, resulting in a huge structural diversity.