terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 EVIDENCE OF THE INTERACTION OF ULTRASOUND AND ASPERGILLOPEPSINS I ON UNSTABLE GRAPE PROTEINS

EVIDENCE OF THE INTERACTION OF ULTRASOUND AND ASPERGILLOPEPSINS I ON UNSTABLE GRAPE PROTEINS

Abstract

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, Celotti 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. In model wine, neither temperature nor sonication affected TLPs concentration, suggesting their unfolding reversibility. However, the presence of AP-I during US treatment reduced protein concentration, up to complete removal under the most powerful conditions. In wine, the temperature effect was enough to lower chitinase levels (~48% and ~54% reduction at 40°C and 70°C, respectively) but had an undetectable effect on TLPs level. US significantly reduced both protein families, being more effective on chitinases (52% and 69% reduction at 20 s and 60 s, respectively) than TLPs (~11%) with the most powerful treatment. Interestingly, US was more successful than heating on chitinase (32%) and TLPs (15%) removal at the most energetic conditions. The supplement of AP-I combined with heating or US further reduced protein concentration. For heat treatment, both proteins were affected at both temperature conditions (TLPs: ~25% and ~23%; chitinases: ~58% and ~46%), while AP-I combined with US only affected TLPs under the most energetic treatment (~18%). The study found that US can affect unstable grape proteins and has additional mechanisms beyond sonication-induced temperature increase. When combined with AP-I, it further reduces unstable proteins, and suggests interaction between the US and AP-I. Further investigation is required to determine if US treatment destabilises proteins through a mechanism distinct from temperature increase, considering other factors affecting protein stability in winemaking conditions.

 

1. Celotti, E., Barahona, M. S. O., Bellantuono, E., Cardona, J., Roman, T., Nicolini, G., & Natolino, A. (2021). High-power ultrasound on the protein stability of white wines: Preliminary study of amplitude and sonication time. LWT, 147, 111602

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Adelaide Gallo1,2, Tomas Roman¹, Andrea Natolino³, Andrea Curioni4,5, Matteo Marangon4,5, Emilio Celotti³

1. Fondazione Edmund Mach—Technology Transfer Center, via Edmund Mach 1, 38050 San Michele all’ Adige, Italy
2. C3A – Università degli Studi di Trento, Via Mach, 1, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy
3. Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, via Sondrio 2/A, 33100 Udine, Italy
4. Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Uni-versità, 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
5. Interdepartmental Centre for Research in Viticulture and Enology (CIRVE), University of Padova, 31015 Conegliano, Italy

Contact the author*

Keywords

Ultrasound, Aspergillopepsins I, TLPs, Protein stability

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

EVALUATION OF INDIGENOUS CANADIAN YEAST STRAINS AS WINE STARTER CULTURES ON PILOT SCALE FERMENTATIONS

The interactions between geographical and biotic factors, along with the winemaking process, influence the composition and sensorial characteristics of wine¹. In addition to the primary end products of alcoholic fermentation, many secondary metabolites contribute to wine flavor and aroma and their production depends predominantly on the yeast strain carrying out the fermentation. Commercially available strains of S. cerevisiae help improve the reproducibility and predictability of wine quality. However, most commercial wine strains available on the market have been isolated from Europe, are genetically similar, and may not be the ideal strain to reflect the terroir of Canadian vineyards².

Molecular approaches for understanding and modulating wine taste

Wine consumers generally demand wines having a perception of softer tannins and less ripe, having a heaviness and richness on palate (full-body wine) with a limpid and stable color. However, polyphenol
(tannins)-rich wines have been also correlated with unpleasant taste properties such as astringency and
bitterness when perceived at high intensities. Modulating these unpleasant properties could be important for consumer’s approval of wines.

ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION DRIVES THE SELECTION OF OENOCOCCUS OENI STRAINS IN WINE

Oenococcus oeni is the predominant lactic acid bacteria species in wine and cider, where it performs the malolactic fermentation (MLF) (Lonvaud-Funel, 1999). The O. oeni strains analyzed to date form four major genetic lineages named phylogroups A, B, C and D (Lorentzen et al., 2019). Most of the strains isolated from wine, cider, or kombucha belong to phylogroups A, B+C, and D, respectively, although B and C strains were also detected in wine (Campbell-Sills et al., 2015; Coton et al., 2017; Lorentzen et al., 2019;

MAPPING THE CONCENTRATIONS OF GASEOUS ETHANOL IN THE HEADSPACE OF CHAMPAGNE GLASSES THROUGH INFRARED LASER ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY

Under standard wine tasting conditions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) responsible for the wine’s bouquet progressively invade the glass headspace above the wine surface. Most of wines being complex water/ethanol mixtures (with typically 10-15 % ethanol by volume), gaseous ethanol is therefore undoubtedly the most abundant VOC in the glass headspace [1]. Yet, gaseous ethanol is known to have a multimodal influence on wine’s perception [2]. Of particular importance to flavor perception is the effect of ethanol on the release of aroma compounds into the headspace of the beverage [1].

EMERGENCE OF INORGANIC PHOSPHONATE RESIDUES IN GRAPEVINE PLANT PARTS, BERRIES AND WINES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN FOLIAR SPRAYING

Inorganic phosphonates are known to effectively support the control of grapevine downy mildew in vi- ticulture. Their application helps the plant to induce an earlier and more effective pathogen defense. However, inorganic phosphonates have been banned in organic viticulture due to their classification as plant protection products since October 2013. Despite the ban, phosphonate has been recently detected in organic wines.