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…

NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE EFFECT OF TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII/SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE INOCULATION STRATEGY ON MALOLACTIC FERMENTATION PERFORMANCE

Winemaking is influenced by micro-organisms, which are largely responsible for the quality of the product. In this context, Non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces species are of great importance not only because it influences the development of alcoholic fermentation (AF) but also on the achievement of malolactic fermentation (MLF). Among these yeasts, Torulaspora delbrueckii allows in sequential inoculation with strains of S. cerevisiae shorter MLF realizations [5] . Little information is available on the temporal effect of the presence of T. delbrueckii on (i) the evolution of AF and (ii) the MLF performance.

DEVELOPMENT OF BIOPROSPECTING TOOLS FOR OENOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS

Wine production is a complex biochemical process that involves a heterogeneous microbiota consisting of different microorganisms such as yeasts, bacteria, and filamentous fungi. Among these microorganisms, yeasts play a predominant role in the chemistry of wine, as they actively participate in alcoholic fermentation, a biochemical process that transforms the sugars in grapes into ethanol and carbon dioxide while producing additional by-products. The quality of the final product is greatly influenced by the microbiota present in the grape berry, and the demand for indigenous yeast starters adapted to specific grape must and reflecting the biodiversity of a particular region is increasing. This supports the concept that indigenous yeast strains can be associated with a “terroir”.

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL CHEMICAL MARKERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMISSIVENESS OF BORDEAUX RED WINES AGAINST BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS USING UNTARGETED METABOLOMICS

All along the red winemaking process, many microorganisms develop in wine, some being beneficial and essential, others being feared spoilers. One of the most feared microbial enemy of wine all around the world is Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Indeed, in red wines, this yeast produces volatile phenols, molecules associated with a flavor described as “horse sweat”, “burnt plastic” or “leather”. To produce significant and detectable concentrations of these undesired molecules, the yeasts should first grow and become numerous enough. Even if the genetic group of the strain present and the cellar temperature may modulate the yeast growth rate¹ and thus the risk of spoilage, the main factor seems to be the wines themselves, some being much more permissive to B. bruxellensis development than others.

INFLUENCE OF WINEMAKING VARIABLES AND VINEYARD LOCATIONS ON CHEMICAL AND SENSORY PROFILES OF SOUTH TYROLEAN PINOT BLANC

Pinot Blanc, an important grape variety grown in some mountain areas of Northern Italy such as South Tyrol over the last decades, with its cultivation covering 10.3% of the total vineyards, has compatible climatic conditions (e.g. heat requirements) which are normally found in the geographical areas of the mountain viticulture [1,2,3,4]. Climatic changes are hastening the growth of this variety at higher elevations, particularly for the production of high quality wine.

BIOSORPTION OF UNDESIRABLE COMPONENTS FROM WINE BY YEAST-DERIVED PRODUCTS

4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis.
Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.