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…

STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF GROWTH PARAMETERS OF NINE BIOPROTECTION STRAINS IMPLEMENTED ON ARTIFICIALLY CONTAMINATED SYNTHETIC MUST

In recent years, consumer demand for products without chemical additives increased, becoming a priority for the wine sector. SO₂ is widely used for its multiple properties including antiseptics, antioxidants and antioxidasics and the strategy of bioprotection in winemaking represents now an alternative to this chemical additive. In oenology, results have highlighted the interest of bioprotection to limit the development of microorganisms like Hanseniaspora uvarum and thus reduce the doses of sulphite. Indeed, this species is considered because of its acetic acid and methyl butyl acetate production, the latter can cover the varietal character of wines.

PREVALENCE OF OAK-RELATED AROMA COMPOUNDS IN PREMIUM WINES

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

PROGRESS OF STUDIES OF LEES ORIGINATING FROM THE FIRST ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION OF CHAMPAGNE WINES

Champagne wines are produced via a two-step process: the first is an initial alcoholic fermentation of grape must that produces a still base wine, followed by a second fermentation in bottle – the prise de mousse – that produces the effervescence. This appellation produces non-vintage sparkling wines composed of still base wines assembled from different vintages, varieties, and regions. These base wines, or “reserve wines,” are typically conserved on their fine lies and used to compensate for quality variance between vintages (1). Continuously blending small amounts of these reserve wines into newer ones also facilitates preserving the producer’s “house style.”

EFFECT OF MANNOPROTEIN-RICH EXTRACTS FROM WINE LEES ON PHENOLICCOMPOSITION AND COLOUR OF RED WINE

In 2022, wine production was estimated at around 260 million hl. This high production rate implies to generate a large amount of by-products, which include grape pomace, grape stalks and wine lees. It is estimated that processing 100 tons of grapes leads to ~ 22 tons of by-products from which ~ 6 tons are lees [1]. Wine lees are a sludge-looking material mostly made of dead and living yeast cells, yeast debris and other particles that precipitate at the bottom of wine tanks after alcoholic fermentation. Unlike grape pomace or grape stalks, few strategies have been proposed for the recovery and valorisation of wine less [2].

FERMENTATION POTENTIAL OF INDIGENOUS NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS ISOLATED FROM MARAŠTINA GRAPES OF CROATIAN VINEYARDS

The interest in indigenous non-Saccharomyces yeast for use in wine production has increased in recent years because they contribute to the complex character of the wine. The aim of this work was to investigate the fermentation products of ten indigenous strains selected from a collection of native yeasts established at the Institute for Adriatic Crops and Karst Reclamation in 2021, previously isolated from Croatian Maraština grapes, belonging to Hypopichia pseudoburtonii, Metschnikowia pulcherrima, Metschnikowia sinensis, Metschnikowia chrysoperlae, Lachancea thermotolerans, Pichia kluyveri, Hanseniaspora uvarum, Hanseniaspora guillermondii, Hanseniaspora pseudoguillermondii, and Starmerella apicola species, and compare it with commercial non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces strains.