Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

Abstract

Adrenaline (epinephrine) belongs to catecholamine class. It is a neurotransmitter and both a hormone which is released by the sympathetic nervous system and adrenal medulla in response to a range of stresses in order to regulate blood pressure, cardiac stimulation, relaxation of smooth muscles and other physiological processes. Adrenaline exhibits an effective antioxidant capacity (1). However, adrenalin is capable to auto-oxidation and in this case it generates toxic reactive oxygen intermediates and adrenochrome. Under in vitro conditions, auto-oxidation of adrenaline occurs in an alkaline medium (2). The capacity of inhibition of adrenaline auto-oxidation for 38 wine polyphenols, ascorbic acid and Trolox was studied. Stock solutions of compounds in ethanol were prepared. Reaction mixtures containing 20 μL of sample, 20 µL of adrenaline solution (1mM, dissolve in distilled water) and 300 µl carbonate buffer (0.2 M, pH 10.55) were incubated at 36.6°C during 10 min. The absorbance of the resulting solution was measured at 347 nm using a BGM FLUOstar Omega plate reader. Absorbencies of samples in carbonate buffer (blank sample) and adrenaline in carbonate buffer under the same conditions were determined. Adrenaline auto-oxidation inhibition capacity (in %) was calculated as [(A-AE)/A] × 100, where A – absorbance of adrenalin in carbonate buffer, AE – difference between absorbance of the reaction mixture and absorbance of blank sample. In case when A < AE it was considered that the sample has pro-oxidant capacity. Various phenolic acids reacted quite differently. Chlorogenic acid had only a pro-oxidant action in the reactions of adrenalin auto-oxidation. Gallic acid showed the most antioxidant capacity (55.1%, in molar ratio 1:0.5, adrenaline/compound) among other tested phenolic acids. Ascorbic acid and Trolox inhibited the auto-oxidation of adrenaline to 51.4% and 8.99% respectively. Epigallocatechin and kaempferol have the most of inhibitory capacity (78.7% and 75.1%, respectively, at a molar ratio 1:0.5, adrenaline/compound) among other flavonoids aglycons. Adrenaline auto-oxidation inhibition capacity increased in the glycosylation of flavonoids. For example, the antioxidant activity of quercetin was 11.7% and rutin was 42.8%. with a molar ratio 1:1 for both. The results have shown that the antioxidant capacity decreased and prooxydant activity increased when reducing the number of hydroxy groups and increasing the amount of methyl groups in the structure of polyphenol.

References 1. Gülçin, İ. (2009) Antioxidant activity of L-adrenaline: A structure–activity insight. Chemico-Biological Interactions, 179, P. 71–80. 2. Sirota, T. V. (2011) A Novel Approach to Study the Reaction of Adrenaline Autooxidation: a Possibility for Polarographic Determination of Superoxide Dismutase Activity and Antioxidant Properties of Various Preparations. Biochemistry (Moscow) Suppl. Series B. Vol. 5 (3), P. 253–259.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Natallia Kolbas*, Michael Jourdes, Pierre-Louis Teissedre

*UMR 1219 OEnologie

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Innovations in the use of bentonite in enology: interactions with grape and wine proteins, colloids, polyphenols and aroma compounds.

The use of bentonite in oenology rounds around the limpidity and the stability that determine consumer acceptability. As a matter of fact, the haze formation in wine reduces its commercial value and makes it unacceptable for sale. Stabilization treatments are, therefore, essential to ensure a long-time limpidity and to forecast the formation of deposits in the bottle. Bentonite that is normally used in oenology for clarifying-fining purpose, shows a natural clay-based mineral structure allowing it to swell and to jelly in water and hence in must and wine.

Anthropogenic factors in modulations of fungal populations from grapes to wines and their repercussions on wine characteristics

The effects of anthropogenic activities on vineyard (different plant protections) and in winery
(pressing/clarification step, addition of sulfur dioxide) on fungal populations from grape to wine were studied. The studied anthropogenic activities modify the fungal diversity. Thus, lower biodiversity of grapes from organic modality was measured for the three vintages considered compared to biodiversity from ecophyto modality and conventional modality. The pressing / clarification steps strongly modify fungal populations and the influence of the winery flora is highlighted.

Microbial life in the grapevine: what can we expect from the leaf microbiome?

The above-ground parts of plants, which constitute the phyllosphere, have long been considered devoid of bacteria and fungi, at least in their internal tissues and microbial presence there was long considered a sign of disease. However, recent studies have shown that plants harbour complex bacterial communities, the so-called “microbiome”[1]. We are only beginning to unravel the origin of these bacterial plant inhabitants, their community structure and their roles, which in analogy to the gut microbiome, are likely to be of essential nature. Among their multifaceted metabolic possibilities, bacteria have been recently demonstrated to emit a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can greatly impact the growth and development of both the plant and its disease-causing agents.

Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].