Impact of non-fruity compounds on red wines fruity aromatic expression: the role of higher alcohols

Leaf removal in the bunch zone is a common viticultural practice with several objectives, yet it has been difficult to conclusively link the physiological mechanism(s) and metabolic berry impact to this widely practiced treatment. We used a field-omics approach1 in a Sauvignon blanc high altitude model vineyard, showing that the early leaf removal in the bunch zone caused quantifiable and stable responses (over years) in the microclimate where the main perturbation was increased exposure. We provide an explanation for how leaf removal leads to the shifts in grape metabolites typically linked to this treatment and confirm anecdotal evidence and previous reports that leaf removal treatment at an early stage of berry development affects “quality-associated” metabolites (monoterpenes and norisoprenoids).

Tannin and polysaccharide concentration and composition is important in defining the texture of red wines, but can vary due to factors such as cultivar, region, grape ripeness, viticultural practices and winemaking techniques. However, the concentration and composition of these macromolecules is dependent not only on grape tannin and polysaccharide concentration and composition, but also their extractability and, in the case of polysaccharides, their formation by yeast. Through studies into the influence of grape maturity, winemaking and sensory impacts of red grape polysaccharides, seed and skin tannins, recent research in our laboratory has shown that the processes involved in the extraction of these macromolecules from grapes and their retention in wine are very complex.

Nutrient availability – nitrogen, lipids, vitamins or oxygen – has a major impact on the kinetics of winemaking fermentations. Nitrogen is usually the growth-limiting nutrient and its availability determines the fermentation rate, and therefore the fermentation duration. In some cases, in particular in Champagne, grape musts have high nitrogen concentrations and are sometimes clarified with turbidity below 50 NTU. In these conditions, lipid deficiencies may occur and longer fermentations can be observed. To better understand this situation, a study was realized using a synthetic medium simulating the composition of a Champagne must : 180 g/L of sugar, 360 mg/L of assimilable nitrogen and a lipid content ranging from 1 to 8 mg/L of phytosterols (mainly β-sitosterol).

Chemical studies aiming at assessing how a wine reacts towards oxidation usually focus on the characterization of wine constituents, such as polyphenols, or oxidation products. As an alternative, the key oxidation intermediate hydrogen peroxide H2O2 has never been quantified, although it plays a pivotal role in wine oxidation. H2O2 is obtained from molecular oxygen as the result of a first cascade of oxidation reactions involving metal ions and polyphenols. The produced H2O2 then reacts in a second cascade of oxidation to produce reactive hydroxyl radicals that can attack almost any chemical substrate in wine.

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].