A multivariate approach using attenuated total reflectance mid-infrared spectroscopy to measure the surface mannoproteins and β-glucans of yeast cell walls during wine fermentations

The objective of this study is to review the scientific evidences and to advance into the knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of astringency. Astringency has been described as the drying, roughing and puckering sensation perceived when some food and beverages are tasted (1). The main, but possibly not the only, mechanism for the astringency is the precipitation of salivary proteins (2,3). Between phenolic compounds found in red wines, flavan-3-ols are the group usually related to the development of this sensation. Other compounds, phenolic or not, like anthocyanins, polysaccharides and mannoproteins could act modifying or modulating astringency perception by hindering the interaction between flavanols and salivary proteins either because of their interaction with the flavanols or because of their interaction with the salivary proteins.

Ellagitannins (ETs) have been reported to be the main phenolic compounds found in oak wood. These compounds, belonging to the hydrolysable tannin class of polyphenols, are esters of hexahydroxydiphenic acid (HHDP) and a polyol, usually glucose or quinic acid. They own their name to their capacity to be hydrolysed and liberate ellagic acid and they have an impact on astringency and bitterness sensation, which is strongly dependant on their structure. The toasting phase is particularly crucial in barrels fabrication and influences wood composition.

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.

Vineyards are strongly exposed to fungal diseases, attacks from insects and competition with weeds. Most treatments used on grape vines contain synthetic active substances, which may be transferred to the wine. Such pesticides have a negative image because many active substances are potential health hazards. A specific oenological treatment allowing the reduction of pesticide residues in wine based on activated vegetable fibres (AVF) is under examination by the International Organisation for Vine and Wine. This technique works efficiently and alters the wine only little (Lempereur et al. 2014).

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration.