Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.

The composition of wine is largely determined by the composition of pre-fermentation juice, which is influenced by extraction of grape components. Different grape harvesting and processing conditions could affect the extraction of grape components into juice. Among these grape components, pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins are of great concern for white wine maker as they are the main cause of haze formation in finished white wine. If not removed before bottling, these PR proteins may progress into haze through the formation of complex with phenolics under certain conditions. Thaumatin-like proteins (TLPs) and chitinases are the main constituents of PR proteins found in protein haze.

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].

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).

Sessile oak and pedunculate oak have shown several differences of interest for enological purposes. Tannic and aromatic composition among sessile oak or pedonculate oak has been well studied. Sessile oak is generally more aromatic than pedunculated, while the later is more tannic. This scientific point of view is rarely applied to classify oak in cooperages. Most coopers use the type of grain to distinguish wide and thin grain.