New molecular evidence of wine yeast-bacteria interaction unraveled by untargeted metabolomic profiling

The use of glutathione (GSH) in winemaking has been legitimated recently, according to OIV resolutions OENO 445-2015 and OENO 446-2015 a maximum dose of 20 mg/L is now allowed to use in must and wine. Several studies have proven the benefits of GSH, predominantly in Sauvignon blanc. Thus, oxidative coloration of must and wine is limited, aroma compounds such as volatile thiols are preserved, and the development of ageing flavors such as sotolon and 2-aminoacetophenone is impeded. The protective effect may be explained by the high affinity of GSH to bind o-quinones which are formed during phenolic oxidation and which are known to initiate browning and other oxidative changes. Some researchers have proposed the hydroxycinnamic acid to GSH ratio (HGR) as an indicator of oxidation susceptibility of must and could show that lower ratios yielded lighter musts.

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.

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

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].

The effectiveness of enzyme-mediated maceration processes in red winemaking relies on a clear picture of the target (berry cell wall structure) to achieve the optimum combination of specific enzymes to be used. However, we lack the information on both essential factors of the reaction (i.e. specific activities in commercial enzyme preparation and the cell wall structure of berry tissue). In this study, the different combinations of pure recombinant enzymes and the recently validated high throughput cell wall profiling tools were applied to extend our knowledge on the grape berry cell wall polymeric deconstruction during the winemaking following a combinatorial enzyme treatment design.