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

Winemaking decisions and techniques are known to affect the final aromatic composition of red wines. Winemakers put a constant effort into the improved controlling of vinification procedures to achieve better quality. Anyway an increased customer’s demand for uniqueness is often forcing them to adjust and offer new and new interesting products. To support the producers, an improved knowledge on aromatic potential as affected by classical and alternative strategies is needed.

Céline Sparrow a, Christophe Morge a, a SOFRALAB SAS, 79, av. A.A. Thévenet – CS 11031 – 51530 Magenta, France Consumers’ health and security force authorities to limit, in wine as in others food industry products, the concentration in « dangerous » molecules. Therefore the legal limit in heavy metals keeps on decreasing. As per proof EU regulation just decrease the stain concentration in wine from 0,2 to 0,15 mg/l. Certain changes , such as sodium arsenite treatment in vines, disappearance of brass in wineries to the benefit of stainless steel, limit even more the concentration of heavy metals in wines. But the use of copper derivates in vines treatments is difficult to replace. In the case of wine and its elaboration, the problem is even more complex. Indeed, regulation forces the wine producers to control the concentration of certain heavy metals in final wines.

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.

Fermentation derived sulfidic off-odors due to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and low molecular weight thiols are commonly encountered in wine production and removed by Cu(II) fining. However, the mechanism underlying Cu(II) fining remains poorly understood, and generally results in increased Cu concentration that lead to deleterious reactions in finished wine. The present study describes a mechanistic investigation of the iron and copper mediated reaction of H2S, cysteine, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, and 6-sulfanylhexan-1-ol with oxygen. The concentrations of H2S, thiols, oxygen, and acetaldehyde were monitored over time. It was found that Cu(II) was rapidly reduced by both H2S and thiols to Cu(I).

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).