Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Metabolomics of grape polyphenols as a consequence of post-harvest drying: on-plant dehydration vs warehouse withering

Metabolomics of grape polyphenols as a consequence of post-harvest drying: on-plant dehydration vs warehouse withering

Abstract

A method of suspect screening analysis to study grape metabolomics, was developed [1]. By performing ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) – high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) analysis of the grape extract, averaging 320-450 putative grape compounds are identified which include mainly polyphenols. Identification of metabolites is performed by a new HRMS-database of putative grape and wine compounds expressly constructed (GrapeMetabolomics) which currently includes around 1,100 entries. Grape dehydration is an oenological process used in the production of a number of non-botrytized sweet and not-sweet Italian wines: e.g., Amarone di Valpolicella (produced by Corvina, Corvinone and Rondinella grapes), Passito di Pantelleria (Zibibbo grape), VinSanto (Malvasia and Trebbiano grapes), Sfursat (Nebbiolo grape), Raboso Passito. The process is carried out by keeping grape on-vine for a certain period of time after cutting the yield cane (up to two/three months), or by leaving the grape in dehydration warehouses under controlled conditions of humidity and temperature [2-6]. Metabolomics of polyphenols of Corvina grape dehydrated both in-plant and warehouse withering was studied by performing UHPLC-QTOF analysis of grape extracts. In particular, the study was focalized on the principal classes of polyphenolic compounds of grape, such as anthocyanins, flavonols and stilbene derivatives [7,8]. Differences between the two dehydration methods were evaluated by statistical analysis.

References 1.Flamini, R.; De Rosso, M.; et al. Metabolomics, 9 (2013), pp 1243-1253. 2.Bellincontro, A.; De Santis, D.; et al. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84 (2004), pp 1791-1800. 3.Giordano, M.; Rolle, L.; et al. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 43 (2009), pp 159-170. 4.Zamboni, A.; Minoia, L.; et al. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59 (2008), pp 4145-4159. 5.Corso, M.; Ziliotto, F.; et al. Plant Science, 208 (2013), pp 50-57. 6.Nicoletti, I.; Bellincontro, A.; et al. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19 (2013), pp 358-368. 7.De Rosso, M.; Tonidandel, L.; et al. Food Chemistry, 1635 (2014), pp 244-251. 8. Flamini, R.; De Rosso, et al. J. Anal. Meth. in Chem. (2015), 10 pp.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Riccardo Flamini*, Antonio Dalla Vedova, Diego Tomasi, Luca Brillante, Mirko De Rosso

*CREA

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

The role of tomato juice serum in malolactic fermentation in wine

Introduction: Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a common process in winemaking to reduce wine acidity, maintain microbial stability and modify wine aroma. However, successful MLF is often hampered by their sluggish or stuck activity of malolactic bacteria (MLB) which may be caused by nutrient deficiency, especially when MLB are inoculated after alcoholic fermentation (Alexandre et al., 2004; Lerm et al., 2010). Identification and characterization of essential nutrients and growth factors for MLB allows for production of highly efficient nutrient supplements for MLF.

Novel analytical technologies for wine fingerprinting in and beyond the laboratory

For characterization, sensory designing and authentication rapid analytical technologies have become available. Some, like Proton Transfer Reaction Mass Spectrometry allow a rapid spectrum of the volatile compounds of wines. Combined with chemometrics wines can be characterized. The same approach can be used to calculate the results of virtual mixtures and allow formulation of constant quality blends. Other new techniques and portable devices based on spectroscopy allow measurements on production sites and in grocery stores, even for the smart consumer. We will present some examples of the application of these techniques for authentication of wines, both in the laboratory and on site.

Full automation of oenological fermentations and its application to the processing of must containing high sugar or acetic acid concentrations

Climate change and harvest date decisions have led to the evolution of must quality over the last decades. Increases in must sugar concentrations are among the most obvious consequences, quantitatively. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a robust and acid tolerant organism. These properties, its sugar to ethanol conversion rate and ethanol tolerance make it the ideal production organism for wine fermentations. Unfortunately, high sugar concentrations may affect S. cerevisiae and lead to growth inhibition or yeast lysis, and cause sluggish or stuck fermentations. Even sublethal conditions cause a hyperosmotic stress response in S. cerevisiae which leads to increased formation of fermentation by-products, including acetic acid, which may exceed legal limits in some wines.

The impact of different yeasts and harvest time on the wine quality of Beihong and Beimei (<I>V. vinifera x V. amurensis</I>)

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here,two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX.

IBMP-Polypenol interactions: Impact on volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution

3-Isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (IBMP) is one of the key molecules in wine aroma with a bell pepper aroma and a very low threshold in wine, 1-6 ng/L for white wine and 10-16 ng/L in red wine1. The differences in these thresholds are likely due to IBMP-non volatile matrix interactions. It has indeed been shown that polyphenols may influence the volatility of flavor compounds2. In the present study, we focus on IBMP-polyphenols interactions in relation to volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution. Methods: 1. GC-MS Static Headspace Analysis: Samples were analyzed by Static headspace analysis with an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph coupled to HP 5975C mass spectrometry detector (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).