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…

Development of a new sustainable filtering media for wine and beer clarification and sterilisation

Different separation techniques are frequently used during vinification process. Nowadays, clarification and microbiological stabilization of wine or beer can be done using precoat filters or crossflow filters to remove yeast and bacteria. Kieselguhr powders are the most used filter aids for precoat filtration. Their crystalline structure and their pulverulent nature induce ecotoxicological risks when used. Moreover, regeneration and reuse of these filter aids is not efficient and the filtration waste requires cost effective retreatment.

The challenge of quality in sulphur dioxide free wines: natural polyphenol alternatives

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) seems indispensable in winemaking because of its properties. However, a current increasing concern about its allergies effects in food product has addressed the international research efforts on its replacement. This supposes a sufficient knowledge of its properties and conditions of use. Several studies compared SO2 properties against new alternatives that are supposed to overcome SO2 disadvantages. Firstly, the state of art on SO2 wine replacements is revised, and secondly, the last promising results using natural enriched polyphenol extracts are shown.

Non-invasive headspace sorptive extraction for monitoring volatile compounds production by saccharomyces and non-saccharomyces strains throughout alcoholic fermentation

Wine is a solution containing abundant volatile compounds which contribute to their aroma. Many of them are produced by yeast as metabolism by-products. Different yeast strains produce different volatile profiles. The possibility of studying the evolution of volatile compounds during fermentation, using sampling methods that not alter the volume of fermentation media, is of great interest. In spite of this, non-invasive methods to monitoring the evolution of volatile profile during fermentation have been seldom used. The goals of this work were to use by first time the headspace sorptive extraction (HSSE) as non-invasive method to monitor the evolution of volatile profiles throughout alcoholic fermentation and to study the changes on volatile profiles produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lachancea thermotolerans during fermentation of a must with high sugar content.

Cover crops influence on soil N availability and grapevine N status, and its relationship with biogenic

The type of soil management, tillage versus cover crops, can modify the soil microbial activity, which causes the mineralization of organic N to NO3–N and, therefore, may change the soil NO3–N availability in vineyard. The soil NO3–N availability could influence the grapevine nutritional status and the grape amino acid composition. Amino acids are precursors of biogenic amines, compounds mainly formed during the malolactic fermentation. Biogenic amines have negative effects on consumer health and on the wine organoleptic quality. The objective was to study if the effect of conventional tillage and two different cover crops (leguminous versus gramineous) on grapevine N status, could relate to the wine biogenic amines composition.

On the losses of dissolved CO2 during champagne aging

A misconception lingers in the minds of some wine consumers that Champagne wines don’t age. It’s largely a myth, certainly as far as the best cuvees are concerned. Actually, during the so-called autolysis period of time (in the closed bottle, after the “prise de mousse”), complex chemical reactions take place when the wine remains in contact with the dead yeast cells, which progressively bring complex and very much sought-after aromas to champagne. Nevertheless, despite their remarkable impermeability to liquid and air, caps or natural cork stoppers used to cork the bottles are not 100% hermetic with regard to gas transfers. Gas species therefore very slowly diffuse through the cap or cork stopper, along their respective inverse partial pressure. After the “prise de mousse”, because the partial pressure of CO2 in the bottleneck reaches up to 6 bars (at 12 °C), gaseous CO2 progressively diffuse from the bottle to the ambient air
(where the partial pressure of gaseous CO2 is only of order of 0,0004 bar).