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…

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.

WineMetrics: A new approach to unveil the “wine-like aroma” chemical feature

“The Human being has an excellent ability to detect and discriminate odors but typically has great difficulty in identifying specific odorants”(1). Furthermore, “from a cognitive point of view the mechanism used to judge wines is closer to pattern recognition than descriptive analysis.” Therefore, when one wants to reveal the volatile “wine-like feature” pattern recognition techniques are required. Sensomics is one of the most recent “omics”, i.e. a holistic perspective of a complex system, which deals with the description of substances originated from microorganism metabolism that are “active” to human senses (2). Depicting the relevant volatile fraction in wines has been an ongoing task in recent decades to which several research groups have allocated important resources. The most common strategy has been the “target approach” in order to identify the “key odorants” for a given wine varietal.

Cytochrome P450 CYP71BE5 from grapevine (Vitis vinifera) catalyzes the formation of the spicy aroma compound, (-)-rotundone

(-)-Rotundone, an oxygenated sesquiterpene, is a potent odorant molecule with a characteristic spicy aroma existing in various plants including grapes1. It is considered as a significant compound notably in wines and grapes because of its low sensory threshold (16 ng L-1 in red wine, 8 ng L-1 in water) and aroma properties. (-)-Rotundone was first identified in red wine made from the grape cultivar Syrah (regionally called Shiraz) in Australia1, and then it was found in several grape varieties such as Duras, Grüner Veltliner, Schioppettino and Vespolina from Europe2, 3. Several environmental factors affecting the accumulation of (-)-Rotundone during the grape maturation, were reported such as ambient temperature4, soil properties and topography5, soil moisture from irrigation and light exposure in the bunch zone by leaf removal2.

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

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”.

Effect of supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation in base wine for sparkling

INTRODUCTION: Foam stability of sparkling wines is significantly favored by the presence of surface active agents such as proteins and polysaccharides [1]. For that reason, the renowned sparkling wines are aged after the second fermentation in contact with the lees for several months (even years). Thereby wines are enriched in these macromolecules due to yeast autolysis. Since this practice is slow and costly, winemakers are seeking for alternative procedures to increase their concentration in base wines. In that sense, the supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation has been proposed [2]. The aim of this study was to determine whether this new strategy is really useful for enriching base wines in macromolecules and for improving foam properties of the base wines.