Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Abstract

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]. Protein aggregates were further studied following heat stress to induce aggregation. We were able to dissolve the aggregates in buffer A (8 M urea, 200 mM NaCl and 30 mM sodium citrate pH 3) and B (4 % SDS, 200 mM NaCl and sodium citrate pH 3). Size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) of the dissolved proteins aggregates allowed the characterization of the different species present in solution under reducing and non-reducing conditions. Determination of free sulfhydryl groups present in native and stressed protein was also performed using 5,5ʹ-dithiobis(2-nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB). We suggest/demonstrate that protein aggregation due to SO2 modulation under wine model solution occurs as a result of the combination between both hydrophobic interactions and the formation of new interprotein disulfide bonds. DTNB assay revealed that there were no free sulfhydryl groups both in native, heat stressed and heat stressed in the presence of SO2. Future work will focus on the study of the different protein aggregate species and on new methods for wine protein stabilization.

[1] Chagas, R., Ferreira, L. M., Laia, C. A., Monteiro, S. & Ferreira, R. B. (2016). The challenging SO2-mediated chemical build-up of protein aggregates in wines. Food Chemistry, 192, 460-469.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Ricardo Chagas*, César Laia, Luísa Carvalho, Ricardo Ferreira, Sara Monteiro

*FCT/UNL

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Sensory definition of green aroma concept in red French wines. Evidence for the contribution of novel volatile markers

The aromatic complexity of a wine results from the perception of the association of volatile molecules and each aroma can be categorized into different families. The “green” aromas family in red wines has retained our attention by its close link with the fruity perception. In that study, the “green” olfactory concept of red wines was considered through a strategy combining both sensory analysis and hyphenated chromatographic techniques including HPLC and MDGC (Multidimensional Gas Chromatography). The aromatic space of this concept was specified by lexical generation through a free association task on 22 selected wines by a panel of wine experts. Then, 70 French red wines were scored on the basis of the intensity of their “green” and “fruity” attributes.

Effect of mixed Torulaspora delbrueckii-Saccharomyces cerevisiae culture on rose quality wine

Alcoholic fermentation using no Saccharomyces wine is an effective means of modulating wine aroma. This study investigated the impact of coinoculating Torulaspora delbruecki with two Saccharomyces cerevisiae commercial yeast (QA23, Lallemand; Red Fruit, Sepsa-Enartis) on enological quality parameters, volatile composition and sensory analysis. The following assays were performed on Tempranillo variety: Saccharomyces QA23 (CTQA), Saccharomyces Red Fruit (CTRF), coinoculated T. delbrueckii + S.cerevisiae QA23 (CIQA) and coinoculated T. delbrueckii + S.cerevisiae (CIRF).

To a better understanding of the impact of vine nitrogen status on volatile thiols from plot to transcriptome level

Volatile thiols contribute largely to the organoleptic characteristics and typicity of Sauvignon blanc wines. Among this family of odorous compounds, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and 4-methyl-4-sulfanylpentan-2-one (4MSP) have a major impact on wine flavor. These thiols are formed during alcoholic fermentation by the yeast from odorless and non-volatile precursors found in the berry and the must. The effect of vine nitrogen status on 3SH and 4MSP in Sauvignon blanc wine and on the glutathionylated and cysteinylated precursors of 3SH (Glut-3SH and Cys-3SH) was investigated in this study.

The effect of Nitrogen and Sulphur foliar applications in hot climates

ine nitrogen deficiency can negatively influence the aroma profile and ageing potential of white wines. Canopy management can alter vine microclimate, affect the nitrogen availability and influence the response of leaf senescence. Increasing the nitrogen availability to vines can increase the Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN) levels in harvested fruit and wine. Studies show that foliar nitrogen and sulphur applications at véraison, on low YAN Sauvignon blanc grapes have an effect on the level of amino acids (Jreij et al. 2009) and on S-containing compounds such as glutathione and thiols (Lacroux et al. 2008), which in turn can influence the formation of major volatiles and the aroma profile of the wine.

Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

The Ability of PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone), PVP-DEGMA-TAIC (copolimerization of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and triallyl isocyanurate) and PAEGDMA
(poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate)) polymers was tested as removal agents for Fumonisin B1 (FB1) and Fumonisin B2 (FB2) from model solutions and red wine. The polymers removal capacity was checked at three different resident times (2, 8 and 24 hours of contact time between the polymer and the sample), showing no differences in the percentage of FB1 and FB2 removal. Then, different polymer concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1) were tested in model solution with and without phenolics (i.e. gallic acid and 4-methylcatechol).