Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Analysis of peptide fraction from white wines

Analysis of peptide fraction from white wines

Abstract

Among nitrogen compounds included in white wines, the peptide fraction is certainly the least studied, however this fraction is quantitatively the most important (Feuillat, 1974). Existing studies concern the fraction below 1 kDa and only for white and sparkling wines (Bartolomé et al, 1997, Desportes et al 2000). In this report, we have developed methods to isolate peptides from reference white wines. Then, we have applied this methodology with bitter wine to answer a research question: is there a relation between peptides and the bitterness of white wine as for some cheese for example (Furtado, 1984)? First, after splitting reference wines by means of tangential ultrafiltration we got 3 different fractions: proteins above 10 kDa, peptides between 3 and 10 kDa and small peptides and free amino acids below 3 kDa. The amount of total nitrogen for each fraction was quantified by method of Kjedhal. We confirm that peptides represent the largest fraction of the nitrogen compounds in white wine. We expanded the range of molecular weight and studied the peptide fraction between 1 kDa and 10 kDa. This fraction of interest obtained by tangential ultrafiltration was diafiltrated against water and was concentrated by lyophilization. After, extracts from this fraction was separated by gel exclusion chromatography with the superdex 30 specific for peptides. Each fraction was read by absorbance at the 275 nm and then specifically detected by fluorescence with o-phtalaldehyde (OPA) to differentiate peptides from other molecules like polyphenols which are also detected at this wavelength. This isolation strategy was subsequently applied to white wines more or less bitter to investigate a potential relation between the peptides and the bitter taste. We obtained different peptide profiles between the most and least bitter wine for peptides corresponding to a high molecular weight. Every white wines studied here have similar peptide profiles made of two pools of different peptides. For the bitterest wine, the first pool corresponding to the higher molecular weight is greater. Thus, we may have revealed a relation between a class of peptides and the bitterness of these white wines.

REFERENCE LIST • Bartolomé, B., Moreno-Arribas, V., Pueyo, E., Polo, M.C. (1997) – On-line HPLCL photodiode array detection and derivatization for partial identification of small peptides from white wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45, 3374-3381. • Desportes, C., Charpentier, M.,Duteurtre, B. Maujean, A., Duchiron, F. (2000) – Liquid chromatographic fractionation of small peptides from wine. Journal of chromatography A. 893, pages 281-291. • Feuillat, M. (1974) – Contribution à l’étude des composés azotés dans les moûts de raisin et dans les vins. Thèse de Doctorat, université de Dijon. • Furtado, M.M. (1984) – Prevention of bitter taste in cheeses. Bulletin de la fédération Internationale de Laiterie. 177, 113-122.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Francois-Xavier Sauvage*, Caty Chabalier

*INRA

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Comprehensive exploration of wine aroma-related compounds as promoted by alternative vinification procedures in case of Zelen (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes processing

Not only vintner’s decisions in the vineyard, but also winemaker’s choices of technology approaches in the cellar play a significant role in the final wine style and quality. Whereas traditional technologies within chosen terroir are quite well explored and thus somehow predictable, there is no proper knowledge available on possible outcomes in case of implementing novel, alternative winemaking strategies. To reveal their effects on wine aroma compounds and sensory characteristics, two alternative strategies
(cryoextraction or addition of whole grape berries during last stages of fermentation) were compared to classical Vipava valley winemaking approach as normally used for an autochthonous variety Zelen. After separate vinification and bottling, all the experimental wines were subjected to semiquantitative metabolic profiling of volatile compounds (VOCs) by means of GC/MS and were then also sensorialy evaluated by pre-trained panel.

Chemical markers in wine related to low levels of yeast available nitrogen in the grape

Nitrogen is an important nutrient of yeast and its low content in grape must is a major cause for sluggish fermentations. To prevent problems during fermentation, a supplementation of the must with ammonium salts or more complex nitrogen mixtures is practiced in the cellar. However this correction seems to improve only partially the quality of wine [1]. In fact, yeast is using nitrogen in many of its metabolic pathways and depending of the sort of the nitrogen source (ammonium or amino acids) it produces different flavor active compounds. A limitation in amino acids can lead to a change in the metabolic pathways of yeast and consequently alter wine quality.

Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation.

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

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].

Influence of wood chips addition during alcoholic fermentation on wine phenolic composition

This study investigates the effect of wood chips addition during the alcoholic fermentation on the phenolic
composition of the produced wines. A series of wood chips, originating from American, French, Slavonia
oak and Acacia were added at the beginning of wine alcoholic fermentation. Besides, a mixture consisting
of 50% French and 50% Americal oak chips were added during the experimentation. The wine samples
were analyzed one month after the end of malolactic fermentation, examining various chemical
parameters such as total anthocyanins, total phenolic content, tannins combined with protein (BSA) and
ellagitannin content.