Capture depletion of grapevine DNA: an approach to advance the study of microbial community in wine

Consumers typically prefer wines with floral and fruity aromas over those presenting green-pepper, vegetal or herbaceous notes. Pyrazines have been identified as causatives for herbaceous notes in wines, especially Bordeaux reds. However, pyrazines are not universally responsible for herbaceousness, and several other wine volatile compounds are known to produce distinct vegetal/herbaceous aromas in wines. Specifically, volatile aldehydes elicit sensations of herbaceousness or grassiness and have been described in wines well above their perception thresholds.

Abstract In this work the effects of early leaf removal performed manually at preflowering phenological stage, on the volatile composition of Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) wines were studied. From 2009-2011 vintages 34 wine volatile compounds were identified and quantified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) where early leaf removal only modified 25 of them. The total C6 compounds, acetates and volatiles acids (with exception of isobutyric acid) were affected by defoliation, whereas alcohols and esters showed a minor effect. Furthermore the vintage effect also was shown.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.