Impact of sulfur compounds to the antioxidant stability of white wines

Phenolic compounds are secondary metabolites of grapes. Plants produce a wide variety of this type of metabolites through diverse biosynthesis pathways and their production is sometimes a response to external stimuli, either environmental or biotic stresses. Some of them may act as chemical defenses against pathogens or herbivores and their synthesis is increased when the attack exists. However, it is remarkable that the synthesis of these interesting compounds can be activated even when the stimulus is not present, with the use of elicitors. These are substances that when applied exogenously trigger the biosynthetic pathways conducting to the synthesis of these defense compounds.

Among red wines ethyl esters, those from short hydroxylated and branched-chain aliphatic acids constitute a family with a particular behavior and sensory importance. They have been previously discussed in the literature [1] and recent studies have established that some of them were strongly involved in of red wines’ fruity aroma [2]. As some among them have an asymmetrical carbon atom, it seemed important to separate their different enantiomers to obtain an accurate assessment of their organoleptic impact. Three chiral esters have been identified, presenting alkyl and/or hydroxyle substituants: ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, and ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate.

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].

In addition to aroma compounds also protein composition strongly influences the quality of wines. Proteins of wine derive mainly from the plant Vitis vinifera and may be influenced by abiotic stress as well as fermentation conditions or fining. Additionally, fungal infections can affect the protein content as well by introducing fungal proteins or affecting grape protein composition. An infection of the vine with the plant pathogenic fungus Botrytis (B.) cinerea was shown to cause a degradation of proteins in the resulting wine. Moreover, it influences the foaming properties in sparkling wine.

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.