Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

With climate change, it is progressively more often to obtain grapes with an acceptable content in sugars or acids but with immature tannins described as green, aggressive or hard (noted as GAH onwards). During winemaking, the oenologist has to make decisions related to the elaboration of such grapes based mainly on empirical experience, given the lack of objective criteria to this concern. An increase in the chemical and sensory knowledge of immature tannins would allow managing this GAH character of grapes with the maximum possible efficiency during winemaking processes. The present work aims at isolating and identifying the group of compounds responsible for the GAH character present in wines.

Yeast cells possess a cell wall comprising primarily glycoproteins, mannans, and glucan polymers. Several yeast phenotypes relevant for fermentation, wine processing, and wine quality are correlated with cell wall properties. To investigate the effect of wine fermentation on cell wall composition, a study was performed using mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy coupled with multivariate methods (i.e., PCA and OPLS-DA). A total of 40 yeast strains were evaluated, including Saccharomyces strains (laboratory and industrial) and non-Saccharomyces species. Cells were fermented in both synthetic MS300 and Chardonnay grape must to stationery phase, processed, and scanned in the MIR spectrum.

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).

The above-ground parts of plants, which constitute the phyllosphere, have long been considered devoid of bacteria and fungi, at least in their internal tissues and microbial presence there was long considered a sign of disease. However, recent studies have shown that plants harbour complex bacterial communities, the so-called “microbiome”[1]. We are only beginning to unravel the origin of these bacterial plant inhabitants, their community structure and their roles, which in analogy to the gut microbiome, are likely to be of essential nature. Among their multifaceted metabolic possibilities, bacteria have been recently demonstrated to emit a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can greatly impact the growth and development of both the plant and its disease-causing agents.

Céline Sparrow a, Christophe Morge a, a SOFRALAB SAS, 79, av. A.A. Thévenet – CS 11031 – 51530 Magenta, France Consumers’ health and security force authorities to limit, in wine as in others food industry products, the concentration in « dangerous » molecules. Therefore the legal limit in heavy metals keeps on decreasing. As per proof EU regulation just decrease the stain concentration in wine from 0,2 to 0,15 mg/l. Certain changes , such as sodium arsenite treatment in vines, disappearance of brass in wineries to the benefit of stainless steel, limit even more the concentration of heavy metals in wines. But the use of copper derivates in vines treatments is difficult to replace. In the case of wine and its elaboration, the problem is even more complex. Indeed, regulation forces the wine producers to control the concentration of certain heavy metals in final wines.