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

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.

The type of soil management, tillage versus cover crops, can modify the soil microbial activity, which causes the mineralization of organic N to NO3–N and, therefore, may change the soil NO3–N availability in vineyard. The soil NO3–N availability could influence the grapevine nutritional status and the grape amino acid composition. Amino acids are precursors of biogenic amines, compounds mainly formed during the malolactic fermentation. Biogenic amines have negative effects on consumer health and on the wine organoleptic quality. The objective was to study if the effect of conventional tillage and two different cover crops (leguminous versus gramineous) on grapevine N status, could relate to the wine biogenic amines composition.

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].

The chemical mechanisms involved in oxidation/reduction potential of wine during winemaking and aging are affecting its color, aroma and taste. Chemical oxidation is one of the major causes of development of off-flavors during ageing1. Thus, the chemical changes in wine during storage should be controlled to ensure the sensory quality of the product and avoid consumer rejection that will compromise the economic value of the product. The 1-hydroxyethyl radical has been recognized as the key radical intermediate in the oxidative reactions in wine2. Based on the kinetic study of POBN-1-hydroxyethyl spin adduct formation in wines initiated via the Fenton reaction, a novel tool was recently developed in our laboratory to quantify the resistance of wines against oxidation3.

For characterization, sensory designing and authentication rapid analytical technologies have become available. Some, like Proton Transfer Reaction Mass Spectrometry allow a rapid spectrum of the volatile compounds of wines. Combined with chemometrics wines can be characterized. The same approach can be used to calculate the results of virtual mixtures and allow formulation of constant quality blends. Other new techniques and portable devices based on spectroscopy allow measurements on production sites and in grocery stores, even for the smart consumer. We will present some examples of the application of these techniques for authentication of wines, both in the laboratory and on site.