Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Grape byproducts as source of resveratrol oligomers for the development of antifungal extracts

Grape byproducts as source of resveratrol oligomers for the development of antifungal extracts

Abstract

Grape canes are a non-recycled byproduct of wine industry (1-5 tons per hectare per year) containing valuable phytochemicals of medicine and agronomical interest. Resveratrol and wine polyphenols are known to exert a plethora of health-promoting effects including antioxidant capacity, cardioprotection, anticancer activity, anti-inflammatory effects, and estrogenic/antiestrogenic properties (Guerrero et al. 2009). Additionally, resveratrol is a major phytoalexin produced by plants in response to various stresses and promotes disease resistance (Chang et al. 2011). Our project aims to develop polyphenol-rich grape cane extracts to fight phytopathogenic or clinically relevant fungi. We initiate the project with the development of analytical methods to analyze resveratrol mono- and oligomers (dimers, trimers and tetramers) from grape canes and we evaluate their potential activity against clinically relevant opportunistic fungal pathogens (Houillé et al. 2014). We investigated the impact of health status in vineyards on the composition of stilbenoids in winter-harvested grape canes. We observed that the degree of downy mildew infection in vineyard plots may alter the composition and distribution of stilbenes in different tissues of pruned byproducts (Houillé et al. 2015a). We also considered the evolution of stilbenoids in grape canes during post-harvest storage. Interestingly, we observed an accumulation of E-resveratrol and E-piceatannol related to a de novo biosynthesis in pruned wood grapes (Houillé et al. 2015b). Our results prompt us to better understand the natural variation of stilbenoid composition in grape canes and to consider grape byproducts as a promising source of bioactives substances.

Guerrero et al (2009) Natural Product Communications 4 (5):635-658. Chang et al(2011) Plos One 6 (10). Houillé et al(2014) Journal of Natural Products 77: 1658-1662. Houillé et al (2015a) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 63: 1631-1638. Houillé et al(2015b) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 63: 8472-8477.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Arnaud Lanoue*

*Université de Tours

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Effect of supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation in base wine for sparkling

INTRODUCTION: Foam stability of sparkling wines is significantly favored by the presence of surface active agents such as proteins and polysaccharides [1]. For that reason, the renowned sparkling wines are aged after the second fermentation in contact with the lees for several months (even years). Thereby wines are enriched in these macromolecules due to yeast autolysis. Since this practice is slow and costly, winemakers are seeking for alternative procedures to increase their concentration in base wines. In that sense, the supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation has been proposed [2]. The aim of this study was to determine whether this new strategy is really useful for enriching base wines in macromolecules and for improving foam properties of the base wines.

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].

Cover crops influence on soil N availability and grapevine N status, and its relationship with biogenic

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.

Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

Adrenaline (epinephrine) belongs to catecholamine class. It is a neurotransmitter and both a hormone which is released by the sympathetic nervous system and adrenal medulla in response to a range of stresses in order to regulate blood pressure, cardiac stimulation, relaxation of smooth muscles and other physiological processes. Adrenaline exhibits an effective antioxidant capacity (1). However, adrenalin is capable to auto-oxidation and in this case it generates toxic reactive oxygen intermediates and adrenochrome. Under in vitro conditions, auto-oxidation of adrenaline occurs in an alkaline medium (2).

Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration.