Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Accumulation of polyphenols in Barbera and Nebbiolo leaves during the vegetative season

Accumulation of polyphenols in Barbera and Nebbiolo leaves during the vegetative season

Abstract

Grapevine berries produce thousands of secondary metabolites of diverse chemical nature that have been largely detailed in the past due to their importance for defining wine quality. The wide Vitis vinifera diversity, resulting in thousands of different varieties well detailed in many studies regarding berries, is still not investigated in vegetative organs, leaves in particular. Deepening knowledge related to this aspect could be of great interest for many reasons (for example the possibility of using leaf extract for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutrition purposes) but, above all, for understanding the susceptibility of different grapevine varieties to pathogens. Recent studies have demonstrated that leaves of different varieties display a wide range of secondary metabolite concentrations and different profiles and that constitutive polyphenols can result in diverse susceptibility to fungi infection. Moreover, also the reaction of the vine to a pathogen attack can pass through the alteration of specific secondary metabolite accumulation. We have undertaken a study regarding the quantification and identification of main polyphenols in the healthy leaves of different Vitis species and of different vinifera varieties. In this work we report preliminary data regarding the evolution of polyphenol accumulation in the leaves of Vitis vinifera cv Barbera and cv Nebbiolo during the vegetative season. The two varieties are known to have a very different polyphenolic profile at the berry level; at the leaf level significant differences were detected as well, paving the way to new insights about the constitutional natural susceptibility of different grapevine varieties to pathogens.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Alessandra Ferrandino*, Olga Kedrina, Vittorino Novello

*DISAFA UNITO

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Chemical markers in wine related to low levels of yeast available nitrogen in the grape

Nitrogen is an important nutrient of yeast and its low content in grape must is a major cause for sluggish fermentations. To prevent problems during fermentation, a supplementation of the must with ammonium salts or more complex nitrogen mixtures is practiced in the cellar. However this correction seems to improve only partially the quality of wine [1]. In fact, yeast is using nitrogen in many of its metabolic pathways and depending of the sort of the nitrogen source (ammonium or amino acids) it produces different flavor active compounds. A limitation in amino acids can lead to a change in the metabolic pathways of yeast and consequently alter wine quality.

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].

Full automation of oenological fermentations and its application to the processing of must containing high sugar or acetic acid concentrations

Climate change and harvest date decisions have led to the evolution of must quality over the last decades. Increases in must sugar concentrations are among the most obvious consequences, quantitatively. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a robust and acid tolerant organism. These properties, its sugar to ethanol conversion rate and ethanol tolerance make it the ideal production organism for wine fermentations. Unfortunately, high sugar concentrations may affect S. cerevisiae and lead to growth inhibition or yeast lysis, and cause sluggish or stuck fermentations. Even sublethal conditions cause a hyperosmotic stress response in S. cerevisiae which leads to increased formation of fermentation by-products, including acetic acid, which may exceed legal limits in some wines.

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

IBMP-Polypenol interactions: Impact on volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution

3-Isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (IBMP) is one of the key molecules in wine aroma with a bell pepper aroma and a very low threshold in wine, 1-6 ng/L for white wine and 10-16 ng/L in red wine1. The differences in these thresholds are likely due to IBMP-non volatile matrix interactions. It has indeed been shown that polyphenols may influence the volatility of flavor compounds2. In the present study, we focus on IBMP-polyphenols interactions in relation to volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution. Methods: 1. GC-MS Static Headspace Analysis: Samples were analyzed by Static headspace analysis with an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph coupled to HP 5975C mass spectrometry detector (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).