Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Abstract

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation. The objective of this study was to isolate and identify the compounds contained in induced wine protein haze precipitate after alkaline hydrolysis. The heat-induced protein precipitate from five liters of white Moscatel of Alexandria wine was subjected to alkaline hydrolysis in 2 M NaOH, 10 mM EDTA and 1% (w/v) L-ascorbic acid following a protocol described elsewhere [5] with some modifications. The alkaline hydrolyzed sample was subjected to liquid-liquid extraction with ethyl acetate and evaporated to dryness. The extract was further fractionated using reversed phase-high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector (RP-HPLC-DAD). The major compound present was found to be caffeic acid amongst other minor, unidentified compounds. Caffeic acid was identified by UV-vis spectra and the structure validated by 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). This work corroborates the observation that phenolic compounds, and caffeic acid in particular, may participate in wine protein haze formation since it is the major compound nonprotein compound present in Moscatel wine protein sediment.

References: [1] F.X. Sauvage, B. Bach, M. Moutounet, and A. Vernhet, Food Chemistry, 2010, 118, 26-34. [2] E.J. Waters, W. Wallace, and P.J. Williams, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1992, 40, 1514-1519. [3] G. Tabilo-Munizaga, T.A. Gordon, R. Villalobos-Carvajal, L. Moreno-Osorio, F.N. Salazar, M. Perez-Won, and S. Acuna, Food Chemistry , 2014, 155, 214-220. [4] M. Esteruelas, N. Kontoudakis, M. Gil, M.F. Fort, J.M. Canals, and F. Zamora, Food Research International, 2011, 44, 77-83. [5] Nardini, M., E. Cirillo, F. Natella, and C. Scaccini, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2002, 50, 5735-5741.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Ricardo Chagas*, Ana Lourenço, Luísa Carvalho, Ricardo Ferreira, Sara Monteiro

*FCT/UNL

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Simultaneous monitoring of dissolved CO2 and collar from Rosé sparkling wine glasses: the impact of yeast macromolecules

Champagne or sparkling wines elaborated through the same traditional method, which consists in two major yeast-fermented steps, typically hold about 10 to 12 g/L of dissolved CO2 after the second fermentation in a closed bottle. Hundreds of molecules and macromolecules originating from grape and yeast cohabit with dissolved CO2; they are essential compounds contributing to many organoleptic characteristics (effervescence, foam, aroma, taste, colour…). Indeed, the second alcoholic fermentation and the maturation on lees (which may last from 12 months up to several years) both induce various quantitative and qualitative changes in the wine through the action of yeast, as listed hereafter: development of aromas during aging on lees, release of nitrogen compounds during autolysis and release of macromolecules (polysaccharides, lipids, nucleic acids) in wine.

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

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Impact of non-fruity compounds on red wines fruity aromatic expression: the role of higher alcohols

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.

Efficiency of alternative chemical and physical treatments in reducing Brettanomyces Bruxellensis from oak wood

Oak barrels form an integral part of wine production, especially that of high quality wines. However, due to its porosity, wood presents an ecological niche for microbial proliferation and is highly susceptible to microbial spoilage which could cause considerable economic losses. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, the most commonly encountered microorganism responsible for spoilage during barrel ageing, can remain in barrels after barrel sanitation to contaminate new batches of wine after refilling. Therefore, effective sanitation treatments are of utmost importance to prevent recurring wine spoilage.

Proteomic and activity characterization of exocellular laccases from three Botrytis cinerea strains

Botrytis cinerea is a fungus that causes common infection in grapes and other fruits. In winemaking, its presence can be both considered desirable in the case of noble rot infection or undesirable when grey rot is developed. This fungus produces an extracellular enzyme known as laccase which is able to cause oxidation of phenolic compounds present in must and wine, causing most of the times a decrease in its quality and problems during the winemaking process [1]. Material and methods: Three B. cinerea strains (B0510, VA612 and RM344) were selected and grown in a liquid medium adapted from one previously described [2]. The enzyme was isolated by tangential ultrafiltration of the culture medium using a QuixStand system equipped with a 30 KDa filtration membrane.