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…

Interactions of wine polyphenols with dead or living Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Cells and Cell Walls: polyphenol location by microscopy

Tannin, anthocyanins and their reaction products play a major role in the quality of red wines. They contribute to their sensory characteristics, particularly colour and astringency. Grape tannins and anthocyanins are extracted during red wine fermentation. However, their concentration and composition change over time, due to their strong chemical reactivity1. It is also well known that yeasts influence the wine phenolic content, either through the release of metabolites involved in the formation of derived pigments1, or through polyphenol adsorption2,3.

Quantification of red wine phenolics using ultraviolet-visible, near and mid-infrared spectroscopy combined with chemometrics

The use of multivariate statistics to correlate chemical data to spectral information seems as a valid alternative for the quantification of red wine phenolics. The advantages of these techniques include simplicity and cost effectiveness together with the limited time of analysis required. Although many
publications on this subject are nowadays available in the literature most of them only reported feasibility
studies. In this study 400 samples from thirteen fermentations including five different cultivars plus 150
wine samples from a varying number of vintages were submitted to spectrophotometric and chromatographic phenolic analysis.

Identification, quantification and organoleptic impact of « dried fruit » molecular markers in Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes and in red wines

The aromas found in young Bordeaux red wines made with Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon suggest a complex mixture of aromas of fresh red fruits such as cherry or blackberry for Merlot, and strawberry or blackcurrant for Cabernet Sauvignon. The aromas of these wines are closely linked with the maturity of the grapes. The climate change that has occurred during the last decade in Bordeaux has induced changes in the ripening conditions of grape berries. It is now widely admitted that over-ripening of the berries during hot and dry summers results in the development of characteristic flavors reminiscent of cooked fruits (fig, prune). The presence of these overriding odors found in both musts and young wines affects the quality and subtlety of the wine flavor and may shorten its shelf life.

Impact of some agronomic practices on grape skins anthocyanin content

Wine colour is the first quality characteristic to be assessed, especially regarding red wines. Anthocyanins are very well known to be the main responsible compounds for red wine colour. Red cultivars can synthesize and accumulate anthocyanins in berry skin to express their colour. However, anthocyanin accumulation is often influenced by a series of factors, such as genetic regulation, phytohormones, environmental conditions and viticultural management.

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.