Sensory and nephelometric analysis of tannin fractions obtained by ultrafiltration of red wines

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].

Leaf removal in the bunch zone is a common viticultural practice with several objectives, yet it has been difficult to conclusively link the physiological mechanism(s) and metabolic berry impact to this widely practiced treatment. We used a field-omics approach1 in a Sauvignon blanc high altitude model vineyard, showing that the early leaf removal in the bunch zone caused quantifiable and stable responses (over years) in the microclimate where the main perturbation was increased exposure. We provide an explanation for how leaf removal leads to the shifts in grape metabolites typically linked to this treatment and confirm anecdotal evidence and previous reports that leaf removal treatment at an early stage of berry development affects “quality-associated” metabolites (monoterpenes and norisoprenoids).

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 present work contributes by developing a rapid sensory-directed methodology for the screening and selection of high quality wines with different sensory profiles Therefore, Verdejo and Tempranillo musts were fermented with 50 different yeasts each under controlled laboratory conditions. Resulting samples were firstly categorized according to five levels of quality by a panel of wine professionals (Sáenz-Navajas, Ballester et al. 2013). Higher quality samples were described by flash profiling by a semi-trained panel
(Valentin, Chollet et al. 2012) and most distinctive samples were screened by gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) (López, Aznar et al. 2002).

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).