Regulation of terpene production in methyl jasmonate treated cell-cultures

A critical aspect of wine quality is the overall expression of wine flavour, which is formed by the interplay of volatile aroma compounds, their precursors, and taste and matrix components.
Grapes directly contribute to wine only a small number of potent aroma compounds, and the unique
sensory attributes and perceived quality of a wine result from combining 100s of metabolites of grapes, yeast and bacteria, and oak wood.

Mycobiota encountered from vine to wine is a complex and diversified ecosystem that may impact grape quality at harvest and the sensorial properties of wines, thus leading to off-flavors [1-3]. Among known off-flavors in wine, fresh mushroom aroma (FMA) has been linked to some mold species, naturally pre-sent on grapes, producing specific volatile organic compounds (VOC) [4-5]. The most well-known are 1-octen-3-ol and 1-octen-3-one, although many other VOC are likely involved. To better understand the FMA defect, biotic and abiotic factors impacting growth kinetics and VOC production of selected fungal species in must media and on grapes were studied.

Mouthfeel is an important quality parameter for Chardonnay wines, particularly those aged in oak. While research on mouthfeel has traditionally focused on the impact of non-aromatic compounds, the role of aroma compounds has largely been over looked. However, in wine as well as other food interactions between retronasal aroma and mouthfeel have been noted. The goal of this research was to investigate the impact of wine aroma on the perception of mouthfeel. Because of the importance of oak aging in the development of Chardonnay mouthfeel, the impact of oak aromas on perceived mouthfeel was explored. Aroma compounds associated with oak (ethyl palmitate, eugenol, furfural, isoeugenol, syringaldehyde, vanillin and whiskey lactone) were added to two different Chardonnay wines; one with no oak influence and one fermented in neutral oak. Low and high concentrations of the compounds were added based on concentrations typically found in barrel aged Chardonnay wine.

The trial aims to improve the protection and management of the soil, the well-being of the plant and the quality of production in the wine supply chain organic and biodynamic, using an innovative product “ZEOWINE” resulting from the composting of waste of the wine and zeolite supply chain.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.