Deciphering the function and regulation of VviEPFL9 paralogs to modulate stomatal density in grapevine through New Genomic Techniques

Le manque de connaissances concernant la physiologie de la maturation du raisin a longtemps interdit d’interpréter l’effet du terroir ou du millésime sur la qualité des vendanges en termes moléculaires. L’hypothèse selon laquelle c’est la perméabilité membranaire qui contrôlerait le sens comme l’intensité du stockage des acides est pourtant déjà ancienne (1). L’étude du transport des acides organiques et de son coût énergétique permet d’avancer certaines hypothèses concemant les sites potentiels de la régulation du contenu en sucres et acides du raisin sous l’effet de paramètres environnementaux.

It was at the end of the second world war that professor Branas laid the foundations of french vine selection. He was also behind the creation of domaine de vassal (1949) and antav (1962), which were to become the bridgeheads of the french strategy for the conservation, selection and multiplication of viticultural diversity. Initially based on visually virus-symptom-free massal selections, with the main aim of providing healthy, clearly-identified plant material, the process evolved as knowledge gained towards clonal selection.

In grafted plants, such as grapevine, increasing the diversity of rootstocks available to growers is an ideal strategy to get adaptation to climate change. The rootstocks used for grapevine are hybrids of various American Vitis, including V. berlandieri. The rootstocks currently used in vineyards are derived from breeding programs involving very small numbers of parental individuals.

A major problem for winemakers is the formation of proteinaceous haze after bottling. Although the exact mechanisms remain unclear, this haze is formed by unfolding and agglomeration of grape proteins, being additionally influenced by numerous further factors.

The main objective of this study was to establish if beet sugar produces a different concentration of “fruity” volatile aroma compounds (VOCs), compared to cane sugar when used for second alcoholic fermentation of Auxerrois sparkling wines. Auxerrois base wine from the 2020 vintage was separated into two lots; half was fermented with cane sugar and half with beet sugar (both sucrose products and tested for sugar purity). These sugars were used in yeast acclimation (IOC 2007), and base wines for the second fermentation (12 bottles each). Base wines were manually bottled at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) research winery. The standard chemical analysis took place at intervals of 0, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-bottling. Acidity and pH measurements were carried out by an auto-titrator. Residual Sugar (g/L) (glucose (g/L), fructose (g/L)), YAN (mg N/L), malic acid, and acetic acid (g/L) were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. parameters were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. Alcohol (% v/v) was assessed by GC-FID. VOC analysis of base wines, finished sparkling wines, as well as the two sugars in model sparkling wine solutions, was carried out by GC-MS. VOCs included ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl-2-methylbutyrate, ethyl-3-methylbutyrate, ethyl 2-methyl propanoate, ethyl 2- hydroxy propanoate, 1-hexanol, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate.