How a microscopic yeast makes a big difference – how geographic limitations of yeast populations can determine the regional aroma of wine

Sulfites (SO2) addition during winemaking is a widespread practice worldwide. This addition is realized at different steps of the winemaking due to the antimicrobial and antioxidant capacity of SO2. In a context of understanding white wines oxidative stability, knowledge about the impact of SO2 on the wine molecular diversity, especially compounds involved in the antioxidant capacity of wine, appears to be very important. In recent years, some studies have shown that SO2 can react with a large number of wine compounds resulting in the formation of numerous adducts. The diversity of compounds involved is important including in particular pyruvic acid, 2-keto-glutaric acid, glyceraldehyde, sugar, phenolics compounds but also amino acids or peptides. Moreover Roullier-Gall et al. have shown using FT-ICR-MS analysis that the molecular composition of wines remains impacted by addition of SO2 to the must (0, 4 and 8 g/hL SO2), several years after winemaking. Indeed, wines made from protected must (8g/hL SO2) contain a larger diversity of CHOS and CHONS compounds than wines made from unprotected must (0 g/hL SO2). The study of the impact of glutathione addition on the sensory oxidative stability has further shown that CHOS and CHONS compounds (amino acids, aromatic compounds and peptides) are markers of the antioxidant metabolome of white wines. This suggests that CHOS and CHONS compounds arise from SO2 adducts formation but also from a protecting effect of SO2 on the antioxidant metabolome of white wines.

Inorganic phosphonates are known to effectively support the control of grapevine downy mildew in vi- ticulture. Their application helps the plant to induce an earlier and more effective pathogen defense. However, inorganic phosphonates have been banned in organic viticulture due to their classification as plant protection products since October 2013. Despite the ban, phosphonate has been recently detected in organic wines.

Grapevine pruning is one of the most important practices in the vineyards. Winegrowers use it to provide the vines the shape needed, or to maintain it once achieved, and also to balance vegetative growth and fruit production. In the last decades, careless pruning has been blamed, among other factors, as responsible of the vineyard decay that is been observed even in young vines. However, to our knowledge, there is a lack of systematic research trying to elucidate to which extent the pruning method used affects plant development or its susceptibility to grapevine trunk diseases (GTD). Within this context, the aim of this work is to study the influence of different pruning method strategies on the development of field-planted young vines.

Industry and regulatory agencies have developed regulations to ensure authenticity and compliance with wine composition limits. However, this can be truncated by the absence of simple and robust analytical methodologies, uninfluenced by the environment, different oenological techniques and cultural practices. Genetic fingerprinting is the most powerful tool for unequivocal varietal identification; it is not affected by the environment or agronomic practices; however, its usefulness in musts and wines has been controversial and there is currently no routine certification of varietal origin based on DNA analysis.

Disease resistant grapevine varieties (PIWI) are increasingly important for sustainable wine production, yet the impact of different yeasts on their wine profiles remains poorly studied. In this study, nine white interspecies varieties (i.e., caladris blanc, fleurtai, hibernal, johanniter, muscaris, sauvignon kretos, soreli, souvignier gris, and voltis) grown at the faculty of agriculture, university of Zagreb (Croatia) were vinified with three different saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts (control strain, zymaflore x5, and zymaflore xarom).