terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 EVIDENCE OF THE INTERACTION OF ULTRASOUND AND ASPERGILLOPEPSINS I ON UNSTABLE GRAPE PROTEINS

EVIDENCE OF THE INTERACTION OF ULTRASOUND AND ASPERGILLOPEPSINS I ON UNSTABLE GRAPE PROTEINS

Abstract

Most of the effects of ultrasound (US) result from the collapse of bubbles due to cavitation. The shockwave produced is associated with shear forces, along with high localised temperatures and pressures. However, the high-speed stream, radical species formation, and heat generated during sonication may also affect the stability of some enzymes and proteins, depending on their chemical structure. Recently, Celotti et al. (2021) reported the effects of US on protein stability in wines. To investigate this further, the effect of temperature (40°C and 70°C; 60s), sonication (20 kHz and 100 % amplitude, for 20s and 60s, leading to the same temperatures as above, respectively), in combination with Aspergillopepsins I (AP-I) supplementation (100 μg/L), was studied on unstable protein concentration (TLPs and chitinases) using HPLC with an UV–Vis detector in a TLPs-supplemented model system and in an unstable white wine. In model wine, neither temperature nor sonication affected TLPs concentration, suggesting their unfolding reversibility. However, the presence of AP-I during US treatment reduced protein concentration, up to complete removal under the most powerful conditions. In wine, the temperature effect was enough to lower chitinase levels (~48% and ~54% reduction at 40°C and 70°C, respectively) but had an undetectable effect on TLPs level. US significantly reduced both protein families, being more effective on chitinases (52% and 69% reduction at 20 s and 60 s, respectively) than TLPs (~11%) with the most powerful treatment. Interestingly, US was more successful than heating on chitinase (32%) and TLPs (15%) removal at the most energetic conditions. The supplement of AP-I combined with heating or US further reduced protein concentration. For heat treatment, both proteins were affected at both temperature conditions (TLPs: ~25% and ~23%; chitinases: ~58% and ~46%), while AP-I combined with US only affected TLPs under the most energetic treatment (~18%). The study found that US can affect unstable grape proteins and has additional mechanisms beyond sonication-induced temperature increase. When combined with AP-I, it further reduces unstable proteins, and suggests interaction between the US and AP-I. Further investigation is required to determine if US treatment destabilises proteins through a mechanism distinct from temperature increase, considering other factors affecting protein stability in winemaking conditions.

 

1. Celotti, E., Barahona, M. S. O., Bellantuono, E., Cardona, J., Roman, T., Nicolini, G., & Natolino, A. (2021). High-power ultrasound on the protein stability of white wines: Preliminary study of amplitude and sonication time. LWT, 147, 111602

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Adelaide Gallo1,2, Tomas Roman¹, Andrea Natolino³, Andrea Curioni4,5, Matteo Marangon4,5, Emilio Celotti³

1. Fondazione Edmund Mach—Technology Transfer Center, via Edmund Mach 1, 38050 San Michele all’ Adige, Italy
2. C3A – Università degli Studi di Trento, Via Mach, 1, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy
3. Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, via Sondrio 2/A, 33100 Udine, Italy
4. Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Uni-versità, 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy
5. Interdepartmental Centre for Research in Viticulture and Enology (CIRVE), University of Padova, 31015 Conegliano, Italy

Contact the author*

Keywords

Ultrasound, Aspergillopepsins I, TLPs, Protein stability

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

WINE FERMENTATION METABOLITES PRODUCED BY TWO TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII STRAINS ISOLATED FROM OKANAGAN VALLEY, BC, CANADA VINEYARDS

Wine aroma is influenced by various factors, from agricultural practices in the vineyard to the enological choices made by winemakers throughout the vinification process. Spontaneous fermentations have a characteristically deeper complexity of aromas when compared to fermentations that have been inoculated with Saccharomyces (S.) cerevisiae because of the diversity of microflora naturally present on grape skins. Non-Saccharomyces yeast are being extensively studied for their ability to positively contribute to wine aroma and flavour. These yeasts are known to liberate more bound volatile compounds present in grape must than S. cerevisiae through the enzymatic action of β-glucosidases and β-lyases1.

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL CHEMICAL MARKERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERMISSIVENESS OF BORDEAUX RED WINES AGAINST BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS USING UNTARGETED METABOLOMICS

All along the red winemaking process, many microorganisms develop in wine, some being beneficial and essential, others being feared spoilers. One of the most feared microbial enemy of wine all around the world is Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Indeed, in red wines, this yeast produces volatile phenols, molecules associated with a flavor described as “horse sweat”, “burnt plastic” or “leather”. To produce significant and detectable concentrations of these undesired molecules, the yeasts should first grow and become numerous enough. Even if the genetic group of the strain present and the cellar temperature may modulate the yeast growth rate¹ and thus the risk of spoilage, the main factor seems to be the wines themselves, some being much more permissive to B. bruxellensis development than others.

UNEXPECTED PRODUCTION OF DMS POTENTIAL DURING ALCOOLIC FERMENTATION FROM MODEL CHAMPAGNE-LIKE MUSTS

The overall quality of aged wines is in part due to the development of complex aromas over a long period (1.) The apparition of this aromatic complexity depends on multiple chemical reactions that include the liberation of odorous compounds from non-odorous precursors. One example of this phenomenon is found in dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which, with its characteristic odor truffle, is a known contributor to the bouquet of premium aged wine bouquet (1). DMS supposedly accumulates during the ten first years of ageing thanks to the hydrolysis of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSp.) DMSp is a possible secondary by-product from the degradation of S-methylmethionine (SMM), an amino acid iden- tified in grapes (2), which can be metabolized by yeast during alcoholic fermentation.

BIOSORPTION OF UNDESIRABLE COMPONENTS FROM WINE BY YEAST-DERIVED PRODUCTS

4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis.
Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.

USE OF 13C CP/MAS NMR AND EPR SPECTROSCOPIC TECHNIQUES TO CHARACTERIZE MACROMOLECULAR CHANGES IN OAK WOOD(QUERCUS PETRAEA) DURING TOASTING

For coopers, toasting process is considered a crucial step in barrel production during which oak wood (Q. petraea) develops several aromatic nuances released to the wine during its maturation. Toasting consists of applying different degrees of heat to a barrel for a specific period. As the temperature increases, thermal degradation of oak wood structure produces a huge range of chemical compounds. Many studies have identified the main key aroma volatile compounds (whisky-lactone, furfural, eugenol, guaiacol, vanillin). However, detailed information on how the chemical structure of oak wood degrades with increasing toasting level is still lacking.