| Literature DB >> 28680428 |
Stefano Negri1, Arianna Lovato1, Filippo Boscaini1, Elisa Salvetti1, Sandra Torriani1, Mauro Commisso1, Roberta Danzi2, Maurizio Ugliano1, Annalisa Polverari1, Giovanni B Tornielli1, Flavia Guzzo1.
Abstract
The natural or induced development of noble rot caused by the fungus Botrytis cinerea during the late stages of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) berry ripening is used in some traditional viticulture areas to produce high-quality wines such as Sauternes and Tokaji. In this research, we wanted to verify if by changing the environmental conditions during post-harvest withering we could induce the noble rot development on harvested berries in order to positively change the wine produced from withered Garganega berries. Therefore, we exposed the berries to postharvest withering under normal or artificially humid conditions, the latter to induce noble rot. The presence of noble rot symptoms was associated with the development of B. cinerea in the berries maintained under humid conditions. The composition of infected and non-infected berries was investigated by untargeted metabolomics using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. We also explored the effects of the two withering methods on the abundance of volatile organic compounds in wine by yeast-inoculated micro-fermentation followed by targeted gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. These experiments revealed significant metabolic differences between berries withered under normal and humid conditions, indicating that noble rot affects berry metabolism and composition. As well as well-known botrytization markers, we detected two novel lipids that have not been observed before in berries infected with noble rot. Unraveling the specific metabolic profile of berries infected with noble rot may help to determine the compounds responsible for the organoleptic quality traits of botrytized Garganega wines.Entities:
Keywords: Garganega grapes; VOCs; metabolomics; noble rot induction; postharvest withering
Year: 2017 PMID: 28680428 PMCID: PMC5478704 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1The two types of withering process applied to Garganega berries. Harvested berries were withered under natural conditions for 29 days and then half of the berries were enclosed in plastic crates (right-hand image) to increase the relative humidity (RH%) and favor Botrytis cinerea development in the form of noble rot. The whole withering process lasted 61 days. T0 = berries at the beginning of withering; T1 = withering berries collected before varying the humidity; T2-n = naturally withered berries; T2-i = berries withered under higher humidity conditions to induce noble rot.
Figure 2Garganega berry characteristics. (A) Percentage weight loss and (B) soluble solids (°Bx) during normal withering (T2-n) and induced noble rot (T2-i). (C) Appearance of sampled berries withered under natural conditions or (D) under higher humidity to induce noble rot. (E) Average berry weight in the T2-n and T2-i samples at the end of the withering process. (F) Enumeration of Botrytis cinerea colony forming units (CFUs) in samples T0, T1, T2-n, and T2-i. Vertical bars represented standard deviations (SD) of means (n = 3). Asterisks refer to t-student p-values obtained from T2-n and T2-i comparison (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01).
Figure 3Base peak chromatograms (BPC) recorded in negative (left) and positive (right) ionization mode based on the RP-HPLC-ESI-MS analysis of T0, T1, T2-n, and T2-i berry samples. Peak numbers refer to the metabolites listed in Table 1. Chromatogram areas are highlighted to show the reduction (in blue) or the accumulation (in red) of metabolites in T2-i grapes relative to naturally withered grapes (T0, T1, T2-n). The lower bars refer to the percentage of acetonitrile (ACN) in the mobile phase.
Main metabolites detected by RP-HPLC-ESI-MS analysis in negative ([M-H]−) and positive ([M+H]+) ionization modes.
| 1 | 6.7 | Uridine 5′-diP-N-acetylglucosamine | 605.9 | 384.8 (nf), 402.7, 281.8, 272.7 | − | − | MassBank |
| 2 | 7.9 | 2-S-Glutathionylcaftaric acid | 616.0 | 439.9 (271.7, 166.8, 142.8), 253.8 | − | − | Boselli et al., |
| 3 | 10.0 | Caffeoyl tartaric acid | 310.9 | 148.7 (86.9, 130.7, 102.8), 178.7 | − | − | Library |
| 4 | 14.3 | Catechin derivative | 435.0 | 136.8 (108.7), 288.8, 270.8, 244.8 | 437.1 | 285.1 (163.0, 249,1, 205.0), 267.1 | Putative identification |
| 5 | 16.5 | Caffeic acid tryptophan | 366.1 | 185.8 (141.8), 203.8, 245.7, 217.8 | 385.1 | − | Putative identification |
| 6 | 18.8 | Resveratrol hexose isomer I | 389.1 | 226.8 (184.7, 158.8), 227.7, 164.8 | − | − | Sandhu and Gu, |
| 7 | 19.6 | Quercetin-3-O-glucoside | 463.0 | 300.7 (150.8, 299.8, 178.7), 301.7 | 465.0 | 303.0 (257.0, 229.0, 153.0, 165.0) | Library |
| 8 | 19.8 | Quercetin-glucuronide | 477.0 | 300.8 (178.6, 150.6, 151.7), 301.7 | 479.0 | 303.0 (229.0, 214.7), 317.0, 304.1 | Hvattum, |
| 9 | 22.3 | Resveratrol hexose isomer II | 389.0 | 226.8 (nf), 227.7, 228.7, 184.5 | − | − | Sandhu and Gu, |
| 10 | 25.4 | Resveratrol tetramer | 905.3 | 811.0 (717.0), 812.0, 718.0, 356.9 | − | − | Püssa et al., |
| 11 | 26.8 | 13-KODE | 293.0 | 202.8 (174.8), 220.8, 148.8 | − | − | MassBank |
| 12 | 3.5 | L-(Iso)leucine | − | − | 132.0 | 86.3 (nf), 87.3, 84.1 | MassBank |
| 13 | 4.6 | L-Phenylalanine | − | − | 166.0 | 120.2 (79.2, 103.1), 149.1, 121.1 | MassBank |
| 14 | 9.7 | L-Tryptophan | − | − | 205.0 | 188.0 (146.1, 144.0) | Massbank |
| 15 | 12.4 | (+)-Catechin | − | − | 291.1 | 139.1 (111.0), 123.1, 165.1, 147.1 | Library |
| 16 | 15.2 | (−)-Epicatechin | − | − | 291.1 | 139.1 (111.0), 123.1, 165.1, 147.1 | Library |
| 17 | 22.9 | Unidentified | − | − | 404.2 | 242.1 (224.1, 223.0, 96.1, 222.0) | − |
| 18 | 24.0 | Unidentified | − | − | 404.2 | 242.1 (nf) | − |
| 19 | 26.0 | Unidentified | − | − | 226.1 | 178.0 (150.1), 207.9, 181.3, 116.2 | − |
Peak numbers refer to the chromatogram profiles in Figure .
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01.
Figure 4Score plots (A) and correlation loading plots (B) for the O2PLS-DA model of the negative data matrices after data normalization for sample weight loss. The metabolites which strongly characterize each sample are highlighted with colored circles and are listed in Supplementary File 2 (Datasheet 1). The light blue circle comprises all metabolites that characterize the natural withering process and negatively correlate with berries infected with noble rot (T2-i). Correlation loading plots for the OPLS-DA models of negative (C) and positive (D) data matrices show the distribution of metabolites between T2-n and T2-i berries. All metabolites with pq(corr) values > 0.7 or < −0.7 are considered highly characteristic of T2-n (highlighted in yellow) or T2-i (highlighted in brown) berries and are listed in the Supplementary File 2 (Datasheet 2).
Figure 5Analysis of wines produced from Garganega berries. (A) Fermentation kinetics of the musts obtained from T0, T2-n, and T2-i berries during the 14 days of micro-vinification. Vertical bars represented standard deviations (SD) of means (n = 3). Asterisks refer to t-student p-values obtained from comparison of T2-i with T-n and T0 samples (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01) (B) O2PLS-DA score plot and (C) loading plot of T0, T2-n, and T2-i wines. In (C) correlation loading of the aroma differentiation characterizing each sample is represented by a color code, with VOCs grouped according to their aromatic class. (D) OPLS-DA loading correlation plot of withered control (T2-n) and botrytized (T2-i) wines.
Aroma compounds highlighted in Figure 5C characterizing T0, T2-n, and T2-i musts.
| Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate | Esters | 29.6 ± 5.4 | 13.4 ± 2.6 | 16.3 ± 0.7 | |||
| Ethyl lactate | Esters | Wood, cognac | Other | 932.4 ± 37.6 | 761.7 ± 74.5 | 701.5 ± 39.2 | |
| Methyl salicylate | Esters | Mint, spices | Spices | 3.2 ± 1.0 | <1 | <1 | |
| 4-Vinylguaicaol | Benzenoids | Cloves, curry | Spices | 55.3 ± 4.4 | 23.3 ± 10.5 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | Benzenoids | Orange flowers, honey | Floral | 28.5 ± 4.9 | 15.7 ± 8.3 | 16.4 ± 1.8 | |
| 4-Carbethoxy butyrolactone | Lactones | 56.9 ± 3.3 | 49.2 ± 8.4 | 43.3 ± 1.5 | |||
| Isoamyl acetate | Esters | Banana | Fruity | 312.3 ± 76.5 | 765.6 ± 169.3 | 269.5 ± 11.5 | |
| β-Phenylethyl acetate | Esters | Rose, honey | Floral | 31.23 ± 8.6 | 114.1 ± 31.8 | 47.2 ± 6.8 | |
| Ethyl butanoate | Esters | Kiwifruit, pineapple | Fruity | 29.9 ± 1.4 | 79.9 ± 30.2 | 39.5 ± 11.9 | |
| Ethyl hexanoate | Esters | Apple | Fruity | 98.4 ± 14.9 | 293.6 ± 79.9 | 170.1 ± 16.8 | |
| *Ethyl 4-hydroxybutanoate | Esters | Fruity, honey | Fruity | 2.6 ± 0.5 | 39.6 ± 1.3 | 15.3 ± 2.3 | |
| Methyl vanillate | Esters | Green tea | Spices | 2.8 ± 0.3 | 4.8 ± 0.7 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | |
| trans-3-Hexen-1-ol | Alcohols | Apple, herbal | Fruity | 11.3 ± 2.4 | 29.9 ± 5.1 | 6.1 ± 1.4 | |
| Benzyl alcohol | Alcohols | Fruity, balsamic | Fruity | 64.8 ± 24.7 | 735.4 ± 37.6 | 124.8 ± 24.5 | |
| Furfuryl alcohol | Alcohols | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 8.2 ± 0.3 | 5.5 ± 1.0 | |||
| Homovanillyl alcohol | Alcohols | 64.6 ± 22.4 | 418.9 ± 39.8 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | |||
| Guaiacol | Benzenoids | Smoked | Spices | <1 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | <1 | |
| γ-butyrolactone | Lactones | Peach | Fruity | 282.6 ± 20.6 | 979.1 ± 99.9 | 561.2 ± 69.9 | |
| Decanoic acid | Carboxylic acids | Cheese | Cheesy | 214.7 ± 1.6 | 563.9 ± 104.8 | 253.9 ± 35.4 | |
| Homovanillic acid | Carboxylic acids | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 8.6 ± 1.6 | <1 | |||
| Ethyl phenylacetate | Esters | Rose, honey, tobacco | Floral | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 3.1 ± 0.7 | 7.4 ± 0.8 | |
| Ethyl 2-hydroxyvalerate | Esters | Banana | fruity | 3.0 ± 0.8 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | |
| Diethyl succinate | Esters | Fruity | Fruity | 56.4 ± 5.5 | 58.6 ± 9.5 | 135.3 ± 13.3 | |
| Isoamyl lactate | Esters | 5.5 ± 1.6 | 13.3 ± 2.4 | 20.8 ± 5.5 | |||
| Ethyl isoamylsuccinate | Esters | 1.5 ± 0.5 | <1 | 4.8 ± 0.4 | |||
| Diethyl maleate | Esters | 29.4 ± 1.2 | 33.7 ± 3.7 | 66.5 ± 14.7 | |||
| Ethyl vanillate | Esters | Vanilla | Spices | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 1.9 ± 0.6 | 10.1 ± 1.2 | |
| 2-Hexen-1-ol | Alcohols | <1 | <1 | 2.5 ± 0.9 | |||
| 1-Octen-3-ol | Alcohols | Mushrooms | Other | <1 | <1 | 17.0 ± 1.7 | |
| trans-Linalool oxide C | Terpenes | Floral | Floral | <1 | <1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 | |
| Ho-diendiol 1 | Terpenes | Muscat, white moss | Floral | 15.2 ± 6.2 | 23.3 ± 2.8 | 37.5 ± 1.4 | |
| 4-Terpineol | Terpenes | Lilac, earthy, underwood | Floral | <1 | 29.1 ± 13.6 | 432.5 ± 122.2 | |
| p-Cresol | Benzenoids | Stable | Off-flavor | <1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 9.9 ± 2.1 | |
| Vanillin | Benzenoids | Vanilla | Spices | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 8.4 ± 3.4 | 70.5 ± 22.6 | |
| Phenol | Benzenoids | Smoked | Spices | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 8.30 ± 1.1 | 15.7 ± 1.1 | |
| Benzaldehyde | Benzenoids | Almond | Spices | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 22.4 ± 13.5 | 580.4 ± 87.1 | |
| γ-nonalactone | Lactones | Coconut | Fruity | 5.4 ± 0.6 | 7.5 ± 0.9 | 17.2 ± 1.6 | |
| Sherry lactone 1 | Lactones | Spice | Spices | 114.1 ± 20.4 | 219.7 ± 12.7 | 933.2 ± 96.2 | |
| Sherry lactone 2 | Lactones | Spice | Spices | 701.9 ± 89.6 | 407.0 ± 19.2 | *1.0 ± *0.3 | |
| N-(3-Methylbutyl)-acetamide | Amides | Pungent (winegar) | Off-flavor | 79.3 ± 4.5 | 158.7 ± 137.1 | *19.9 ± *6.3 | |
The corresponding pq(corr) values are reported in Supplementary File .