Impact of malolactic fermentation on red wine color
James Osborne, Ph.D.
Summary:
In this study the impact of MLF on red wine color and the ability of
Oenococcus oeni
to degrade compounds important to the development of stable color were studied. Pinot noir and Merlot wines were produced, where simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic fermentations were induced in half of the wines.
At dryness, all wines were pressed prior to sterile-filtration through 0.45 µm membranes. Wines that had not undergone malolactic fermentation (MLF (-)) were then either (a) inoculated with one of three strains of
O. oeni
(MLF (+)) or (b) pH adjusted to the same pH as MLF (+) wines. All wines were sterile-filtered, bottled, and stored at 13°C for analyses. MLF (+) wines had lower concentrations of acetaldehyde, pyruvic acid, and caftaric acid than MLF (–) wines. MLF (+) wines had significantly lower color and polymeric pigments than MLF (–) wines while containing significantly higher monomeric anthocyanins.
These differences were consistent throughout 12 months of storage demonstrating that MLF can affect red wine color independent of pH change and that O. oeni can impact phenolic and non-phenolic compounds involved in red wine color development.
Pinot noir wine produced in a subsequent year was used to investigate possible reasons for the color loss caused by MLF as well as practical strategies to minimize these losses. One such strategy was to delay
MLF, a practice that winemakers believe results in greater red wine color. Wines were held at 13°C for 0,
14, 28, 100, and 200 days before inoculation with O. oeni VFO to induce MLF at 25°C. Delaying MLF did not impact loss of color @ 520nm as all wines still experienced a color loss. However, as MLF was delayed for increasing time periods the polymeric pigment content and monomeric anthocyanin concentration of MLF (+) wines became more similar to those of the control. After 200 days delayed
MLF, there was no statistically significant difference between the MLF (+) and control wine for polymeric pigment and monomeric anthocyanins. Extended maceration was also investigated as a method to promote polymeric pigment formation prior to MLF. However, extended maceration did not prevent loss of color or reduced polymeric pigment formation due to MLF. In fact, extended maceration resulted in wines with lower color and polymeric pigment than wines that did not undergo an extended maceration.
The reduced loss of polymeric pigment in delayed MLF wines may have been due to acetaldehyde being present in the wine for a longer period. This was demonstrated in experiments investigating the impact of
O. oeni metabolism of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid metabolism where wines that had undergone MLF were supplemented with acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid to the levels measured in MLF (–) wines. Wines with acetaldehyde or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid additions had higher color and polymeric pigment than MLF (+) wine with no additions while addition of only pyruvic acid addition showed no improvement in color or polymeric pigment in comparison to standard MLF (+). However, acetaldehyde additions did not completely prevent a loss of color @ 520nm after MLF. Whether this color loss was due to fining by
O. oeni
was investigated through exposure of wine to live or inactivated
O. oeni
for differing time periods. Wines that did not undergo MLF but were exposed to live or inactivated cells showed no difference in color, polymeric pigment, and monomeric anthocyanin compared to the control suggesting that loss of color during MLF was not due to fining by
O. oeni cells

FINAL PROJECT REPORT
I. Project Title:
Impact of malolactic fermentation on red wine color
II. Principal Investigator(s):
J.P. Osborne, Extension Enologist, Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 99331 ph 541-737-6494; email ( James.Osborne@oregonstate.edu
).
Cooperator(s):
C.G. Edwards (Washington State University)
C. Lederer (Oregon State University)
III. Introduction:
The color of a red wine is an important sensory attribute that originates primarily from anthocyanins present in the grape skins. These compounds are water-soluble pigments that are extracted into the wine during fermentation (Zoecklein, 1995). However, red wine color is due not just to the concentrations of these compounds in the wine. Once anthocyanins have been extracted into the wine they rapidly form co-pigmentation complexes (Boulton, 2001) and begin undergoing numerous other reactions resulting in a number of new pigmented compounds
(Fulcrand et al. 1998; Bakker and Timberlake, 1997). These new color compounds are often much more stable and produce greater color than would be expected from their concentrations in the wine.
Co-pigmentation involves the association of the anthocyanin with a non-colored organic compound creating more color than the unbound pigment. This phenomenon accounts for almost half of the observed color of a young red wine (Boulton, 2001) and is primarily influenced by the levels of several specific, non-colored phenolic components or co-pigments. The major copigments in wine include p
-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, catechin, and quercetin (Boulton, 2001;
Brouillard et al. 1989). The concentration of these compounds in a wine can determine the color of a red wine color regardless of the concentration of anthocyanins. It has been suggested by
Boulton (2001) that studies conducted with an aim to understand wine color need to focus on copigments and their concentrations, rather than on the anthocyanins. However, currently we understand very little about their formation and retention during grape maturation nor do we understand their fate during the winemaking process.
In addition to co-pigmentation, red wine color is also impacted by the polymerization of anthocyanins forming pigmented polymers. A number of anthocyanin derived pigments
(pyranoanthocyanins) can be formed by condensation with metabolites, such as pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde, released by fermenting yeast (Morata et al. 2003). For example, pyruvic acid reacts with malvidin-3-
O
-glucoside to form the pyranoanthocyanin vitisin A while acetaldehyde reacts with malvidin-3O -glucoside to form the pyranoanthocyanin vitisin B (Morata et al. 2007;
Morata et al. 2003). These compounds are more resistant to SO
2
bleaching than other anthocyanins and are also resistant to oxidation (Bakker and Timberlake, 1997) making them an important component of red wine color and color stability.

Because co-pigmentation and polymeric pigment formation play such an important role in red wine color development and stability, it is important to understand the factors that influence them. For example, while anthocyanin concentration is primarily determined in the vineyard, the types and amounts of other compounds involved in red wine color development can be dramatically influenced by winemaking practices. Because of this, a number of recent studies have investigated the impact of wine yeast on red wine color. Hayasaka et al. (2007) reported that Cabernet Sauvignon wines produced by two different yeast strains, a Saccharomyces cerevisiae
strain and a
Saccharomyces bayanus strain, resulted in significantly different color properties. The authors attributed the differences to the higher production of acetaldehyde by the
S. bayanus
strain leading to greater vitisin B formation. In another study, Morata et al. (2003) demonstrated a strong correlation between pyruvate and acetaldehyde production by yeast and vitisin A and B formation. These and other studies have clearly shown that the action of yeast during alcoholic fermentation can influence the formation of red wine color. However, the development of red wine color is an ongoing process that continues long after the alcoholic fermentation is complete. The concentration of compounds like pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde do not remain stable and can be affected by other winemaking practices such as the malolactic fermentation (MLF).
The MLF is particularly important in red wines where malic acid is converted to lactic acid causing a decrease in acidity. Since early work by Pilone and Kunkee (1965) and Pilone et al.
(1966) observed few differences in the sensory characteristics and chemical composition of wines fermented by various strains of bacteria, it appeared that any strain could be used to induce
MLF. However, this does not appear to be the case since strains have varying tolerances to low pH, sulfur dioxide, and temperature (Henick-Kling et al. 1989; Wibowo et al. 1988; Izuagbe et al. 1985) and can variably alter sensory quality (Boido et al. 2002; Delaquis-Pascal et al. 2000;
Rodriguez et al. 1990; McDaniel et al. 1987; Giannakopoulos et al. 1984). With regards to wine color, studies have shown that some strains of
O. oeni
and
Lactobacillus
are able to degrade acetaldehyde (Osborne et al. 2000) (including SO
2
bound acetaldehyde (Osborne et al. 2006)), a compound important in the development of red wine color. In addition,
O. oeni
has been shown to degrade pyruvic acid in wine (Asentorfer et al. 2003) and subsequently impact the formation of vitisin A during maturation. So although yeast strains may produce varying amounts of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid, the malolactic bacteria may have the last say as to the concentration of these compounds in wine available for reaction with anthocyanins. When we consider the impact of MLF on co-pigmentation, there is some evidence that malolactic bacteria are capable of degrading the co-pigments p -coumaric acid, and caffeic acid (Hernandez et al.
2007; Hernandez et al. 2006; Cavin et al. 1993). However, despite this evidence, the impact of
MLF on red wine color development is still unknown.
Few, if any studies have focused on the role MLF may have in the color development of red wines. In a study by Husnik et al. (2007) the capability of the genetically engineered malolactic yeast ML01 to perform the MLF was investigated. It was noted that Cabernet Sauvignon wines produced by ML01 (MLF performed by the yeast) and yeast strain S92 had darker color than wine produced by S92 with a bacterial MLF. The pH of the wines produced were very similar indicating that the loss of color was not due to the change in pH caused by the MLF. The authors speculated the color change may have been due to the metabolic activity of
O. oeni
impacting negatively on anthocyanins in the wine. However, the impact of O. oeni on the concentration of compounds important to color development was not measured in this study. In one of the few

other studies to note the impact of MLF on color, Delaquis et al. (2000) reported that color intensity and redness were enhanced in a Chancellor wine when a particular malolactic culture was used to induce the MLF. Again however, the cause(s) behind this observation were not investigated further. Some preliminary research performed at Oregon State University has also indicated that MLF can impact the development of red wine color. Little difference in the color of Pinot noir wines with or without MLF was initially noted immediately after MLF was completed. However, dramatic differences were noted after two months of aging where the A
520 nm
, hue (A
420 nm
/A
520 nm
), and color intensity (A
420 nm
+ A
520 nm even taking into account the shift in pH after malolactic.
) were all higher in non-MLF wine,
Clearly, malolactic fermentation has an effect on color intensity and stability that has not been thoroughly documented. Therefore, the proposed research will investigate the ability of various malolactic bacteria to degrade the co-pigments caffeic acid and p
-coumaric acid as well as the vitisin A and B precursors pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde. The impact of the degradation of these compounds on the development of color in Pinot noir wine will be investigated including the influence on color after one year’s storage. A number of recent developments in the analysis of red wine color (Versari et al. 2008; Versari et al. 2007) will allow the determination of the impact of MLF on color and color stability including polymeric pigments (Haberston et al. 2003;
Cortell, et al. 2007), co-pigmentation pigments (Boulton et al. 1999), individual anthocyanins
(Lamuela-Raventos and Waterhouse, 1994), and pyranoanthocyanins (Cortell et al. 2007; Morata et al. 2003). By surveying a number of bacterial strains it will be possible to determine if there is variation amongst strains regarding the ability to degrade compounds important in red wine development. This information will be valuable when choosing a bacterial strain to conduct MLF in red wines and will aid in our understanding of the development of red wine color.
IV. Objectives and Experiments Conducted to Meet Stated Objectives:
Objective 1.
Investigate the influence of malolactic fermentation on measured and perceived color and color stability of Pinot noir and Merlot.
In 2009 Pinot noir and Merlot wines were produced using grapes from the Oregon State
University Woodhall vineyard (Alpine, OR). Grapes were harvested, pooled, and then destemmed/crushed into 100 L stainless steel tanks. All fermentations were conducted in triplicate and inoculated with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae VQ15 (Lallemand, Montreal,
Canada) as per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Simultaneous fermentation of both Pinot noir and Merlot were also induced by the inoculation of
Oenococcus oeni
VFO (Chr. Hansen,
Hørsholm, Denmark) at approximately 1 x 10 6 cfu/mL in conjunction with the yeast inoculation.
Must samples were analyzed for pH, TA, YAN, and  Brix. The progress of the fermentations were followed using a digital density meter (DMA 35N, Anton Paar). When all the fermentations were dry as assessed by Clinitest (< 0.5 g/L sugar), wines were pressed, settled (48 hours at 4  C), racked, and filtered.
Wines were filtered through 2-3  m filter pads before being passed through a 0.6  m filter cartridge and finally a sterile 0.45  m membrane filter. Approximately 3.8 liters of wine was filtered into sterilized one gallon glass carboys. For both the Pinot noir and Merlot wines, three

carboys were inoculated with either O. oeni strain VFO, Alpha, or VP-41 (Lallemand) at approximately1 x 10 6 cfu/mL. The remaining carboys of wine were not inoculated with
O. oeni
.
All wines were kept at 20  C. Malolactic fermentation (MLF) was followed by measuring malic acid enzymatically. When MLFs were complete (malic acid < 50 mg/L) all wines (including those not inoculated with O. oeni ) had 50 mg/L SO
2
(total) added in the form of K
2
S
2
O
5
. Half of the wine that had not undergone MLF was adjusted to the same final pH as wine that had undergone MLF. For example, Pinot noir wines were adjusted to pH 3.63 while Merlot wines were adjusted to pH 3.60. All wines were then sterile filtered (0.45  m membrane cartridge) and bottled. Bottles were sealed using crown-caps rather than cork to minimize the risk of closure failure and interference from oxygen. Samples were taken at bottling and a number of different color components were measured using UV-Vis spectrophotometry. Total color, total free anthocyanins, color due to copigmentation, and color due to polymeric pigment were analyzed as outlined by Boulton et al. (1999). Acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid were measured enzymatically
(Morata et al. 2003) while anthocyanin analysis was performed by HPLC-DAD as per Cortell et al. (2007). After bottling, wines were stored at 13  C and sampled for analysis at 3 month intervals.
Wine was produced in 2010 in a similar manner as described for 2009 wines although on Pinot noir wine was made. Delaying the MLF was investigated as a mechanism to mitigate the effects of MLF on color. Carboys of sterile filtered Pinot noir wine were kept at 13°C until required.
After 0, 14, 28, 100, and 200 days two sets of three carboys were removed from the cellar and brought to room temperature (25°C). At each time point three of the carboys were inoculated with
O. oeni
VFO while the remaining three carboys remained as controls. At the conclusion of
MLF, a 35mg/L SO
2
addition was made to all wines before sterile filtration and bottling.
After bottling wines were stored at 13  C until analyzed for total color, color due to copigmentation, and color due to polymeric pigment as outlined by Boulton et al. (1999).
Monomeric anthocyanin concentration was be determined by HPLC-DAD (Cortell et al. 2007).
Previous research had shown that malolactic bacteria degraded acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid during MLF, compounds involved in polymeric pigment formation. Therefore, an experiment was designed to investigate whether this was responsible for color loss and reduced polymeric pigment formation. Half gallon carboys of Pinot noir wines were inoculated for MLF with O. oeni
VFO at approximately 1x10 6 cfu/mL. All treatments, including an uninoculated control, were performed in triplicate and kept at 25  C until MLF was completed. At the completion of
MLF, acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid concentration was measured in all wines by enzymatic assay. Wines were then sterile filtered and dispensed into bottles. Prior to capping, the following treatments to wines that had undergone MLF were made: 1) Addition of acetaldehyde to match concentration of control wine, 2) addition of pyruvic acid to match concentration of control wine,
3) addition of both acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid to match concentrations of control wine, and
4) MLF wine with no additions. All wines were stored at 13°C for 90 days until being analyzed for total color, color due to copigmentation, and color due to polymeric pigment as outlined by
Boulton et al. (1999) and monomeric anthocyanin concentration by HPLC-DAD (Cortell et al.
2007).
Yeast have been shown to absorb anthocyanins onto their cell walls and cause color loss (Morata et al. (2003). Whether this also occurs with malolactic bacteria during MLF was therefore

investigated. Four hundred mLs of sterile filtered Pinot noir wine (pH 3.5) was dispensed into sterile 500mL Erlenmeyer flasks fitted with air locks. The following treatments were prepared in triplicate:
1) Control wine - no MLF
2) MLF wine -
O. oeni inoculated at 1 x 10 6 CFU/mL
3) Live
O. oeni fining - addition of
O. oeni at approximately 1 x 10 7 cfu/mL and removal of bacteria by sterile filtration after 24 hrs
4) Dead
O. oeni fining- addition of inactivated
O. oeni at approximately 1x10 7 cfu/mL.
Inactivated
O. oeni were prepared by autoclaving a cell suspension of
O.oeni
at 120°C for 30 minutes. After cooling, this suspension was added to the wine at approximately 1x10 7 cfu/mL.
After 24 hours, samples from treatments 1 and 3 were sterile filtered, adjusted to pH 3.60 and stored at -80°C until needed for analysis. MLF was monitored by enzymatic assay and when complete all wines were sterile filtered, pH adjusted to 3.60, and stored at -80°C until needed for analysis.
The impact of extended maceration on color loss due to the MLF was investigated in 2011. Pinot noir wines were produced as previously described but under-went a ten day post-fermentation maceration. When wines were dry they were punched down once daily for a further ten days and blanketed with nitrogen. A lid was placed on the tank to minimize exposure to air and the fermentations remained in a room at 28°C. After ten days the wines were pressed and filtered as previously described before and dispensed into sterile one gallon carboys. Three carboys were inoculated with
O. oeni
VFO at approximately 1x10 6 CFU/mL while three remained uninoculated. At the completion of MLF all carboys had 50 mg/L SO
2
added and were sterile filtered and bottled. Wines were stored at 13  C until needed for analysis.
Objective 2.
Determine the ability of malolactic bacteria to degrade compounds involved in red wine development, such as acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid, and co-pigments p-coumaric acid and caffeic acid.
This study monitored the ability of various strains of
O. oeni
to degrade acetaldehyde, pyruvic acid,
p
-coumaric acid and caffeic acid. Wines were produced 2009 as outlined previously. MLF was induced in Pinot noir and Merlot wines by the inoculation of
O. oeni
at approximately 1 x
10 6 cfu/mL. Inoculation occurred either at the same time as alcoholic fermentation (simultaneous fermentation) or after the completion of alcoholic fermentation. Before inoculation and after
MLF, malic acid, pyruvic acid, and acetaldehyde were measured (enzymatic analysis (Morata et al. 2003)) and samples were frozen at -80  C for later HPLC-DAD analysis to determine p
coumaric acid and caffeic acid (Garcia-Viguera and Bridle, 1995).

V. Summary of Major Research Accomplishments and Results:
All wines that underwent MLF (MLF+) had reduced color compared to the control (Fig 1A &
2A). For Pinot noir wines there was approximately an 18% reduction in color @520 nm at the completion of MLF (day 0) no matter which O. oeni strain was used or the timing of the MLF
(simultaneous or consecutive inoculation) (Fig 2A). Over time this reduction in color remained as after 270 days storage, MLF (+) wines still had approximately 18% less color @520 nm than the control wines (Fig 1A). No difference between the pH adjusted control wine and the control was observed. An even greater loss in color was observed for Merlot wines that had undergone
MLF (Fig 2A). For example, at the completion of the MLF wines had approximately 22% less color @ 520nm than the control wine and this difference remained during storage (Fig 2A).
Again, there was no difference in color between the O. oeni strains and also no difference between the pH adjusted control and the control wine. There was, however, a significant difference between the color of Merlot wines that had undergone a simultaneous alcoholic and
MLF and Merlot wines that underwent MLF at the end of the alcoholic fermentation (Fig 2A) with the simultaneous wines having the lowest color @520nm.
Polymeric pigment content was also reduced in MLF (+) wines. For Pinot noir, MLF (+) wines contained about 17% less polymeric pigment content at the completion of MLF (day 0) than the control wine (Fig 1B). This difference increased over time with a 20% difference being noted after 180 days storage and an 18% difference after 270 days. For Merlot wines the differences were larger. In Merlot, MLF (+) wines contained approximately 23% less polymeric pigment at the completion of MLF and close to 40% less after 180 days storage (Fig 2B). The difference between the control wines and the MLF wines lessened after 270 days storage although there was still a 20% reduction in polymeric pigment content. As was seen with color @ 520nm there was no difference between
O. oeni strains with regards to polymeric pigment content or between the pH adjusted control and the control wine. However, Merlot wine produced by a simultaneous fermentation consistently contained the lowest amount of polymeric pigment. For both Pinot noir and Merlot, all wines whether MLF (-) or MLF (+), polymeric pigment content was highest at day 180 and had declined by day 270.
In addition to spectrophotometric analysis of color, the monomeric anthocyanin content of the wines was analyzed. As was seen for color @ 520nm and polymeric content there were significant differences between the control wines and MLF (+) for both Pinot noir (Fig 1C) and
Merlot (Fig 2C). Overall, monomeric anthocyanin concentrations were highest at day 0 and decreased over time. However, MLF (+) wines contained significantly higher concentrations of monomeric anothcyanins than the control wines at every sampling point during storage (Fig 1C
& 2C). Again, no differences were noted between the O. oeni strains used or between the pH adjusted control and the control wine.

3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00
0
*
1.10
0.90
0.70
0.50
1.90
1.70
1.50
1.30
0
*
A
B
50
*
*
100 150
*
*
200 250
*
*
300
50 100 150 200 250 300
142
122
102
82
* C
*
62
42
22
*
*
2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time   (days)
Figure 1
: Color (A), polymeric pigment (B), and monomeric anthocyanins (C) of Pinot noir wines that have or have not undergone malolactic fermentation during storage at 13°C. (  ) Control (no MLF), (  ) pH adjusted control, (  ) simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic fermentation, (  )
O. oeni
Alpha, (  )
VP41, (  ), VFO. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation.(n=3). * indicates significant differences at the p<0.05 level

6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
0
*
3.25
2.75
2.25
*
1.75
1.25
A
B
50
*
*
100 150
*
*
*
200 250
*
*
*
300
0.75
0
C
50 100 150 200 250 300
*
*
*
161
141
121
101
81
61
41
21
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 2
: Color (A), polymeric pigment (B), and monomeric anthocyanins (C) of Merlot wines that have or have not undergone malolactic fermentation during storage at 13°C. (  ) Control (no MLF), (  ) pH adjusted control, (  ) simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic fermentation, (  )
O. oeni
Alpha, (  ) VP41,
(  ), VFO. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3). * indicates significant differences at the p<0.05 level

Wines were also analyzed for compounds that are involved in polymeric pigment formation and copigmentation reactions. Acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid levels measured after the completion of malolactic fermentation are shown in tables 1 and 2. For Pinot noir and Merlot MLF (+) treatments there was a significant reduction in the concentrations of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid compared to the control. Of the three strains of
O. oeni
used, VFO demonstrated the largest reduction in both acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid. VFO was also used in the simultaneous fermentation treatment which showed a similar reduction of acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid.
Hydroxycinnamic acids were also quantified at the completion of malolactic fermentation.
There was no statistically significant difference in concentrations of caftaric, caffeic, and trans
p-coumaric acids between MLF (+) and control wines except for wines that had undergone MLF with
O. oeni
VFO (Table 3). In the case of VFO MLF (+) and simultaneous (VFO) wines there was a significant reduction in caftaric acid concentration and an increase in caffeic acid concentration. In addition, although concentrations of trans -p-coumaric acid were low in all
Pinot noir wines it was higher in both the VFO MLF (+) and simultaneous (VFO) wines.
Table 1
. Acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid concentrations in Pinot Noir wines that did or did not undergo malolactic fermentation 1 .
Treatment Concentration (mg/L) Concentration (mg/L)
Control
Control pH
Simultaneous
VP41
Alpha
VFO
18.3 ± 1.7
19.0 ± 2.5
8.8 ± 5.0
10.4 ± 4.4
6.9 ± 1.6
5.0 ± 3.1
29.7 ± 5.2
29.5 ± 3.0
10.5 ± 1.2
18.8 ± 2.2
17.8 ± 1.2
8.4 ± 4.5
1 values are means of three replicates ± one standard deviation
Table 2.
Acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid concentrations in Merlot wines that did or did not undergo malolactic fermentation 1
Treatment Concentration (mg/L)
Control
Control pH
Simultaneous
VP41
Alpha
VFO
9.4 ± 0.7
9.5 ± 1.7
1.5 ± 0.7
1.2 ± 2.3
1.6 ± 1.5
0.6 ± 0.6
1 values are means of three replicates ± one standard deviation
Concentration (mg/L)
35.2 ± 1.6
39.0 ± 0.7
7.7 ± 0.6
11.5 ± 5.1
8.9 ± 1.3
7.2 ± 1.2

Table 3.
Concentrations (mg/L) of caftaric, caffeic, and trans p -coumaric acids in Pinot noir wines that did or did not undergo malolactic fermentation 1 .
Treatment Caftaric acid Caffeic acid trans
-p-coumaric acid
Control
Control pH
Simultaneous (VFO)
VFO
25.0 ± 0.3
26.8 ± 0.4
10.3 ± 2.2
5.5 ± 1.9
3.78 ± 0.5
1.29 ± 0.3
18.59 ± 4.0
23.12 ± 1.4
1.01 ± 0.1
1.00 ± 0.1
1.92 ± 0.4
4.68 ± 0.1
Alpha 25.7 ± 0.7 5.40 ± 0.3 1.01 ± 0.1
VP41 22.4 ± 1.4 6.82 ± 0.4 0.77 ± 0.1
1 values are means of three replicates ± one standard deviation
Acetaldehyde and Pyruvic Acid Addition Trial
Because after MLF the concentrations of MLF acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid decreased significantly compared to the control wines an experiment was conducted to determine if this loss was responsible for the color changes occurring due to MLF. Additions of acetaldehyde, pyruvic acid, or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid were made to wines to match the concentrations present in the control wine. At day 0, all wines that had undergone MLF had significantly reduced color at 520nm in comparison to the control wine (Figure 3). MLF wine with no additions had approximately 15% less red color at 520nm compared to the control while wines with an acetaldehyde addition had approximately 11% less color. However, there was no statistically significant difference in color between wines that had undergone MLF and had or had not had additions of acetaldehyde and/or pyruvic acid. After 90 days of aging, all wines that had undergone MLF still had significantly reduced color at 520nm in comparison to the control
(Figure 3). However, wines to which acetaldehyde or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid had been added had significantly more color than MLF wine that had either no additions or just an addition of pyruvic acid. The acetaldehyde addition wine had just half the loss in color experienced by the standard MLF treatment.
Polymeric pigment content demonstrated the same trend as color at 520nm. At day 0 polymeric pigment was reduced in all wines that had undergone MLF compared to the control wine (Figure
4) although the differences were minor. However, after 90 days the difference in polymeric pigment content between the control wine and wines that underwent MLF had increased considerably (Figure 4). MLF wines to which acetaldehyde or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid had been added had significantly higher polymeric pigment than treatments that did not. MLF wine with no additions had approximately 41% less polymeric pigment compared to the control while the acetaldehyde addition treatment only had an 18% reduction. Wine with the acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid addition had 22% less polymeric pigment content in comparison to the control while the pyruvic acid addition treatment had 34% less polymeric pigment.
At day 0 there was no difference between the monomeric anthocyanin content of the control wine and MLF wines with acetaldehyde, pyruvic acid, or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid additions (Figure 4). MLF wine with no additions did however have a significantly higher concentration (+46%) of monomeric anthocyanins than the control. At 90 days, MLF wines with

3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
Control
Acetaldehyde
Pyruvate
A   +
MLF
P
2.1
Day   0 Day   90
Figure 3
. Color at 520nm of Pinot Noir wine with restoration of acetaldehyde (A) and/or pyruvic acid (P) after malolactic fermentation at bottling (day 0) and 90 days after bottling. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3).
1.55
1.35
1.15
0.95
0.75
0.55
Control
Acetaldehyde
Pyruvate
A   +
MLF
P
0.35
Day   0 Day   90
Figure 4
. Polymeric pigment in Pinot Noir with restoration of acetaldehyde (A) and/or pyruvic acid (P) after malolactic fermentation at bottling (day 0) and 90 days after bottling. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3).

90
80
70
60
Control
50
Acetaldehyde
40
30
Pyruvic
A   +   P
20
10
MLF
0
Day   0 Day   90
Figure 5
. Concentration of monomeric anthocyanins in Pinot Noir with restoration of acetaldehyde (A) and/or pyruvic acid (P) after malolactic fermentation at bottling (day 0) and 90 days after bottling. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3). acetaldehyde or acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid additions contained statistically the same concentration of monomeric anthocyanins as the control. In contrast, MLF wines that had an addition of pyruvic acid or no additions contained significantly higher concentrations of monomeric anthocyanins.
Delayed Malolactic Fermentation Trial
An experiment was undertaken to determine if delaying the MLF could mitigate the loss of color due to MLF. Wines that had or had not undergone MLF after set storage times (0, 14, 28, 100, and 200 days) were analyzed for various color parameters. Compared to the control, color at
520nm was reduced for wines that underwent MLF no matter how long the MLF had been delayed (Figure 6). For the day 0 time point, the MLF treatment had approximately 18% less color at 520nm than its control while after delaying MLF inoculation for 200 days the MLF treatment still had 17% less color than its control. While color at 520nm did not seem to change due to delaying MLF there were some differences in polymeric pigment content. Delaying the
MLF for greater periods of time resulted in a decrease in the polymeric pigment content differences of wines that had or had not undergone MLF (Figure 7). For example, with no delay of MLF (day 0) wines had 36% less polymeric pigment than the control. After delaying MLF 28 days, wines had just a 22% difference in polymeric pigment in comparison to its control while delaying the MLF for 200 days resulted in wines that contained the same polymeric pigment content as the control. Monomeric anthocyanins content followed the same trend as polymeric pigments and were significantly higher in wines that had undergone MLF compared to the control (Figure 8). With no delay in MLF, the wine had approximately 68% more monomeric anthocyanins than the control while delaying MLF 28 days resulted in 49% greater monomeric anthocyanins. Again, delaying the MLF by 200 days largely removed the differences between wines that had or had not undergone MLF as only an 8% difference was noted.

3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
2.70
2.50
2.30
2.10
1.90
1.70
1.50
Control
MLF
0 14 28 100 200
Length   MLF   delayed   (days)
Figure 6 . Color at 520nm of Pinot Noir Wines that underwent malolactic fermentation delayed for set period of time. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3).
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
Control
MLF
0.70
0.60
0.50
Day   0 Day   14 Day   28 Day   100 Day   200
Figure 7
. Polymeric pigment content of Pinot Noir Wines that underwent malolactic fermentation delayed for set period of time. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3).

70
60
50
40
30
Control
MLF
20
10
0
Day   0 Day   14 Day   28 Day   100 Day   200
Figure 8 . Monomeric anthocyanin concentration of Pinot Noir Wines that underwent malolactic fermentation delayed for set period of time. Error bars represent ± one standard deviation (n=3).
Bacterial Fining Trial
To determine if loss of color was due to fining by bacterial cells, Pinot noir wine that had not undergone MLF was exposed to either live or dead O. oeni cells for different periods of time.
After 24 hrs, wine to which approximately 1 x 10 7 CFU/ml of live
O. oeni had been added showed no difference in color at 520nm or polymeric pigment content compared to the control
(Table 3.1). There was however a slight decrease in monomeric anthocyanin content. After 14 days, wines inoculated with
O. oeni at approximately 1 x 10 6 CFU/mL had completed MLF and these wines had significantly lower color at 520nm and polymeric pigment content than the control wine. The MLF wine also had significantly higher levels of total monomeric anthocyanins compared to the control. In contrast, wines exposed to approximately 1 x 10 7
CFU/mL inactivated
O. oeni
for the same 14 day time period were statistically the same as the control for color at 520nm, polymeric pigments, and monomeric anthocyanin content. Polymeric pigment content increased significantly in the control between testing at 1 and 14 days.

Table 4.
Color at 520nm, total monomeric anthocyanins, and polymeric pigment for Pinot noir wine exposed to
O. oeni bacteria.
*Color (A520nm)
*Monomeric
Anthocyanin
(mg/L m-3-g eqs.)
*Polymeric Pigment
(A520nm)
Control 1
MLF 2
Dead Cells 3
Control 24 4
Live 24 5
3.15
2.94
a b
(0.06)
(0.01)
3.12
a (0.05)
3.13
3.03
a a
(0.07)
(0.01)
45.1
52.3
44.9
a a b
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.8)
1.32
1.17
b
1.28
a (0.02) a
(0.01)
(0.03)
68.3
c
65.3
d
(0.3) 1.03
(0.2) 0.99
c c (0.02)
(0.00)
* Values are means from triplicate fermentations ± SD a-c Mean values with different subscript letters within a column are significantly different at p<0.05
1 Control held for 14 days
2 Malolactic fermentation completed in 14 days
3 Exposure to approx. 1x10 7 cfu/mL inactivated O. oeni for 14 days
4 Control sampled after 24 hours
5 Exposure to approx. 1x10 7 cfu/mL live O. oeni for 24 hours
As demonstrated by the delayed MLF experiment, the development or delayed of acetaldehyde mediated polymeric pigments drove the differences in color seen with wines that had or had not undergone MLF. An alternative method for to delaying MLF to prevent this color loss was investigated where the wine underwent an extended maceration at 28  C. Results are shown in
Figure 9. For wines that did not undergo an extended maceration there was reduced color and polymeric pigment if the wine underwent MLF (Fig 9) as had been seen in previous experiments
(Fig 1). Extended maceration did not prevent the loss of color due to MLF nor did it prevent the reduction in polymeric pigment content of wine that underwent MLF (Fig 9). In fact, for wines that had an extended maceration there was a reduction in both color and polymeric pigment for the control and the MLF (+) wines compared to wines that did not have extended maceration.

4
3.5
Color   @   520
Polymeric   pigment
1.2
1
3
2.5
2
0.8
0.6
1.5
1
0.4
0.2
0.5
0 0
Control MLF Control extended
MLF   extended
Figure 9.
Color @ 520nm and polymeric pigment of Pinot noir wine that has or has not undergone an extended maceration and a malolactic fermentation
VI. Outside Presentations of Research:
Results from this research were presented at the 2010 OWRI Research Colloquium, at the 2011
American Society of Enology and Viticulture annual conference (June 2011) and at the 2011
Oregon Wine Industry Symposium. Two manuscripts are currently being prepared based on this work.
VII. Research Success Statements:
This study has demonstrated that the malolactic fermentation can cause a loss in the color of red wines independent of pH change. Malolactic fermentation resulted in a reduction in red color and polymeric pigment formation in Pinot noir and Merlot wines and a corresponding higher concentration of monomeric anthocyanins. Color loss was observed when alcoholic and malolactic fermentations were performed simultaneously and also when the MLF was conducted after the alcoholic fermentation. Color loss was independent of the pH change caused by MLF

and no differences between three strains of O. oeni were observed. O. oeni VFO demonstrated hydroxycinnamic acid esterase activity by converting caftaric acid to caffeic acid and coutaric acid to pcoumaric acid. This conversion did not impact color due to copigmentation as no differences were noted for this value between any of the wines that had or had not undergone
MLF.
All ML strains tested did however degrade acetaldehyde and pyruvic acid. The significance of this degradation to color loss and pigmented polymers formation as well as other potential mechanisms by which
O. oeni bacteria cause loss of red wine color was subsequently investigated. In addition, ways to mitigate this color loss were also explored. Delaying the MLF for up to three months resulted in wines containing similar polymeric pigment and monomeric anthocyanin concentrations as the control wine. These wines however still showed loss of color at 520 nm compared to the control. Extended maceration was also investigated as a method to promote polymeric pigment formation prior to MLF. However, extended maceration did not prevent loss of color or reduced polymeric pigment formation due to MLF. In fact, extended maceration resulted in wines with lower color and polymeric pigment than wines that did not undergo an extended maceration. Addition of acetaldehyde to compensate for acetaldehyde metabolized by O. oeni during the MLF restored approximately half the color and polymeric pigment lost during MLF while no improvement in color or polymeric pigment was found with restoration of pyruvic acid. Bacterial fining of color could not account for color loss or reduced polymeric pigment formation caused by the MLF. Monomeric anthocyanin concentrations also indicated that adsorption of anthocyanins by O. oeni cell walls was minimal and had no impact on wine color. Results from this study suggest that winemakers can improve the polymeric pigment content of their wines by delaying MLF while storing wine at cool cellar temperatures to prevent microbial spoilage. Additionally, selection of high acetaldehyde producing yeast or use of
O. oeni strains that do not metabolize acetaldehyde may minimize color loss due to MLF.
Status:
The research objectives for this project have been completed and no additional funding for this project has been sought. The project was supported by AVF for its’ first year. However, it was not supported by AVF in the second year but continued anyway demonstrated promising results.
Subsequently funding was provided by the OWB to complete the final year of this project to allow completion of the stated objectives. To date, the majority of these funds have been used for
HPLC supplies, microbiological media, student labor, and winemaking supplies. The remaining funds are currently being used to employ an undergraduate researcher who is completing analysis of wines produced from a delayed MLF trial conducted at Argyle winery. Quantification of vitisin A and B is also being undertaken to determine the relative importance of vitisins versus acetaldehyde bridged polymeric pigments in the formation of stable color in Pinot noir.

Literature Cited:
Amerine, M.A. Berg, H.W. Kunkee, R.E. Ough, C.S. Singleton, V.L. Webb, A.D. 1980. The
Technology of Wine Making. Connecticut: AVI Publishing Company Inc.
Asenstorfer, R.E. Markides, A.J. Iland, P.G. Jones, G.P. 2003. Formation of vitisin A during red wine fermentation and maturation. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 9: 40-46.
Bakker, J. Timberlake, C.F. 1997. Isolation, identification and characterization of new colorstable anthocyanins occurring in some red wines. J. Ag. Food Chem. 45: 35-43.
Boido, E. Lloret, A. Medina, K. Carrau, F.Dellacassa, E. 2002. Effect of β -glycosidase activity of
Oenococcus oeni
on the glycosylated flavor precursors of Tannat wine during malolactic fermentation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50, 2344-2349.
Boulton, R.B. 2001. The copigmentation of anthocyanins and its role in the color of red wine: A review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52: 67-87.
Boulton, R.B. Neri, R. Levengood, J. Vaadia, M. 1999. Copigmentation of anthocyanins in
Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot wines from the Napa valley of California. In: Lonvaud-
Funel, A. (ed). Proc. 6 th Symposium International d’ Oenologie, Tec. & Doc. Publ.,
France.
Brouillard. R.G. Mazza, G. Saad, Z. Albrecht-Gary, A.M. Cheminat, A. 1989. The copigmentation reaction of anthocyanins: A microprobe for the structural study of aqueous solutions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 111: 2604-2610.
Cavin, J.F. Andioc, V. Etievant, P.X. Divies, C. 1993. Ability of wine lactic acid bacteria to metabolize phenol carboxylic acids. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 44: 76-80.
Cortell, J.M. Halbleib, M. Gallagher, A.V. Righetti, T.L. Kennedy, J.A. 2007. Influence of vine vigor on grape ( Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Pinot noir) anthocyanins. 2. Anthocyanins and pigmented polymers in wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55: 6585-6595.
Delaquis, P. Cliff, M. King, M. 2000. Effect of two commercial malolactic cultures on the chemical and sensory properties of Chancellor wines vinified with different yeasts and fermentation temperatures. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 51: 42-48.
Fulcrand, H. Benabdeljalil, C. Rigaud, J. Cheynier, V. Moutounet, M.A. 1998. A new class of wine pigments generated by reaction between pyruvic acid and grape anthocyanins.
Phyto. 47: 1401-1407.
Garcia-Viguera, C. Bridle, P. 1995. Analysis of non-colored phenolic compounds in red wines.
A comparison of high-performance chromatography and capillary zone electrophoresis.
Food Chem. 54: 349-352.
Giannakopoulos, P.I. Markakis, P. Howell, G.S. 1984. The influence of malolactic strain on the fermentation on wine quality of three eastern red wine grape cultivars. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
35: 1-4.
Harbertson, J.F. Picciotto, E.A. Adams, D.O. 2003. Measurement of polymeric pigments in grape berry extracts and wine using a protein precipitation assay combined with bisulfite bleaching. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 54: 301-306.
Hayasaka, Y. Birse, M. Eglinton, J. Herderich, M. 2007. The effect of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae and
Saccharomyces bayanus
yeast on colour properties and pigment profiles of Cabernet
Sauvignon red wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 13: 176-185.
Henick-Kling, T. Sandine, W.E. Heatherbell, D.A. 1989. Evaluation of malolactic bacteria isolated from Oregon wines. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55: 2010-2016.

Hernandez, T Estrella, I. Perez-Gordo, M. 2007. Contribution of malolactic fermentation by
Oenococcus oeni
and
Lactobacillus plantarum
to the changes in the nonanthocyanin polyphenolic composition of red wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55: 5260-5266.
Hernandez, T Estrella, I. Carlavilla, D. Martin-Alvarez, P.J. Moreno-Arribas, M.V. 2006.
Phenolic compounds in red wine subjected to industrial malolactic fermentation and ageing on the lees.
Husnik, JI, P.J. Delaquis, Cliff MA, et al. 2007. Functional analyses of the malolactic wine yeast
ML01. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58: 42-52
Lamuela-Raventos, R.M. Waterhouse, A.L. 1994. A direct HPLC separation of wine phenolics.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 45:1-5.
Izuagbe, Y.S. Dohman, T.P. Sandine, W.E. Heatherbell, D.A. 1985. Characterization of
Leuconostoc oenos
isolated from Oregon wines. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 50: 680-684.
McDaniel, M. Henderson, L.A. Watson, B.A. Heatherbell, D.A. 1987. Sensory panel training and screening for descriptive analysis of the aroma of Pinot noir wine fermented by several strains of malolactic bacteria. J. Sens. Studies 2: 149-167.
Morata, A. F. Calderon, Gonzalez, M.C. Gomez-Cordoves, M.C. Suarez, J.A. 2007.
Formation of highly stable pyranoanthocyanins (vitisins A and B) by the addition of pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde. Food Chem. 100: 1144-1152.
Morata, A. Gomez-Cordoves, M.C. Colomo, B. Suarez, J.A. 2003. Pyruvic acid and acetaldehyde production by different strains of
Saccharomyces
: Relationship with vitisin A and B formation in red wines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51: 7402-7409.
Osborne, J.P. Dubé Morneau, A. Mira de Orduña, R. 2006. Degradation of free and sulphur dioxide bound acetaldehyde by malolactic lactic acid bacteria in white wine. J. Appli.
Microbiol. 101: 474-479.
Osborne, J.P. Mira de Orduña, R. Pilone, G.J. Liu, S.-Q. 2000. Acetaldehyde metabolism by wine lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 191, 51-55.
Pilone, G.J. Kunkee, R.E. Webb, A.D. 1966. Chemical characterization of wines fermented with various malo-lactic bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. 14: 608-615.
Pilone, G.J. Kunkee, R.E. 1965. Sensory characterization of wines fermented with several malolactic strains of bacteria. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 16: 224-230.
Rodriguez, S.B. Amberg, E. Thornton, R.J. McLellan, M.R. 1990. Malolactic fermentation in
Chardonnay: growth and sensory effects of commercial strains of
Leuconostoc oenos
. J.
Appl. Bacteriol. 68: 139-144.
Versari, A. Boulton, R.B. Parpinello, G.P. 2008. A comparison of analytical methods for measuring the color components of red wines.
Versari, A. Parpinello, G.P. Mattioloi, A.U. 2007. Characterization of color components and polymeric pigments of commercial red wines by using selected UV-vis spectrophotometric methods. S.Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 28: 6-10.
Wibowo, D. Fleet, G.H. Lee, T.H. Eschenbruch, R.E. 1988. Factors affecting the induction of malolactic fermentation in red wines with Leuconostoc oenos . J. Appl. Bacteriol. 64:
421-428.
Zoecklein, B.W. Fugelsang, K.C. Gump, B.H. Nury, F.S. 1995. Wine Analysis and Production.
Chapman and Hall, New York.