Influence of bunch morphology on quality of wines produced from clones of grape variety Prokupac J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 81 (8) 883–895 (2016) UDC 634.853:581.4+57.03:547.973: JSCS–4894 547.918+663.251 Original scientific paper 883 Influence of bunch morphology on quality of wines produced from clones of grape variety Prokupac JELENA ŽIVKOVIĆ1*, KATARINA ŠAVIKIN1, GORDANA ZDUNIĆ1, DEJAN GOĐEVAC2, NEBOJŠA MARKOVIĆ3, ZORAN PRŽIĆ3 and NEBOJŠA MENKOVIĆ1 1Institute for medicinal plants research “Dr. Josif Pančić”, Tadeuša Košćuška 1, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, 2University of Belgrade, Institute for Chemistry, Technology and Metallurgy, Njegoševa 12, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and 3University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia (Received 14 November 2015, revised 2 April, accepted 4 April 2016) Abstract: Wine quality depends mainly on the characteristics of the grape it is made of, and one of the attributes affecting wine composition is cluster and berry morphology. The aim of this study was to represent variability of the morphological characteristics between different clones of the autochthonous grape variety Prokupac and to perform chemical evaluation of wines obtained from them. Total phenolic content was generally low and it ranged from 33.0 to 114.5 mg GAE/100 mL. Six main anthocyanin compounds including malvidin as the main anthocyanidin were detected. Malvidin 3-O-glucoside was the most abundant anthocyanin with concentration of 59.8 to 101.7 µg/mL. Clones 43/5 and 43/4 yielded highest quality wines. According to the results, clonal sel- ection makes a significant difference in Prokupac wine quality. On the other hand, there is a minor dependance of wine quality parameters to variation in morphological attributes of clusters and berries (bunch weight, proportion of stem, berry and seed weight, skin, pulp and seed weight per berry). Keywords: anthocyanins; clonal selection; malvidin 3-O-glucoside. INTRODUCTION Clonal selection is considered a very important tool for grapevine genetic improvement.1 For Vitis vinifera L. (Vitaceae), clones could be selected aiming for better grape quality attributes, stronger wine aroma and coloration, as well as genetic resistance to main pests and diseases. Clones from one grape variety can differ in their productive traits and their ability to produce wines with different organoleptic characteristics. It has been shown that some clones have the cap- * Corresponding author. E-mail: jzivkovic@mocbilja.rs doi: 10.2298/JSC151114033Z _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 884 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. acity to produce wines with distinct color, aromatic profile and phenolic con- tent.2,3 The main polyphenols present in the wine are phenolic acids, stilbenes, flav- onols, dihydroflavonols, anthocyanins, flavanol monomers (catechins) and flava- nol polymers – proanthocyanidins.4 As the phenolic acids are largely present in the berry pulp, anthocyanins and stilbenes in the berry skin, and other polyphe- nols (catechins, proanthocyanidins and flavonols) in the berry skin and seeds, the proportion of the different polyphenols in wines could vary according to the type of vinification.5 Total phenolic content, combined with total anthocyanin, pro- anthocyanidin and tannin content, are important parameters to be considered for the quality of the produced wine.6 The quantity and composition of these second- ary metabolites greatly depend on genetic factors, but their amount could also be affected by environmental factors and cultural practices, as well as berry mor- phology.7 It is widely believed by grape growers that smaller berries and lower yield produce higher quality wines due to a higher proportion of skin and seed derived compounds.8 Although wine composition can be manipulated by chang- ing berry size, growers need to balance this with the need for a high yield from well-sized berries on their vines. The southern area of Serbia has a well established tradition of viticulture and winemaking since the dominant soil types and climatic conditions of the region are very beneficial for the cultivation of vines.9 Prokupac is a Serbian auto- chthonous red wine variety, mostly spread throughout southern and central parts of Serbia, as well as in Macedonia and Bulgaria. It is characterized by the strong vigor and big yielding capacity. Its bunch could be classified as medium large, cylindrical or conical in shape, bearing medium compact, round or slightly oval berries with dark blue epidermis.10 Prokupac wine is refreshing and nicely red colored. The objective of this study was to represent the morphological variability among clones of the autochthonous variety Prokupac and make chemical eval- uation of the wines obtained from them. Major groups of compounds were eval- uated in total amounts, i.e., total phenolics, total anthocyanins, total proantho- cyanidins, and the identification and quantification of individual anthocyanins in Prokupac wines was done. The influence of grape berry morphological para- meters on the wine composition, especially anthocyanin extractability was also determined. EXPERIMENTAL Wine grape sample preparation Prokupac clones tested in this study have been allocated in vineyards cca. 100 years old from southern and central parts of Serbia. During research period (2010–2013), 26 clones were grafted and planted on Faculty of Agriculture experimental field Radmilovac, Serbia. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 885 Ministry of Agriculture of Serbia recognized 12 clones as technologically superior compared to the standard variety. Morphological analysis within each clone was performed by standard Prostoserdov method11 on 10 clusters per 10 vines separately. Firstly, weight of bunches was measured. Rachis (pedicel) from each berry was carefully separated, so that as little as possible mesocarp was left on the stem. Berry mass per bunch as well as mass of stems per bunch was measured using analytical balance. Mass of seeds and skin of 100 berries was measured using analytical balance, and number of seeds in 100 berries was determined by counting. Other parameters shown in Table 1 were obtained by calculation. Microvinification was performed in the laboratory of Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade. Harvesting was done manually. Grape crashing was done using mechanical press and crushed grapes during microvinification were stored in 10 L container. To crushed grapes 0.1 g/1 kg of sulphur was added. For microvinification process, selected Saccharomyces cerevisiae red wine yeast-BDX Lalemand was used (2.5 g/10kg of crushed grape). Each clone was tested in triplicate. Microvinification ending was detected by Oeshle mostwage when 0°Oe of sugar in must was indicated. Wine was stored in 1 L glass bottle prior to analysis. Determination of total phenolics The concentration of total phenolic compounds in wine was estimated spectrophoto- metrically using slightly modified Folin–Ciocalteu method.11 Two hundred microliters of wine (5 mg/mL 50% EtOH) were added to 1 mL of diluted Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (1:10). After 4 min, 800 μl of sodium carbonate (75 g/L) were added. The absorbance was measured after 2 h of incubation at room temperature, at 765 nm. Gallic acid (0–100 mg/L) was used for calib- ration of a standard curve. The results were expressed as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram of dry weight of fraction (mg GAE/g DW). Determination of total anthocyanins Total anthocyanin content was analyzed according to the procedure described in European Pharmacopoeia 6.0. using slight modifications.12 Wine samples were diluted (1:5) in a solution of hydrochloric acid in methanol (0.1 vol. %). The absorbance was measured at 528 nm, with 0.1% v/v solution of hydrochloric acid in methanol as the compensation liquid. The percentage content of anthocyanins was calculated as A×5000/718m (A = absorbance at 528 nm; 718 = specific absorbance of cyaniding 3-glucoside chloride at 528 nm; m = mass of the wine to be examined in grams) and expressed as cyaniding 3-glucoside chloride. The results were presented as percentages. Determination of total proanthocyanidins The content of total proanthocyanidin compounds in the samples was determined spectrophotometrically using p-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde (p-DMACA) reagent with slight modifications.13 One hundred μL of wine samples were mixed with 80 μL of p-DMACA reagent, 2 mL of methanol, and a drop of glycerol. After 7 min, the absorbance was measured at 640 nm. The content of proanthocyanidins in the samples was presented as milligrams of catechin equivalents per 100 mL of sample (mg CE/100 mL). LC–MS analysis LC–MS analysis was performed on an Agilent MSD TOF coupled to an Agilent 1200 series HPLC. Wine samples were separated on Zorbax SB-Aq column (250 mm×4.6 mm, 5μm). A gradient consisting of solvent A (10 % formic acid in water) and solvent B (aceto- nitrile) was applied at a flow rate of 1 mL min-1 as follows: 0–1 min, 1–7 % B; 1–4 min, 7 % _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 886 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. B; 4–7.5 min, 7–10 % B; 7.5–11.5 min, 10–14 % B; 11.5–15.5 min, 14–25 % B; 15.5–18.5 min, 25–40 % B; 18.5–22 min 40–75 % B; 22–25 min 75% B; 25–26 min 75–99 % B; 26–27 min, 99–1 % B. The injection volume was 10 mL. Mass spectra were acquired using an Agilent ESI-MSD TOF. The drying gas (N2) flow was 12 L min -1; the nebulizer pressure was set at 3.1 bar; the drying gas temperature was 350 °C. For ESI analysis, the parameters were as follows: capillary voltage, 4000 V; fragmentor, 140 V; skimmer, 60 V; Oct RF V 250 V, for the negative (EtOAc wine fractions) and positive modes (anthocyanins). The mass range was from 100 to 2000 m/z. Data processing was done using software Molecular Feature Extractor. HPLC-DAD analysis Analysis of anthocyanins was done using HPLC Agilent 1200 Series with UV–Vis DAD for multiwavelength detection. Wine samples were separated on Zorbax SB-Aq column (250 mm×4.6 mm, 5μm) according to the Compendium of International Methods OIV.14 Mobile phase consisting of solvent A (H2O/HCOOH/CH3CN, 87:10:3 volume ratio) and solvent B (H2O/HCOOH/CH3CN, 40:10:50 volume ratio) was applied at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min according to following gradient program: 6 to 30% B linear from 0 to 15 min, 30 to 50% B linear from 15 to 30 min, 50 to 60% B linear from 30 to 35 min, and 60 to 6% B linear from 35 to 41 min. The injection volume was 50 μL, and the column was thermostated at 40 °C. Identification was possible by monitoring anthocyanins at 520 nm and by comparing their spectra and retention times with those of commercial standards. Quantification was done using calibration curves of authentic standards. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was carried out using the software package Statistica, v. 7.0. Data are presented as the mean values ± standard deviation from three independent measurements. The variation in chemical parameters was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and differences between clones were estimated with Duncan test (p < 0.05). Correlations were considered statistically significant, if the p-value was less than 0.05. Hierarchical cluster analysis was applied for finding relatively homogenous clusters of cases based on measured characteristics. Differences between classes were tested with average Euclidean distances using the ward method. Results of hierarchical clustering process were represented as den- drogram. Relationship between individual anthocyanins and total compounds were determined by principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Morphological characteristics of Prokupac clones Some of the viticultural characteristics that make distinct clones include berry and cluster morphology as well as final yield. The same characteristics are also widely recognized as factors influencing the winegrape quality15. There are numerous factors, besides genetics that can affect berry size and the composition of grapes and wines like water status, cultural practices or annual weather con- ditions.16 In our study, since all the samples were grown under the same condi- tions, the differences in morphological parameters were mainly the outcome of genetic factors. The results of basic morphological characteristics for the tested Prokupac clones are presented in Table I. Although not statistically significant, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 887 minor differences were observed among clones for investigated morphological parameters. Clone 42/2 had the lowest bunch weight (145.30 g) and clone 41/1 the _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 888 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 889 highest (224.78 g). The bunch structure is defined through percent of bunch stem (rachis) and percent of berries in a bunch. Clone 42/2 also had the highest pro- portion of bunch stem (5.48%), but the lowest proportion of berries (94.52%) in a bunch. On the contrary, clone 43/2 had the lowest proportion of stem (3.08 %) and the highest proportion of berries (96.92 %). The seed mass was uniform (0.03 g) for most of the samples with the exception of clone 41/3 that was slightly larger (0.04 g). In relation to the values of berry structural composition expressed as skin, seed and pulp weight, the highest values were recorded for skin of clone 40/5, seeds of clones 40/8 and 43/7 and pulp of clones 40/8 and 41/3. According to the results, Prokupac berries are comprised of approximately 5 % skin, 2.5 % seed and 97.5 % flesh. Generally, the proportion of skin to seed is smaller than in Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines where relative skin mass varied between 15 and 20 % and relative seed mass between 4 and 6 %;17 or in the Chardonnay variety where skin proportion in berry weight was 16%.18 For the increasing berry size, the ratio of seed weight/berry weight decreased, while we have not observed any pattern for skin weight/berry mass ratio. Wine phenolic composition After microvinification process, produced wine samples of the investigated clones were further analysed using spectrophotometric methods. Phenolic compounds are of considerable oenological cultivar potential and play a key role in estimating the quality of wine. The amount of total phenolics in the wines obtained from 13 clones of autochtonous grape variety Prokupac are presented in Table II. The values ranged from 33.0 (clone 40/8) to 114.5 (clone 43/4) mg GAE/100 mL and statistically significant (F = 55.09, p < 0.001) differ- ence was noticed between tested clones. Previously, a significant difference in total phenolic content between wines produced from Cabernet Sauvignon clones 169 and 685 cultivated in Brazil was reported by Burin et al.2 The phenolic composition is primarily dependent of the grape cultivar and oenological practices, and for young red wines it ranges between 100 and 500 mg/100 mL.19 According to previous results,20 among the wines produced from different cultivars (Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Prokupac) the lowest phenolic content was found in the wine from the native cultivar Prokupac. Depending on the applied winemaking technology, total phenolic content in Pro- kupac wines varied from 54.4–115.9 mg GAE/100 mL, which is in accordance with our results. In Balkan countries, the most similar results of total phenolic contents in red wines compared to our Prokupac clone wines reported Kallithraka et al.21 for Greek red wines, where the values ranged from 62.2–320.0 mg GAE/mL. Šeruga et al.22 reported slightly greater values (101.2–326.4 mg GAE/mL) for Croatian red wines. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 890 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 891 The principal source of red color in wine comes from its anthocyanin con- tent. In grape berries anthocyanins are found mainly in the skin, while pulp con- tains little or no anthocyanins.Since anthocyanins are primarily responsible for the red wine color, they were extensively studied in order to identify the environ- mental impacts and genetic effects on their synthesis in the berry skin and accu- mulation in the wine.23–25 Also, they were used for chemotaxonomic purposes with the goal of classifying red-grape varieties and the red wines made from them.26 The amounts of total anthocyanins in wines obtained from 13 clones of autochtonous grape variety Prokupac are presented in Table II. Same as for the total phenolics, statisticaly significant (F = 2.58, p < 0.05) difference among total anthocyanins content between wines produced from different clones was rep- orted. The smallest amount of total anthocyanins (0.006 %) was measured in the clone 40/8 while the most value (0.015 %) was noticed in the clone 43/4 where the highest level of total phenolic content was also observed. Tannins in the wine, which are mainly responsible for its bitterness and ast- ringency are composed of proanthocyanidins localized in the grape skin and seeds. While skin proanthocyanidins are larger polymers contained primarily of epigallocatechin, seed proanthocyanidins are smaller molecules with higher pro- portion of galloylated subunits.16 The amounts of total proanthocyanidins in the wines obtained from investigated Prokupac clones are presented in Table II. The total proanthocyanidin content of red wines averaged at 17.5 mg/100 mL,27 which is significantly lower compared to Prokupac wines investigated in this study. The smallest amount was recorded in the clone 40/8 (20.41 mg cat- echin/100 mL) which also had the lowest amount of total phenolics. The highest amount (80.11 mg catechin/100 mL) was observed in clone 43/5, one of the rich- est in total phenolics. Same as in the case of total phenolics and total antho- cyanins, statisticaly significant (F = 142.93, p < 0.001) difference was noticed for total proanthocyanidins among tested wine samples. Significant correlation was found between total phenolics and total anthocyanins as well as between total anthocyanins and total proanthocyanidins. HPLC analysis The anthocyanins were tentatively identified using LC/MS and since the standard compounds were not available, the concentrations of detected com- pounds were expressed as aglycones. Six main anthocyanin compounds (Table II) were identified and malvidin was the main anthocyanidin present. Actually, malvidin 3-O-glucoside (the most abundant anthocyanin ranging from 59.8– –101.7 µg/mL), malvidin 3-O-(6-O-acetyl)hexoside and malvidin 3-O-(6-O-cou- maroyl)hexoside were found. Previous results showed that those are the pre- dominant anthocyanins for Vitis vinifera wines.28,29 Moreover, in our investig- ation, other anthocyanins were also detected: delphinidin 3-O-glucoside, peoni- _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 892 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. din 3-O-hexoside and peonidin 3-O-(6-O-acetyl)hexoside. In the tested wine samples the group of anthocyanin monoglycosides represented the highest pro- portion of anthocyanins varying from 67.90 (clone 43/5) to 83.10 % (clone 42/2), followed by the acetyl derivatives varying from 11.79 (clone 43/7) to 21.46 % (clone 43/5) and p-coumaroyl glucosides at 6.21 (clone 41/6) to 10.64 % (clone 43/5). Although in red wines of different grape varieties derivatives of cyanidin were detected,30,31 our Prokupac wine samples did not contain that aglycon or its derivatives. Variation in the amount of individual phenolics in wines obtained from the same grape variety were noticed by other authors. For example, Van Leeuw et al.32 showed large variability in the levels of individual phenolic compounds as well as in antioxidant capacity in 38 different wine samples obtained from clones of four main grape varieties. The typical concentration of free anthocyanins in full bodied red wines is approximately 50 mg/100 mL, but in some cases could be higher than 200 mg/100 mL.33 For our tested wine samples the content of total anthocyanins cal- culated by HPLC analysis ranged from 78.30 (clone 43/7) to 143.80 (clone 40/6). Hierarchical cluster analysis was also employed in order to investigate the relationship between the samples and produce a tree diagram.34 Based on mean values for the investigated chemical parameters (TP, TPR, TA and contents of individual anthocyanin compounds) we designed a dendrogram of phenotypic differences for the examined Prokupac clones. As proximity measures of average linkage between groups, we used Euclidean distances. Two distant clusters were detected (Fig. 1). Five clones were classified in cluster I (41/1, 41/2, 40/6, 43/5 and 43/4), while cluster II containing 8 clones can be divided into two subgroups (subgroup I – 40/5, 42/2, 43/6, 41/6, 43/7 and subgroup II – 40/8, 41/3 and 43/2). The minimum distance was observed between clones 40/5 and 42/2. According to cluster analysis regarding morphological characteristics of the tested clones, these two samples were very distant. In order to determine any relation among the investigated samples and to identify the variables that could discriminate among clones, principal component analysis (PCA) was also performed (Fig. 2). The obtained results showed that from nine principal components, the first two having eigenvalues greater than one are sufficient to explain 85.02 % of the total variability observed. The first principal component presented 58.19 % of the variation and was mostly due to the content of detected individual anthocyanins, which were positively correl- ated, while the second principal component accounted for 26.83 % of the vari- ation and was mostly due to the content of total phenolics, total proanthocyan- idins and total anthocyanins. The wines grouped on the right side of the diagram (obtained from clones 40/5, 40/8, 41/6, 42/2, 43/2, 43/6 and 43/7) were charact- erized by lower levels of individual anthocyanins. The vertical separation obs- _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 893 erved along PC2 is caused by lower content of total phenolics, total anthocyanins and total proanthocyanidins in wines obtained from clones 40/8, 41/1, 41/3, 41/6, 43/2 and 41/2. Fig. 1. Cluster dendrogram of the wines obtained from 13 clones of Serbian autochthonous grape variety “Prokupac” based on their chemical characteristics. Fig. 2. Scatterplot of the first two principal components (PC1 vs. PC2) for Prokupac wine samples. Correlation analysis The grape berries typically contain non-flavonoid compounds in the pulp and flavonoid compounds in the skin, seeds and stem.35 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 894 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. The results of correlation analysis showed that there is a poor response of quality parameters to variation in morphological parameters. Total phenolics did not show significant correlation to investigated morphological parameters. This is in accordance with the results obtained by Poni et al.36 They showed that the size of a grape berry has no influence on the wine composition. On the other hand, Walker et al.37 found a difference in the anthocyanin concentration and wine color only for the smallest size class. Anthocyanins are located in the skin cells, in free form inside the vacuoles. They become diluted by sap released from the berry flesh upon crushing.17 In our study, low correlation was found between berry weight and total anthocyanin content in the tested wines, as well as between the skin weight per berry and the total anthocyanin content. Such low correlation could be explained by the fact that during maceration, anthocyanins are remained in the berry skin due to mechanical properties of skin cell walls and low extractability.24 Romero-Cascales et al.38 found a higher concentration of anthocyanins in smaller Monastrel berries compared to bigger ones, but these two berry categ- ories were from different localities. Similarly, wine made from smaller berries had higher concentration of anthocyanins and tannins compared to the wine obtained from intermediate or large berries. Also, Gil et al.16 found that total phenolic index, anthocyanins, hydroxycinnamic acids as well as the stilbene con- centration increase when berry size decreases. In the same study, the smount of individual anthocyanins obtained by HPLC did not show any specific trend for the wines made from different sized berries. On the other hand, for Cabernet Sauvignon the relationship between berry size and fruit composition parameters (including total anthocyanins) was not direct, Calderon-Orellana et al.39 Matth- ews and Nuzzo40 concluded that viticultural practices used to control yield in a vineyard may be more important than the yield or berry size values per se in determining the quality of the resulting grapes and wines. Although the majority of flavan-3-ol monomers in wine come from the seeds, low correlation was observed between the seed weight per berry and pro- anthocyanidin content in the wine. Due to their chemical composition, skin and pulp cell walls may adsorb proanthocyanidins. Cell walls are composed of 90% polysaccharides and 10% structural proteins. Due to their hydroxyl groups, aro- matic and glycosidic oxygen atoms, cell wall polysaccharides are capable of forming hydrogen bonds and establishing hydrophobic interactions with some molecules, proanthocyanidins among them.41 CONCLUSION According to our results, clonal selection makes a significant difference in Prokupac wine quality. Clones 43/5 and 43/4 were marked as those from which wines with the highest quality (in terms of total phenolics, total anthocyanins and _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ BERRY MORPHOLOGY INFLUENCE WINE QUALITY? 895 total proanthocyanidins) were obtained. No significant differences in berry mor- phology were observed. Very distinct differences in the quality of Prokupac wines were noted that were obviously not related to morphological parameters of the Prokupac clones. Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge their gratitude to the Ministry of Edu- cation, Science and Technological Development of Serbia for financial support, project numbers 46013, 31063 and 43007. И З В О Д УТИЦАЈ МОРФОЛОГИЈЕ БОБИЦА ГРОЖЂА НА КВАЛИТЕТ ВИНА ПРОИЗВЕДЕНОГ ОД КЛОНОВА СОРТЕ ПРОКУПАЦ JЕЛЕНА ЖИВКОВИЋ1, КАТАРИНА ШАВИКИН1, ГОРДАНА ЗДУНИЋ1, ДЕЈАН ГОЂЕВАЦ2, НЕБОЈША МАРКОВИЋ3, ЗОРАН ПРЖИЋ3 и НЕБОЈША МЕНКОВИЋ1 1Институт за проучавање лековитог биља „Др Јосиф Панчић“, Тадеуша Кошћушка 1, 11000 Београд, 2Универзитет у Београду, Институт за хемију, технологију и металургију, Његошева 12, 11000 Београд и 3Универзитет у Београду, Пољопривредни факултет, Немањина 6, 11080, Београд Квалитет вина зависи од бројних карактеристика грожђа од ког је добијено, између осталих и од морфологије грозда и бобице. Циљ ове студије био је да представи варија- билност морфолошких карактеристика различитих клонова аутохтоне сорте прокупац и да испита хемијски састав вина добијеног од њих. Садржај укупних фенола био је гене- рално низак и варирао је од 33,0 до 114,5 mg GAE/100 mL. Идентификовано је шест главних антоцијана са малвидином као доминантним антоцијанидином. Малвидин-3-О- -глукозид је најзаступљенији међу њима са садржајем од 59,8 до 101,7 μg/mL. Клонови 43/5 и 43/4 су означени као они од којих се добијају најквалитетнија вина. Према нашим резултатима клонска селекција доводи до значајних разлика у квалитету вина сорте прокупац. Са друге стране, мала је зависност одређиваних секундарних метаболита у вину од морфолошких карактеристика гроздова и бобица (маса грозда, удео шепурине, маса бобице и семенке и удео корe, пулпе и семенке у маси бобице). (Примљено 14. новембра 2015, ревидирано 2. априла, прихваћено 4. априла 2016) REFERENCES 1. V. Rakonjac, S. Tadić, Z. Bešlić, N. Korać, N. Marković, Genetika (Belgrade, Serb.) 42 (2010) 415 2. V. M. Burin, L. L. F. Costa, J. P. Rosier, M. T. Bordignon-Luiz, LWT–Food Sci. Technol. 44 (2011) 1931 3. V. M. Burin, A. L. Da Silva, L. I. Malinovski, J. P. Rosier, L. D. Falcao, M. T. Bordignon-Luiz, Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 46 (2011) 474 4. L. Zhu, Y. Zhang, J. Deng, H. Li, J. Lu, Molecules 17 (2012) 3304 5. A. Teixeira, J. Eiras-Dias, S. D. Castellarin, H. Gerós, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 14 (2013) 18711 6. A. E. Mylona, A. Bimpilas, D. Tsimogiannis, V. Oreopoulou, Food Sci. Biotechnol. 22 (2013) 1515 7. A. Sofo, V. Nuzzo, G. Tataranni, M. Manfra, M. De Nisco, A. Scopa, J. Plant Physiol. 169 (2012) 1023 8. T. Košmerl, L. Bertalanič, V. Maraš, V. Kadžulović, S. Šućur, H. Abramovič, Food Sci. Technol. 1 (2013) 7 9. N. Menković, J. Živković, K. Šavikin, D. Gođevac, G. Zdunić, J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 79 (2014) 11 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ 896 ŽIVKOVIĆ et al. 10. N. Marković, Z. Atanacković, Agroznanje 14 (2013) 171 11. P. Waterman, S. Mole, Analysis of Phenolic Plant Metabolites, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford, 1994, p. 16 12. European Pharmacopoeia, 6th ed., Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2007 13. Y. G. Li, G. Tanner, P. Larkin, J. Sci. Food Agric. 70 (1996) 89 14. International Organisation of Vine and Wine, OIV Compendium of International Methods of Analysis of Wine and Must, Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, Paris, 2013 15. E. Ivorra, A. J. Sánchez, J. G. Camarasa, M. P. Diago, J. Tardaguila, Food Control 50 (2015) 273 16. M. Gil, O. Pascual, S. Gómez-Alonso, E. Garciá-Romero, I. Hermosín-Gutiérrez, F. Zamora, J. M. Canals, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 21 (2015) 200 17. G. Roby, M. A. Matthews, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 10 (2004) 74 18. M. P. Serratosa, A. Marquez, L. Moyano, L. Zea, J. Merida, Food Chem. 159 (2014) 128 19. J. W. Costin, N. W. Barnett, S. W. Lewis, D. J. McGillivery, Anal. Chim. Acta 499 (2003) 47 20. M. Atanacković, A. Petrović, S. Jović, L. G. Bukarica, M. Bursać, J. Cvejić, Food Chem. 131 (2012) 513 21. S. Kallithraka, E. Tsoutsouras, E. Tzourou, P. Lanaridis, Food Chem. 99 (2006) 784 22. M. Šeruga, I. Novak, L. Jakobek, Food Chem. 124 (2011) 1209 23. A. Ortega-Regules, I. Romero-Cascales, J. M. Lopez-Roca, J. M. Ros-Garcia, E. Gomez- Plaza, J. Sci. Food Agric. 86 (2006) 1460 24. K. Mori, N. Goto-Yamamoto, M. Kitayam, K. Hashizume, J. Exp. Bot. 58 (2007) 1935 25. K. Koyama, H. Ikeda, P. R. Poudel, N. Goto-Yamamoto, Phytochemistry 78 (2012) 54 26. A. Ferrandino, S. Guidoni, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 230 (2010) 417 27. F. He, Q. H. Pan, Y. Shi, C. Q. Duan, Molecules 13 (2008) 3007 28. Z. Liang, B. Wu, P. Fan, C. Yang, W. Duan, X. Zheng, C. Liu, S. Li, Food Chem. 111 (2008) 837 29. P. Cook Papini, G. Mazza, M. Gatti, L. Bavaresco, Vitis 49 (2010) 121 30. M. Fanzone, F. Zamora, V. Jofre, M. Assof, C. Gómez-Cardovés, A. Peña-Neira, J. Sci. Food Agric. 92 (2012) 704 31. A. Soriano, P. M. Pérez-Juan, A. Vicario, J. M. González, M. S. Pérez-Coello, Food Chem. 104 (2007) 1295 32. R. Van Leeuw, C. Kevers, J. Pincemail, J. O. Defraigne, J. Domme, J. Food Compos. Anal. 36 (2014) 40 33. F. He, N. N. Liang, L. Mu, Q. H. Pan, J. Wang, M. J. Reeves, C. Q. Duan, Molecules, 17 (2012) 1571 34. M. A. Cliff, M. C. King, J. Schlosser, Food Res. Int. 40 (2007) 92 35. J. Mulero, G. Martínez, J. Oliva, S. Cermeño, J. M. Cayuela, P. Zafrilla, Food Chem. 180 (2015) 25 36. S. Poni, F. Bernizzoni, S. Civardi, N. Libelli, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 15 (2009) 185 37. R. R. Walker, D. H. Blackmore, P. R. Clingeleffer, G. H. Kerridge, E. H. Rühl, P. R. Nicholas, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 11 (2005) 2 38. I. Romero-Cascales, A. Ortega-Regules, J. M. Lopez-Roca, J. J. Fernandez-Fernandez, E. Gomez-Plaza, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56 (2005) 212 39. A. Calderon-Orellana, M. A. Matthews, W. M. Drayton, K. A. Shackel, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 65 (2014) 81 40. M. A. Matthews, V. Nuzzo, Acta Hortic. 754 (2007) 423 41. A. B. Bautista-Ortín, M. Cano-Lechuga, Y. Ruiz-Garcia, E. Gómez-Plaza, Food Chem. 152 (2014) 558. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (CC) 2016 SCS. All rights reserved. Available on line at www.shd.org.rs/JSCS/ << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice