1. Introduction
Cabernet Sauvignon, a globally highly esteemed red wine grape variety, is celebrated for its complex aromatic profile, which significantly influences consumer perception and preference. Such complexity arises from a multitude of volatile compounds, including esters, alcohols, acids, terpenes, and norisoprenoids, synthesized through grape metabolism (primary aromas), fermentation processes (secondary aromas), and chemical reactions while aging (tertiary aromas) [1,2,3,4]. Thus, understanding the volatilome, the complete set of volatile compounds, of Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) is essential for enhancing wine quality and tailoring sensory attributes to meet market demands [5,6,7,8,9].
Primary aromas are described as floral and fruity, while secondary aromas arise from metabolism by yeast, and the aromas formed as byproducts of lactic acid bacteria in malolactic fermentation (MLF) have buttery, creamy, and lactic descriptors; tertiary aromas are described as complex aromas, comprising wood, spices, caramel, and smoke [1,2,3]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the principal yeast species used in winemaking, converts sugars into ethanol and contributes to the formation of a diverse array of volatile compounds, mainly esters and higher alcohols, that define a wine’s aroma [3,4,10]. The selection of specific yeast strains can influence the concentration and composition of these volatiles, allowing winemakers to modulate sensory characteristics [10]. For instance, different commercial yeast strains have been shown to produce varying levels of ethyl esters and higher alcohols, leading to distinct fruity and floral notes in the final product [7,11,12]. Also, winemakers are focusing on mixed cultures of Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces to enhance floral and fruity aromas, reduce off-aromatic compounds, improve the nitrogen content in must, and take advantage of their β-glucosidase and proteolytic activities [13,14,15]. Furthermore, the role of yeast in shaping wine’s pyrazine content, a compound associated with green and herbaceous aromas, has been highlighted in recent studies, illustrating how strain choice can mitigate or enhance these sensory attributes [16].
Terroir encompasses the unique combination of soil, climate, topography, and vineyard microbial biodiversity, profoundly affecting the grape composition and, consequently, the wine’s volatilome [17,18,19]. In recent years, warmer temperatures and lower water availability have impacted the grapevine vegetative cycle and, consequently, grape maturation, which increased the sugar content, decreased the flavonoid content and titratable acidity, and therefore led to a higher pH. A fermentative technique to reduce alcohol content in wine due to a high sugar content consists of using Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeasts that are able to metabolize sugars through other pathways producing organic acids and aromatic compounds [13,20,21]. The microbial terroir, mainly native yeast populations on grape surfaces and in the winery environment, contributes to the distinctive aromatic qualities of wines from different regions [22]. Studies have demonstrated that autochthonous S. cerevisiae strains can enhance regional wine characteristics by producing unique volatile profiles compared to commercial strains [23,24]. Additionally, the interaction between terroir and winemaking techniques, such as fermentation temperature and yeast inoculation, plays a significant role in determining the final wine aromatic expression. Terroir influence extends to non-volatile precursors transformed during fermentation, further enhancing wine’s complexity [19,22,25].
Quality control during winemaking is crucial to ensure consistency and quality in the final product. Volatilomic analysis through advanced analytical techniques, such as gas chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC-qTOF-MS), enables the precise identification and quantification of volatile compounds. This analytical approach facilitates the assessment of fermentation dynamics, the impact of yeast strain selection, and the influence of terroir on wine aroma. By implementing volatilomic analyses, winemakers can make informed decisions to optimize fermentation conditions, select appropriate yeast strains, and implement quality control measures that enhance the desired aromatic properties of Cabernet Sauvignon wines [5,23,26,27]. Complements of GC-qTOF-MS with other advanced methods, such as liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-qTOF-MS), can help to identify non-volatile precursors of aromatic compounds to further deepen our wine chemistry understanding [28].
In addition to yeast and terroir, post-fermentation processes, including malolactic fermentation and aging, contribute significantly to the volatilome. Malolactic fermentation, often carried out by lactic acid bacteria, reduces wine acidity and adds buttery and nutty aromas by producing diacetyl and other volatiles [29]. Aging in oak barrels or stainless steel further influences the wine’s aromatic profile by introducing compounds such as vanillin, lactones, and tannins, which enhance its complexity and structure [30]. The integration of these processes underlines the importance of a holistic approach to winemaking, where each step plays a role in shaping the wine’s final aromatic profile.
This study analyzed the volatilome and sensorial profiles of Cabernet Sauvignon wines from the same wine region, fermented with three different commercial S. cerevisiae yeast strains. Statistical analysis using principal component analysis (PCA) was successfully applied to identify entities that influence the strain wine composition. This study aimed to elucidate how yeast strain selection influences the composition of volatile compounds, focusing on aromatic properties and the expression of terroir in the wines.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Cabernet Sauvignon Young Wines
Commercial vinification of young dry Cabernet vintage 2021 wines from San Vicente Valley (Ensenada, Mexico) was achieved by two wineries. Three commercial yeasts, WLP740 (White Labs, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), ICVD80, and ICVD254 (LALLEMAND, Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada), were inoculated (as suggested by the manufacturer) for alcoholic fermentation (AF) in stainless steel tanks, with a controlled temperature, and pumping over two times per day (Table 1). After AF, the must was pressed and transferred to another steel tank for malolactic fermentation (MF), then it was stabilized, bottled, and sealed with a natural cork. Wine samples were collected (two 750 mL bottles per tank) and stored under wine cellar conditions (16–18 °C and relative humidity of 80%) until sensory analysis. Upon bottle opening, volatilome samples were collected in 50 mL tubes and stored at −50 °C until analyzed.
2.2. Volatilome Analysis
2.2.1. Data Acquisition (HS-SPME-GC-qTOF/MS)
Wine samples were analyzed in triplicate using a 7890B GC System (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), coupled to an autosampler PAL3 System with a head-space solid-phase micro-extraction (HS-SPME) module (CTC Analytics AG, Zwingen, Switzerland), attached to a 7200 quadrupole-time-to-flight mass spectrometer (qTOF/MS) (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). A 50/30 µm DVB/CAR/PDMS Stable Flex fiber (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) was used for volatile extraction. The chromatographic separation of the volatile wines was performed on a DB-WAX (30 m/250 µm/0.25 µm) GC column (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Detailed parameters are specified in our previous work [5]. Briefly, 10 mL of sample and 3 g of NaCl were added to a 20 mL amber SPME glass vial and sealed with an aluminum cap and an 18 mm blue PTFE/silicone septum (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Sample extraction was performed at 40 °C/30 min after conditioning at 40 °C/5 min; desorption was completed at 240 °C/10 min in splitless mode; for separation, the flow rate was set at 0.8 mL/min using He as carrier gas (RT locked with 2-Undecanone at 35.461 min). The oven’s initial temperature was at 40 °C for 5 min, increasing 3 °C/min to 180 °C, then 30 °C/min to 220 °C for 10 min; detection was set in a mass range of 30 to 400 amu at an acquisition rate of 2.5 spectra/s, 70 eV with an electron ionization (EI) source at 230 °C in profile mode.
2.2.2. Quality Control
Quality control (QC) was assessed by analyzing pooled wine (PW) and pooled wine spiked (PWS) with 2.5 ng/L of α-pinene, p-cymene (Honeywell Fluka™, Morristown, NJ, USA), β-pinene, and 2-undecanone (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) standards. PW and PWS were analyzed at the beginning, middle, and end of each batch sequence. Mass calibration was also performed initially and after running five samples to ensure mass accuracy. Samples were analyzed in triplicate and randomized.
2.2.3. Data Processing/Mining and Identification
A recursive analysis was performed (explained in detail in [5]) using Agilent Mass Hunter WorkStation Unknowns Analysis software version 10.0 to perform the extraction, alignment, and identification of components present in all wine samples. The Accurate Mass Flavours Database [31] and NIST 17 were used to identify components and to create an internal database with the Retention Time (RT), Retention Index (RI), compound name, and mass spectrum with the exact mass to ease component extraction, alignment, and identification (level 2 and 4, as proposed by Sumner et al., 2007 [32]). Level 2 identification was assigned when the match factor was >70, exact-mass accuracy < 20 ppm of the mass spectrum, and ΔRI < 30; if one of these criteria was not met, the component was identified as Unknown + RI, which is classified as a level 4 identification.
2.2.4. Data Analysis and Interpretation
Extracted, aligned, and identified components were imported to Agilent Mass-Hunter WorkStation Mass Profiler Professional version 15.0 for data interpretation and analysis. A completely randomized design was considered; samples were grouped by yeast (WLP740, ICVD80, and ICVD254), normalized with Median Fold Change (PQN) using PW, and the baseline was transformed with Pareto scaling. A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on all entities present in at least 60% of all samples in at least one group, using analysis of variance, covariance, and standard deviations. Also, a Venn diagram was made to obtain all the entities shared by the yeasts, and a one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD test (p < 0.05) was performed; relative abundance data were represented as a stacked column chart made in Microsoft Excel version 2025.
2.3. Sensory Analysis
A descriptive double-blind sensorial analysis was performed by a panel of six winemakers (6 to 45 years of experience) in a tasting room at the Autonomous University of Baja California, Ensenada Campus. The tasting room was fitted with black curtains, and panelists’ seats were distributed in such a way as to avoid communication between them. To reduce wine color bias on odor and aroma descriptors, red lights were placed above each seat. Wine samples (50 mL) were served in standard wine glasses in a randomized order. Global quality (GQ) parameters were determined in three different categories: (a) nose parameters (odor intensity and odor complexity); (b) mouthfeel parameters (aroma intensity, aroma complexity, equilibrium and body, aromatic persistence); and (c) visual parameters (hue and color intensity). Quantitative parameters were evaluated on a 7-level scale, as described elsewhere [33], where 1 is “null quality” and 7 is “maximum quality”; meanwhile, qualitative parameters (descriptors) were modified to fit Cabernet Sauvignon wines in a Check All That Apply (CATA) method (Table S1). Verbally informed consent was obtained from the panelists for their participation and their consent to publish this paper. The sensory analysis procedure was established following the recommendations of [33]. Panelists’ training on the procedure was accomplished with aged Cabernet Sauvignon wines from San Vicente Valley as a preliminary study. Descriptive analysis and a one-way ANOVA were performed to evaluate the effect of yeast type on the global quality score, and the comparison of means was performed by Tukey’s test at a significance of p < 0.05, using NCSS 2007 Software (Kaysville, UT, USA).
2.4. Tasting Panel
The sensory panel consisted of six wine experts (five males and one female), including enologists and winemakers, with 6 to 45 years of professional experience and ages ranging from 40 to 66 years. To ensure quality control in the sensory evaluation, the first sample was presented again at the end of the session. Panelist repeatability was required to meet a threshold of less than 15% relative standard deviation (RSD) and a standard deviation below 1 in GQ scores. Based on these criteria, one panelist (Panelist 4) was disqualified from the analysis (Table 2).
3. Results
3.1. Volatilome
Volatilome analysis of young Cabernet Sauvignon wines from San Vicente Valley fermented with commercial yeast strains revealed a total of 100 entities (Table 3). Wines fermented with ICVD254 showed 87 entities, compared to 75 in ICVD80 and 72 in WLP740. Interestingly, each wine exhibited unique compounds; 16 were exclusive to ICVD254 (including five Unknown components), 5 were unique to ICVD80, and 6 were unique to WLP740. A shared core of 61 compounds was found across all wine samples, although relative abundance varied (Table 3).
Principal component analysis (PCA) grouped wines according to the yeast strain, explaining 66.23% of the total variance (PC1= 36.21% and PC2 = 30.02%), underscoring the impact of yeast on volatile profiles (Figure 1a). The distribution of compound loadings (Figure 1b) and their sensorial attributes allowed for the interpretation of PCA quadrants. PC1 score was related to less favorable aromas for young wines, meanwhile PC2 was related to floral and fruity characteristics. The PC1-/PC2- quadrant comprises fruity, floral, butter, and sharp aromas; PC1+/PC2- comprises balsamic, fresh, lemon, and orange; PC1-/PC2+ has sweeter characteristics, such as apple and banana; lastly, PC1+/PC2+ yielded fresh, citrus, and balsamic characteristics (Supplementary Materials, Table S2). This classification indicates that wines fermented with WLP740 exhibited more floral, fruity, and buttery notes, while ICVD254 wines were richer in balsamic and fresh characteristics. ICVD80 wines displayed a profile similar to ICVD254, but with a higher abundance of fruity and floral metabolites (Figure 1a). The most abundant compounds per yeast were ethyl acetate (#2) for WLP740, 2-phenylethanol (#94) for ICVD80, and Unknown 1212 (#19) for ICVD254. Notably, Unknown 1212 was detected only in ICVD254 wines and may be tentatively identified as 3-methyl-1-butanol (level 4 identification by Sumner et al., 2007 [32]) when comparing its mass fragmentation and Retention Index with the NIST Chemistry WebBook [34].
Several unique compounds in ICVD254 (level 2 identification, Sumner et al., 2007 [32]) such as D-limonene (#18), ethyl 3-hexanoate (#28), and 3-ethoxy-1-propanol (#32), which present fruity, citrus, green, leafy, and rum-like aromas, appeared during alcoholic fermentation and persisted through vinification. Similarly, these compounds, including Unknown 1212, were absent in the musts and wines of ICVD80 and WLP740. Conversely, compounds such as 3-methylbutyl decanoate (#90; waxy, banana, fruity, cheesy) and octanoic acid (#97; fatty, oily) were exclusive to ICVD80, while WLP740 wines uniquely featured methyl hexanoate (#17; fruity, pineapple, strawberry) and isopentyl 3-methylbutyrate (#27; apple, mango), along with 2,3-pentanedione (#11; butter, caramel), 1-heptanol (#47; coconut, herbal), and methyl decanoate (#65; floral, fruity).
The abundance of volatile compounds, their interaction with the wine matrix, and their odor thresholds are critical to the wine’s aromatic profile [2]. While unique compounds highlight the impact of specific yeast strains, common metabolites likely reflect the influence of terroir, encompassing grape origin, fermentation, and vinification techniques [17,19,22]. The 61 compounds common to all wines are therefore attributed to Cabernet Sauvignon wines from San Vicente. Although different commercial yeasts were used, yeast-derived esters often have a greater impact on varietal differentiation than fruit-derived esters [35]. Also, some varietal aromas only emerge during fermentation due to the hydrolysis of carbohydrate-bound precursors [36]. ICVD80 wines showed significantly higher concentrations (p < 0.05) of compounds such as ethyl 3-methyl butyrate (#12), ethyl dl-2-hydroxy caproate (#59), ethyl decanoate (#70), 1-nonanol (#71), diethyl succinate (#73), 3-(methylthio)-1-propanol (#77), benzyl alcohol (#91), ethyl isopropyl succinate (#92), and 2-phenylethanol (#94). In contrast, ethyl formate (#1), isobutyl alcohol (#13), 1-hexanol (#34), Unknown 1527 (#53), and 4-ethylphenol (#98) were significantly more abundant in ICVD254 wines (Figure 2).
Overall, 32 compounds were discriminated between wines fermented with ICVD254, ICVD80, and WLP740 (p < 0.05, Figure 3). Notably, 1-hexanol (#34) and 4-ethylphenol (#98) were most abundant in ICVD254 wines (p < 0.001). These compounds are associated with balsamic, phenolic, smoky, and creamy notes, with minor fruity or floral nuances at lower concentrations. Compounds such as ethyl formate (#1), ethyl heptanoate (#31), and trans-3-hexen-1-ol (#35) followed a similar trend, with the highest abundance in ICVD254, moderate abundance in ICVD80, and the lowest abundance in WLP740.
3.2. Sensory Analysis
The sensory evaluation assessed the global quality (GQ) of wines based on nasal (odor) and retronasal (aroma) intensity and complexity, as well as balance, body, aromatic persistence, and color (Table 4). The global quality of wines can be assessed as maximum quality (6.17–7.00), very high quality (5.31–6.15), high quality (4.46–5.30), medium quality (3.61–4.45), low quality (2.76–3.60), very low quality (1.91–2.75), and null quality (1.00–1.90) based on their quantitative scores.
Descriptive analysis focused on aromatic markers of each wine. All samples prominently exhibited berry notes in both odor and aroma, with overall similarities in olfactory perception but greater differences in retronasal complexity. Wine balance—defined as the harmonious relationship among its sensory components—is essential for consumer acceptance. While typically linked to sweetness, acidity, bitterness, and saltiness, wine balance also includes astringency and alcoholic sensations [37] (Figure 4). In this context, wines fermented with WLP740 had greater balance compared to those fermented with ICVD80 and ICVD254.
4. Discussion
Volatilomics is a relatively new term used in metabolomics to elucidate a wide range of volatile metabolites [8]. Its application in wine has grown significantly, as its relation to sensory profiling is widely reported in [7,38]. Young Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) wines are typically described as tannic, complex, and structured with good balance and acidity. Their aromatic profiles, referred to as varietal characteristics, commonly include black currant, green bell pepper, mint, cassis, and sometimes eucalyptus notes [39]. These sensory profiles are influenced by the region of cultivation, vinification techniques [26,27,40], and microbial activity, mainly fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae species. However, the volatilomic impact of both commercial and non-commercial strains remains insufficiently explored [23,25,41,42]. In this study, CS wines fermented with WLP740 presented a strong smell of berries, followed by mint, vanilla, and eucalyptus. During feedback sessions, panelists identified these as essential characteristics of CS from Ensenada, Baja California. Additionally, panelists classified WLP740 wines as high quality, citing their balanced profile, and higher aromatic intensity, complexity, and persistency (Table 4 and Figure 4). Although eucalyptus was a perceived descriptor across all wines, neither eucalyptol nor menthol, two compounds typically responsible for eucalyptus notes, were detected. This observation aligns with the understanding that aroma perception depends not only on individual compounds but also on their thresholds, odor activity values, and metabolite interactions that could mask another aroma [1,2,43,44].
Eucalyptus aromas can also be described as fresh, minty, and citrusy, as the compounds present in the PC1+/PC2+ quadrant (Figure 1), where ICVD254 is distributed. Cassis aroma was the second most frequently mentioned descriptor and is linked to fruity, green, herbaceous, and balsamic aromas, corresponding to the compound distribution seen in WLP740 and ICVD80 wines. The high-quality classification of WLP740 wines was associated with their balanced aromatic profiles, including berries, mint, vanilla, and eucalyptus, and their lower abundance of off-aroma compounds compared to ICVD80 and ICV254 (Table 4 and Figure 3). Furthermore, ICVD80 wines were rated as medium quality due to their greater aromatic intensity, complexity, and persistence compared to ICVD254 low-quality wines, even though there were no statistical differences (p > 0.05, Table 4). ICVD80 wines exhibited more esters linked to fruity and floral notes, but also a higher abundance of higher alcohols associated with less desirable descriptors such as balsamic, leafy, and green, which are typically less favorable in young dry red wines (Table 3).
Industrial S. cerevisiae strains, believed to descend from a few ancestral strains, were genetically and phenological differentiated through food fermentations and evolved into separate lineages, each used for specific applications, such as wine-making [45]. ICVD254 and ICVD80 were first isolated in the 1990s from different regions in France, south and north from Rhône, respectively (
Recent studies have examined the impact of commercial S. cerevisiae strains on varietal wines by evaluating their chemical composition and sensory attributes. For instance, Shiraz wines from South Australia fermented with ten different commercial S. cerevisiae strains presented differences in tannin, polyphenol, and polysaccharide contents. Even though targeted volatile analysis could not discriminate between all strains, sensory analysis linked astringency, color, and opacity with tannin concentration. Notably, yeast contributions to aromatic profiles have been studied to enhance wine quality [3,10]; however, studies on their impact across grape varietals and regions, especially in Mexican wines, remain scarce.
In China, research on CS wines has explored how the terroir influences their chemical and sensory profiles. Targeted volatile analysis did not discriminate between five subregions in Ningxia, despite distinct soil characteristics [41]. However, indicators such as chromaticity, total phenols, ethyl isobutyrate, n-decanoic acid, and (-)-epigallocatechin were linked to regional identity, influenced largely by winemaking techniques [46]. To characterize terroir effectively, the role of vinification, particularly microbial contributions to secondary metabolite formation, must be considered [25]. Correlation between aroma compounds and different yeasts, Saccharomyces spp. and non-Saccharomyces, has been identified and used to discriminate between winemaking regions [22,23,25,42]. Aroma-related metabolites such as 2-methyl-1-butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, phenethyl ethanol, isoamyl acetate, ethyl caproate, and ethyl caprylate were used to discriminate between CS produced in different regions inoculated with native yeasts. Furthermore, ethyl esters like ethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl caprylate, and ethyl heptanoate were negatively correlated with non-Saccharomyces yeasts; meanwhile, β-damascenone, α-ionone, 4-terpineol, and 1-nonanal had a positive correlation [25].
β-damascenone, a yeast-derived compound linked in CS wines to wine region production [5,23,27,29,47], was detected in all samples, showing no difference between ICVD254, ICVD80, and WLP740 wines (p > 0.05), reinforcing that all wines were from the same region (San Vicente Valley, Ensenada, Mexico). In Chinese CS wines, higher alcohols were more abundant than ethyl esters, although ethyl lactate was the most prevalent compound [29]. Similar compounds, including isobutyl alcohol, 2-phenylethanol, 1-propanol, 1-pentanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl lactate, isopentyl acetate, phenethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate, ethyl decanoate, isoamyl acetate, isoamyl hexanoate, and isoamyl octanoate, have been documented across CS producing regions [5,27,29] and were also found in this study. These compounds, mainly higher alcohols and ethyl esters, are bacterial and yeast metabolic byproducts [48,49,50,51]. Therefore, their profiles can offer insights into the microorganisms involved in vinification.
Wines fermented with ICVD254 were perceived as low quality. Notably, 1-hexanol (#34) and 4-ethylphenol (#98), both associated with off-aromas in wines depending on their concentration [3,52,53], were more abundant in ICVD254 wines compared to those fermented with ICVD80 and WLP740 (Figure 3). 1-hexanol is synthesized by yeasts via the Erlich pathway, the abundance of which can vary depending on the yeast strain, must, amino acid composition, and bacterial communities during the vinification process [29,53,54]. 4-ethylphenol can be produced by S. cerevisiae in low amounts; however, it is primarily associated with Brettanomyces/Dekkera, a spoilage yeast introduced through overripe or contaminated grapes [52,55,56]. After spontaneous MLF, a common process in red wine vinification, 1-hexanol and 4-ethylphenol abundance increased by 5.2% and 57.2%, respectively [54]. Descriptors for these aromas include balsamic, creamy, alcoholic, ethereal, green, leafy, phenolic, and smoky notes, with minor floral and fruity notes at low abundances. Furthermore, ethyl formate (#1), ethyl heptanoate (#31), and trans-3-hexen-1-ol (#35) share 1-hexanol and 4-ethylguaiacol tendencies (ICVD254>ICVD80>WLP740), contributing to the wines’ lower sensory quality.
Isobutyl alcohol (#13), which is associated with bitter, ether, alcohol, and solvent aroma descriptors, negatively correlates with strawberry, lactic, red fruit, coconut, wood, and vanilla aromas [43,44]. Defining wine aroma is a complex process as it is affected by numerous volatile compound interactions, whose abundances and presence are influenced by many factors. For instance, isobutyl alcohol and 3-methyl-1-butanol have been related to a negative role in wine aroma quality, as their interactions suppress fruity and woody aromas, while leaving leather or inky characteristics unaffected [44]. Based on these findings, it is plausible that compound #19 (Unknowns 1212, tentatively identified as 3-methyl-1-butanol) interacted with isobutyl alcohol in ICVD254 wines, suppressing fruity aromas, masking favorable fruity notes, and contributing to their low quality. It is noteworthy that commercial yeast producers recommend blending wines fermented with ICVD254 and ICVD80 to enhance wine complexity (
Compounds associated with apple, banana, sweet, buttery, apricot, plum, and brandy aromatic descriptors, such as diethyl succinate (#73), ethyl decanoate (#70), ethyl butyrate (#7), acetoin (#26), ethyl octanoate (#44), and isoamyl acetate (#14), were more abundant in WLP740 than in ICVD80, which, in turn, showed higher abundance than ICVD254. Also, WLP740 had the lowest abundance of 1-hexanol (#34) and isobutyl alcohol, both of which are commonly linked to off-aromas, potentially contributing to its perceived high quality. Although ICVD80 wines had similar fruity and floral aromatic descriptors to those of WLP740, they also showed a higher abundance of higher alcohol-related off-aromas, which may explain their medium quality classification.
The WLP740 yeast strain yielded Cabernet Sauvignon wines from San Vicente, Ensenada, México, with more intense fruity and floral attributes and fewer off-aroma descriptors compared to those fermented with ICVD254. Fruity and floral characteristics are primarily associated with acetate and ethyl esters, which are synthesized via amino acid and fatty acid metabolism, respectively [1,3,56]. The formation of these esters is influenced by multiple factors, making their prediction during fermentation challenging. Acetate ester production is closely linked to higher alcohols, whose synthesis increases at elevated fermentation temperatures; however, excessively high temperatures can reduce the overall abundances of both acetate and ethyl esters [56,57]. Moreover, low oxygen conditions can enhance higher alcohol formation [1,58]. Therefore, optimized vinification practices are essential to preserve ester-derived aromas. In this study, fermentation with ICVD254 occurred at higher temperatures and for a longer duration than with WLP740, likely contributing to a lower ester concentration in the resulting wines and, consequently, a less favorable aromatic profile.
5. Conclusions
Volatilomic and sensory analyses of wine are excellent tools for enologists and winemakers in selecting commercial yeasts based on the production of metabolites related to desirable wine characteristics. Applying this holistic approach could lead to terroir description and characterization, which may include evaluating and selecting wild yeast strains that are capable of enriching regional wine terroir. These methods are sensible enough for other uses, such as terroir descriptors for a grape variety grown in different locations/regions. The authors acknowledge that this study represents an initial step in understanding the impact of commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on the volatile and sensory profiles of regional wines. While these findings provide valuable insights into the influence of these commercial yeasts on Cabernet Sauvignon wines from the San Vicente Valley, additional replicates across multiple vintages, vineyards, and environmental conditions are necessary to strengthen the conclusions and improve reproducibility. Nonetheless, this work lays a solid foundation for future research and contributes meaningfully to the ongoing characterization of how commercial yeast strains interact with regional terroir, offering winemakers data-driven tools to guide strain selection in quality-focused production.
Conceptualization, A.C.-M. and L.V.-M.; data curation, A.C.-M.; formal analysis, A.C.-M.; funding acquisition, L.V.-M.; investigation, A.C.-M. and L.V.-M.; methodology, A.C.-M.; project administration, L.V.-M.; resources, L.V.-M.; supervision, L.V.-M.; writing—original draft, A.C.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.A.G., H.G.-R. and M.d.R.R.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data presented in this study are openly available in Metabolights at
We thank the Science, Humanities, Technology and Innovation Secretariat (SECIHTI) for the PhD scholarship granted to the first author. We are also grateful to Cavas Valmar and Casa Zamora (Ensenada, B.C., Mexico) for supplying samples and logistics, and particularly to enologist Laura Zamora and winemaker Fernando Martain for the confidence and support granted to our research. Also, we are grateful to the Faculty of Enology and Gastronomy from Autonomous University of Baja California for kindly lending us their tasting room to perform the sensory analysis.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| HS-SPME | Head Space Solid Phase Microextraction |
| GC-qTOF-MS | Gas Chromatography quadrupole Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry |
| LC-qTOF-MS | Liquid Chromatography quadrupole Time-Of-Flight Mass Spectrometry |
| TSS | Total Soluble Solids |
| AF | Alcoholic Fermentation |
| PFM | Post-Fermentation Maceration |
| RT | Retention Time |
| RI | Retention Index |
| QC | Quality Control |
| PW | Pooled Wine |
| PWS | Pooled Spiked Wine |
| PCA | Principal Component Analysis |
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
| CS | Cabernet Sauvignon |
| PNQ | Probabilistic Quotient Normalization |
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 (a) PCA score plot of wines fermented by ICVD254 (red), ICVD80 (yellow), and WLP740 (blue). (b) PCA score loadings of 100 compounds present in all analyzed wines. (c) Most abundant and unique compounds listed by yeast.
Figure 2 Radar chart of 2-fold compound changes in ICVD254 (red) and ICVD80 (yellow) against compounds’ abundance in WLP740 (blue) wines, including (#1) ethyl formate (#7) ethyl butyrate, (#12) ethyl 3-methylbutyrate, (#13) isobutyl alcohol, (#14) isoamyl acetate, (#26) acetoin, (#29) hexyl formate, (#30) 4-methyl-1-pentanol, (#31) ethyl heptanoate, (#34) 1-hexanol, (#35) trans-3-hexen-1-ol, (#44) ethyl octanoate, (#46) 1-octen-3-ol, (#51) 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, (#53) Unknown 1527, (#59) ethyl dl-2-hydroxycaproate, (#61) 1-octanol, (#62) isoamyl lactate, (#70) ethyl decanoate, (#71) 1-nonanol, (#73) diethyl succinate, (#75) ethyl 9-decenoate, (#77) 3-(methylthio)-1-propanol, (#83) methyl salicylate, (#84) ethyl phenylacetate, (#85) Unknown 1807, (#87) phenethyl acetate, (#89) ethyl dodecanoate, (#91) benzyl alcohol, (#92) ethyl isopentyl succinate, (#94) 2-phenylethanol, and (#98) 4-ethylphenol. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3 Stacked column chart showing relative abundances of 32 compounds of interest to discriminate CS wines fermented with ICVD254, ICVD80, and WLP740 (p < 0.05) and their global quality.
Figure 4 Radar charts of (a) nose descriptors (smells), (b) mouthfeel descriptors (aromas), and (c) balance of wines fermented with ICVD254 (red), ICVD80 (yellow), and WLP740 (blue) yeasts.
Vinification conditions.
| Tank | Harvest TSS | Yeast | AF (Days) | AF T (°C) | PFM (Days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.5 °Brix | WLP740 | 12 | 20 | 3 |
| 2 | 22.2 °Brix | ICVD80 | 12 | 21 | 6 |
| 3 | 23.0 °Brix | ICVD254 | 12 | 22 | 6 |
TSS: Total soluble solids; AF: alcoholic fermentation; AF T: alcoholic fermentation temperature; PFM: post-fermentation maceration.
Quality control for sensory analysis.
| Panelist | Expertise (Years) | Age (Years) | GQ1 | GQ2 | GQ | RSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 40 | 4.52 | 4.00 | 4.26 (0.37) | 8.63 |
| 2 | 44 | 68 | 3.35 | 4.13 | 3.74 (0.55) | 14.75 |
| 3 | 45 | 62 | 5.80 | 5.35 | 5.57 (0.32) | 5.71 |
| 4 * | 30 | 65 | 5.10 | 3.55 | 4.32 (1.10) | 25.34 |
| 5 | 6 | 47 | 4.76 | 4.66 | 4.71 (0.07) | 1.50 |
| 6 | 25 | 66 | 2.76 | 2.30 | 2.53 (0.33) | 12.86 |
GQ1: global quality of first wine; GQ2: global quality of repetition;
Metabolites detected in wines fermented with ICVD254, ICVD80, and WLP740.
| ICVD254 | ICVD80 | WLP740 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | RI | Compound | Ab | %Ab | Ab | %Ab | Ab | %Ab | Aromatic Descriptors |
| 1 | 873 | Ethyl formate | 4.5 × 106 c | 0.081 | 3.7 × 106 b | 0.100 | 2.9 × 106 a | 0.070 | Like grapes, cognac, and melon |
| 2 | 907 | Ethyl acetate | 4.9 × 108 | 8.844 | 7.2 a × 108 | 19.466 | 8.7 × 108 | 20.996 | Anise, balsam, ethereal, fruity |
| 3 | 913 | Methyl alcohol | 1.2 × 107 | 0.213 | 1.3 × 107 | 0.350 | 1.5 × 107 | 0.366 | Alcoholic, sweet, pungent |
| 4 | 965 | Ethyl propanoate | 5.6 × 106 | 0.101 | 4.6 × 106 | 0.124 | 3.4 × 106 | 0.084 | Sweet, fruity, rum, juicy, grape |
| 5 | 972 | Ethyl isobutyrate | 1.6 × 107 | 0.286 | 1.6 × 107 | 0.441 | ND | ND | Fruity, sweet, ethereal |
| 6 | 1021 | Isobutyl acetate | 8.1 × 106 | 0.147 | 7.4 × 106 | 0.202 | 7.7 × 106 | 0.188 | Apple, banana, bitter |
| 7 | 1043 | Ethyl butyrate | 4.4 × 107 a | 0.802 | 6.2 × 107 b | 1.678 | 7.3 × 107 b | 1.764 | Apple, banana, cognac |
| 8 | 1047 | 1-Propanol | 5.4 × 107 | 0.983 | 4.4 × 107 | 1.196 | 4.7 × 107 | 1.143 | Alcoholic, fermented, musty |
| 9 | 1051 | Methyl thiolacetate | ND | ND | 7.3 × 105 | 0.020 | 6.5 × 105 | 0.016 | Sulfurous, eggy, cheese, dairy |
| 10 | 1061 | Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate | 1.8 × 106 | 0.033 | 4.1 × 106 | 0.110 | 2.5 × 106 | 0.061 | Sharp, sweet, green, apple |
| 11 | 1062 | 2,3-Pentanedione (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 1.0 × 106 | 0.025 | Butter, caramel, cheese, cream |
| 12 | 1067 | Ethyl 3-methylbutyrate | 2.6 × 106 a | 0.048 | 7.2 × 106 b | 0.197 | 3.7 × 106 a | 0.089 | Fruity, sweet, apple, pineapple |
| 13 | 1109 | Isobutyl alcohol | 4.4 × 108 a | 8.037 | 1.3 × 108 b | 3.610 | 9.1 × 107 b | 2.205 | Bitter, ether, solvent, wine |
| 14 | 1128 | Isoamyl acetate | 1.6 × 108 a | 2.954 | 4.3 × 108 b | 11.799 | 4.4 × 108 b | 10.756 | Banana, bitter, fruity, solvent |
| 15 | 1161 | 1-Butanol | 9.1 × 106 | 0.166 | 8.9 × 106 | 0.241 | 1.03 × 107 | 0.250 | Fruity, fusel, medicine, oil |
| 16 | 1181 | Isoamyl propionate (2) | ND | ND | 2.2 × 106 | 0.061 | ND | ND | Sweet, banana, pineapple, ripe |
| 17 | 1184 | Methyl hexanoate (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 9.7 × 105 | 0.023 | Ethereal, pineapple, apricot |
| 18 | 1188 | D-Limonene (1) | 4.0 × 105 | 0.007 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Lemon, orange |
| 19 | 1212 | Unknown 1212 (1) | 1.7 × 109 | 30.594 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 20 | 1216 | 2-Methyl-1-butanol | 8.7 × 105 | 0.016 | 4.0 × 105 | 0.011 | 4.2 × 105 | 0.010 | Malt |
| 21 | 1236 | Ethyl hexanoate | 5.7 × 108 | 10.291 | 2.8 × 108 | 7.645 | 8.3 × 108 | 20.133 | Apple peel, banana, green |
| 22 | 1263 | Styrene (1) | 1.1 × 106 | 0.020 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Balsamic, floral, gasoline, plastic |
| 23 | 1267 | 1-Pentanol (1) | 4.0 × 106 | 0.072 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Balsam, fusel, oil, sweet |
| 24 | 1273 | Isoamyl butyrate (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 1.1 × 106 | 0.027 | Fruity, green, apricot, pear |
| 25 | 1282 | Hexyl acetate( | 9.7 × 106 | 0.175 | 1.0 × 107 | 0.282 | 1.60 × 107 | 0.387 | Apple, banana, bitter, green |
| 26 | 1310 | Acetoin | 1.6 × 106 a | 0.030 | 2.6 × 106 a,b | 0.072 | 5.0 × 106 b | 0.121 | Sweet, buttery, creamy, dairy |
| 27 | 1303 | Isopentyl 3-methylbutyrate (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 1.3 × 106 | 0.032 | Apple, green, mango, ripe, sweet |
| 28 | 1307 | Ethyl 3-hexanoate (1) | 1.0 × 106 | 0.018 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Fresh, fruity, green, metallic |
| 29 | 1335 | Hexyl formate | 2.7 × 106 | 0.049 | 5.3 × 106 | 0.145 | 3.2 × 106 | 0.079 | Nutty |
| 30 | 1348 | 4-Methyl-1-pentanol | 5.0 × 106 a | 0.091 | 1.5 × 107 b | 0.412 | 9.4 × 106 b | 0.229 | Apple, plum, banana, sweet |
| 31 | 1349 | Ethyl heptanoate | 7.4 × 106 b | 0.134 | 2.2 × 106 a | 0.059 | 1.3 × 106 a | 0.031 | Balsam, creamy, fruity, milky |
| 32 | 1358 | Ethyl 2-hexanoate (1) | 3.7 × 106 | 0.068 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Fruity, green, juicy, rum, sweet |
| 33 | 1359 | Ethyl lactate | 1.1 × 108 | 2.065 | 1.2 × 108 | 3.333 | 8.2 × 107 | 1.985 | Butter, butterscotch, fruit, sharp |
| 34 | 1373 | 1-Hexanol | 3.2 × 108 c | 5.861 | 2.0 × 108 b | 5.442 | 1.3 × 108 a | 3.076 | Alcoholic, ethereal, floral, fruity |
| 35 | 1384 | trans-3-Hexen-1-ol | 2.9 × 106 b | 0.052 | 1.7 × 106 a,b | 0.046 | 1.1 × 106 a | 0.027 | Green, cortex, leafy, floral, petal |
| 36 | 1394 | 3-Ethoxy-1-propanol (1) | 1.1 × 106 | 0.020 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Fruit |
| 37 | 1403 | cis-3-Hexen-1-ol (1) | 2.3 × 106 | 0.042 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Green, leafy |
| 38 | 1404 | Methyl octanoate | 2.0 × 106 | 0.036 | 2.2 × 106 | 0.060 | 1.7 × 106 | 0.042 | Aldehydic, green, herbal, orange |
| 39 | 1410 | 3-Octanol | 1.5 × 106 | 0.027 | ND | ND | 1.2 × 106 | 0.028 | Earthy, mushroom, dairy, musty |
| 40 | 1423 | Unknown 1423 (1) | 3.8 × 105 | 0.007 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 41 | 1434 | Unknown 1434 (1) | 5.6 × 105 | 0.010 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 42 | 1436 | Unknown 1436 | 8.5 × 105 | 0.015 | 8.7 × 105 | 0.024 | ND | ND | N/A |
| 43 | 1444 | Unknown 1444 | 8.7 × 105 | 0.016 | 7.4 × 105 | 0.020 | 1.4 × 106 | 0.033 | N/A |
| 44 | 1453 | Ethyl octanoate | 5.9 × 108 b | 10.745 | 5.1 × 106 a | 0.140 | 5.1 × 108 b | 12.319 | Apricot, banana, brandy, fat, fruity |
| 45 | 1460 | 1,3-Dichlorobenzene | 1.1 × 106 | 0.019 | 9.3 × 105 | 0.025 | 9.2 × 105 | 0.022 | N/A |
| 46 | 1466 | 1-Octen-3-ol | 4.1 × 106 b | 0.073 | 4.0 × 106 b | 0.107 | 2.8 × 106 a | 0.069 | Earthy, fishy, fungal, green |
| 47 | 1474 | 1-Heptanol (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 5.5 × 106 | 0.133 | Chemical, coconut, green, herbal |
| 48 | 1475 | Isoamyl hexanoate (2) | ND | ND | 2.0 × 106 | 0.053 | ND | ND | Apple, banana, green, pineapple |
| 49 | 1478 | Acetic acid | 1.1 × 108 | 2.074 | 8.4 × 107 | 2.290 | 5.7 × 107 | 1.390 | Pungent, sharp, sour, vinegar |
| 50 | 1482 | Unknown 1482 | 1.02 × 106 | 0.019 | 4.8 × 105 | 0.013 | 5.5 × 105 | 0.013 | N/A |
| 51 | 1505 | 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | 5.2 × 105 a | 0.009 | 3.8 × 106 b | 0.102 | 3.7 × 106 b | 0.089 | Citrus, floral, fresh, green, oily |
| 52 | 1521 | Unknown 1521 (1) | 6.1 × 105 | 0.011 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 53 | 1527 | Unknown 1527 | 2.7 × 106 c | 0.048 | 1.5 × 106 b | 0.040 | 1.0 × 106 a | 0.025 | N/A |
| 54 | 1535 | 2-Nonanol | 2.2 × 106 | 0.041 | 2.8 × 106 | 0.078 | ND | ND | Cheese, citrus, creamy, cucumber |
| 55 | 1547 | Unknown 1547 (1) | 1.10 × 106 | 0.020 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 56 | 1549 | Unknown 1549 | ND | ND | 1.3 × 106 | 0.037 | 6.8 × 105 | 0.017 | N/A |
| 57 | 1549 | Ethyl nonanoate | 1.5 × 106 | 0.026 | 2.0 × 106 | 0.053 | ND | ND | Fruity, natural, rose, rum, tropical |
| 58 | 1557 | 2,3-Butanediol | 5.3 × 107 | 0.955 | 4.7 × 107 | 1.275 | 3.9 × 107 | 0.948 | Buttery, creamy, fruit, onion |
| 59 | 1559 | Ethyl dl-2-hydroxycaproate | 1.6 × 106 a | 0.029 | 2.7 × 106 b | 0.073 | 1.2 × 106 a | 0.028 | N/A |
| 60 | 1562 | beta-Linalool | 1.3 × 106 | 0.023 | 1.5 × 106 | 0.042 | 1.1 × 106 | 0.026 | Blueberry, citrus, floral, flower |
| 61 | 1574 | 1-Octanol | 6.3 × 106 a | 0.113 | 8.0 × 106 b | 0.219 | 5.1 × 106 a | 0.124 | Aldehyde, burnt, chemical, green |
| 62 | 1585 | Isoamyl lactate | 1.9 × 106 a | 0.035 | 3.5 × 106 b | 0.094 | 1.3 × 106 a | 0.032 | Fruity, creamy, nutty |
| 63 | 1593 | Propylene Glycol | 1.8 × 107 | 0.323 | 1.7 × 107 | 0.453 | 1.1 × 107 | 0.261 | Alcoholic, odorless |
| 64 | 1611 | Unknown 1611 | 1.8 × 106 | 0.033 | 2.6 × 106 | 0.072 | ND | ND | N/A |
| 65 | 1610 | Methyl decanoate (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | 3.6 × 105 | 0.009 | Floral, fruity, oily, wine |
| 66 | 1633 | Unknown 1633 | 6.3 × 105 | 0.011 | 6.2 × 105 | 0.017 | ND | ND | N/A |
| 67 | 1637 | Ethyl 2-furoate | 1.5 × 105 | 0.003 | 1.6 × 105 | 0.004 | 1.5 × 105 | 0.004 | Fruity, floral |
| 68 | 1646 | Oxolan-2-one | 1.6 × 106 | 0.029 | 1.6 × 106 | 0.044 | 1.1 × 106 | 0.026 | Creamy, oily, fatty, caramel |
| 69 | 1649 | Ethyl methylbutanedionate (1) | 2.90 × 105 | 0.005 | ND | ND | ND | ND | No flavor nor odor reported |
| 70 | 1657 | Ethyl decanoate | 2.2 × 107 a | 0.394 | 2.0 × 108 b | 5.560 | 1.2 × 108 a | 2.814 | Apple, brandy, fruity, grape, oily |
| 71 | 1676 | 1-nonanol | 4.5 × 106 a,b | 0.081 | 6.4 × 106 b | 0.174 | 3.5 × 106 a | 0.086 | Bitter, clean, dusty, fatty, floral |
| 72 | 1676 | Ethyl benzoate | 4.5 × 105 | 0.008 | 3.3 × 105 | 0.009 | ND | ND | Fruity, dry, musty, sweet |
| 73 | 1691 | Diethyl succinate | 2.1 × 108 b | 3.761 | 3.1 × 108 c | 8.321 | 1.5 × 108 a | 3.522 | Apple, apricot, chocolate, cooked |
| 74 | 1702 | 3-Nonen-1-ol (1) | 2.8 × 105 | 0.005 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Fresh, waxy, green, melon rind |
| 75 | 1707 | Ethyl 9-decenoate | 1.9 × 106 a | 0.035 | 7.8 × 106 b | 0.212 | 8.0 × 106 b | 0.194 | Fruity, fatty (1) |
| 76 | 1715 | alpha-Terpineol | 2.7 × 105 | 0.005 | 3.2 × 105 | 0.009 | 1.8 × 105 | 0.004 | Anise, citrus, floral, minty, pine |
| 77 | 1735 | 3-(methylthio)-1-propanol | 1.3 × 106 a | 0.024 | 4.0 × 106 b | 0.108 | 1.8 × 106 a | 0.044 | Onion, potato, soup, sulfurous |
| 78 | 1738 | Unknown 1738 | 2.6 × 105 | 0.005 | 2.3 × 105 | 0.006 | 2.3 × 105 | 0.005 | N/A |
| 79 | 1758 | Unknown 1758 | 2.7 × 105 | 0.005 | ND | ND | 1.8 × 105 | 0.004 | N/A |
| 80 | 1768 | Unknown 1768 | 3.9 × 106 | 0.071 | 9.6 × 106 | 0.260 | 4.4 × 106 | 0.107 | N/A |
| 81 | 1777 | 1-Decanol | 1.1 × 106 | 0.020 | 1.4 × 106 | 0.037 | 9.1 × 105 | 0.022 | Clean, fat, fatty, floral, orange |
| 82 | 1781 | Citronellol | 4.2 × 105 | 0.008 | 5.6 × 105 | 0.015 | 3.0 × 105 | 0.007 | Citrus, floral, geranium, leather |
| 83 | 1795 | Methyl salicylate | 2.0 × 105 b | 0.004 | 2.4 × 105 b | 0.006 | 1.5 × 105 a | 0.004 | Wintergreen, minty |
| 84 | 1806 | Ethyl phenylacetate | 4.5 × 105 b | 0.008 | 4.4 × 105 b | 0.012 | 2.4 × 105 a | 0.006 | Sweet, floral, honey, rose, cocoa |
| 85 | 1807 | Unknown 1807 | 5.4 × 105 b | 0.010 | 6.9 × 105 b | 0.019 | 2.5 × 105 a | 0.006 | N/A |
| 86 | 1816 | Unknown 1816 | 2.0 × 106 | 0.037 | 3.3 × 106 | 0.089 | 2.3 × 106 | 0.055 | N/A |
| 87 | 1825 | Phenethyl acetate | 1.7 × 106 a | 0.031 | 5.3 × 106 b | 0.144 | 4.9 × 106 a,b | 0.120 | Floral, fruity, honey, rose, sweet |
| 88 | 1830 | beta-Damascenone | 3.7 × 105 | 0.007 | 7.0 × 105 | 0.019 | 7.6 × 105 | 0.019 | Apple, honey, rose, smoky, sweet |
| 89 | 1841 | Ethyl dodecanoate | 4.9 × 105 a | 0.009 | 4.1 × 106 b | 0.112 | 3.1 × 106 a,b | 0.075 | Clean, floral, leafy, soapy, sweet |
| 90 | 1854 | 3-Methylbutyl decanoate (2) | ND | ND | 2.0 × 105 | 0.005 | ND | ND | Waxy, banana, fruity, sweet |
| 91 | 1864 | Benzyl alcohol | 3.8 × 106 b | 0.070 | 5.5 × 106 c | 0.149 | 2.6 × 106 a | 0.062 | Balsamic, cherry, floral, flower |
| 92 | 1879 | Ethyl isopentyl succinate (1) | 2.0 × 106 a | 0.036 | 6.4 × 106 b | 0.173 | 2.2 × 106 a | 0.053 | Found in wine and beer |
| 93 | 1887 | Unknown 1887 | 2.5 × 105 | 0.005 | ND | ND | ND | ND | N/A |
| 94 | 1887 | 2-Phenylethanol | 4.5 × 108 a | 8.103 | 7.9 × 108 b | 21.388 | 5.2 × 108 a | 12.571 | Rose, honey, sweet berry, hyacinth |
| 95 | 2006 | 4-Ethylguaiacol (1) | 4.3 × 105 | 0.008 | ND | ND | ND | ND | Bacon, clove, phenolic, smoky |
| 96 | 2123 | Unknown 2123 | 7.5 × 106 | 0.135 | ND | ND | 1.6 × 107 | 0.401 | N/A |
| 97 | 2093 | Octanoic acid (2) | ND | ND | 2.8 × 107 | 0.762 | ND | ND | Cheese, cheesy, fatty, oily, rancid |
| 98 | 2197 | 4-Ethylphenol | 3.2 × 106 c | 0.057 | 4.8 × 105 b | 0.013 | 3.1 × 105 a | 0.007 | Phenolic, castoreum, smoky |
| 99 | 2313 | Unknown 2313 (2) | ND | ND | 3.2 × 105 | 0.009 | ND | ND | N/A |
| 100 | 2323 | 2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol | 1.7 × 105 | 0.003 | 2.7 × 105 | 0.007 | 2.0 × 105 | 0.005 | Phenolic |
# of compounds elucidated. Unique metabolites of (1) ICVD254, (2) ICVD80, and (3) WLP740; RI: Retention Index; Ab= Relative abundance; %Ab= relative abundance percentage. Means with different letters within a row indicate statistical differences (p < 0.05) in compounds present in all wines.
Relative quality of wines.
| Parameters (Values) | WLP740 | ICVD80 | ICVD254 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nose Parameters (30%) | |||
| RQ odor intensity (12%) | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.41 |
| RQ odor complexity (18%) | 0.81 | 0.63 | 0.68 |
| Mouthfeel parameters (60%) | |||
| RQ aromatic intensity (10%) | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.38 |
| RQ aromatic complexity (15%) | 0.71 | 0.56 | 0.48 |
| RQ balance and body (25%) | 1.12 | 0.94 | 0.75 |
| RQ aromatic persistency (10%) | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.32 |
| Appearance parameters (10%) | |||
| RQ color (6%) | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.31 |
| RQ color intensity (4%) | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.18 |
| Global Quality | 4.75 a | 3.96 a,b | 3.52 b |
RQ: Relative quality; RelAb: Relative abundance. Different letters in global quality scores indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
1. Carpena, M.; Fraga-Corral, M.; Otero, P.; Nogueira, R.A.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Secondary Aroma: Influence of Wine Microorganisms in Their Aroma Profile. Foods; 2020; 10, 51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10010051]
2. Francis, I.L.; Newton, J.L. Determining Wine Aroma from Compositional Data. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.; 2005; 11, pp. 114-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00283.x]
3. Belda, I.; Ruiz, J.; Esteban-Fernández, A.; Navascués, E.; Marquina, D.; Santos, A.; Moreno-Arribas, M. Microbial Contribution to Wine Aroma and Its Intended Use for Wine Quality Improvement. Molecules; 2017; 22, 189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules22020189]
4. Prusova, B.; Humaj, J.; Sochor, J.; Baron, M. Formation, Losses, Preservation and Recovery of Aroma Compounds in the Winemaking Process. Fermentation; 2022; 8, 93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8030093]
5. Chávez-Márquez, A.; Gardea, A.A.; González-Rios, H.; Vazquez-Moreno, L. Characterization of Cabernet Sauvignon Wines by Untargeted HS-SPME GC-QTOF-MS. Molecules; 2022; 27, 1726. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27051726]
6. Wang, M.; Wang, J.; Chen, J.; Philipp, C.; Zhao, X.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.; Suo, R. Effect of Commercial Yeast Starter Cultures on Cabernet Sauvignon Wine Aroma Compounds and Microbiota. Foods; 2022; 11, 1725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11121725]
7. Tarko, T.; Duda, A. Volatilomics of Fruit Wines. Molecules; 2024; 29, 2457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules29112457]
8. Gu, Z.; Rao, J.; Chen, B. Application of Flavoromics Approach to Evaluate Aroma Characteristics in Malts: Current Trends and Future Outlooks. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2025; 156, 104878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104878]
9. Marín-San Román, S.; Rubio-Bretón, P.; Pérez-Álvarez, E.P.; Garde-Cerdán, T. Advancement in Analytical Techniques for the Extraction of Grape and Wine Volatile Compounds. Food Res. Int.; 2020; 137, 109712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109712]
10. Álvarez, R.; Garces, F.; Louis, E.J.; Dequin, S.; Camarasa, C.; Beyond, S. Cerevisiae for Winemaking: Fermentation-Related Trait Diversity in the Genus Saccharomyces. Food Microbiol.; 2023; 113, 104270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2023.104270]
11. Berbegal, C.; Ferrer, S.; Polo, L.; Pardo, I.; García-Esparza, M.J.; Andrés, L.; Álvarez, I.; Lizama, V. Diversity of Indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Strains in Cabernet Sauvignon Fermentations from Utiel-Requena Region (Spain) as a Resource to Improve Wine Distinctiveness. Fermentation; 2023; 9, 654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9070654]
12. Bordet, F.; Roullier-Gall, C.; Ballester, J.; Vichi, S.; Quintanilla-Casas, B.; Gougeon, R.D.; Julien-Ortiz, A.; Kopplin, P.S.; Alexandre, H. Different Wines from Different Yeasts? “Saccharomyces cerevisiae Intraspecies Differentiation by Metabolomic Signature and Sensory Patterns in Wine”. Microorganisms; 2021; 9, 2327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112327]
13. Wang, X.; Fan, G.; Peng, Y.; Xu, N.; Xie, Y.; Zhou, H.; Liang, H.; Zhan, J.; Huang, W.; You, Y. Mechanisms and Effects of Non-Saccharomyces Yeast Fermentation on the Aromatic Profile of Wine. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2023; 124, 105660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105660]
14. Maicas, S.; Mateo, J.J. The Life of Saccharomyces and Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts in Drinking Wine. Microorganisms; 2023; 11, 1178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11051178]
15. Guzzon, R.; Paolini, M.; Malacarne, M.; Roman, T.; Naselli, V.; Francesca, N.; Larcher, R. Use of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts in the Pris de Mousse of Lambrusco. Microbial Evolution through Alcoholic Fermentation and Effect on Wine Volatile Profile. OENO One; 2024; 58, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2024.58.3.7884]
16. Stój, A.; Czernecki, T.; Sosnowska, B.; Niemczynowicz, A.; Matwijczuk, A. Impact of Grape Variety, Yeast and Malolactic Fermentation on Volatile Compounds and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra in Red Wines. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci.; 2022; 72, pp. 38-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31883/pjfns/145665]
17. Paramithiotis, S.; Patra, J.K.; Kotseridis, Y.; Dimopoulou, M. Fermented Beverages Revisited: From Terroir to Customized Functional Products. Fermentation; 2024; 10, 74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10020074]
18. Giovannucci, D.; Josling, T.; Kerr, W.; O’Connor, B.; Yeung, M.T. Linking Products and Their Origins. SSRN Electron. J.; 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1736713]
19. Gilbert, J.A.; Van Der Lelie, D.; Zarraonaindia, I. Microbial Terroir for Wine Grapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2014; 111, pp. 5-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320471110]
20. Pons, A.; Allamy, L.; Schüttler, A.; Rauhut, D.; Thibon, C.; Darriet, P. What Is the Expected Impact of Climate Change on Wine Aroma Compounds and Their Precursors in Grape?. OENO One; 2017; 51, 141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1868]
21. Gerbi, V.; De Paolis, C. The Effects of Climate Change on Wine Composition and Winemaking Processes. Ital. J. Food Sci.; 2025; 37, pp. 246-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15586/ijfs.v37i1.2775]
22. Bokulich, N.A.; Collins, T.S.; Masarweh, C.; Allen, G.; Heymann, H.; Ebeler, S.E.; Mills, D.A. Associations among Wine Grape Microbiome, Metabolome, and Fermentation Behavior Suggest Microbial Contribution to Regional Wine Characteristics. mBio; 2016; 7, e00631-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00631-16] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27302757]
23. Gao, J.; Geng, H.; Chai, R.; Wu, T.; Huang, W.; You, Y.; Zhan, J. Fungal Community Composition and Its Relationship with Volatile Compounds during Spontaneous Fermentation of Cabernet Sauvignon from Two Chinese Wine-Growing Regions. Foods; 2023; 13, 106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13010106] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38201134]
24. Pickering, G.J.; Spink, M.; Kotseridis, Y.; Inglis, D.; Brindle, I.D.; Sears, M.; Beh, A.-L. Yeast Strain Affects 3-Isopropyl-2-Methoxypyrazine Concentration and Sensory Profile in Cabernet Sauvignon Wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.; 2008; 14, pp. 230-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00026.x]
25. Gao, J.; Wu, T.; Geng, H.; Chai, R.; Huang, W.; You, Y.; Zhan, J. Elucidating the Relationship between Microbial Communities and the Formation of Flavour Metabolites in Cabernet Sauvignon Wine through Metagenomic Analysis. LWT Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 213, 11707076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.117076]
26. Tong, W.; Zhai, H.; Qi, M.; Hua, Y.; Shi, T.; Shang, H.; Shi, Y.; Duan, C.; Lan, Y. Characterization of Chemical and Sensory Properties of Cabernet Sauvignon and Marselan Wines Made by Flash Détente Technique. Food Res. Int.; 2024; 184, 114229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114229]
27. Song, X.; Ling, M.; Li, D.; Zhu, B.; Shi, Y.; Duan, C.; Lan, Y. Volatile Profiles and Sensory Characteristics of Cabernet Sauvignon Dry Red Wines in the Sub-Regions of the Eastern Foothills of Ningxia Helan Mountain in China. Molecules; 2022; 27, 8817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27248817]
28. Welke, J.E.; Hernandes, K.C.; Lago, L.O.; Silveira, R.D.; Marques, A.T.B.; Zini, C.A. Flavoromic Analysis of Wines Using Gas Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry and Sensory Techniques. J. Chromatogr. A; 2024; 1734, 465264. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465264]
29. Tao, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, L. Volatile Compounds of Young Cabernet Sauvignon Red Wine from Changli County (China). J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2008; 21, pp. 689-694. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2008.05.007]
30. Carpena, M.; Pereira, A.G.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Wine Aging Technology: Fundamental Role of Wood Barrels. Foods; 2020; 9, 1160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9091160]
31. Baumann, S.; Conjelko, T.; Aronova, S.; Lafond, S.; David, F.; Ebeler, S.E. Accurate Mass Retention Time Locked Flavor Database by GC-TOF. Proceedings of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry Annual Conference; Minneapolis, MN, USA, 9–13 June 2013; MP-685.
32. Sumner, L.W.; Amberg, A.; Barrett, D.; Beale, M.H.; Beger, R.; Daykin, C.A.; Fan, T.W.-M.; Fiehn, O.; Goodacre, R.; Griffin, J.L.
33. Alonso, I.; Pérez, F.; Aguado, M.; Egea, J.; Atxiaga, M.; Estanga, E.; Saila, E.T.A.E. Guía Para La Evaluación Sensorial de La Calidad de Los Vinos Tintos de Rioja Alavesa; Servicio Central de Publicaciones: Gobierno Vasco, Spain, 2007; ISBN 978-84-457-2563-4
34. Linstrom, P.J.; Mallard, W.G. NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. NIST Chemistry WebBook; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2022.
35. Ferreira, V.; López, R.; Cacho, J.F. Quantitative Determination of the Odorants of Young Red Wines from Different Grape Varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2000; 80, pp. 1659-1667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11<1659::AID-JSFA693>3.0.CO;2-6]
36. Liu, Y.; Rousseaux, S.; Tourdot-Maréchal, R.; Sadoudi, M.; Gougeon, R.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Alexandre, H. Wine Microbiome: A Dynamic World of Microbial Interactions. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2017; 57, pp. 856-873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2014.983591] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26066835]
37. Clarke, R.J.; Bakker, J. Wine Flavour Chemistry; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-1-4051-0530-9
38. Pérez-Jiménez, M.; Sherman, E.; Pozo-Bayón, M.A.; Pinu, F.R. Application of Untargeted Volatile Profiling and Data Driven Approaches in Wine Flavoromics Research. Food Res. Int.; 2021; 145, 110392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110392] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34112395]
39. MacNeil, K. The Wine Bible; 2nd ed. Workman Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0-7611-8715-8
40. Niimi, J.; Boss, P.K.; Bastian, S.E.P. Sensory Profiling and Quality Assessment of Research Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay Wines; Quality Discrimination Depends on Greater Differences in Multiple Modalities. Food Res. Int.; 2018; 106, pp. 304-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.12.060]
41. Zhang, F.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Y. Influence and Metabolomic Basis of an Indigenous Yeast CECA, from Ningxia Wine Region of China, on the Aroma and Flavor of Cabernet Sauvignon Wines. Food Chem. X; 2024; 23, 101525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101525]
42. Sun, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, F.; Zhang, J. Impact of Biodynamic and Organic Vineyard Management on the Microorganism Community and Aroma Characteristics of Cabernet Sauvignon Wine. J. Clean. Prod.; 2024; 467, 142929. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142929]
43. Cameleyre, M.; Lytra, G.; Tempere, S.; Barbe, J.-C. Olfactory Impact of Higher Alcohols on Red Wine Fruity Ester Aroma Expression in Model Solution. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2015; 63, pp. 9777-9788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03489]
44. de-la-Fuente-Blanco, A.; Sáenz-Navajas, M.-P.; Ferreira, V. On the Effects of Higher Alcohols on Red Wine Aroma. Food Chem.; 2016; 210, pp. 107-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.021]
45. Gallone, B.; Steensels, J.; Prahl, T.; Soriaga, L.; Saels, V.; Herrera-Malaver, B.; Merlevede, A.; Roncoroni, M.; Voordeckers, K.; Miraglia, L.
46. Bindon, K.A.; Kassara, S.; Solomon, M.; Bartel, C.; Smith, P.A.; Barker, A.; Curtin, C. Commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Strains Significantly Impact Shiraz Tannin and Polysaccharide Composition with Implications for Wine Colour and Astringency. Biomolecules; 2019; 9, 466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom9090466]
47. Zhang, X.; Yang, H.; Liu, N.; Sun, J.; Yao, R.; Shi, F.; Li, J.; Jiang, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q.
48. Knight, S.; Klaere, S.; Fedrizzi, B.; Goddard, M.R. Regional Microbial Signatures Positively Correlate with Differential Wine Phenotypes: Evidence for a Microbial Aspect to Terroir. Sci. Rep.; 2015; 5, 14233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep14233] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26400688]
49. Lee, J.-W.; Trinh, C.T. Microbial Biosynthesis of Lactate Esters. Biotechnol. Biofuels; 2019; 12, 226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13068-019-1563-z]
50. Tan, J.; Ji, M.; Gong, J.; Chitrakar, B. The Formation of Volatiles in Fruit Wine Process and Its Impact on Wine Quality. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2024; 108, 420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-024-13084-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39017989]
51. Saerens, S.M.G.; Delvaux, F.R.; Verstrepen, K.J.; Thevelein, J.M. Production and Biological Function of Volatile Esters in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microb. Biotechnol.; 2010; 3, pp. 165-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00106.x]
52. Suárez, R.; Suárez-Lepe, J.A.; Morata, A.; Calderón, F. The Production of Ethylphenols in Wine by Yeasts of the Genera Brettanomyces and Dekkera: A Review. Food Chem.; 2007; 102, pp. 10-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.03.030]
53. Rankine, B.C.; PococK, K.F. SS-Phenethanol and n-Hexanol in Wines: Influence of Yeast Starin, Grape Variety and Other Factors; and Taste Thresholds. Vitis; 1969; 8, pp. 23-27.
54. Izquierdo Cañas, P.M.; García Romero, E.; Gómez-Alonso, S.; Palop Herreros, M.L.L. Changes in the Aromatic Composition of Tempranillo Wines during Spontaneous Malolactic Fermentation. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2008; 21, pp. 724-730. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2007.12.005]
55. López-Cordón, E.N. Brettanomyces/Dekkera Control y detección en bodegas. ACE Rev. Enol.; 2007; 78.
56. Oelofse, A.; Pretorius, I.S.; Du Toit, M. Significance of Brettanomyces and Dekkera during Winemaking: A Synoptic Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic.; 2016; 29, pp. 128-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21548/29-2-1445]
57. Li, N.; Li, G.; Guan, X.; Li, A.; Tao, Y. Volatile Aroma Compound-Based Decoding and Prediction of Sweet Berry Aromas in Dry Red Wine. Food Chem.; 2025; 463, 141248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141248] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39278084]
58. Goulioti, E.; Jeffery, D.W.; Gialouris, P.-L.; Nastou, E.; Dasenaki, M.; Kontoudakis, N.; Thomaidis, N.; Kotseridis, Y. Effect of Terroir on Aroma and Sensory Characteristics of Xinomavro (Vitis vinifera L. cv.) Red Wines from Different Greek Protected Designations of Origin. Food Chem.; 2025; 486, 144507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.144507] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40381312]
59. Crucello, J.; Miron, L.F.O.; Ferrer, V.H.C.; Nan, H.; Marques, M.O.M.; Ritschel, P.S.; Zanus, M.C.; Anderson, J.L.; Poppi, R.J.; Hantao, L.W. Characterization of the Aroma Profile of Novel Brazilian Wines by Solid-Phase Microextraction Using Polymeric Ionic Liquid Sorbent Coatings. Anal. Bioanal. Chem.; 2018; 410, pp. 4749-4762. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1134-3]
60. Umano, K.; Hagi, Y.; Nakahara, K.; Shoji, A.; Shibamoto, T. Volatile Constituents of Green and Ripened Pineapple (Ananas comosus [L.] Merr.). J. Agric. Food Chem.; 1992; 40, pp. 599-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf00016a014]
61. Ramirez-Gaona, M.; Marcu, A.; Pon, A.; Guo, A.C.; Sajed, T.; Wishart, N.A.; Karu, N.; Djoumbou Feunang, Y.; Arndt, D.; Wishart, D.S. YMDB 2.0: A Significantly Expanded Version of the Yeast Metabolome Database. Nucleic Acids Res.; 2017; 45, pp. D440-D445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1058]
62. Sunghwan, K.; Chen, J.; Cheng, T.; Gindulyte, A.; He, J.; He, S.; Li, Q.; Shoemaker, B.A.; Thiessen, P.A.; Yu, B.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Robles-Burgueño Maria del Refugio; Vázquez-Moreno, Luz