## 2 Materials and Methods
### Quantification of Aromatic Volatiles by GC-MS/MS  
The experimental methods were referred to from [PERSON] et al. [25] as follows: In liquid nitrogen, 60 g of frozen berries without seeds were ground into powder together with polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (0.5 g) and D-gluconic acid lactone (0.5 g). The frozen grape powder was placed in 50 mL centrifuge tubes. The centrifuge tube was immediately capped and stored for 6 h at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C for cold stabilization and equilibration of volatile component extraction. Then, the homogenate was spun at 8000\(\times\)\(g\) for 15 min to obtain the supernatant [25]. The free-form volatile chemicals were extracted from clear juice using the headspace solid phase microextraction, and the extraction of bound-form volatile chemicals referred to [PERSON] et al. [25]. The HS-SPME extraction was conducted using a CTC-CombiPAL autosampler(CTC Analysis, Zwingen, Switzerland) that was mounted with a 2 cm SPME fiber coated with DVB/CAR/PDMS (50/30 \(\upmu\)m, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA). The aromatic profile of grape and wine were characterized using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (Aligent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Both GC systems were equipped with identical HP-INNOWAX capillary columns (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA; 60 m length \(\times\) 0.25 mm internal diameter, 0.25 \(\upmu\)m film thickness). Grape aromatic profile was obtained with an Agilent 6890 gas chromatograph and an Agilent 5973 mass spectrometer, and wine aromatic profile was obtained with an Agilent 7890 GC and an Agilent 5975 MS. Identification was performed via mass spectra matching through the standard NIST11 library. The chromatographic and mass spectral data obtained were matched with the mass spectral NIST 11 library, and the chromatographic peaks with a match of \(\geq\)80 with the target substances were selected. The retention indices of the peaks were compared with the retention indices (RIs) provided by the NIST library, and individually with the literature values to determine the name of the substance corresponding to each peak. Specific chromatographic information is shown in Supplementary Materials Figures S1 and S2. The retention indices of the peaks were compared with the retention indices (RIs) provided by the NIST library and individually compared with literature values to determine the names of the substances corresponding to each peak. The quantification of aroma compounds was conducted based on previous studies [26; 27; 28]. Briefly, the calibration curves for aroma standards were established based on the mixed standard solution that was diluted into 15 levels using a synthetic model matrix. Artificial grape juice was made by mixing distilled water with 200 g/L of glucose and 7 g/L of tartaric acid, adjusting the pH to 3.3 using 5 M NaOH. Simulated wine mixtures were made using 12% ethanol and water solutions with 5 g/L tartaric acid, and then the pH was adjusted to 3.8 using the same alkali. Volatile analytes lacking dedicated calibration curves were quantified through regression models derived from structural analogs sharing comparable carbon chain lengths and functional groups. Odor activity values were determined by dividing individual compound concentrations by their respective sensory perception thresholds. Threshold data and associated aroma classifications were sourced from [PERSON] et al. [27].