## 3 Results and Discussion
### Volatile Aroma Compounds
#### 3.2.8 Sulfur-Containing Compounds  
In wines, sulfur-containing compounds originate from various sources, including yeast metabolism, more precisely catabolism and anabolism of the sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cysteine and their derivative homocysteine through the Ehrlich pathway [47; 51]. In this study, as reported in Table 9, dihydro-2-methyl-3(2H)-thiophenone, 3-hydroxyethyl-2-hydroxypropyl sulfide I and II, and 3-methionyl acetate had a higher concentration in \(LEV\) in comparison with the control \(SCE\) wine. The increased concentration of the acetate ester of methionol, the most abundant sulfur compound in this study, was in line with higher concentrations of abundant higher-alcohol acetates, such as isobutyl, butyl, and especially isoamyl acetate (Table 8), corroborating a possibility of higher activity of particular alcohol acetyltransferaseases in \(L\). _thermodelrans_ compared to \(S\). _cerevisiae_. 2-Thiophenencarboxaldehyde, ethyl 3-(methylthio)propionate, methionol, and ethyl methanesulfonate concentrations were higher in \(SCE\) wine. [PERSON] et al. [42] reported about no activity of sulfite reductase involved in the biosynthesis of sulfur-containing compounds in \(L\). _thermodelrans_ strains, while, on the other hand, [PERSON] et al. [15] observed that all of the investigated \(L\). _thermodelrans_ strains showed sulfite reductase activity, suggesting that this characteristic is strongly strain-related. Other determined sulfur-containing compounds identified in this study showed no significant differences between the two investigated yeasts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Co.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Volatile Aroma Compound**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**ID**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LR\({}_{\text{exp}}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LR\({}_{\text{lit}}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**F-Ratio**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Treatment**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{_SCE_} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{_LEV_} \\ \hline OE37 & Methyl dodecanoate & MS, LRI & 1810 & 1806 & 0.951 & 0.206 \(\pm\) 0.029 & 0.173 \(\pm\) 0.05 \\ OE38 & Isoamyl isobutyrate & MS, LRI & 1188 & 1194 & 0.803 & 0.397 \(\pm\) 0.014 & 0.354 \(\pm\) 0.082 \\ OE39 & 2-Ethyl-1-hexyl propanoate & MS & 1452 & - & 0.730 & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 1.51 \(\pm\) 0.08 \\ OE40 & Methyl decanoate & MS, LRI & 1598 & 1599 & 0.507 & 6.70 \(\pm\) 0.40 & 6.14 \(\pm\) 1.30 \\ OE41 & Triethyl citrate & MS, LRI & 2463 & 2461 & 0.002 & 0.089 \(\pm\) 0.064 & 0.087 \(\pm\) 0.014 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: Co.—compound’s code. ID—identification of compounds. S—attention time accordant with that of a pure standard; MS—mass spectra accordant with that from NIST 2.0, Wiley 8, and FFNSC 2 mass spectra databases from electronic libraries or the literature; LRI—linear retention index accordant with the index from the literature. Compounds with only MS in the ID column were considered tentatively identified. \(\text{LR}_{\text{exp}}\)—experimental linear retention index; \(\text{LR}_{\text{lit}}\)—linear retention index from the literature. \(SCE\)—_Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ (control, pure culture); \(LEV\)—_Lachance thermololentolrans_ (sequentially inoculated; fermentation finished by \(S\). _cerevisiae_ (\(SCE\)) inoculated at 2 vol % ethanol). Different superscript lowercase letters in a row represent statistically significant differences among two investigated wines determined by one-way ANOVA and least significant difference test (LSD) at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 8: _Cont._