## 1 Introduction  
Bitterness in wine is generally attributed to flavonoids and non-flavonoids compounds originating from grapes or ellagitannins conferred during wood aging [1; 2; 3; 4]. Some microbiologic deviations appear to generate acrolein responsible of bitterness development in wines [5]. Bitterness increases with alcoholic strength and is modulated by sugar content and pH [6]. Even if winemaking procedures could confer higher amounts of phenols and tannins, the bitter taste perceived in wine generally decreases with aging time due to polymerization reactions of these bitter compounds [7; 8]. Usually, persistent bitterness in wine should be avoided [9]. However, in some other beverages, bitterness is desired for example in the case of macerated wine products, vermouth wines or bitter spirits [4; 10].  
Bitterness perception mechanism has been proven to be different among consumers and its sensorial evaluation is temporally dynamic due to its perception mechanism [9; 11]. Bitterness sensation has been ascribed to complex combined mechanisms of transduction, i.e., the activation of taste cells located at the root of the tongue and generation of intracellular signals caused by taste stimuli [12]. On one hand, bitterness taste stimuli can be directly provoked on apical ion channels by compounds like quinine sulfate or some divalent cations like Ca\({}^{2+}\), Mg\({}^{2+}\), Mn\({}^{2+}\). The latter inhibit K\({}^{+}\) conductance process and therefore increase the depolarization process required for action potential elicitation for bitterness perception. In the opposite, K\({}^{+}\) or Na\({}^{+}\) ions suppress bitterness perception by facilitating K\({}^{+}\) conductance in taste cells. On the other hand, a receptor-mediated transduction mechanism has been proposed for bitterness perception for compounds in alcoholic beverages such as condensed tannins, polyphenols, isohumulones, amino acids requiring cellular enzymes like phospholipase C or phosphodiesterase for the depolarization process [4; 13].  
Among natural plants conferring bitter properties, _Gentiana lutea_ has been well described and used for decades in the food industry due to its high concentration of secoiridoids and xanthones [14; 15; 16; 17]. Among these compounds, amarogentin (secoiridoid glycoside) is the most bitter compound. Two other glycosides, gentiopicroside and loganic acid, are the most abundant bitter compounds found in gentian roots [16; 18]. Additionally, these compounds possess health benefits and could be used for pharmaceutical purposes [19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24]. Nevertheless, _Gentiana lutea_ use should be managed sustainably by maintaining the resource, promoting new products and authenticating its chemical composition.  
Volatile compounds from _Gentiana lutea_ are responsible of gentian flavor typicity, which are associated with diverse chemical families such as aldehydes, terpenoids, alcohols and pyrazines conferring herbal and green characters [25]. Other ketones, fatty acids and benzenes derivatives volatile compounds were found in gentian roots [26]. The volatile composition of gentian roots was reliably explored by an headspace solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and was able to discriminate between different commercial and cultivated/wild gentian roots [26].  
In this study, gentian roots powders originating from two French mountain sites (Massif Central and Jura) and their macerates in Chardonnay wines, were analyzed in terms of bitter compounds, mineral and volatile composition with the objectives: (i) to determine if chemical markers could reflect the geographic origin of gentian in the macerated wines and (ii) to assess bitterness and to describe the aroma of the macerated wines compared to the control wine and (iii) to discuss the potential discriminations related to gentian origin in terms of chemical and sensory properties in the resulting gentian macerated wines.