## 3 Results and Discussion
### Multivariate Statistical Analysis
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Differences in Concentration**} \\ \cline{6-11} Co. & **Volatile Compounds** & **ID** & **LRI\({}_{\star}\)** & **LRI\({}_{1}\)** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**One-Way ANOVA**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Two-Way ANOVA**} \\ \cline{6-11}  & & & & **2021** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**2022**} \\ \cline{6-11}  & & & & **SCE** & **SPA** & **SCE** & **SPA** & **Y** & **H** & **Y** \(\times\) H \\ \hline OC1 & _trans_2-Dodecene & B & 1272 & - & 2.75 & 2.83 & 0.61 & 0.55 & n.s. & **21** & n.s. \\ OC2 & Tridecane & A, B, C & 1303 & 1300 & **12.36*** & **8.86*** & 14.17 & 13.32 & n.s. & **22** & n.s. \\ OC3 & _trans,cis_-2,4-Dodecadiene & B, C & 1405 & 1402 & n.d. & n.d. & 0.79 & 0.60 & - & - & - \\ OC4 & 1-Octa-3-0 methyl ether & B & 1411 & - & **0.00*** & **0.43*** & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC5 & 2-6 Dimethyl-1,3.5,7-octadiene I & B, C & 1445 & 1446 & 2.14 & 1.66 & 4.42 & 4.25 & n.s. & **22** & n.s. \\ OC6 & 2-6 Dimethyl-1,3.5,7-octadiene II & B, C & 1456 & 1460 & 3.70 & 3.46 & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC7 & 1- Tetradecene & B, C & 1477 & 1474 & 2.69 & 2.58 & 2.78 & 2.60 & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. \\ OC8 & _cis_-5-Hydroxy-2-methyl-1,3- & & & & & & & & & & & \\ OC9 & Pentadecane & A, B, C & 1503 & 1500 & **1.04*** & **0.79*** & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC10 & Hexadecane & A, B, C & 1599 & 1600 & n.d. & n.d. & 0.70 & 0.58 & - & - & - \\ OC11 & Edulan I & B, C & 1612 & 1602 & n.d. & n.d. & 0.16 & 0.17 & - & - & - \\ OC12 & Dimethylmale anhydride & B, C & 1741 & 1755 & 0.12 & 0.13 & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC13 & Zaulene & B, C & 1754 & 1746 & **2.25*** & **1.77*** & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC14 & _cis_-2-Methyl-7-octadecene & B & 1866 & - & 0.14 & 0.12 & n.d. & n.d. & - & - & - \\ OC15 & (3-Methyl-by) methanol, & & & & & & & & & & & \\ OC16 & Glutaconic anhydride & B & 1997 & - & **1.91*** & **2.45*** & 1.79 & 1.92 & **SPA** & **21** & n.s. \\ OC17 & \(\gamma\)-Aminobutyrolactoneam & B, C & 2035 & 2007 & n.d. & n.d. & 0.59 & 0.72 & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  Abbreviations Co.–compound’s code; ID–identification of compounds: A  
Figure 1: Hierarchical clustering analysis of Malvazija istarska wines produced by fermentation with _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ (SCE) and _Saccharomyces paradoxus_ (SPA) yeasts in two harvest years (2021, 2022) based on basic physico-chemical parameters, PR proteins, and phenolic compounds from grapes. Each row of the heatmap represents a specific parameter or a compound, while columns denote individual samples. Cell colours indicate compound abundance (normalized data): dark blue signifies low abundance, pale colours reflect medium abundance, and dark red denotes high abundance. Figure 2: (**a**) Differentiation of Malvazija istarska wines produced by fermentation with _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ (SCE) and _Saccharomyces paradoxus_ (SPA) yeasts in two harvest years according to yeast species in two-dimensional space by partial least squares—discriminant analysis (PLS–DA); (**b**) variable importance in projection (VIP) scores highlighting the most influential variables (physico-chemical parameters, PR proteins, grape-derived phenolic compounds; normalized data) contributing to the differentiation. PLS-DA analysis of the second dataset achieved a clear separation of wines by yeast species across both harvest years (Figure 4a). The compounds contributing most to this distinction were primarily minor ones with unknown sensory significance. Compounds, such as 3-ethoxypropyl acetate, 2-nonanol, 3-ethoxy-1-propanol, 2-heptanone, epoxyterpinolene, _trans_-2-pinanol, ethyl acetylacetate, and 2-nonanone, were more characteristic of control SCE wines, while higher levels of 1-octanol and two compounds tentatively identified as 3-[(2-hydroxyethyl)thio]-1-propanol distinguished SPA wines.