## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Wine** & **Alcohol** & **Total Reducing Sugars** & **Tittatable Acids (TA)** & **Volatile Acids (VA)** & **pH** \\
**Designation** & **\% (vol)** & **(g\({}_{\text{ sugars}}\)/L\({}_{\text{ wine}}\))** & **(g\({}_{\text{TA}}\)/L\({}_{\text{ wine}}\))** & **(g\({}_{\text{VA}}\)/L\({}_{\text{ wine}}\))** & **(g\({}_{\text{VA}}\)/L\({}_{\text{ wine}}\))** & **pH** \\ \hline V1 & 14.96 \(\pm\) 1.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.89 \(\pm\) 1.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.32 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ V2 & 14.11 \(\pm\) 2.01 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.13 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ V3 & 14.53 \(\pm\) 1.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 7.34 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.24 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CS1 & 14.51 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.95 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ CS2 & 14.68 \(\pm\) 2.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.84 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ CS3 & 13.97 \(\pm\) 1.77 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.92 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\) & 3.88 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{ANOVA factors and interactions} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{\(p\)-values} \\ Yeast strains & **0.03** & **0.04** & **0.01** & **0.01** & **0.04** \\ Grape & 0.42 & 0.83 & **0.02** & **0.04** & 0.85 \\ varieties & & & & & \\ Yeast strains & & & & & \\ x Grape & 0.72 & 0.84 & 0.43 & 0.24 & 0.09 \\ varieties & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: Mean \(\pm\): STDV were expressed in mg\({}_{\text{analyt}}\)/L\({}_{\text{ wine}}\) of two replicates and four analytical measurements. The different superscript letters (\({}^{\text{a-c}}\)) mean significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) among results in the same column. Significant \(p\) values (\(p<0.05\)) are shown in bold.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean values and standard deviations (mean \(\pm\) STDV) of oenological parameters of wines from Vranec and Cabernet Sauvignon grape varieties and fermented by autochthonous and commercial yeast strains. Wine type abbreviations are defined in Table 1.  
commercial yeast strain (D-80) was employed. On the other hand, the highest levels of anthocyanins were detected for Vranec wine V1 fermented with autochthonous yeast strain F-8 (653.3 g/L) and Vranec wine V3 fermented with commercial yeast strain (D-80) (637.1 g/L). Moreover, the highest color intensity for Vranec wines was detected for Vranec wine V1, while Cabernet Sauvignon wines CS1 and CS3 had higher values for color intensity in comparison to the wine CS2 fermented by autochthonous yeast F-78 (please see the experimental design and abbreviations in Table 1). Statistical analysis presented in Table 5 indicates significant differences among the results for total anthocyanins for two factors and the interaction, while only the type of yeasts had a significant effect on the other two parameters namely, total phenolic compounds and color intensity. The significant interaction effect for total anthocyanins lead to the conclusion that a comparison among yeast strains can only be done by variety. In addition, the significant interaction between yeast strain and variety indicates the need to select isolated yeast to fit specific varieties. Such a profile can also be unfolded by analyzing Figure 3.  
Figure 3: Mean values and standard deviations (mean \(\pm\) STDV) of total phenolic content (mg\({}_{\text{analyt}}\)/L\({}_{\text{wine}}\)), total anthocyanins (mg\({}_{\text{analyt}}\)/L\({}_{\text{wine}}\)) and color intensity (a.u.)