# Correlations Between Phenolic Composition and Perceived Astringency of Wines
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Phenolic Composition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Class**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Breeding Lines**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Phenolic Compounds (\(\mu\)g/mL)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Turbidity**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **TPC 1** & **PAC 2** & **PTC 3** & **TAC 4** & **(\(<\)10\({}^{3}\) NTU 5)** \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Red} & T-04-04-24 & 1324 \(\pm\) 9 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 266.7 \(\pm\) 19.9 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 241.2 \(\pm\) 33.1 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 296.6 \(\pm\) 12.3 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 28.5 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) \\  & T-07-66-23 & 858 \(\pm\) 19 \({}^{\mathrm{f}}\) & 54.7 \(\pm\) 9 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & N/D & 376.4 \(\pm\) 12.5 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 14.2 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\mathrm{de}}\) \\  & T-07-66-84 & 1067 \(\pm\) 30 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 62.2 \(\pm\) 13.1 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 40.4 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 236.8 \(\pm\) 9.2 \({}^{\mathrm{f}}\) & 12.8 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\mathrm{de}}\) \\  & T-07-66-106 & 1114 \(\pm\) 24 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 81.6 \(\pm\) 18.8 & N/D & 722.4 \(\pm\) 52.8 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 19.4 \(\pm\) 2.9 \({}^{\mathrm{od}}\) \\  & T-12-02-06 & 1720 \(\pm\) 42 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 239.2 \(\pm\) 26.3 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 177.1 \(\pm\) 26.5 \({}^{\mathrm{cd}}\) & 295 \(\pm\) 14.8 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 25.4 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) \\  & T-12-02-08 & 1484 \(\pm\) 42 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 190.2 \(\pm\) 28.7 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 137.7 \(\pm\) 15.7 \({}^{\mathrm{ef}}\) & 314.2 \(\pm\) 12.8 \({}^{\mathrm{de}}\) & 28 \(\pm\) 7.1 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) \\  & W-01-12-157 & 1693 \(\pm\) 102 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 360.1 \(\pm\) 34.9 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 247.1 \(\pm\) 46.1 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 174.6 \(\pm\) 2.9 \({}^{\mathrm{g}}\) & 33.3 \(\pm\) 11.9 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) \\  & W-07-02-13 & 1129 \(\pm\) 28 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 55.1 \(\pm\) 8 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 7 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{i}}\) & 695 \(\pm\) 9 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 25.4 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) \\  & W-10-01-65 & 1320 \(\pm\) 30 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 223.3 \(\pm\) 26.8 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 203.3 \(\pm\) 25.8 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 343.7 \(\pm\) 19 \({}^{\mathrm{cd}}\) & 31.5 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\  & W-10-05-018 & 1270 \(\pm\) 12 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 331.4 \(\pm\) 28 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 167.2 \(\pm\) 8.1 \({}^{\mathrm{de}}\) & 63.5 \(\pm\) 5.9 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 10.8 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\mathrm{de}}\) \\  & W-11-01-33 & 2714 \(\pm\) 95 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 242.3 \(\pm\) 29.6 \({}^{\mathrm{cd}}\) & 324.3 \(\pm\) 6.4 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 804.9 \(\pm\) 56.2 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 41 \(\pm\) 9.7 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{White} & W-10-21-174 & 238 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\mathrm{h}}\) & 13.9 \(\pm\) 2.7 \({}^{\mathrm{i}}\) & N/D & N/D & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) \\  & W-12-06-05 & 635 \(\pm\) 7 \({}^{\mathrm{g}}\) & 146.9 \(\pm\) 23.8 \({}^{\mathrm{g}}\) & 71.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\mathrm{g}}\) & N/D & 7.5 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & W-12-06-07 & 631 \(\pm\) 7 \(of monomeric, oligomeric and polymeric flavan-3-ols (i.e., catechin, epicatechin, epigallocatechin and epicatechin gallate) while polymeric tannins contain oligomeric and polymeric proanthocyanidins and hydrolysable tannins (i.e., tannic acid). As presented in Table 3, the breeding lines T-07-66-23, T-07-66-84, T-07-66-106, W-07-02-13 and W-10-21-174 contained 13-81 \(\upmu\)g CE/mL of proanthocyanidins but no or only trace amounts of polymeric tannins. Based on this result, the proanthocyanidins in the wines were assumed to be either monomers or dimers or a mixture because the BSA used for precipitating the tannins did not bind to monomeric or dimeric tannins [22]. Furthermore, the two astringent attributes of the PTC and the PAC showed quite different correlation coefficients with perceived astringency in the correlation test.