## 3 Results
### Chemical Markers of Gentiant Root Origin Present in Gentian Macerated Wines  
Table 2 indicate the classical oenological parameters of Chardonnay white wines macerated with MC and J gentian roots. Even if evident differences could be diagnosed between non macerated wines and macerated wines, no statistical differences between all these enological classical parameters enable to discriminate the macerated wines MCW and JW (\(p\)-value \(>\) 0.05). Nevertheless Table 2 interestingly reflects that root powder extraction in Chardonnay white wine by the maceration process tend to differentiate geographic sites with amarogentin and loganic acid (genitopicoside is still not statistically different between the two sites). These results could be ascribed to a higher solubility of amarogentin compared to genitopicoside in ethanol/water-solution (Sen, 2018). When looking to the mineral content of macerated wines, calcium is still differentiating JW with higher mean values (114.49 mg\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\)) compared to MCW (84.46 mg\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\)), but the order of difference has changed from 7 in powder methanolic extracts compared to 1.3 in the resulting wines. Magnesium is even no more statistically differing from MC to J due to the elevated content of Mg element in the unmacerated wine, reaching up to 80 mg\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\) (Table S1). Interestingly, other mineral elements such as Sr, Al, K and Ba mean concentrations were statistically differentiating the two gentian sampling sites. For volatile compounds, the differentiation of geographic sites in wines was less evident compared to powders as shown in Figure S1 and presented in the PCA in Figure 2. Only 8 molecular features associated with their RT (retention times) were differentiating origin with our statistical criteria and resulting in the separation of macerated wines based on gentian origin in the PCA presented in Figure 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **MCW** & **JW** & \(p-\)**Value** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Enological classical parameters**} \\ Ethanol (\%) & 12.05 +/\(-\) 0.10 & 12.13 +/\(-\) 0.03 & 0.357 \\ Glucose/fructose & 9.0 +/\(-\) 0.63 & 7.6 +/\(-\) 1.05 & 0.661 \\ Total sugars (g\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\)) & 15.67 +/\(-\) 0.73 & 14.3 +/\(-\) 1.21 & 0.877 \\ Total acidity (g\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\) H\({}_{2}\)SO\({}_{4}\)) & 3.82 +/\(-\) 0.03 & 3.88 +/\(-\) 0.09 & 0.572 \\ Volatile acidity (g\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\) CH\({}_{3}\)CO\({}_{2}\)H) & 0.16 +/\(-\) 0.02 & 0.15 +/\(-\) 0.03 & 0.501 \\ pH & 3.21 +/\(-\) 0.01 & 3.17 +/\(-\) 0.03 & 0.862 \\ Malic acid (g\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\)) & 0.37 +/\(-\) 0.06 & 0.3 +/\(-\) 0.06 & 0.518 \\ Density & 0.9955 +/\(-\) 0.0003 & 0.9952 +/\(-\) 0.0003 & 0.587 \\ Color CIELAB L & 72.85 +/\(-\) 1.32 & 71.87 +/\(-\) 2.25 & 0.432 \\ a & 18.10 +/\(-\) 0.39 & 18.73 +/\(-\) 3.32 & 0.191 \\ b & 91.35 +/\(-\) 1.69 & 92.52 +/\(-\) 4.36 & 0.237 \\
**Bitter compounds (mg\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\))** & & & \\ Gentiopicroside & 134.42 +/\(-\) 97.23 & 447.49 +/\(-\) 221.95 & 0.089 \\ Amarogentin & 3.57 +/\(-\) 0.50 & 5.63 +/\(-\) 0.80 & 0.019 * \\ Loganic acid & 20.87 +/\(-\) 5.81 & 32.16 +/\(-\) 3.09 & 0.041 * \\
**Mineral elements (mg\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\))** & & & \\ K & 682.48 +/\(-\) 21.80 & 637.05 +/\(-\) 8.00 & 0.028 * \\ Mg & 108.33 +/\(-\) 5.03 & 102.67 +/\(-\) 3.79 & 0.194 \\ Ca & 84.46 +/\(-\) 10.3 & 114.39 +/\(-\) 7.30 & 0.003 * \\ Al & 6.74 +/\(-\) 0.46 & 2.45 +/\(-\) 0.74 & 0.001 * \\ Ba & 0.37 +/\(-\) 0.04 & 0.27 +/\(-\) 0.05 & 0.04 * \\ Sr & 0.41 +/\(-\) 0.02 & 0.18 +/\(-\) 0.01 & 0.0001 * \\ \hline \end{tabular} Values are mean of three replicates \(\pm\) standard deviation. The symbol * indicates a significant difference (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05). Values obtained for the unmacerated wine control wine (CW) are indicated in Table S1.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Enological classical parameters and concentrations of main bitter compounds and mineral elements in gentian macerated wines from the two sampling sites.