Acrylamide Formation in Food: A Mechanistic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earliest reports on the origin of acrylamide in food have confirmed asparagine as the main amino acid responsible for its formation. Available evidence suggests that sugars and other carbonyl compounds play a specific role in the decarboxylation process of asparagine, a necessary step in the generation of acrylamide. It has been proposed that Schiff base intermediate formed between asparagine and the sugar provides a low energy alternative to the decarboxylation from the intact Amadori product through generation and decomposition of oxazolidin-5-one intermediate, leading to the formation of a relatively stable azomethine ylide. Literature data indicate the propensity of such protonated ylides to undergo irreversible 1,2-prototropic shift and produce, in this case, decarboxylated Schiff bases which can easily rearrange into corresponding Amadori products. Decarboxylated Amadori products can either undergo the well known beta-elimination process initiated by the sugar moiety to produce 3-aminopropanamide and 1-deoxyglucosone or undergo 1,2-elimination initiated by the amino acid moiety to directly generate acrylamide. On the other hand, the Schiff intermediate can either hydrolyze and release 3-aminopropanamide or similarly undergo amino acid initiated 1,2-elimination to directly form acrylamide. Other thermolytic pathways to acrylamide--considered marginal at this stage--via the Strecker aldehyde, acrolein, and acrylic acid, are also addressed. Despite significant progress in the understanding of the mechanistic aspects of acrylamide formation, concrete evidence for the role of the different proposed intermediates in foods is still lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".