Compositional Differences in Anthocyanins from Blue‐ and Purple‐Grained Spring Wheat Grown in Four Environments in Central Saskatchewan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthocyanins are important dietary components that play significant roles in human health because of their antioxidant and anti‐inflammatory properties. In the present study nine anthocyanin‐pigmented spring wheat lines grown at two sites in central Saskatchewan, Canada, were evaluated in terms of anthocyanin composition in comparison with four wheat checks over a two‐year period. The genotypes studied were blue‐aleurone and purple‐pericarp wheat. The anthocyanin pigments were quantified and identified with liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Two anthocyanin profiles were identified in the breeding lines, namely, blue profile and purple profile. Wheat lines with a purple profile had overall higher anthocyanin concentrations and more pigments than the blue‐aleurone lines. The purple profile was also characterized by the presence of acylated anthocyanins containing malonyl and succinyl substituents, but no acylated pigments were found in the blue profile. Delphinidin was the dominant aglycone in the blue profile, whereas cyanidin was the principal anthocyanidin in the purple profile. Genotype and interactions among genotype, year, and location were found to significantly influence content and composition of anthocyanin pigments. These differences in anthocyanin content and composition reflect various color characteristics and bioactivity for purple or blue wheat when utilized.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it