In‐depth study of the protein molecular structures of different types of dried distillers grains with solubles and their relationship to digestive characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) have been extensively utilised in ruminant rations in western Canada and USA, and it is important to ensure their consistent quality. Traditional chemical methods do not consider the inherent structural changes of feed ingredients. Synchrotron-based Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (SFTIRM) and diffuse reflectance infrared Fourier transform spectroscopy (DRIFT) have been utilised to detect the changes in molecular structure of several feedstuffs (e.g. barley, flaxseed and alfalfa). However, similar structural information is lacking for DDGS. The objectives of this study were to identify differences in protein molecular structures between different grains (wheat, triticale and corn) and DDGS (wheat DDGS, triticale DDGS, corn DDGS and wheat and corn blend DDGS) using SFTIRM and DRIFT and to reveal the relationship between changes in protein molecular structure and the digestive characteristics of the protein in DDGS when fed to dairy cattle. RESULTS: The protein molecular structure studies showed significant decreases (P < 0.01) in the amide I to amide II ratio and the α-helix to β-sheet ratio between grains and their DDGS. Protein digestive characteristics were correlated with protein molecular structures in grains and DDGS, and prediction equations were established to estimate protein digestive characteristics of DDGS using protein molecular structure parameters. For the DVE/OEB-1994 model, one of the best prediction equations was for truly absorbed protein in the small intestine (DVE) = 296.17 - 38.98 × the amide I to amide II ratio (R(2) = 0.72). For the NRC-2001 system, one of the best prediction equations was for metabolisable protein (MP) = 300.96 - 43.32 × the amide I to amide II ratio (R(2) = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Protein molecular structure varies between different DDGS and their original grains, and this variation is associated with the digestive characteristics of the proteins in the DDGS and their original grains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".