MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967424260 · doi:10.1094/cchem-85-3-0289

Isolation, Fractionation, and Structural Characteristics of Alkali‐Extractable β‐Glucan from Rye Whole Meal

2008· article· en· W1967424260 on OpenAlexaff
Sanaa Ragaee, P. J. Wood, Qi Wang, Susan M. Tosh, Yolanda Brummer, Xu‐Feng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryGlucanFractionationPolysaccharideArabinoxylanChromatographySize-exclusion chromatographyGel permeation chromatographyAmmonium sulfateBiochemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The main nonstarch polysaccharide of rye is arabinoxylan (AX), but rye contains significant levels of (1→3)(1→4)‐β‐ d ‐glucan, which unlike oat and barley β‐glucan, is not readily extracted by water, possibly because of entrapment within a matrix of AX cross‐linked by phenolics. This study continues objectives to improve understanding of factors controlling the physicochemical behavior of the cereal β‐glucans. Rye β‐glucan was extracted by 1.0 N NaOH and increasing concentrations of ammonium sulfate were used to separate the β‐glucan from AX and prepare a series of eight narrow molecular weight (MW) distribution fractions. Composition and structural characteristics of the isolated β‐glucan and the eight fractions were determined. High‐performance size‐exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) with both specific calcofluor binding and a triple detection (light scattering, viscometry, and refractive index) system was used for MW determination. Lichenase digestion followed by high‐performance anion exchange chromatography of released oligosaccharides, was used for structural evaluation. The overall structure of all fractions was similar to that of barley β‐glucan.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207