MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975442547 · doi:10.1021/jf0343736

Soyasapogenol A and B Distribution in Soybean (<i>Glycine max </i>L. Merr.) in Relation to Seed Physiology, Genetic Variability, and Growing Location

2003· article· en· W1975442547 on OpenAlexaffabout
H.P. Vasantha Rupasinghe, Chung‐Ja C. Jackson, Vaino Poysa, Christina Di Berardo, J. Derek Bewley, Jonathan Jenkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadicleSeedlingChemistryTriterpeneGerminationCultivarGlycineHigh-performance liquid chromatographyIsoflavonesFood scienceBotanyBiologyChromatographyBiochemistryAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient analytical method utilizing high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/evaporative light scattering detector (ELSD) was developed to isolate and quantify the two major soyasaponin aglycones or precursors in soybeans, triterpene soyasapogenol A and B. Soaking of seeds in water up to 15 h did not change the content of soyasapogenols. Seed germination had no influence on soyasapogenol A content but increased the accumulation of soyasapogenol B. Soyasapogenols were mainly concentrated in the axis of the seeds as compared with the cotyledons and seed coat. In the seedling, the root (radicle) contained the highest concentration of soyasapogenol A, while the plumule had the greatest amounts of soyasapogenol B. In 10 advanced food-grade soybean cultivars grown in four locations in Ontario, total soyasapogenol content in soybeans was 2 +/- 0.3 mg/g. Soyasapogenol B content (1.5 +/- 0.27 mg/g) was 2.5-4.5-fold higher than soyasapogenol A content (0.49 +/- 0.1 mg/g). A significant variation in soyasapogenol content was observed among cultivars and growing locations. There was no significant correlation between the content of soyasapogenols and the total isoflavone aglycones.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations139
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207