Synthesis of Structured Lipids via Acidolysis of Docosahexaenoic Acid Single Cell Oil (DHASCO) with Capric Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening of five commercially available lipases for the incorporation of capric acid (CA) into docosahexaenoic acid single cell oil (DHASCO) indicated that lipase PS-30 from Pseudomonas sp. was most effective. Of the various reaction parameters examined, namely, the mole ratio of substrates, enzyme amount, time of incubation, reaction temperature, and amount of added water, for CA incorporation into DHASCO, the optimum conditions were a mole ratio of 1:3 (DHASCO/CA) at a temperature of 45 degrees C, and a reaction time of 24 h in the presence of 4% enzyme and 2% water content. Examination of the positional distribution of fatty acids on the glycerol backbone of the modified DHASCO with CA showed that CA was present mainly in the sn-1,3 positions of the triacylglycerol (TAG) molecules. Meanwhile, DHA was favorably present in the sn-2 position, but also located in the sn-1 and sn-3 positions. The oxidative stability of the modified DHASCO in comparison with the original DHASCO, as indicated in the conjugated diene values, showed that the unmodified oil remained relatively unchanged during storage for 72 h, but DHASCO-based structured lipid was oxidized to a much higher level than the original oil. The modified oil also attained a considerably higher thiobarbituric acid reactive substances value than the original oil over the entire storage period. However, when the oil was subjected to the same process steps in the absence of any enzyme, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in its oxidative stability when compared with enzymatically modified DHASCO. Therefore, removal of antioxidants during the process is primarily responsible for the compromised stability of the modified oil.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".