Comparison of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometric to Enzyme Colorimetric Quantification of Glucose from Enzyme-Hydrolyzed Starch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful quantification of the glucose produced by enzyme hydrolysis of starch was achieved by a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) protocol, using sorbitol as an internal standard. The starch contents measured by MALDI-TOF MS of corn starch, fiber-enriched oat flour derivatives, oat and barley flours, and barley flour/corn starch composites were evaluated in comparison to a widely accepted and validated method of starch determination, which relies on enzyme colorimetry (EC). The average starch content measured in a series of corn starch samples of different masses was 93 and 101% for EC and MALDI-TOF MS, respectively, values that represent the estimated purity of the sample. There was an agreement of 99% between the starch contents determined by the two analytical methods for complex flour-derived samples. Starch values estimated by MALDI-TOF MS consistently showed a greater degree of variability than those determined by EC, but this limitation was readily compensated by rapid acquisition of multiple mass spectra. This study is the first to report the quantification of glucose by MALDI-TOF MS, and it offers new perspectives into the potential utility of MALDI-TOF MS as a definitive tool for monosaccharide analysis and rapid starch determination in complex samples.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".