Chemometric Analysis of the Amino Acid Requirements of Antioxidant Food Protein Hydrolysates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contributions of individual amino acid residues or groups of amino acids to antioxidant activities of some food protein hydrolysates were investigated using partial least squares (PLS) regression method. PLS models were computed with amino acid composition and 3-z scale descriptors in the X-matrix and antioxidant activities of the samples in the Y-matrix; models were validated by cross-validation and permutation tests. Based on coefficients of the resulting models, it was observed that sulfur-containing (SCAA), acidic and hydrophobic amino acids had strong positive effects on scavenging of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and H(2)O(2) radicals in addition to ferric reducing antioxidant power. For superoxide radicals, only lysine and leucine showed strong positive contributions while SCAA had strong negative contributions to scavenging by the protein hydrolysates. In contrast, positively-charged amino acids strongly contributed negatively to ferric reducing antioxidant power and scavenging of DPPH and H(2)O(2) radicals. Therefore, food protein hydrolysates containing appropriate amounts of amino acids with strong contribution properties could be potential candidates for use as potent antioxidant agents. We conclude that information presented in this work could support the development of low cost methods that will efficiently generate potent antioxidant peptide mixtures from food proteins without the need for costly peptide purification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".