MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990671421 · doi:10.1021/jf0496907

Characterization of a Calcium-Soluble Protein Fraction from Yellow Mustard (<i>Sinapis alba</i>) Seed Meal with Potential Application as an Additive to Calcium-Rich Drinks

2004· article· en· W1990671421 on OpenAlexaff
Rotimi E. Aluko, Martin J. T. Reaney, Tara McIntosh, François Ouellet, F. Katepa‐Mupondwa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciumSinapisBrassicaChemistryFood scienceMustard seedBiochemistryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A calcium-soluble protein isolate (CSPI) was prepared from the supernatant obtained after addition of 0.75 M calcium chloride to a pH 5.0 aqueous extract of yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) seed meal. Total amino acid analysis showed that the CSPI has significantly higher (p < 0.05) contents of glutamic acid + glutamine, cysteine, and proline when compared to the precipitated, calcium-insoluble proteins. Peptide mass fingerprinting of tryptic peptides of the major polypeptides by mass spectrometry indicated that the CSPI is composed mainly of cruciferin proteins with a contribution from napins (the major allergenic proteins of S. alba). The S. alba CSPI had significantly higher (p < 0.05) protein solubility and emulsion formation ability in the presence of 0.75 M calcium chloride when compared to similar isolates prepared from Brassica juncea (brown mustard) and soybean seed meals. We suggest that the S. alba CSPI could be used to prepare calcium-fortified high protein liquid products. However, the presence of allergenic proteins in this extract may limit its widespread food use.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207