Studies on the Stability of Chicken IgY in Different Sugars, Complex Carbohydrates and Food Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of non-reducing sugars (sucrose, lactose and trehalose), complex carbohydrates (cyclodextrin and dextran), infant formula or egg yolk on the stability of purified chicken IgY was evaluated under different conditions. Regardless of the protectant that was used, about 20% of the activity of IgY was lost during freeze-drying except in the presence of infant formula where the loss of IgY activity was approximately 75%. The lowest loss of activity (10%) was observed when no protectant was used. Trehalose was the best protectant followed by cyclodextrin and infant formula when IgY was stored for 6 or 14 weeks at different temperatures. Sucrose, lactose and dextran were not effective as protectants under these conditions. IgY activity was completely lost after pepsin treatment in the presence of sugars or complex carbohydrates while 34 and 40% of its activity was recovered when treated in the presence of infant formula and egg yolk, respectively. IgY was fairly stable after trypsin treatment with the recovery of residual activity being between 75100% depending on the protectant. Finally, the effect of heat treatment on the stability of aqueous solutions of IgY was evaluated. IgY was stable at 50, 60 or 70°C while complete loss of IgY activity was observed at 80 and 90°C in the presence of all protectants except infant formula and egg yolk were about 5% residual activity was observed. These results demonstrate that the addition of different compounds to IgY during freeze-drying or storage at different temperatures or subjecting them to enzyme treatments provided varying and in most cases considerable protection against loss of biological activity. Keywords: Chicken Igy Freeze-DRYINGPepsinCyclodextrinDextranSugarsInfant FormulaIgy Stability
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".