MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994466234 · doi:10.1021/jf305500t

Analysis of Glabrous Canary Seeds by ELISA, Mass Spectrometry, and Western Blotting for the Absence of Cross-Reactivity with Major Plant Food Allergens

2013· article· en· W1994466234 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce I. Boye, Allaoua Achouri, Nancy C. Raymond, Chantal Cléroux, Dorcas Weber, Terence Koerner, Pierre Hucl, Carol Ann Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanHealth CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutenPoaceaeBiologyProlaminGliadinBotanyFood scienceChemistryStorage proteinBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glabrous (hairless) canary seed belongs to the Poaceae (Gramineae) family and could serve as an alternative source of gluten-free cereal grain. In this study, allergenic cross-reactivities between hairless, dehulled canary seeds (Phalaris canariensis) and major allergenic proteins from gluten, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, and mustard were studied using commercial enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay (ELISA) kits specific for these target allergens. Mass spectrometry (MS) and immunoblotting were further used to assess for the presence of gluten-specific protein fragments. MS results revealed the likely presence of proteins homologous with rice, oat, corn, carrot, tomato, radish, beet, and chickpea. However, no presence of celiac-related gluten fragments from wheat, rye, barley, or their derivatives was found. Immunoblotting studies yielded negative results, further confirming the absence of gluten in the canary seed samples tested. No cross-reactivities were detected between canary seeds and almond, hazelnut, mustard, peanut, sesame, soy, walnut, and gluten using ELISA.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207