Insecticidal Components from Field Pea Extracts: Isolation and Separation of Peptide Mixtures Related to Pea Albumin 1b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromatographic fractionation of crude extracts (C8 extracts) from the protein-enriched flour of commercial field peas (Pisum sativum L.) has been shown here to yield peptide mixtures related to the pea albumin 1b (PA1b) family of cysteine-rich plant peptides. The mixtures were obtained initially by flash chromatography with silica gel. Following elution of soyasaponins and lysolecithins, the end fractions obtained with the use of two flash chromatographic solvent systems displayed activity in a flour disk antifeedant bioassay with the rice weevil [Sitophilus oryzae (L.)]. Chemical properties of these mixtures were compared by thin-layer chromatography, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), IR, MS, and amino acid analyses. The major peptides of C8 extracts, with average masses of 3752, 3757, and 3805 Da, were isolated by anion exchange chromatography. Samples enriched in the peptide of mass 3752 were isolated by cation exchange chromatography. Reduction plus alkylation experiments in combination with electrospray ionization mass spectrometry showed that C8 extracts contained about 10 peptides and, like PA1b, each peptide possessed six cysteine residues (three disulfide bonds). Disulfide bond reduction with 2-mercaptoethanol destroyed the antifeedant activity. The native peptides of C8 extracts were found to be resolved into nine peaks with XTerra HPLC columns operating at alkaline pH. These columns were employed to assess the distribution of pea peptides in the isolated fractions, with photodiode array and electrospray detection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".