Simplified Dilute Acetic Acid Based Extraction Procedure for Fractionation and Analysis of Wheat Flour Protein by Size Exclusion HPLC and Flow Field‐Flow Fractionation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A simple, highly efficient and reproducible two‐step extraction procedure using dilute acetic acid without (AN) and then with sonication (AS) has been developed for the fractionation of wheat flour protein. Approximately 97% of total protein was extracted from a Canadian hard red spring wheat flour; an additional 1.2% protein could be recovered by further extraction with 1% DDT and 50% 1‐propanol (AR). Size‐exclusion HPLC (SE‐HPLC) and flow field‐flow fractionation (flow FFF) showed that the AN extract, which accounted for most of the total extractable protein (AN + AS + AR), consisted primarily of monomeric protein. The AS extract was composed primarily of polymeric proteins. Flow FFF showed that AN polymeric protein, including that eluting at the SE‐HPLC void volume, showed smaller Stokes diameters than AS polymeric protein. Flow FFF profiles of AS SE‐HPLC subfractions showed that the void volume subfraction contained monomeric and small polymeric protein in addition to large polymeric protein, indicating formation of larger complexes through interaction between some or all of the components. AN and AS extracts, as well as SE‐HPLC and flow FFF fractions thereof, showed a fairly wide range of values among 12 Canadian hard red and white spring wheat cultivars. The proportion of total protein in the AS extract and in the larger sized polymeric protein fractions from SE‐HPLC and flow FFF were highly positively correlated to farinograph mixing time.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it