MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020546519 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2272

Relationship between glutenin subunit composition and gluten strength measurements in durum wheat

2005· article· en· W2020546519 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
KeywordsGluteninGlutenCultivarAlleleProtein subunitBiologyCommon wheatNull alleleFood scienceComposition (language)HorticultureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Durum breeders use a range of techniques in the development of new cultivars. An important selection criterion is the rheological properties of semolina dough and durum wheat breeders use this criterion in the development of new cultivars using a range of techniques. Because of the need to process large numbers of genotypes encountered in breeding programs, methods that are inexpensive, rapid, require small amounts of sample and that correlate with semolina quality are desirable. Using breeding material, this study investigated the relationship between the glutenin subunit composition and two traditional tests of gluten strength, gluten index (GI) and mixograph. Two sample sets of durum wheat breeding lines and cultivars, one grown in Canada ( n = 229) and the other grown in Australia ( n = 139) were analysed for GI, mixograph and both high molecular weight (HMW) and low molecular weight (LMW) glutenin subunits by SDS‐PAGE. Nine different HMW and 14 different LMW allelic combinations were found. In the Canadian set, the most frequent LMW alleles were aaa, bba, caa and cfa while in the Australian set, caa was predominant. For the HMW subunits, the most common allelic groups were Glu‐A1c/Glu‐B1d (null, 6 + 8) and Glu‐A1c/Glu‐B1b (null, 7 + 8) with fewer numbers of Glu‐A1c/Glu‐B1e (null, 20) in both sample sets. LMW subunits were more important contributors to gluten strength than HMW subunits with the rank for higher GI according to the LMW allele (Canadian set) being caa = aaa > bba and aaa > cfa while HMW subunits 6 + 8 = 7 + 8 > 20. Similarly, using the mixograph, strength ranking for the LMW alleles was aaa > cfa = bba and HMW subunit 20 gave poorer rheological properties. For some samples with a good LMW allelic group a low GI was observed and vice versa. Further characterisation of the protein composition in these samples showed the GI results could be explained by polymeric/monomeric (P/M), glutenin/gliadin (Glu/Gli) and HMW/LMW ratios or the proportion of unextractable polymeric protein. © Crown in the right of the State of New South Wales, Australia; and for the Department of Agriculture and Agri‐Food, Government of Canada, © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2005. Published for SCI by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.195 · 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