Distribution of Cyclolinopeptides in Flaxseed Fractions and Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrophobic cyclic peptides, termed cyclolinopeptides, found in flaxseed are known for their immunosuppressive activity. This study is the first report of the occurrence of cyclolinopeptides in flaxseed fractions and products produced by aqueous processing and cold pressing. The distribution of cyclolinopeptides in flaxseed was determined after processing of flaxseed by various industrial and laboratory processes. Extracts of the water-soluble mucilage did not contain cyclolinopeptides. The cotyledon had the highest concentration of cyclolinopeptides, whereas seed coat had lower levels. An oil body fraction separated from seed after homogenization in water, followed by centrifugation, had the highest concentration of cyclolinopeptides of the fractions produced by this method. Further washing of the oil body fraction led to a loss of cyclolinopeptides. When oilseed was extruded using an expeller press, cyclolinopeptides were found in greater concentrations in crude oil and the solid sediment present in the oil fraction than in meal or the unprocessed seed. The concentration of cyclolinopeptides in crude flaxseed oil immediately after pressing was much higher than that observed in flaxseed oils purchased from a retail outlet. The effect of oil refining treatments on the removal of cyclolinopeptides was also tested. Acid degumming using aqueous H(3)PO(4) removed cyclolinopeptides from crude flaxseed oil. Alkali refining was less effective as this treatment failed to remove all peptides equally. This work illustrates ways that cyclolinopeptides may be extracted from flaxseed oil that could be developed for large-scale industrial extraction. The ability to extract cyclolinopeptides on a larger scale would allow faster exploitation of commercial applications of these molecules and provide the flaxseed industry with value-added coproducts.
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) | 0.000 | 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".