Oxalic Acid-Induced Modifications of Postglycation Activity of Lysozyme and Its Glycoforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of selected carboxylic acids and their potential to influence the glycation pattern and the enzymatic activity of lysozyme using glucose and ribose were investigated independently of the pH of the reaction medium. The model systems were incubated with and without selected carboxylic acids (maleic, acetic, oxalic, and citraconic) at 50 degrees C for 12 or 24 and 48 h at constant pH of 6.5. The effect of carboxylic acids on the glycation of lysozyme was studied by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) and by the measurement of the residual enzyme activity of lysozyme in the glycated samples. Of the carboxylic acids evaluated, oxalic acid showed the highest antiglycation activity. The residual lysozyme activity in both oxalic acid-glucose and oxalic acid-ribose systems was >80% compared with 46 and 36% activity in the controls of glucose and ribose systems, respectively. On the other hand, maleic, acetic, and citraconic acid containing systems with both sugars did not exhibit any enhanced enzyme activity relative to the controls. The results of this study show that oxalic acid was unique among the carboxylic acids evaluated with respect to its ability to interact with sugars and inhibit glycation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".