MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039293516 · doi:10.1021/jf803562q

Effect of Dynamic High Pressure Homogenization on the Aggregation State of Soy Protein

2009· article· en· W2039293516 on OpenAlexaff
Maneephan Keerati‐u‐rai, Milena Corredig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogenization (climate)Soy proteinChemistryChromatographyDenaturation (fissile materials)Soybean ProteinsFood scienceNuclear chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although soy proteins are often employed as functional ingredients in oil-water emulsions, very little is known about the aggregation state of the proteins in solution and whether any changes occur to soy protein dispersions during homogenization. The effect of dynamic high pressure homogenization on the aggregation state of the proteins was investigated using microdifferential scanning calorimetry and high performance size exclusion chromatography coupled with multiangle laser light scattering. Soy protein isolates as well as glycinin and beta-conglycinin fractions were prepared from defatted soy flakes and redispersed in 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer at pH 7.4. The dispersions were then subjected to homogenization at two different pressures, 26 and 65 MPa. The results demonstrated that dynamic high pressure homogenization causes changes in the supramolecular structure of the soy proteins. Both beta-conglycinin and glycinin samples had an increased temperature of denaturation after homogenization. The chromatographic elution profile showed a reduction in the aggregate concentration with homogenization pressure for beta-conglycinin and an increase in the size of the soluble aggregates for glycinin and soy protein isolate.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations163
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207