MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056344806 · doi:10.1021/jf000986w

Carbohydrate and Amino Acid Degradation Pathways in <scp>l</scp>-Methionine/<scp>d</scp>-[<sup>13</sup>C] Glucose Model Systems

2001· article· en· W2056344806 on OpenAlexaff
Varoujan A. Yaylayan, Anahita Keyhani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAmino Acid Enzymes and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycolaldehydeMaillard reactionChemistryCarbohydrateMoietyMethionineStereochemistryGlyceraldehydeDeoxyriboseAmino acidBiochemistryEnzymeCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maillard model systems consisting of labeled D-[(13)C]glucoses, L-[(15)N]methionine, and L-[methyl-(13)C]methionine, have been utilized to identify the amino acid and carbohydrate fragmentation pathways occurring in the model system through Py-GC/MS analysis. The label incorporation analyses have indicated that the carbohydrate moiety produces 1-deoxy- and 3-deoxyglucosones and undergoes C(2)/C(4) and C(3)/C(3) cleavages to produce glycolaldehyde, tetrose, and C(3)-reactive sugar derivatives such as acetol, glyceraldehyde, and pyruvaldehyde. Glycolaldehyde was found to incorporate C-1, C-2 (70%) and C-5, C-6 (30%) glucose carbon fragments, whereas the tetrose moiety incorporates only C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6 glucose carbon atoms. In addition, the major source of reactive C(3) fragments was found to contain C-4, C-5, C-6 sugar moiety. On the other hand, methionine alone also generated Strecker aldehyde as detected by its condensation product with 3-(methylthio)propylamine. Plausible mechanisms were proposed for the formation of the interaction products between sugar and amino acid degradation products on the basis of the label incorporation patterns.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations49
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicAmino Acid Enzymes and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207