MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063228707 · doi:10.1021/jf0304167

Pyruvic Acid and Acetaldehyde Production by Different Strains of<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>:  Relationship with Vitisin A and B Formation in Red Wines

2003· article· en· W2063228707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
António Morata, M.C. Gómez-Cordovés, B. Colomo, José Antonio Suárez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLallemand
KeywordsAcetaldehydePyruvic acidChemistryFermentationOenologyBiochemistryVitis viniferaFood scienceWineChromatographyBiologyEthanolBotanyViticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of pyruvate and acetaldehyde by 10 strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae was monitored during the fermentation of Vitis vinifera L. variety Tempranillo grape must to determine how these compounds might influence the formation of the pyroanthocyanins vitisin A and B (malvidin-3-O-glucoside-pyruvate acid and malvidin-3-O-glucoside-4 vinyl, respectively). Pyruvate and acetaldehyde production patterns were determined for each strain. Pyruvate production reached a maximum on day four of fermentation, while acetaldehyde production was at its peak in the final stages. The correlation between pyruvate production and vitisin A formation was especially strong (R (2) = 0.80) on day 4, when the greatest quantity of pyruvate was found in the medium. The correlation between acetaldehyde production and the formation of vitisin B was strongest (R (2) = 0.81) at the end of fermentation when the acetaldehyde content of the medium was at its highest. Identification and quantification experiments were performed by HPLC-DAD. The identification of the vitisins was confirmed by LC/ESI-MS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations142
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207