MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063437789 · doi:10.4236/fns.2015.63035

Molecular Weight Determination of a Protease Extracted from <i>Mucor pusillus</i>: Comparison Methods

2015· article· en· W2063437789 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelouahab Nouani, Slamani Roza, Slimane Belbraouet, Etienne Dako, Audet Pascal, Bellal Mohand Mouloud

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Nutrition Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular massProteaseChemistryChromatographySize-exclusion chromatographySephadexGel electrophoresisSodium dodecyl sulfatePepsinPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisTrypsinBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mucor pepsin, a protease used in milk coagulation, is purified by ion-exchange and by molecular exclusion on Sephadex G100. The molecular weight (MW) is determined by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under denaturing conditions in presence of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and by molecular exclusion chromatography. Approximate evaluation of molecular mass was conducted by elution of known MW proteins (BSA: 67 kDa, pepsin: 35 kDa and trypsin: 23.8 kDa) on Sephadex G-100 under the same conditions as the experimental sample. The electrophoretic profile shows that the active fraction studied appears as a single homogeneous band (monomeric form). According to the curve calibration, the molecular mass of the coagulant fraction is about 48 kDa. For Mucor, the observed MW value seems to be enigmatic. However, this result is confirmed by a proteomic analysis with close MW values obtained using conventional techniques. The protease studied by the Scafold ver. Software 2.0 and the analysis of the protein similarities indicate a MW of 46 kDa and the protease sequence of 427 amino acids.

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)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Nutrition SciencesSame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207