MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064540565 · doi:10.1155/2009/484571

Sugar Variation in Soybean Seed Assessed with a Rapid Extraction and Quantification Method

2008· article· en· W2064540565 on OpenAlexaff
Anfu Hou, Po-Yuan Chen, Ainong Shi, B. Zhang, Y.-J. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Agronomy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsStachyoseRaffinoseSugarGermplasmFructoseSucroseFood scienceChemistryBiologyHorticultureBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sugar content in soybean [ Glycine max (L) Merr.] seed is an important quality attribute for soyfood and feed. Rapid extraction and quantification of soluble sugars in soybean seed are essential for large-scale breeding selections. In this study, using water as extractant combined with a high-performance anion exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD) system, variability and repeatability of sugar content were tested in 20 diverse soybean genotypes. Individual sugars were clearly resolved and identified, including sucrose, stachyose, raffinose, glucose, fructose, and verbascose. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a highly reproducible estimation of sucrose, stachyose, and raffinose. PI 243545 was confirmed as a unique germplasm with the highest sucrose (105.48 mg/g) and total sugar (148.76 mg/g) content. Two low-oligosaccharide accessions, PI 200508 and 03CB-14, were confirmed with extremely low concentrations of raffinose and stachyose. PI 417559 was identified as a high glucose and fructose germplasm. The identified germplasm with unique sugar profiles will be valuable in breeding specialty soybeans for improved sugar content. The sugar testing method will facilitate the screening of seed sugar profiles in a large-scale soybean breeding program.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations90
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AgronomySame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207