MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064703481 · doi:10.1021/jf9906578

Factors Affecting the Dissolution and Degradation of Oriental Mustard-Derived Sinigrin and Allyl Isothiocyanate in Aqueous Media

2000· article· en· W2064703481 on OpenAlexaff
Rong Tsao, Qing Yu, Irene Friesen, J. W. Potter, Mikio Chiba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinigrinAllyl isothiocyanateMyrosinaseGlucosinolateChemistryBrassicaMustard seedBranIsothiocyanateAgronomyFood scienceBiochemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sinigrin, the predominant glucosinolate in the oriental mustard Brassica juncea, is mainly degraded upon the enzymatic action of myrosinase under normal conditions to give allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) in an aqueous media. Because AITC is considered to be the principal nematicidal ingredient in B. juncea, its stability in aqueous media is an important issue in achieving efficient nematode control. Pure sinigrin and AITC were found to be relatively stable in buffered water in the pH range of 5.00-7.00 but less stable at pH 9.00. Both sinigrin and AITC were more stable in soil water (supernatant of a 1:1 water/air-dried soil mixture) than in buffered water at the same pH range of 5.00-9.00. Sinigrin dissolved from the mustard bran or ground seed into water very quickly and was degraded by codissolved myrosinase to AITC. The AITC that formed from the degradation of sinigrin was found to be more stable in the soil water than in the buffered water. Buffer capacity was considered to be one of the factors that contributed to the stabilization of AITC in the soil water, but other unknown factors from both bran or seed and soil may also have contributed to the stabilization.

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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations66
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207