MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067571444 · doi:10.1007/s11746-004-961-0

Electrophoretic and functional properties of mustard seed meals and protein concentrates

2004· article· en· W2067571444 on OpenAlexaff
Rotimi E. Aluko, Tara McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrassicaSinapisBiologyRapeseedBotanyMealHorticultureFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Defatted meals and protein concentrates from five varieties of mustard seeds (four Brassica spp. and one Sinapis alba ) were analyzed for polypeptide composition and functional properties. Nonreducing gel electrophoresis showed that Brassica seeds lacked the 135‐ and 50‐kDa polypeptides that were present in the seeds of the S. alba variety. On the other hand, the 29‐kDa polypeptide found in the Brassica seeds was absent from the seed of the S. alba variety. Under reducing conditions, the 135 kDa was not detected in the S. alba variety and the intensity of the 50‐kDa polypeptide was severely reduced; in contrast, the intensity of the 29‐kDa polypeptide in the Brassica seeds was not affected. Meals from yellow seeds had significantly higher ( P ≤0.05) protein contents than meals from the brown seeds. The emulsifying activity indexes (EAI) of meals and protein concentrates from the Brassica seeds were significantly higher ( P ≤0.05) than those obtained for similar products from S. alba sees. It was concluded that the disulfide‐bonded 50‐ and 135‐kDa polypeptides may have contributed to increased rigidity of S. alba meal proteins, which resulted in poor EAI when compared to the Brassica meals, which do not contain these polypeptides.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.182
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207