FT-Raman Spectroscopy, Fluorescent Probe, and Solvent Accessibility Study of Egg and Milk Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to possible contribution of both electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions, use of anionic fluorescent probes such as 1-anilinonaphthalene-8-sulfonic acid (ANS) and cis-parinaric acid (CPA) for the measurement of protein surface hydrophobicity (S0) has been controversial. A neutral probe, 6-propionyl-2-(dimethylamino)-naphthalene (PRODAN), may circumvent this problem. To select the best indicator of S0, in this study, the data for nine model proteins in phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, measured using the above-mentioned probes, was compared to their FT-Raman spectra and calculated solvent accessibility values. Log S0 measured using CPA had the highest correlation (r = 0.874) with the intensities of Raman spectral signals at 760 cm(-1) and 2800-3100 cm(-1), which were combined using a mixture design based on the random-centroid optimization. The order of correlation of Raman spectral parameters with S0 values were CPA > PRODAN > ANS. FT-Raman spectroscopy, therefore, identified CPA, followed by PRODAN, as the fluorescent probe of choice for describing surface hydrophobicity. However, the amino acid surface accessibility calculated using the PredictProtein software was not useful in identifying the best fluorescent probe for the measurement of S0.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".