Vitamin D4 in Mushrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An unknown vitamin D compound was observed in the HPLC-UV chromatogram of edible mushrooms in the course of analyzing vitamin D(2) as part of a food composition study and confirmed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to be vitamin D(4) (22-dihydroergocalciferol). Vitamin D(4) was quantified by HPLC with UV detection, with vitamin [(3)H] itamin D(3) as an internal standard. White button, crimini, portabella, enoki, shiitake, maitake, oyster, morel, chanterelle, and UV-treated portabella mushrooms were analyzed, as four composites each of a total of 71 samples from U.S. retail suppliers and producers. Vitamin D(4) was present (>0.1 µg/100 g) in a total of 18 composites and in at least one composite of each mushroom type except white button. The level was highest in samples with known UV exposure: vitamin D enhanced portabella, and maitake mushrooms from one supplier (0.2-7.0 and 22.5-35.4 µg/100 g, respectively). Other mushrooms had detectable vitamin D(4) in some but not all samples. In one composite of oyster mushrooms the vitamin D(4) content was more than twice that of D(2) (6.29 vs. 2.59 µg/100 g). Vitamin D(4) exceeded 2 µg/100 g in the morel and chanterelle mushroom samples that contained D(4), but was undetectable in two morel samples. The vitamin D(4) precursor 22,23-dihydroergosterol was found in all composites (4.49-16.5 mg/100 g). Vitamin D(4) should be expected to occur in mushrooms exposed to UV light, such as commercially produced vitamin D enhanced products, wild grown mushrooms or other mushrooms receiving incidental exposure. Because vitamin D(4) coeluted with D(3) in the routine HPLC analysis of vitamin D(2) and an alternate mobile phase was necessary for resolution, researchers analyzing vitamin D(2) in mushrooms and using D(3) as an internal standard should verify that the system will resolve vitamins D(3) and D(4).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".