MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109470515 · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2820

Short communication: Separation and quantification of caseins and casein macropeptide using ion-exchange chromatography

2010· article· en· W2109470515 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Holland, Saeed Rahimi Yazdi, G. Ion Titapiccolo, Milena Corredig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyChemistryCaseinRennetElutionIon exchangeSodium acetateSkimmed milkIon chromatographyHydrolysisIonBiochemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this work was to improve an existing method to separate and quantify the 4 major caseins from milk samples (i.e., containing whey proteins) using ion-exchange chromatography. The separation process was carried out using a mini-preparative cation exchange column (1 or 5mL of column volume), using urea acetate as elution buffer at pH 3.5 with a NaCl gradient. All 4 major caseins were separated, and the purity of each peak was assessed using sodium dodecyl sulfate-PAGE. Purified casein fractions were also added to raw milk to confirm their elution volumes. The quantification was carried out using purified caseins in buffer as well as added directly to fresh skim milk. This method can also be employed to determine the decrease in kappa-casein and the release of the casein-macropeptide during enzymatic hydrolysis using rennet. In this case, the main advantage of using this method is the lack of organic solvents compared with the conventional method for separation of macropeptide (using reversed phase HPLC).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207