Quantification of monomeric and polymeric wheat proteins and the relationship of protein fractions to wheat quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wheat protein composition is important for understanding the biochemical basis of wheat quality. The objective of this study was to design a simple protein fractionation protocol with low cross‐contamination and to show that these protein fractions were associated with wheat quality. The protocol consists of three sequential extractions from 100 mg of flour with 7.5% propan‐1‐ol and 0.3 M sodium iodide (monomeric‐rich protein), 50% propan‐1‐ol (soluble glutenin‐rich protein) and 40% propan‐1‐ol and 0.2% dithiothreitol (insoluble glutenin‐rich protein). Nitrogen content of protein solubility groups was determined from dry residues using an automated combustion nitrogen analyser. About 90% of the total protein in the flour was solubilised. Cross‐contamination of protein fractions was evaluated by SDS‐PAGE, SE‐HPLC and RP‐HPLC. Variation in nitrogen content of the protein solubility fractions was lowest for monomeric‐rich protein (<2%) and insoluble glutenin‐rich protein (<4%). Three wheats with similar high‐molecular‐weight (HMW) glutenin subunit composition, Alpha 16, Glenlea and Roblin, varied significantly (P ≤ 0.05) in the proportion of monomeric‐rich and insoluble glutenin‐rich protein in the flour. Dough rheological properties were directly related to the proportion of insoluble glutenin‐rich protein and inversely related to the proportion of monomeric‐rich protein. The protocol was validated using an expanded set of 11 wheats which also showed that inter‐cultivar differences in the proportion of monomeric‐rich, insoluble glutenin‐rich protein and glutenin‐to‐gliadin ratio in the flour governed dough rheological properties such as mixograph, farinograph and microextension tests. The protocol has merit for quality screening in wheat‐breeding programmes when the sample size is too small or when time constraints limit the ability to perform traditional rheological tests. For the Department of Agriculture and Agri‐Food, Government of Canada, Copyright © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2003. Published for SCI by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".