Comparative study of the polypeptide profiles and functional properties of <i>Sinapis alba</i> and <i>Brassica juncea</i> seed meals and protein concentrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Defatted meals and protein concentrates from six accessions of Sinapis alba and one accession of Brassica juncea mustard seeds were analysed for their polypeptide profile and functional properties. Two types of protein concentrates were prepared using acid‐induced and calcium‐induced protein precipitations. Meals from the S alba seeds had similar polypeptide composition, which was different from that of the B juncea meal. Non‐reducing sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis showed that two of the major polypeptides (50 and 55 kDa) in S alba seeds were susceptible to acid‐induced precipitation but resistant to calcium‐induced precipitation. The B juncea meal proteins were significantly ( p ≤ 0.05) more susceptible to heat coagulation than the S alba meal proteins. Emulsifying activity index was significantly higher ( p ≤ 0.05) in the B juncea meal and protein concentrates when compared with similar products from S alba . It was concluded that the presence of a high‐molecular‐weight (135 kDa) disulfide‐bonded polypeptide could have contributed to the lower emulsifying power of the S alba products when compared with the B juncea proteins that do not have this polypeptide. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".