MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166891735 · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2007.04.035

Evidence of native starch degradation with human small intestinal maltase‐glucoamylase (recombinant)

2007· article· en· W2166891735 on OpenAlexaff
Zihua Ao, Roberto Quezada‐Calvillo, Lyann Sim, Buford L. Nichols, David R. Rose, Erwin E. Sterchi, Bruce R. Hamaker

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarchAmylaseBiochemistryHydrolysisMaltaseChemistryDigestion (alchemy)EnzymeSmall intestineCarbohydrateBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Action of human small intestinal brush border carbohydrate digesting enzymes is thought to involve only final hydrolysis reactions of oligosaccharides to monosaccharides. In vitro starch digestibility assays use fungal amyloglucosidase to provide this function. In this study, recombinant N-terminal subunit enzyme of human small intestinal maltase-glucoamylase (rhMGAM-N) was used to explore digestion of native starches from different botanical sources. The susceptibilities to enzyme hydrolysis varied among the starches. The rate and extent of hydrolysis of amylomaize-5 and amylomaize-7 into glucose were greater than for other starches. Such was not observed with fungal amyloglucosidase or pancreatic alpha-amylase. The degradation of native starch granules showed a surface furrowed pattern in random, radial, or tree-like arrangements that differed substantially from the erosion patterns of amyloglucosidase or alpha-amylase. The evidence of raw starch granule degradation with rhMGAM-N indicates that pancreatic alpha-amylase hydrolysis is not a requirement for native starch digestion in the human small intestine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207