Comparisons of amino acid and protein levels in oil-extracted seeds of <i>Brassica</i> and <i>Sinapis</i> species, with observations on environmental effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seeds from 21 selections of Brassica and Sinapis were analyzed for crude protein (CP; N × 6.25) and amino acid content following oil extraction and grinding. In exp. 1 three cultivars of B. napus, B. rapa and B. juncea were grown in four locations in 4 successive years, with duplicate samples taken from each plot. Brassica juncea contained more CP (P < 0.001) than B. napus or B. rapa (44.6 > 40.1 > 38.8%, respectively). Location affected CP level but not the ranking among cultivars. Year-to-year effects on CP levels (P < 0.001) were of lower magnitude than location effects. Treatments (cultivar, location, year) affected CP and amino acid levels differently. Amino acid levels expressed as percent of CP differed among many cultivars (P < 0.01). Threonine, valine, histidine, lysine and arginine were strongly influenced by location (P < 0.001), as were the dispensable amino acids serine, glutamine and tyrosine. In exp. 2, 10 cultivars and strains grown in one location and in three replicates resulted in greater CP levels in two B. juncea cultivars than in B. napus and B. rapa (42.9 and 43.2 vs. 39.7 and 38.8%), respectively, but lower levels of lysine and threonine in the CP (lysine: 5.4 vs. 6.3; threonine: 3.5 and 3.7 vs. 3.8 and 4.0%). Brassica napus and B. rapa ranked among the lowest in percent CP. In exp. 3, comparisons of eight samples from B. napus, B. rapa and Sinapis alba plots revealed a CP range of 38.1 to 45.0% but differences in amino acid content of the CP were relatively small. Key words: Brassica, Sinapis, protein, amino acids
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 | 0.000 | 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".