Effect of Heating Method on Alteration of Protein Molecular Structure in Flaxseed: Relationship with Changes in Protein Subfraction Profile and Digestion in Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of heating methods on alteration of protein molecular structure in flaxseed ( Linum usitatissimum L .) in relation to changes in protein subfraction profile and digestion in dairy cows. Seeds from two flaxseed varieties, sampled from two replicate plots at two locations, were evaluated. The seeds were either maintained in their raw state or heated in an air-draft oven (dry heating) or autoclave (moist heating) for 60 min at 120 °C or by microwave irradiation (MIR) for 5 min. Compared to raw seeds, moist heating decreased ( P < 0.05) soluble protein (SP) content [56.5 ± 5.55 to 25.9 ± 6.16% crude protein (CP)] and increased ( P < 0.05) rumen undegraded protein (RUP) content (36.0 ± 5.19 to 46.9 ± 2.72% CP) and intestinal digestibility of RUP (61.0 ± 2.28 to 63.8 ± 2.67% RUP). Dry heating did not alter ( P > 0.05) the protein subfraction profile and rumen degradation kinetics, whereas MIR increased ( P < 0.05) the RUP content from 36.0 ± 5.19 to 40.4 ± 4.67% CP. The MIR and dry heating did not alter ( P > 0.05) the amide I to amide II ratio, but moist heating decreased ( P < 0.05) both the amide I to amide II ratio and α-helix-to-β-sheet ratio. Regression equations based on protein molecular spectral intensities provided high prediction power for estimation of heat-induced changes in SP ( R 2 = 0.62), RUP ( R 2 = 0.71), and intestinal digestibility of RUP ( R 2 = 0.72). Overall, heat-induced changes in protein nutritive value and digestion were strongly associated with heat-induced alteration in protein molecular structures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".