MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316612633 · doi:10.1021/jf5003073

Allergenicity of Potato Proteins and of Their Conjugates with Galactose, Galactooligosaccharides, and Galactan in Native, Heated, and Digested Forms

2014· article· en· W2316612633 on OpenAlexafffund
Sooyoun Seo, Lamia L’Hocine, Salwa Karboune

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMcGill University
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
KeywordsGalactanChemistryGlycationEpitopeBiochemistryImmunoglobulin EGalactoseProteaseGlycosylationConjugateMaillard reactionAntibodyEnzymeBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of glycation of potato proteins on their immunoreactivity was studied by using a pool of human sera with specific IgE to potato proteins. Patatin conjugates were more immunoreactive than protease inhibitors ones. To better understand this behavior, the changes in patatin structure upon glycation and heat treatment were investigated. Patatin demonstrated an increase in total immunoreactivity when glycated with galactose and galactooligosaccharides. However, galactan conjugation to patatin resulted in a decrease in immunoreactivity by restricting IgE's access to the epitopes. Although the heat treatment resulted in a decrease in patatin's immunoreactivity through aggregation, it was less effective when patatin conjugates were used due to the decrease in aggregation and the secondary structural changes. Upon digestion, native patatin exhibited the largest decrease in immunoreactivity resulting from the disruption of both conformational and sequential epitopes. Patatin conjugates were less digested and had higher IgE-immunoreactivity as compared to the digested patatin.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207