MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320712851 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.5b00932

Sugar-Conjugated Bis(glycinato)copper(II) Complexes and Their Modulating Influence on the Maillard Reaction

2015· article· en· W2320712851 on OpenAlexafffund
Ossanna Nashalian, Varoujan A. Yaylayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaillard reactionChemistryReactivity (psychology)Amadori rearrangementBrowningConjugateElectrospray ionizationConjugated systemAqueous solutionOrganic chemistryMass spectrometryRedoxCopperChromatographyGlycationBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transition metal ions are known to play an important role in the Maillard reaction in catalyzing redox reactions. They can also form strong binary complexes with amino acids with increased reactivity toward smaller aldehydes. To take advantage of this enhanced reactivity and to demonstrate the ability of glucose to conjugate with glycine copper complexes, model systems containing (Gly)2Cu and glucose or their isotopically enriched counterparts were heated in aqueous solutions in the presence and absence of paraformaldehyde at 110 °C for 2 h and the residues were analyzed by electrospray ionization/quadrupole time-of-flight/mass spectrometry (ESI/qTOF/MS). Isotope-labeling studies have indicated the ability of (Gly)2Cu complexes to act as molecular scaffolds and undergo multiple reactions with glucose to generate various complexes of sugar conjugates. These relatively stable intermediates allowed for the slower release of aroma and browning precursors, such as Amadori products, during heating, as assessed by the extent of browning and total volatile release.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Glycation End Products researchFrench-language works237,207