MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327156950 · doi:10.1021/jf502497r

Investigation of the Use of Maillard Reaction Inhibitors for the Production of Patatin–Carbohydrate Conjugates

2014· article· en· W2327156950 on OpenAlexafffund
Sooyoun Seo, Salwa Karboune

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaillard reactionChemistryGlycationGalactanXyloseBiochemistrySodium bisulfiteLysineCysteineGalactoseOrganic chemistryFermentationEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selected Maillard reaction inhibitors, including aminoguanidine, cysteine, pyridoxamine, and sodium bisulfite, were evaluated for their effect on the production of carbohydrate conjugated proteins with less cross-linking/browning. Patatin (PTT), a major potato protein, was glycated with galactose, xylose, galactooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, galactan, and xylan under controlled conditions. The effectiveness of the inhibitors to control the glycation reaction was assessed by monitoring the glycation extent, the protein cross-linking, and the formation of dicarbonyl compounds. Sodium bisulfite was the most effective inhibitor for PTT-galactose and PTT-xylan reaction systems (reaction control ratios of 210.0 and 12.8). On the other hand, aminoguanidine and cysteine led to the highest reaction control ratios for the PTT-xylose/xylooligosaccharide (160.0 and 143.0) and PTT-galactooligosaccharides/galactan (663.0 and 71.0) reaction systems, respectively. The use of cysteine and aminoguanidine as inhibitors led to 1.7-99.4% decreases in the particle size distribution of the PTT conjugates and to 0.4-9.3% increases in their relative digestibility, per 5% blocked lysine.

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)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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