White Wine Proteins: How Does the pH Affect Their Conformation at Room Temperature?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our studies focused on the determination of aggregation mechanisms of proteins occurring in wine at room temperature. Even if the wine pH range is narrow (2.8 to 3.7), some proteins are affected by this parameter. At low pH, the formation of aggregates and the development of a haze due to proteins sometimes occur. The objective of this work was to determine if the pH impacted the conformational stability of wine proteins. Different techniques were used: circular dichroism and fluorescence spectroscopy to investigate the modification of their secondary and tertiary structure and also SAXS to determine their global shape. Four pure proteins were used, two considered to be stable (invertase and thaumatin-like proteins) and two considered to be unstable (two chitinase isoforms). Two pH values were tested to emphasize their behavior (pH 2.5 and 4.0). The present work highlighted the fact that the conformational stability of some wine proteins (chitinases) was impacted by partial modifications, related to the exposure of some hydrophobic sites. These modifications were enough to destabilize the native state of the protein. These modifications were not observed on wine proteins determined to be stable (invertase and thaumatin-like proteins).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".