Gluten weight in ancient and modern wheat and the reactivity of epitopes towards R5 and G12 monoclonal antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Differences in the level of coeliac‐active gluten epitopes in wheat might have some significance for individuals reporting noncoeliac gluten sensitivity. The aim of this study was to compare the reactivity of epitopes towards ELISA R5 and G12 monoclonal antibodies in ancient (emmer; Khorasan wheat; spelt) and modern wheat (common bread wheat; durum), and to check whether the bread‐making process leads to the degradation of epitopes. Data from ELISA R5 and G12 did not match gluten dry weight in wheat. Bread dough fermentation and extensive baking did not change the reactivity of coeliac‐active epitopes towards monoclonal antibodies. Compared to hexaploid bread‐type wheat (spelt; common bread wheat), ancient and modern pasta‐type tetraploid wheat (emmer; Khorasan; durum) had less epitopes reactive towards ELISA R5 and G12 and might be preferable for wheat‐sensitive individuals looking for food with reduced coeliac‐active epitopes.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".