Characterization and Analysis of Protein Structures in Oat Bran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globulin, albumin, gluten, and gliadin in oat bran were prepared by the Osborn method using oat bran as starting material. We characterized the secondary and tertiary structures of 4 proteins using circular dichroism, Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy, and fluorescence spectroscopy in order to analyze the composition and functional mechanisms. The results showed that the amino acid composition in all the 4 proteins was relatively balanced, and the essential amino acid content in albumin and globulin was high. The molecular weights of albumin, globulin, gliadin, and gluten were 19 to 21, 15 to 53, 20 to 38, and 10 to 90 kDa, respectively. The composition of gluten was a little complex compared to those of the other oat bran proteins. The secondary structure distribution of the 4 proteins differed, and increase in the pH resulted in modification of the β‐sheet structure to α‐helical structure. Moreover, the α‐helix content and surface hydrophobicity were negatively correlated ( r = –0.988, P < 0.05). The peak position (λ max ) and intensity of the fluorescence spectra of 4 proteins were in the order of gliadin > globulin > gluten > albumin, indicating that surface hydrophobicity of gliadin was the strongest and that of albumin was the weakest among the 4 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".