MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522588956 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.13445

Characterization and Analysis of Protein Structures in Oat Bran

2016· article· en· W2522588956 on OpenAlexaff
Xuelian Jing, Chen Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliadinProtein secondary structureChemistryAlbuminGlutenCircular dichroismGlutelinGlobulinBranBiochemistryAvenaChromatographyStorage proteinBiologyBotanyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207