MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560110451 · doi:10.4236/fns.2016.714121

Extraction and Solubilization Methods Suitable for Proteomic Analysis of Common Bean Seed of Ivory Coast

2016· article· en· W2560110451 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Ocho-Anin Atchibri, Etienne Dako, Benoît Sarazin

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Nutrition Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyPhaseolusExtraction (chemistry)UreaTrichloroacetic acidThioureaPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisMass spectrometryProtein purificationSolubilizationGel electrophoresisBiochemistryBotanyBiologyEnzymeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extraction and solubilization of proteins from seeds of Phaseolus vulgarisms for two-dimension polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) and analysis by mass spectrometry are very sensitive procedures. In this study, we used two methods of extraction and solubilization of proteins, the urea/thiourea method and the trichloroacetic acid (TCA)/acetone precipitation method, in order to determine their effectiveness in separating proteins from bean seeds by 2D-PAGE. In both methods, proteins were well separated by 2D PAGE with minor variations in the protein pattern. These two extraction methods showed that it was possible to separate hundreds of very resolvent proteins by 2D electrophoresis. A protein spot was selected on the 2D-PAGE gel, digested with trypsin and analyzed by mass spectrometry (LCMS/ MS). The results suggest that thiourea/urea and TCA methods were effective and reliable for the extraction and solubilization for 2D analysis of proteins from seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Nutrition SciencesSame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207