MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573348709 · doi:10.3934/microbiol.2017.1.8

Next-generation sequencing approaches for improvement of lactic acid bacteria-fermented plant-based beverages

2017· review· en· W2573348709 on OpenAlexaff
Jordyn Bergsveinson, Ilkka Kajala, Barry Ziola

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Microbiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotechnologyFermentationFood scienceLactic acidRaw materialBiochemical engineeringBiologyBacteriaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-based beverages and milk alternatives produced from cereals and legumes have grown in popularity in recent years due to a range of consumer concerns over dairy products. These plant-based products can often have undesirable physiochemical properties related to flavour, texture, and nutrient availability and/or deficiencies. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) fermentation offers potential remediation for many of these issues, and allows consumers to retain their perception of the resultant products as natural and additive-free. Using next-generation sequencing (NGS) or omics approaches to characterize LAB isolates to find those that will improve properties of plant-based beverages is the most direct way to product improvement. Although NGS/omics approaches have been extensively used for selection of LAB for use in the dairy industry, a comparable effort has not occurred for selecting LAB for fermenting plant raw substrates, save those used in producing wine and certain types of beer. Here we review the few and recent applications of NGS/omics to profile and improve LAB fermentation of various plant-based substrates for beverage production. We also identify specific issues in the production of various LAB fermented plant-based beverages that such NGS/omics applications have the power to resolve.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.357
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIMS MicrobiologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207