MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735339956 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00351

Antioxidant and lipoxygenase activities of polyphenol extracts from oat brans treated with polysaccharide degrading enzymes

2017· article· en· W2735339956 on OpenAlexaff
Nisita Ratnasari, Mallory E. Walters, Apollinaire Tsopmo

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadian Nutrition Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCellulasePolyphenolTroloxAntioxidantLipoxygenaseEnzymeFood sciencePolysaccharideBiochemistryRadicalChromatographyDPPH

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used polysaccharide degrading enzymes and protein precipitation to extract polyphenols from oats and to determine their bioactivity. Duplicate oat brans were treated with viscozyme (Vis), cellulase (Cel) or no enzyme (control, CTL) then, proteins were removed in one set (Vis1, Cel1, CTL1) and not in the other (Vis2, Cel2, CTL2). HPLC analyses showed that for cellulase treated brans, precipitation of proteins increased phenolic acids and avenanthramides by 14%. Meanwhile, a decreased of 67% and 20% respectively was found for viscozyme and control brans. The effect of protein precipitation on soluble polyphenols is therefore dependent of the carbohydrase, as proteins with different compositions will interact differently with other molecules. Radical scavenging data showed that Cel1 and Vis1 had higher quenching effects on ROO • radicals with activities of 22.1 ± 0.8 and 23.5 ± 1.2 μM Trolox Equivalents/g defatted brans. Meanwhile, CTL2 had the highest HO • radicals inhibition (49.4 ± 2.8%) compared to 10.8–32.3% for others. Samples that highly inhibited lipoxygenase (LOX), an enzyme involved in lipid oxidation were Cel1 (23.4 ± 2.3%) and CTL1 (18 ± 0.4%).

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207