Protein hydrolysate from turkey meat and optimization of its antioxidant potential by response surface methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to optimize antioxidant potential of hydrolyzed protein using Flavourzyme assisted hydrolysis of turkey meat and compare the antioxidant activity of hydrolysates from turkey meat, chicken, and beef. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to determine the optimal Flavourzyme hydrolysis conditions for preparation of hydrolysate from turkey meat, which were at a temperature of 50.09°C, pH of 5.42, and processing time of 1.08 hours. For comparison, antioxidant activities of the hydrolysate from turkey meat, chicken, and beef under the optimum conditions were determined using reducing power, 2,2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical cation, hydroxyl radical, and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activities. The antioxidant activity of turkey meat and chicken meat was significantly higher than that of beef (P < 0.05). Therefore Flavourzyme could be regarded as an effective hydrolytic enzyme for preparation of antioxidant hydrolysate from turkey meat, indicating the potential use of it as a functional food ingredient with shelf-life extension purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".