MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807986226 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27620-w

Improving truffle mycelium flavour through strain selection targeting volatiles of the Ehrlich pathway

2018· article· en· W2807986226 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Vahdatzadeh, Richard Splivallo

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsTruffleAromaBiologyFlavourStrain (injury)Food scienceMyceliumBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Truffles ( Tuber spp.) are the fruiting bodies of symbiotic fungi, which are prized food delicacies. The marked aroma variability observed among truffles of the same species has been attributed to a series of factors that are still debated. This is because factors (i.e. genetics, maturation, geographical location and the microbial community colonizing truffles) often co-vary in truffle orchards. Here, we removed the co-variance effect by investigating truffle flavour in axenic cultures of nine strains of the white truffle Tuber borchii . This allowed us to investigate the influence of genetics on truffle aroma. Specifically, we quantified aroma variability and explored whether strain selection could be used to improve human-sensed truffle flavour. Our results illustrate that aroma variability among strains is predominantly linked to amino acid catabolism through the Ehrlich pathway, as confirmed by 13 C labelling experiments. We furthermore exemplified through sensory analysis that the human nose is able to distinguish among strains and that sulfur volatiles derived from the catabolism of methionine have the strongest influence on aroma characteristics. Overall, our results demonstrate that genetics influences truffle aroma much more deeply than previously thought and illustrate the usefulness of strain selection for improving truffle flavour.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207