Structural Characterization and Functional Properties of Proteins from Oat Milling Fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this work was to study the structure and functionalities of proteins from commercial oat milling fractions. Protein isolates obtained from fine (FB), medium (MB), and low (LB) oat brans, and whole oat groat flour (WF) contained 75.0–97.1% proteins. However, the protein content of the products of 15% (15% high glucan [15HG]) and 20% (20% high glucan [20HG]) HG flours were four fold less because of their high carbohydrate contents (~75%). There was no apparent difference in molecular weights of the polypeptides (20, 35, 60, and 150 kDa) contained in these protein products. Protein profiling using mass spectrometry showed that avenin was not detected in FB and MB because of their relatively high concentrations of 11–12S globulins. Secondary structural features of the molecules and microstructure details of the gelled proteins were similar for proteins from FB, MB, LB, and WF, but different from those of 15HG and 20HG. Similarly, these differences in the structural features of proteins of the milling fractions were reflected in their water‐holding capacity and the solubility properties of the protein products.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".