MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889471352 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b03298

Effect of Glutathione Dehydrogenase of <i>Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis</i> on Gluten Properties and Bread Volume in Type I Wheat Sourdough Bread

2018· article· en· W2889471352 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan Xu, Kaixing Tang, Ying Hu, Xueming Xu, Michael G. Gänzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFood scienceGlutenBread makingVolume (thermodynamics)ChemistryWheat flourLactobacillusFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disulfide exchange reactions in wheat dough impact the polymerization of gluten and the volume of bread. In wheat sourdoughs fermented with Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis, glutathione reductase activity accumulates thiols. This study investigated the role of glutathione reductase and NADH oxidase of L. sanfranciscensis on disulfide exchange reactions, peroxide levels, and gluten polymerization in type I wheat sourdoughs. Fermentation with L. sanfranciscensis DSM20451 Δ gshR lacking glutathione reductase activity reduced the thiol levels in dough when compared to the wild type strain L. sanfranciscensis DSM20451. Fermentation with any strain reduced peroxides in wheat doughs when compared to a chemically acidified control. The impact of baker's yeast on thiol and peroxide levels was greater than the impact of lactobacilli. The depolymerization of gluten proteins was dependent on the free thiol content and dough acidification. Bread produced with the glutathione reductase deficient mutant strain had the highest specific volume compared with all the other groups.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207