MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906656032 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b04724

Assessment of Antinutritional Compounds and Chemotaxonomic Relationships between<i>Camelina sativa</i>and Its Wild Relatives

2018· article· en· W2906656032 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Amyot, Tim McDowell, Sara L. Martin, Justin B. Renaud, Margaret Y. Gruber, Abdelali Hannoufa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsCamelina sativaCamelinaGermplasmBiologyFood scienceBotanyMetaboliteMetabolomeAgronomyCropBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the secondary metabolite composition in seeds of Camelina sativa and its wild relatives to identify potential germplasm with reduced levels of antinutritional compounds. Twenty Camelina accessions, from five different species, were analyzed by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and subjected to principal component analysis, which revealed that Camelina spp. separated into distinct chemotaxonomic groups. Three major glucosinolates (GSs) were identified in our study, namely, 9-methylsulfinylnonyl GS (GS9), 10-methylsulfinyldecyl GS (GS10), and 11-methylsulfinylundecyl GS (GS11). While there were differences in total GS levels, species-specific patterns for GS9 and GS11 were noted. Sinapine content ranged between 1.4 and 5.6 mg/g FW, with the lowest levels observed in C. laxa and C. sativa. Lignin levels were also lowest in C. sativa, with most accessions containing less than 6 mg/g FW. Our results show that wild Camelina spp. have distinct metabolomes, and based on their levels of major antinutritionals, some could be incorporated into breeding programs with C. sativa.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207