Genetic and environmental impact on protein profiles in barley and malt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian barleys have higher protein content and better protein modification than Australian barleys. Protein and protein modification was investigated in two Australian and two Canadian barley varieties under different levels of nitrogen fertilisation. Mass spectrometry was used to analyse protein profiles in grain and malt to assess how genetic and environmental factors modified the proteins in grain and malt. The differences in grain protein between the Australian and Canadian varieties were mainly in the high molecular weight proteins, less in water soluble proteins and rarely in salt‐soluble proteins, while malt protein variations were observed in all three groups. Generally, Canadian varieties contained more proteins in grain, but less water soluble and salt soluble proteins in malt. Monitoring the protein modification during the malting indicated that more proteins were digested in Canadian varieties. Genetic factors were dominant for protein variation, although environment also affected the protein composition. Barley varieties growing in Canada generally contained slightly higher protein content, and nitrogen fertiliser influenced proteins in grain that ranged from 43,000 to 47,000 Da. The protein pattern of high fermentability and lower fermentability varieties mainly varied from 30,000 to 40,000 Da.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".