MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948402329 · doi:10.3390/molecules24112100

Applying Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis to Characterize the Polydispersity of Aggregates Resulting from Tannin–Polysaccharide Interactions in Wine-Like Media

2019· article· en· W2948402329 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sijing Li, Kerry L. Wilkinson, Agnieszka Mierczyńska-Vasilev, Keren A. Bindon

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWine AustraliaAustralian GovernmentAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsArabinogalactanTanninChemistryWineDynamic light scatteringNanoparticle tracking analysisDispersityNanoparticleParticle sizePolysaccharideColloidChemical engineeringPolyphenolParticle (ecology)ChromatographyFood scienceOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactions between grape seed tannin and either a mannoprotein or an arabinogalactan in model wine solutions of different ethanol concentrations were characterized with nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), UV-visible spectroscopy and dynamic light scattering (DLS). NTA results reflected a shift in particle size distribution due to aggregation. Furthermore, the light scattering intensity of each tracked particle measured by NTA demonstrated the presence of aggregates, even when a shift in particle size was not apparent. Mannoprotein and arabinogalactan behaved differently when combined with seed tannin. Mannoprotein formed large, highly light-scattering aggregates, while arabinogalactan exhibited only weak interactions with seed tannin. A 3% difference in alcohol concentration of the model solution (12 vs. 15% v/v) was sufficient to affect the interactions between mannoprotein and tannin when the tannin concentration was high. In summary, this study showed that NTA is a promising tool for measuring polydisperse samples of grape and wine macromolecules, and their aggregates under wine-like conditions. The implications for wine colloidal properties are discussed based on these results.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207