The ultrafiltration molecular weight cut-off has a limited effect on the concentration and protein profile during preparation of human milk protein concentrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing protein intake for very low birth weight (<1,500 g) infants is fundamental to prevent faltering postnatal growth with the potential association of impaired neurodevelopment. The protein content of human milk is not sufficient to support the growth of very low birth weight infants. To meet their elevated protein requirements, human milk is currently fortified using typically bovine milk-based protein isolates (>85% on a dry basis). However, these products have several limitations for use in this vulnerable population. To overcome the shortcomings of bovine milk-based protein supplement, a human milk protein concentrate (HMPC) was developed. In preliminary attempts using 10 kDa ultrafiltration (UF) membranes, it was not possible to reach the protein content of commercial protein isolates, presumably due to the retention of human milk oligosaccharides (HMO). Consequently, it was hypothesized that the use of a UF membrane with a higher molecular weight cut-off (50 kDa rather than 10 kDa) could improve the transmission of carbohydrates, including HMO, in the permeate, thus increasing the protein purity of the subsequent HMPC. The results showed that permeate fluxes during the concentration step were similar to either UF molecular weight cut-off, but the 50-kDa membrane had a higher permeate flux during the diafiltration sequence. However, it was not sufficient to increase the protein purity of the human milk retentate, as both membranes generated HMPC with similar protein contents of 48.8% (10 kDa) and 50% (50 kDa) on a dry basis. This result was related to the high retention of HMO, mainly during the concentration step, although the diafiltration step was efficient to decrease their content in the HMPC. As the major bioactive proteins (lactoferrin, lysozyme, bile salt stimulated lipase, and α1-antitrypsin) in human milk were detected in both HMPC, the 50-kDa membrane seems the most appropriate to the preparation of HMPC in terms of permeation flux values. However, improving the separation of HMO from proteins is essential to increase the protein purity of HMPC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".