Extraction and Characterization of Myofibrillar Proteins from Different Meat Sources: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, myofibrillar proteins were extracted from the meat proteins of beef, lamb, chicken, tuna and emperor fish using non-denaturation method, and their physico-chemical and rheological properties were assessed. The myofibrillar proteins of beef, emperor and lamb samples had higher percentage of protein extractability than tuna and chicken samples. The tuna sample showed significantly higher bound bromophenol blue (BPB) value while lamb samples showed lower value ( P < 0.05). The myofibrillar protein of chicken sample was found to have more ionic and hydrogen bonds than all other myofibrillar samples. The disulphide bonds in tuna and lamb myofibrillar protein samples were significantly higher than other three samples ( P < 0.05). The myofibrillar protein samples showed major bands myosin heavy chain, α -actinin, desimin, actin, troponin, tropomyosin and myosin light chain with wider molecular weight distribution in the range of 20–200 ku. The myofibrillar proteins exhibited Newtonian and shear thickening nature behaviour at lower protein concentration (1 mg/mL) as revealed by flow profile and visco-elastic analysis using rheometer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".