MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165140558 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.661770

Validation of a Triplex Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Detection and Quantification of Traditional Protein Sources, Pisum sativum L. and Glycine max (L.) Merr., in Protein Powder Mixtures

2021· article· en· W3165140558 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam C. Faller, S. Dhivya, Subramanyam Ragupathy, Yanjun Zhang, Zhengfei Lu, Peter Chang, Gary Swanson, Steven G. Newmaster

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSativumRepeatabilityMultiplexPea proteinPisumBiologySoy proteinPolymerase chain reactionFood scienceChromatographyComputational biologyBiotechnologyBiochemistryChemistryGeneBioinformaticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several botanicals have been traditionally used as protein sources, including the leguminous Pisum sativum L. and Glycine max (L.) Merr. While a rich history exists of cultivating these plants for their whole, protein-rich grain, modern use as powdered supplements present a new challenge in material authentication. The absence of clear morphological identifiers of an intact plant and the existence of long, complex supply chains behoove industry to create quick, reliable analytical tools to identify the botanical source of a protein product (many of which contain multiple sources). The utility of molecular tools for plant-based protein powder authentication is gaining traction, but few validated tools exist. Multiplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) can provide an economical means by which sources can be identified and relative proportions quantified. We followed established guidelines for the design, optimization, and validation of qPCR assay, and developed a triplex qPCR assay that can amplify and quantify pea and soy DNA targets, normalized by a calibrator. The assay was evaluated for analytical specificity, analytical sensitivity, efficiency, precision, dynamic range, repeatability, and reproducibility. We tested the quantitative ability of the assay using pea and soy DNA mixtures, finding exceptional quantitative linearity for both targets – 0.9983 ( p < 0.0001) for soy and 0.9915 ( p < 0.0001) for pea. Ratios based on mass of protein powder were also tested, resulting in non-linear patterns in data that suggested the requirement of further sample preparation optimization or algorithmic correction. Variation in fragment size within different lots of commercial protein powder samples was also analyzed, revealing low SD among lots. Ultimately, this study demonstrated the utility of qPCR in the context of protein powder mixtures and highlighted key considerations to take into account for commercial implementation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207