MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180812735 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v10n4p9

Effect of Scopoletin and Carotenoids on Postharvest Physiological Deterioration (PPD) of Transgenic High Beta Carotene Cassava

2021· article· en· W3180812735 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ngozi L. Edoh, Joseph Ukpabi, John O. Igoli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Root Crops Research InstituteDonald Danforth Plant Science Center
KeywordsScopoletinLuteinCarotenoidPostharvestChemistrybeta-CaroteneFood scienceBotanyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cassava tubers suffer from postharvest physiological deterioration (PPD) which normally sets in within 72 hours of harvest. This study examines the role of scopoletin and carotenoids in the onset or delay in PPD in two transgenic varieties EC20-7 and EC20-8 compared to a wild variety TME-7. Scopoletin and carotenoids were quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The scopoletin content (0.10 – 0.20 nmol/g) in the fresh varieties was not significantly (P>0.05) different from the amount in stored cassava roots (12.58 – 14.90 nmol/g). The carotenoid content values in EC20-7 variety were 6.66 µg/g (α-carotene), 80.45 µg/g (β-carotene) and 5.98 µg/g (lutein). As for EC20-8, α-carotene, β-carotene and lutein values were 6.19 µg/g, 69.11 µg/g and 3.12 µg/g, respectively. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference between the varieties in α-carotene content but in their lutein content. The results indicate that carotenoids are more relevant in the delay of PPD and scopoletin content is not a major factor in PPD vascular streaking or discolouration. Hence scopoletin content of cassava varieties may not be considered as a chemical marker for determining the potential of PPD in cassava tubers.

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)0.002
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207