Effect of Different Papain Concentrations on the Properties of Chicken Skin Protein Hydrolysates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chicken skin is a source of animal protein hydrolysate, which has a potential as an antioxidant. This study aimed to determine the effect of different concentrations of the enzyme papain on the degree of hydrolysis, antioxidant capacity, percentage of reducing power (%RP) and amino acid composition of chicken skin protein hydrolysate. Hydrolysis was carried out using papain with various concentrations (3%, 4% and 5%, w/w protein substrate) at pH 7 and 50℃ for 6 h. The degree of hydrolysis was determined by spectrophotometry. Antioxidant capacity and %RP was determined by ferric reducing antioxidant power method and expressed in milligram of ascorbic acid equivalent per gram of sample, and amino acid composition were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. The results showed that variations in papain concentration had a significant effect (P<0.05) on the degree of hydrolysis, antioxidant capacity and %RP of chicken skin hydrolysate. The papain concentration of 4% resulted in the optimum protein hydrolysate with a degree of hydrolysis of 61.68%±0.64%, an antioxidant capacity of 8.72±0.30 mg AA/g sample and a %RP of 54.12%±1.78%. The protein hydrolysates of the treated chicken skin showed a high content of amino acids, namely, glycine, glutamate, proline, arginine and aspartate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".