Comprehensive Metabolomic Comparison of Five Cereal Vinegars Using Non-Targeted and Chemical Isotope Labeling LC-MS Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vinegar is used as an acidic condiment and preservative worldwide. In Asia, various black vinegars are made from different combinations of grains, such as Sichuan bran vinegar (SBV), Shanxi aged vinegar (SAV), Zhenjiang aromatic vinegar (ZAV), and Fujian Monascus vinegar (FMV) in China and Ehime black vinegar in Japan (JBV). Understanding the chemical compositions of different vinegars can provide information about nutritional values and the quality of the taste. This study investigated the vinegar metabolome using a combination of GC-MS, conventional LC-MS, and chemical isotope labeling LC-MS. Different types of vinegar contained different metabolites and concentrations. Amino acids and organic acids were found to be the main components. Tetrahydroharman-3-carboxylic acid and harmalan were identified first in vinegar. Various diketopiperazines and linear dipeptides contributing to different taste effects were also detected first in vinegar. Dipeptides, 3-phenyllactic acid, and tyrosine were found to be potential metabolic markers for differentiating vinegars. The differently expressed pathway between Chinese and Japanese vinegar was tryptophan metabolism, while the main difference within Chinese vinegars was aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis metabolism. These results not only give insights into the metabolites in famous types of cereal vinegar but also provide valuable knowledge for making vinegar with desirable health characteristics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".