MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323651975 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.2c08704

Morphology, Formation Kinetics and Core Composition of Pea and Soy 7S and 11S Globulin Amyloid Fibrils

2023· article· en· W4323651975 on OpenAlexaff
Yuran Zhang, Derek R. Dee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibrilGlobulinSoy proteinChemistryAmyloid (mycology)KineticsAmyloid fibrilBiochemistryLegumePeptideBiophysicsBiologyBotanyAmyloid βImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legume seed storage proteins can be induced to form amyloid fibrils upon heating at low pH, which could improve their functionality for use in food and materials. However, the amyloidogenic regions of legume proteins are largely unknown. Here, we used LC-MS/MS to determine the amyloid core regions of fibrils formed by enriched pea and soy 7S and 11S globulins at pH 2, 80 °C, and characterized their hydrolysis, assembly kinetics, and morphology. A lag phase was absent from the fibrillation kinetics of pea and soy 7S globulins, while 11S globulins and crude extracts displayed a similar lag time. Pea and soy protein fibrils differed in morphology, with most pea fibrils being straight and soy fibrils being worm-like. Pea and soy globulins were abundant in amyloid-forming peptides, with over 100 unique fibril-core peptides from pea 7S and around 50 unique fibril-core peptides identified from pea 11S, soy 7S, and soy 11S globulins. Amyloidogenic regions derive predominantly from the homologous core region of 7S globulins and the basic subunit of 11S globulins. Overall, pea and soy 7S and 11S globulins are rich in amyloidogenic regions. This study will help understand their fibrillation mechanism and engineer protein fibrils with specific structures and functionality.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations72
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207