Determining the impact of genotype × environment on oat protein isolate structural and functional characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives The effect of genotype × environment (G × E) on oat protein structural characteristics and functionality was studied using three oat genotypes grown in three different environments across the Canadian Prairies. Findings The protein content of oat protein isolate (OPI) ranged from 76.9% to 90.2%. All structural characteristics except protein surface hydrophobicity were significantly impacted by G × E, whereas protein surface hydrophobicity strongly depended on the growing environment. SDS‐PAGE and FT‐IR analysis demonstrated that oat protein profile and secondary structure were significantly impacted by genotype rather than environment. Cultivar Summit grown in Alberta had the highest foaming capacity which was significantly higher than Summit grown in the other environments, indicating a strong influence of environment on OPI foaming capacity. Conclusion The structure‐function properties of OPI extracted from the given cultivars were influenced by G × E however, further studies are needed to evaluate the stability of the tested cultivars over several years. Significance and Novelty Understanding how OPI structure and functional properties are influenced by G × E will allow better utilization of OPI in the food industry by facilitating the development of OPI ingredients with predictable functional properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".