Polyamines in Canadian barley grains: Determination of their content and relationship with protein level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barley is one of the important crops with diverse end-use purposes. In every use of barley grains, the protein fraction plays an important function impacting the quality of final products. Polyamines, having multiple nitrogen atoms in their chemical structure (e.g., putrescine, spermidine, and spermine), may be linked to the levels of protein and nitrogen reserves. In this study, thirteen Canadian barley varieties were characterized for their total polyamines and protein content. The effects of extractants on the extractability of polyamines were considered, and HCl (1 M) was found to be more effective than trichloroacetic acid (5% w/v) in extracting free polyamines from whole barley flour. The total polyamines content of barley grains varied from 6.46 to 11.47 mg/100 g dry basis and spermidine was the most abundant. Polyamine represented 0.045–0.071% w/w grain protein. Significant and positive correlations were found between protein content and levels of total polyamines (r = 0.798), putrescine (r = 0.771), and spermine (r = 0.668). Principal Component Analysis and K-Means Cluster Analysis divided the barley samples into one cluster (hulless barley for food) differentiated from the other (hulled barley for malting and feed) by their superiority in polyamine and protein content.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".