MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388456508 · doi:10.29173/eureka28796

Proteomic analysis of higher & lower altitude cultivars of Coffea arabica reveals differences related to environmental adaptations and coffee bean flavour

2023· article· en· W4388456508 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Caitlin Fenrich, Phil Lauman, Prabashi Wickramasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueEureka · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoffea arabicaAltitude (triangle)CultivarFlavourBiologyHorticultureFlavorBotanyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coffee ranks among the most popular beverages worldwide and is an important commodity in developing nations. While coffee beans harvested from Coffea arabica are considered to have a superior rich and balanced flavour, they are susceptible to disease and climatic variables like temperature, precipitation, and oxygen availability, each of which varies with altitude. We performed a comprehensive proteomic comparison of two C. arabica cultivars, the high-altitude Rwanda Shyira (RS) and the lower-altitude Brazil Flor de Ipe (BFDI), using liquid chromatography MS/MS analysis. Five of the identified 531 proteins exhibited statistically significant differences in expressional intensity between the two cultivars. These differences may correspond to bitter flavonoid concentrations along with adaptations to cold, hypoxic, and disease stressors at different altitudes and geographic niches. These substantial proteomic differences identified between these elevations provide a greater understanding of the effects of altitude on the C. arabica plant and its coffee, which has implications for the global market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurekaSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207