Buffalo worm (Alphitobius diaperinus) proteins: Structural properties, proteomics and nutritional benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biophysical methods such as circular dichroism (CD) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) have been minimally used to characterize insect-derived proteins. This study examines the insect Alphitobius diaperinus as a potential protein source. Techniques such as alkaline solubilization coupled to isoelectric precipitation and Osborne fractionation were used to obtain protein concentrates and fractions (albumins, globulins, prolamins, glutelins). SDS-PAGE results showed dominant protein bands at 78.3, 73.3, 49.3, 34.5, 32.0, and 10.3 kDa. All fractions had over 60 % α-helix and β-sheet structures, indicating stable conformations. Prolamins showed high surface hydrophobicity and thermal stability. Nutritionally, glutelins exhibited the highest concentration of essential amino acids (68.75 g/100 g protein), and demonstrated superior In vitro protein-digestibility (84.04 %) as well as the highest In vitro protein-digestibility corrected amino acid score (73.11 %). Therefore, this study characterized the structural-function relationship of A. diaperinus proteins and collectively assessed their suitability and safety for human consumption. • A. diaperinus Osborne fractions are mainly composed of α-helix, β-sheet and β-turn. • Glutelin-rich protein fraction showed the best protein quality parameters. • Osborne fractionation effectively removes arginine kinase allergen from protein extracts.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".