MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405366060 · doi:10.3390/foods13244038

The Effect of Ice-Binding Protein from Leucosporidium sp. AY30 (LeIBP) on the Physicochemical Quality and Microstructure of Largemouth Bass During Freeze–Thaw Cycles

2024· article· en· W4405366060 on OpenAlexaff
Junde Ren, Maninder Meenu, Lihui Hu, Tao Song, Ying Liu, Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy, Yong Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBass (fish)Ice crystalsMicrostructureChemistryAntifreeze proteinWater holding capacityRecrystallization (geology)Food scienceCrystallographyFisheryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

sp. AY30 (LeIBP) on the freezing efficiency, microstructure, and physicochemical quality of largemouth bass during freeze-thaw cycles and demonstrated the optimal addition conditions of LeIBP. This study found that LeIBP could effectively lower the freezing point of fish without altering the phase transition time significantly. LeIBP can significantly reduce the cross-sectional area and diameter of ice crystals and inhibit recrystallization. LeIBP was found to maintain the stability of protein secondary structure and prevented protein denaturation by increasing the proportion of α-helix. The inclusion of LeIBP retained the water-holding capacity of fish effectively. Furthermore, LeIBP treatment could partially prevent the degradation of fish meat texture. The lightness and whiteness values of fish treated with LeIBP were increased, while the redness and yellowness values were decreased. At the end of freeze-thaw cycle, the LeIBP-treated group presented pH values similar to fresh fish. Overall, 0.05% LeIBP was observed to be the most effective concentration to inhibit ice crystal growth, thereby maintaining the quality of the fish.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207