Structural and functional properties of fava bean albumin, globulin and glutelin protein fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports a comparative evaluation of the physicochemical and functional properties of fava bean albumin, globulin and glutelin proteins. The fava bean globulins had significantly ( p < 0.05) higher protein content (88.49 %) than the albumin (83.47 %) and glutelin (86.71 %). Far-UV circular dichroism results indicate low contents of α-helix, but high levels of unordered and β-sheet structures in the albumin and globulin. Higher surface hydrophobicity of the globulins was directly related to formation of oil-in-water emulsions with smaller oil droplet sizes, and better foaming capacity than the albumin and glutelin. The albumin had a broad range (32–92 %) of protein solubility that covers acidic and alkaline pH while glutelin exhibited significantly higher in vitro protein digestibility (77.33 %) when compared to the 75.34 and 71.73 % for globulin and albumin, respectively. We conclude that each fava bean protein fraction may find specific uses as ingredients for the formulation of various food products. • Fava bean globulin had higher surface hydrophobicity than the albumin and glutelin. • Fava bean albumin contains fewer number of polypeptides than the glutelin and globulin. • Fava bean glutelin contains lower contents of β-sheet structure than the albumin and globulin. • Fava bean globulin exhibited higher interfacial properties than the albumin and glutelin. • Fava bean albumin had a broader range of solubility than the globulin and glutelin.
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".