Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Blue Lupin and White Lupin Protein Isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White lupin (WLPI) and blue lupin (BLPI) protein isolates were compared for their composition and functional properties. WLPI showed a higher protein yield (70.30%) than BLPI (66.47%), while BLPI had a slightly higher crude protein content (86.96%). Both isolates had similar essential amino acid profiles, with sulfur-containing amino acids valine and lysine being limiting. WLPI flour exhibited larger particle sizes (D4,3 of 29.3 μm) and a higher denaturation temperature (100 °C) than BLPI (D4,3 of 19.5 μm and 89 °C, respectively). However, BLPI demonstrated a higher surface hydrophobicity (688.13 arbitrary units) than WLPI (656.77 arbitrary units). WLPI showed superior in vitro protein digestibility (84.21%) and an oil-holding capacity (8.18 g/g). Analysis of sulfhydryl groups revealed higher free SH content in WLPI (27.22 μmol/g), while BLPI had a higher total SH (86.11 μmol/g) and disulfide bond content (29.44 μmol/g). These differences in the structural and physicochemical properties between WLPI and BLPI may significantly influence functional behavior in various food systems, potentially affecting their applications in food formulations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".