Effects of high-pressure processing on physicochemical, structural and emulsifying properties of chicken myofibrillar proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate high-pressure processing (HPP) effects on myofibrillar protein (MP) structure, physicochemical properties, and emulsifying performance, chicken MP was treated at 150/300/450 MPa for 10–20 min. HPP caused structural shifts from ordered (α-helix, β-sheet) to disordered (β-turns, random coil) conformations, with concurrent elevation of surface hydrophobicity in a pressure-dependent manner. At 150 MPa, HPP treatment enhanced MP solubility, reduced particle size, and exposed reactive thiol groups. These structural changes enhanced the Emulsifying Activity Index (EAI) by 10.75 % and the Emulsifying Stability Index (ESI) by 25.24 %, primarily through hydrophobic domain exposure and improved interfacial adsorption capacity. Conversely, pressures ≥300 MPa triggered protein aggregation via hydrogen/disulfide; bond crosslinking, which masked functional groups and reduced solubility, thereby; impairing emulsification via heterogeneous particle formation. Extended durations amplified pressure-specific effects: 150 MPa/20 min optimized emulsification with homogenized, reduced droplet sizes, while ≥300 MPa exacerbated aggregation. The findings demonstrate that HPP strategically balanced conformational unfolding and aggregation to enhance MP functionality. Optimal synergy occurred at 150 MPa, where structural opening maximized emulsification, whereas higher pressures compromised interfacial stability. Duration amplified dual effects: enhancing beneficial structural changes or promoting aggregation, establishing 150 MPa/20 min as optimal for MP emulsification via controlled structural adjustments.
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".