Curcumin Interaction with Pea Albumin, Glutelin, and Globulin Protein Fractions: Impact on Physicochemical Properties, Microstructure, and <i>In Vitro</i> Gastric Digestion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pea protein fractions (albumin, glutelin, and globulin) were investigated for the influence of their interaction with curcumin on in vitro gastric protein digestibility. Dynamic light scattering analysis showed a decreased average particle size of the protein (0.25 mg/mL)/curcumin (2–100 μM) combinations. Turbidity and surface hydrophobicity analyses suggested the protein/curcumin complex formation via noncovalent interactions. Transmission electron microscopy revealed the formation of spherical nanocomplexes for albumin and globulin fractions and sheet-like structures for glutelin fraction with curcumin. Furthermore, curcumin did not alter the protein profiles, but at high concentration (100 μM), it differentially decreased the degree of hydrolysis of albumin, glutelin, and globulin by 76.6, 100, and 58.6%, respectively, indicating that the nature of the nanocomplexation hindered pepsin accessibility for protein hydrolysis. Therefore, this study enhances our understanding of how interactions between biomolecules in nanodelivery complexes and nutraceutical formulations influence the nutritional quality of plant-based proteins.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it