MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416428031 · doi:10.1016/j.fbio.2025.107892

Proteomics of flour from domesticated varieties and wild barley reveals differences in their hordein compositions

2025· article· en· W4416428031 on OpenAlexaff
Esben Olesen, Julia Füreder, Leila Afjehi‐Sadat, Olga Andrzejczak, Ulla Kidmose, Kim H. Hebelstrup, Verena Ibl, Nina Aagaard Poulsen, Lotte Bach Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Bioscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsIONICS Mass Spectrometry (Canada)
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondGraduate School of Technical Sciences, Aarhus UniversityAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsHordeinHordeum vulgareBrewingProteomicsProteomeHordeum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteomic studies in barley have been predominantly focused on malting barley for the brewing industry. In this study, protein contents and detailed protein compositions of grains of Wild Barley (WB) ( Hordeum spontaneum ) and two varieties of domesticated barley ( Hordeum vulgare), Golden Promise (GP), bred for brewing, and PS3, bred for food, were investigated to reveal compositional differences in the hordeins, the major storage proteins of barley. For proteomic profiling a sensitive LC-MS/MS Orbitrap system was used in combination with a one-step denaturing and reducing phenol extraction. The extracts were subjected to label-free bottom-up proteomics. Differences were revealed not only in the overall composition of groups of storage proteins, but also in individual hordeins. WB and PS3 contained higher amounts of D-hordein than GP, while GP had higher levels of B-hordein. Furthermore, the differences in protein composition were evaluated to identify links between the proteome and genotypes’ use case and the transition from wild barley.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood BioscienceSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207