Comparison of physical and biochemical methods to evaluate the gluten strength of Canadian hard red winter wheats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gluten strength is a critical attribute of bread wheats and a key factor influencing dough properties and end-product quality. The goal of this research was to develop an improved understanding of the nature of the variation in gluten strength of Canadian hard red winter (HRW) wheats, which has not been previously studied. A diverse set of 52 HRW genotypes was evaluated using a 2-g mixograph and a 4-g Z-arm blade dough mixer, with varying operating parameters depending on the mixer type. Protein composition was intensively studied. Results indicated that using the mixograph with constant absorption and salt for dough mixing was very effective to discriminate gluten strength; using ascorbic acid in addition to salt produced marginal benefits. There were significant salt x genotype interactions; stronger flours tended to respond to salt more strongly. Both types of dough mixers were equally effective to discriminate gluten strength, although operating the Z-arm mixer at higher speeds improved accuracy of measurement of development time, repeatability precision, and sample throughput. Gluten strength as defined by mixograph work input was well predicted (R2=0.61) by results of an efficient and effective protein fractionation protocol and a parameter quantifying the ratio of HMW glutenin content to soluble protein (mainly gliadins) which was a measure of the molecular weight distribution of gluten proteins. Multiplying this ratio by flour protein content (FPC) further strengthened the relationship (R2=0.76), although FPC by itself was poorly related to gluten strength (R2=0.29). There was no obvious relationship between absolute amounts of individual HMW-glutenin subunits (GS) when comparing the same GS in the soluble (LMW) and insoluble (HMW) fractions of glutenin. Total insoluble (HMW) and soluble (LMW) glutenin fractions were positively and negatively correlated with gluten strength, respectively, supporting the concept that gluten strength is fundamentally related to the molecular size distribution of polymeric glutenin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".