Abstract
Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare) was infested with Sitophilus oryzae and green gram (Phaseolus radiatus) with Callosobruchus chinensis for 3 and 4.5 months, respectively. Final total uric acid contents were for Sorghum 90.6 and for green gram 213 mg/100 g. Lysine and threonine contents fell significantly with infestation. The protein efficiency ratio (PER) values of 3:1 and 1:1 blends of uninfested sorghum and green gram were 2.27 and 2.53 while that of sorghum alone was 1.30. The PER values of the blends after infestation were 1.70 and 1.89, respectively
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum infested with Sitophilus oryzae had a final total uric acid content of 90.6.
- Interactor
- Sitophilus oryzae
Sitophilus oryzaee1pest - Outcome
- Final total uric acid contentse3
- Value
- 90.6e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare) was infested with Sitophilus oryzae”
e3“Final total uric acid contents were for Sorghum 90.6 and for green gram 213 mg/100 g”
Claim · model-written summary
Green gram infested with Callosobruchus chinensis had a final total uric acid content of 213 mg/100 g.
- Taxon
- green gram
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiata var. radiatae2 - Interactor
- Callosobruchus chinensis
_male.jpg?width=60)
Callosobruchus chinensise2pest - Outcome
- Final total uric acid contentse3
- Value
- 213 mg/100 ge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
_male.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e2“green gram (Phaseolus radiatus) with Callosobruchus chinensis”
e3“Final total uric acid contents were for Sorghum 90.6 and for green gram 213 mg/100 g”
Claim · model-written summary
Lysine and threonine contents of kaffir corn and green gram fell significantly with infestation.
- Taxon
- kaffir corn and green gramt0
- Treatment
- infestatione4
- Interactor
- Sitophilus oryzaeSitophilus oryzaee1pest
- Second interactor
- Callosobruchus chinensisCallosobruchus chinensise2pest
- Outcome
- Lysine and threonine contentse4
- Direction
- felle4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“kaffir corn and green gram”
e1“Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare) was infested with Sitophilus oryzae”
e2“green gram (Phaseolus radiatus) with Callosobruchus chinensis”
e4“Lysine and threonine contents fell significantly with infestation”
Claim · model-written summary
The 3:1 blend of uninfested sorghum and green gram had a protein efficiency ratio of 2.27, higher than sorghum alone.
- Taxon
- sorghum and green gramVigna radiata var. radiata
Sorghume5 - Treatment
- uninfested sorghum and green grame5
- Outcome
- protein efficiency ratio (PER) valuese5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 2.27e5
- Qualifier
- sorghum alone was 1.30e5
- Comparator
- sorghum alonee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The protein efficiency ratio (PER) values of 3:1 and 1:1 blends of uninfested sorghum and green gram were 2.27 and 2.53 while that of sorghum alone was 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1:1 blend of uninfested sorghum and green gram had a protein efficiency ratio of 2.53, higher than sorghum alone.
- Taxon
- sorghum and green gramVigna radiata var. radiataSorghume5
- Treatment
- uninfested sorghum and green grame5
- Outcome
- protein efficiency ratio (PER) valuese5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 2.53e5
- Qualifier
- sorghum alone was 1.30e5
- Comparator
- sorghum alonee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The protein efficiency ratio (PER) values of 3:1 and 1:1 blends of uninfested sorghum and green gram were 2.27 and 2.53 while that of sorghum alone was 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
The 3:1 blend of sorghum and green gram had a protein efficiency ratio of 1.70 after infestation, lower than before.
- Taxon
- sorghum and green gramVigna radiata var. radiataSorghume5
- Treatment
- infestatione6
- Outcome
- PER values of the blendse6
- Direction
- lowerinferrede6
- Value
- 1.70e6
- Qualifier
- 3:1e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The protein efficiency ratio (PER) values of 3:1 and 1:1 blends of uninfested sorghum and green gram were 2.27 and 2.53 while that of sorghum alone was 1.30”
e6“The PER values of the blends after infestation were 1.70 and 1.89, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1:1 blend of sorghum and green gram had a protein efficiency ratio of 1.89 after infestation, lower than before.
- Taxon
- sorghum and green gramVigna radiata var. radiataSorghume5
- Treatment
- infestatione6
- Outcome
- PER values of the blendse6
- Direction
- lowerinferrede6
- Value
- 1.89e6
- Qualifier
- 1:1e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The protein efficiency ratio (PER) values of 3:1 and 1:1 blends of uninfested sorghum and green gram were 2.27 and 2.53 while that of sorghum alone was 1.30”
e6“The PER values of the blends after infestation were 1.70 and 1.89, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna radiata var. radiata · quality: protein · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
infection · quality: protein · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
infection · quality: protein · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.