Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Gelation properties of chicken breast and thigh muscle homogenates at a protein concentration of 4.5% under different pH conditions (5.80-6.60) and those of myofibrillar proteins at a protein concentration of 2% were compared to determine the influence of muscle fibre types on gelation. The optimal gelling pH for breast muscle homogenates (pH 6.30) was slightly higher than that for thigh muscle homogenates (pH 5.80-6.30), a similar trend was found for the isolated chicken myofibrillar proteins (pH 6.00 for breast and 5.50 for leg). Similarly, the pH values at which breast muscle homogenate gels were weaker (pH<6.20) or stronger (pH⩾6.20) than thigh muscle homogenate gels were higher when compared with chicken breast and leg myofibrillar protein gels (pH<5.80 and pH>5.90, respectively).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00206-1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!