Comparison of lipase production on crambe oil and meal by <i>Fusarium</i> sp. (<scp><i>G</i></scp><i>ibberella fujikuroi</i> complex)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a comparison of fermentation conditions for the production lipases by Fusarium sp. ( Gibberella fujikuroi complex) isolate FCLA‐MA‐41 in submerged (SmF) and solid‐state fermentation (SSF) using agro‐industrial residues. To assess SmF, a univariate study of seven carbon sources (crambe, corn, linseed, olive, palm (dendê), soybean oils and chicken fat) and four nitrogen sources (ammonium sulfate, sodium nitrate, urea, yeast extract) was performed. The relationship among the concentrations of carbon and nitrogen sources, Triton X‐100 and yeast extract was studied using a Central Composite Design (CCD). To assess SSF, different residues (sugarcane bagasse) and oil‐seed meals (castorbean, corn, crambe, soybean) with additional supplements added (minimum salts, seed oils) were examined. Based on the CCD matrix, a medium containing crambe oil (17.5 mL/L), Triton X‐100 (5 g/L), ammonium sulfate (5 g/L) and yeast extract (1 g/L) was proposed, resulting in a lipase titer of 3.0 ± 0.25 U/mL. The cost/production relationship was 7.73% less expensive than SmF with corn oil. SSF produced a maximum lipase titer of 5.0 ± 0.25 U/gds on crambe meal moistened with phosphate buffer. The best cost/enzyme activity estimate was for SSF with crambe meal as substrate in only distilled water (87.27% less expensive than SmF).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".