Elucidation of the structure of cellulolytic enzyme lignin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cellulolytic enzyme lignin (CEL) and milled wood lignin (MWL) were prepared by three different ball-milling methods. The structure of CEL at various yields was elucidated and compared with MWL using wet chemical analysis, FTIR and solution-state NMR techniques. Results show that ball milling of wood degrades β-O-4 structures in lignin. However, even after extensive ball milling, less than 25% of the β-O-4 structures were degraded. The extent of degradation was less for softwood than for hardwood lignin. Extractable lignin yield, either MWL or CEL, was the best way to assess the extent and effect of ball milling. CEL is preferred over MWL, as it can be isolated in higher yield with less degradation. CEL was isolated at yields ranging from 20% to 86%. Over this range the CEL had similar structures, suggesting that lignin in the secondary wall is uniform in structure. The residual enzyme lignin (REL) was structurally different from CEL and may originate mainly from the middle lamella. In this paper we propose a new procedure for the isolation of lignin for use in structural studies, whereby wood is sufficiently milled and successively extracted to produce three lignin fractions representing the total lignin in wood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".