Rhamnolipids: diversity of structures, microbial origins and roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhamnolipids are glycolipidic biosurfactants produced by various bacterial species. They were initially found as exoproducts of the opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa and described as a mixture of four congeners: alpha-L-rhamnopyranosyl-alpha-L-rhamnopyranosyl-beta-hydroxydecanoyl-beta-hydroxydecanoate (Rha-Rha-C(10)-C(10)), alpha-L-rhamnopyranosyl-alpha-L-rhamnopyranosyl-beta-hydroxydecanoate (Rha-Rha-C(10)), as well as their mono-rhamnolipid congeners Rha-C(10)-C(10) and Rha-C(10). The development of more sensitive analytical techniques has lead to the further discovery of a wide diversity of rhamnolipid congeners and homologues (about 60) that are produced at different concentrations by various Pseudomonas species and by bacteria belonging to other families, classes, or even phyla. For example, various Burkholderia species have been shown to produce rhamnolipids that have longer alkyl chains than those produced by P. aeruginosa. In P. aeruginosa, three genes, carried on two distinct operons, code for the enzymes responsible for the final steps of rhamnolipid synthesis: one operon carries the rhlAB genes and the other rhlC. Genes highly similar to rhlA, rhlB, and rhlC have also been found in various Burkholderia species but grouped within one putative operon, and they have been shown to be required for rhamnolipid production as well. The exact physiological function of these secondary metabolites is still unclear. Most identified activities are derived from the surface activity, wetting ability, detergency, and other amphipathic-related properties of these molecules. Indeed, rhamnolipids promote the uptake and biodegradation of poorly soluble substrates, act as immune modulators and virulence factors, have antimicrobial activities, and are involved in surface motility and in bacterial biofilm development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".