Comparison of Two Methods to Recover Lysozyme from Reverse Micellar Phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two methods were tested to recover lysozyme from reverse micellar phases formed either with an anionic surfactant or with a cationic surfactant. The conventional back extraction method of contacting the protein-containing reverse micellar phase with a fresh aqueous phase, with pH and salt concentration adjustment, did not recover lysozyme from either reverse micellar phase. The lysozyme removed from the reverse micellar phase precipitated at the aqueous–organic interface. A solvent precipitation method using a polar organic solvent added to either lysozyme-containing reverse micellar phase, precipitated lysozyme as a solid, while the surfactant was solubilized in the polar solvent. Of the seven solvents tested, acetone recovered 70% of the original lysozyme from the anionic reverse micellar phase without loss of activity. No active lysozyme could be recovered from the cationic reverse micellar system. In this case, the lysozyme was denatured by the high pH required for the initial extraction into the reverse micellar phase.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".