MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036377647 · doi:10.1007/s10295-009-0597-9

Plasmid stability and kinetics of continuous production of glucoamylase by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae in an airlift bioreactor

2009· article· en· W2036377647 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter M. Kilonzo, Argyrios Margaritis, M.A. Bergougnou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDilutionBioreactorPlasmidSaccharomyces cerevisiaeGrowth rateKineticsAirliftBiologyChemistryYeastChromatographyBiochemistryDNAThermodynamicsBotanyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production of glucoamylase by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae C468/pGAC9 (ATCC 20690) in a continuous stirred tank bioreactor was studied at different dilution rates. Plasmid stability was found to be growth (dilution rate) dependent; it increased with the dilution rate. Bioreactor productivity and specific productivity also increased with the dilution rate. A kinetic equation was used to model the plasmid stability kinetics. The growth rate ratio between plasmid-carrying and plasmid-free cells decreased from 1.397 to 1.215, and segregational instability or probability of plasmid loss from each cell division decreased from 0.059 to 0.020 as the dilution rate increased from 0.10 to 0.37 1/h. The specific growth rates increased with dilution rate, while the growth rate difference between plasmid-carrying and plasmid-free cell populations was negligible. This was attributed to the low copy number of the hybrid plasmid pGAC9. Thus, the growth rate had no significant effect on plasmid instability. The proposed kinetics was consistent with experimental results, and the model simulated the experimental data well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & BiotechnologySame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207