Cel6B of Thermobifidus fusca and a Cel5-CBM6 of Ruminococcus albus containing a cellulose binding site show synergistic effect on hydrolysis of native plant cellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrolysis of cellulose requires two different types of cellulases: exo- and endocellulase. Here, we investigated for the hydrolysis of cellulose by two types of cellulases, an endoglucanase (Cel5) from Ruminococcus albus fused with the xylanase A cellulose binding domain II (CBM6) of Clostridium stercorarium and Thermobifidus fusca E3, an exoglucanase (Cel6B). Cel5-CBM6 or Cel6B showed a linear relationship between the production of soluble sugars and the incubation time when native alfalfa cellulose was used as a substrate. Cel5-CBM6 produces more soluble sugars than Cel6B and the hydrolysis of cellulose by a mixture of the two enzymes produces substantially more (22%) soluble sugars than the total amount produced by these enzymes individually. Although Cel5-CBM6 solubilized high quantities of sugars from alfalfa cellulose, it did not significantly decrease its crystallinity, while Cel6B decreased the crystallinity of cellulose by 34%. When the two cellulases were combined, a decrease of more than 50% in the content of crystalline cellulose was observed. The enzyme-gold labeling experiments revealed that both enzymes showed a high affinity for all substrates. Furthermore, simultaneous visualization of the enzyme-binding sites revealed the preferred substrates in native lignocellulosic material. When plant cellulose was pre-incubated with Cel5-CBM6, density of the gold labeling greatly increased suggesting that preliminary exposure of lignocellulosic material to Cel5-CBM6 may have enhanced the accessibility of the substrate to Cel5-CBM6 and Cel6B. This result provides a plausible explanation for the observed endo/exo cellulase synergism during hydrolysis.
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 | 0.000 | 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".