MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049227672 · doi:10.1002/btpr.667

Application of image analysis in the fungal fermentation of <i>Trichoderma reesei</i> RUT‐C30

2011· article· en· W2049227672 on OpenAlexaff
Viviane Choy, Nilesh P. Patel, Jules Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Progress · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrichoderma reeseiBioreactorMyceliumFermentationFood scienceMicroorganismHyphaCellulaseProductivityBiologyChemistryBotanyMicrobiologyPulp and paper industryHorticultureBiotechnologyBiochemistryBacteriaEngineeringEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trichoderma reesei was grown in a stirred-tank bioreactor (STB) and a reciprocating plate bioreactor (RPB) at four different agitation speeds. A semiautomatic image analysis protocol that was developed to characterize the mycelium morphology during the fermentation process based on four morphological types (unbranched, branched, entangled, and clumped microorganisms) was applied to study the effect of agitation on the morphology of T. reesei. It was shown via statistical validation that broth samples used for image analysis represented the whole population of the fungi in the bioreactor. High shear was found to be damaging to T. reesei grown in the STB. The gentler shear produced in the RPB was not detrimental to the microorganism even at higher agitation speed. Better productivity was obtained for T. reesei grown in the STB and the highest productivity, 0.121 IU/mL h, was obtained at 400 rpm. The morphological parameter, the hyphal growth unit, was found to be correlated to the productivity. Understanding the effect of agitation on the morphology and productivity of T. reesei could lead to the design of better bioreactors and the selection of operating conditions of bioreactors to optimize the production of cellulase.

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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology ProgressSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207