The Use of Carbohydrate Binding Modules (CBMs) to Monitor Changes in Fragmentation and Cellulose Fiber Surface Morphology during Cellulase- and Swollenin-induced Deconstruction of Lignocellulosic Substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the actions of many of the hydrolytic enzymes involved in cellulose hydrolysis are relatively well understood, the contributions that amorphogenesis-inducing proteins might contribute to cellulose deconstruction are still relatively undefined. Earlier work has shown that disruptive proteins, such as the non-hydrolytic non-oxidative protein Swollenin, can open up and disaggregate the less-ordered regions of lignocellulosic substrates. Within the cellulosic fraction, relatively disordered, amorphous regions known as dislocations are known to occur along the length of the fibers. It was postulated that Swollenin might act synergistically with hydrolytic enzymes to initiate biomass deconstruction within these dislocation regions. Carbohydrate binding modules (CBMs) that preferentially bind to cellulosic substructures were fluorescently labeled. They were imaged, using confocal microscopy, to assess the distribution of crystalline and amorphous cellulose at the fiber surface, as well as to track changes in surface morphology over the course of enzymatic hydrolysis and fiber fragmentation. Swollenin was shown to promote targeted disruption of the cellulosic structure at fiber dislocations. Background: Fiber fragmentation is thought to occur at dislocations, which are potential targets for the non-hydrolytic protein, Swollenin. Results: Changes in cellulose morphology within dislocations were assessed using fluorescent CBMs; Swollenin appeared to promote fragmentation at these sites. Conclusion: Swollenin targets and disrupts cellulose at fiber dislocations. Significance: Fragmentation is a key step in cellulose deconstruction and is enhanced by the actions of Swollenin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".