A comparative study between an endoglucanase IV and its fused protein complex Cel5-CBM6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recombinant endoglucanase IV (Cel5; encoded by egIV) of Ruminococcus albus was compared with protein Cel5-CBM6 comprised of Cel5 fused at the C-terminus with the single-cellulose binding domain II (CBM6) of Clostridium stercorarium xylanase A, in order to improve its binding ability. Previous analyses using ball-milled cellulose had suggested that a cellulose binding domain of xylanase A could enhance cellulase activity, especially with insoluble substrates. Comparison of the catalytic activities of Cel5 and Cel5-CBM6 were determined using carboxymethylcellulose, Avicel, and filter paper as substrates. This study confirmed previous findings, and provided further evidence suggesting that Cel5-CBM6 exhibits enhanced activity with insoluble cellulose compared to native Cel5. However, its hydrolytic activity with soluble substrates such as carboxymethylcellulose was comparable to Cel5. For both cellulases, central linkages of cellulooligosaccharides (up to six glucose residues) were found to be the preferred points of cleavage. The rates of hydrolysis with both cellulases increased with cellulooligosaccharide chain length, and at least three consecutive glycosyl residues seemed to be necessary for hydrolysis to occur. Cel5-CBM6 showed a higher affinity for cellulose substrates than did Cel5, as demonstrated by transmission electron microscopy. Taken together, these results suggest that CBM6 increases the affinity of Cel5 for insoluble substrates, and this increased binding capacity seems to result in increased catalytic activity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".