MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089093678 · doi:10.1002/bit.10313

Enhancement of a two‐phase partitioning bioreactor system by modification of the microbial catalyst: Demonstration of concept

2002· article· en· W2089093678 on OpenAlexaff
H. A. Vrionis, Andrew M. Kropinski, A. J. Daugulis

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology and Bioengineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioreactorChemistryPseudomonas putidaPhenolSolventBiodegradationCatalysisXenobioticChemical engineeringYield (engineering)Microbial consortiumChromatographyMicroorganismOrganic chemistryBacteriaEnzymeMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of two-phase partitioning bioreactors (TPPB) to the degradation of phenol and xenobiotics has been limited by the fact that many organic compounds that would otherwise be desirable delivery solvents can be utilized by the microorganisms employed. The ability to metabolize the solvent itself could interfere with xenobiotic degradation, limiting remediation efficiency, and hence represents a microbial characteristic incompatible with process goals. To avoid the issue of bioavailability, previous TPPB applications have relied on complex and often expensive delivery solvents or suboptimal catalyst-solvent pairings. In an effort to enhance TPPB activity and applicability, a genetically engineered derivative of Pseudomonas putida ATCC 11172 mutated in its ability to utilize medium-chain-length alcohols was generated (AVP2) and applied as the catalyst within a TPPB system with decanol as the delivery solvent. Kinetic analysis verified that the genetic alteration had not negatively affected phenol degradation. The volumetric productivity of AVP2 (0.48 g/L x h(-1)) was equivalent to that seen for wild-type ATCC 11172 (0.51 g/L x h(-1)), but a comparison of initial cell concentrations and yields revealed an improved phenol-degrading efficiency for the mutant under process conditions. Yield coefficients, cell dry weight, and viable count determinations all confirmed the stability of the modified phenotype. This work illustrates the possibilities for TPPB process enhancement through a careful combination of genetic modification and solvent selection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology and BioengineeringSame topicMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactantsFrench-language works237,207