MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091589663 · doi:10.3109/07388551.2014.888048

Engineering<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>for direct conversion of raw, uncooked or granular starch to ethanol

2014· review· en· W2091589663 on OpenAlexaff
Johann F. Görgens, David C. Bressler, Eugéne van Rensburg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biotechnology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFermentationStarchYeastEthanol fuelAmylaseRaw materialBioprocessBiotechnologyHydrolysisFood scienceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiomass (ecology)Alpha-amylaseChemistryBiochemistryPulp and paper industryBiologyEnzymeAgronomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of raw starch-degrading amylases by recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae provides opportunities for the direct hydrolysis and fermentation of raw starch to ethanol without cooking or exogenous enzyme addition. Such a consolidated bioprocess (CBP) for raw starch fermentation will substantially reduce costs associated with energy usage and commercial granular starch hydrolyzing (GSH) enzymes. The core purpose of this review is to provide comprehensive insight into the physiological impact of recombinant amylase production on the ethanol-producing yeast. Key production parameters, based on outcomes from modifications to the yeast genome and levels of amylase production, were compared to key benchmark data. In turn, these outcomes are of significance from a process point of view to highlight shortcomings in the current state of the art of raw starch fermentation yeast compared to a set of industrial standards. Therefore, this study provides an integrated critical assessment of physiology, genetics and process aspects of recombinant raw starch fermenting yeast in relation to presently used technology. Various approaches to strain development were compared on a common basis of quantitative performance measures, including the extent of hydrolysis, fermentation-hydrolysis yield and productivity. Key findings showed that levels of α-amylase required for raw starch hydrolysis far exceeded enzyme levels for soluble starch hydrolysis, pointing to a pre-requisite for excess α-amylase compared to glucoamylase for efficient raw starch hydrolysis. However, the physiological limitations of amylase production by yeast, requiring high biomass concentrations and long cultivation periods for sufficient enzyme accumulation under anaerobic conditions, remained a substantial challenge. Accordingly, the fermentation performance of the recombinant S. cerevisiae strains reviewed in this study could not match the performance of conventional starch fermentation processes, based either on starch cooking and/or exogenous amylase enzyme addition. As an alternative strategy, the addition of exogenous GSH enzymes during early stages of raw starch fermentation may prove to be a viable approach for industrial application of recombinant S. cerevisiae, with the process still benefitting from amylase production by CBP yeast during later stages of cultivation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in BiotechnologySame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207