MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096381604 · doi:10.1002/jctb.873

Utilization of raffinose and melibiose by a mutant of <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2003· article· en· W2096381604 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan K. Atiyeh, Z. Duvnjak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaffinoseMelibioseFructoseSucroseFermentationChemistryFood scienceBiochemistryGalactoseStachyoseEthanolEthanol fermentationEthanol fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mutant Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC 36858 was used in the production of ethanol and/or fructose from synthetic media in batch processes with raffinose, melibiose or sucrose. The mutant was able to hydrolyze all the sugars used and to selectively ferment glucose and galactose to ethanol while fructose accumulated in the fermentation medium. The fructose yield was above 89% of the theoretical value in the media with either raffinose or sucrose, when initial concentrations were between 131.5 g dm −3 and 242.0 g dm −3 . The ethanol yields were 82% and 77% of the theoretical values in the media with melibiose and sucrose, respectively, and about 72% of the theoretical value when raffinose was used. The fructose fraction in the carbohydrate content of the produced syrups was more than 96% when raffinose concentration was below 189.1 g dm −3 . However, even at a sucrose concentration of 187.9 g dm −3 , the produced syrup contained 100% fructose. Some oligosaccharides were also produced in all tested media. The produced oligosaccharides were consumed by the end of the fermentation process. These findings can be useful in the production of ethanol and high fructose syrups using raw materials based on sucrose and raffinose such as molasses. Copyright © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Technology & BiotechnologySame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207