MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109994450 · doi:10.4172/2167-7972.1000102

Production of β-(1,3)-glucanases by Trichoderma harzianum Rifai: Optimization and Application to Produce Gluco-oligosaccharides from Paramylon and Pustulan

2012· article· en· W2109994450 on OpenAlexafffund
Ellen Cristine Giese, Robert F. H. Dekker, Aneli M. Barbosa

Bibliographic record

VenueFermentation Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersFundação AraucáriaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloLakehead University
KeywordsTrichoderma harzianumMicrobiologyTrichodermaBiologyBiotechnologyBotanyBiological pest control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-(13)-Glucanases were produced by Trichoderma harzianum Rifai PAMB-86 cultivated on botryosphaeran in a bench-fermenter and optimised by the response surface method. Maximal enzyme titres occurred at 5 days, initial pH 5.5 and aeration of 1.5vvm. -(13)-The -glucanolytic enzyme complex produced by T. harzianum Rifai PAMB-86 was fractionated by gel filtration into 2 fractions (F-I, F-II), and employed to produce gluco-oligosaccharides from algal paramylon ((13)--D-glucan) and lichen pustulan ((16)--D-glucan). Both enzymes attacked paramylon to the extent of ~15-20% in 30 min releasing glucose and laminaribiose as major end-products, and laminarioligosaccharides of degree of polymerization (DP) 3. Only F-I degraded pustulan resulting in ~2% degradation at 30 min, with glucose, gentiobiose and gentio-oligosaccharides of DP 4 as major products. The difference in the nature of the hydrolysis products can be explained by the substrate specificities of each enzyme fraction, and the structural differences of the -D-glucans attacked.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFermentation TechnologySame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207