Molecular cloning and functional analysis of two polyhydroxyalkanoate synthases from two strains of<i>Aeromonas hydrophila</i>spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) synthase genes (phaC) were cloned from two Aeromonas hydrophila strains named WQ and 4AK5, respectively. Both strains are able to produce PHBHHx copolyesters consisting of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) and 3-hydroxyhexanoate (3HHx). Sequence analysis showed that there was only 2 bp difference between these two PHA synthase genes, corresponding to two-amino acid difference at positions of 437 and 458 of the two synthases. PHA productivity and its monomer content produced by A. hydrophila WQ and A. hydrophila 4AK5 were quite different. A. hydrophila WQ accumulated 33% PHBHHx of its cell dry weight (CDW) with 5 mol% 3HHx in the copolyester when cultured in lauric acid for 48 h. Yet A. hydrophila 4AK5 was able to produce 43% PHBHHx of the CDW with 14 mol% 3HHx under the same condition. Hetero-expression of PHA synthase genes of A. hydrophila WQ and A. hydrophila 4AK5, respectively, in Escherichia coli XL1-Blue led to PHBHHx accumulation of 24% and 39% of the CDW and the 3HHx content in PHBHHx were 6 and 15 mol%, respectively. This indicated that the function of these two PHA synthases were different due to these two different residues at positions of 437 and 458. Site specific mutation was carried out to change these two amino acid residues. Results showed that the changes on either of the two amino acids negatively affected the PHA productivity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".