Comparative Transcriptome and Secretome Analysis of Wood Decay Fungi<i>Postia placenta</i>and<i>Phanerochaete chrysosporium</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellulose degradation by brown rot fungi, such as Postia placenta, is poorly understood relative to the phylogenetically related white rot basidiomycete, Phanerochaete chrysosporium. To elucidate the number, structure, and regulation of genes involved in lignocellulosic cell wall attack, secretome and transcriptome analyses were performed on both wood decay fungi cultured for 5 days in media containing ball-milled aspen or glucose as the sole carbon source. Using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), a total of 67 and 79 proteins were identified in the extracellular fluids of P. placenta and P. chrysosporium cultures, respectively. Viewed together with transcript profiles, P. chrysosporium employs an array of extracellular glycosyl hydrolases to simultaneously attack cellulose and hemicelluloses. In contrast, under these same conditions, P. placenta secretes an array of hemicellulases but few potential cellulases. The two species display distinct expression patterns for oxidoreductase-encoding genes. In P. placenta, these patterns are consistent with an extracellular Fenton system and include the upregulation of genes involved in iron acquisition, in the synthesis of low-molecular-weight quinones, and possibly in redox cycling reactions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".