Prediction of bioactive compound activity against wood contaminant fungi using artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biopesticides based on natural endophytic bacteria to control plant diseases are an ecological alternative to chemical treatments. Bacillus species produce a wide variety of metabolites with biological activity like iturinic lipopeptides. This work addresses the production of biopesticides based on natural endophytic bacteria isolated from Quercus suber L. Artificial neural networks were used to maximize the percentage of inhibition triggered by the antifungal activity of bioactive compounds produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. The active compounds, produced in liquid cultures, inhibited the growth of 15 fungi and exhibited a broader spectrum of antifungal activity against surface contaminant fungi, blue stain fungi, and phytopathogenic fungi. A 19-7-6-1 neural network was selected to predict the percentage of inhibition produced by antifungal bioactive compounds. A good match among the observed and predicted values was obtained with the R2values varying between 0.9965–0.9971 and 0.9974–0.9989 for training and test sets. The 19-7-6-1 neural network was used to establish the dilution rates that maximize the production of antifungal bioactive compounds, namely, 0.25 h−1for surface contaminant fungi, 0.45 h−1for blue stain fungi, and between 0.30 and 0.40 h−1for phytopathogenic fungi. Artificial neural networks show great potential in the modelling and optimization of these bioprocesses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".