Differential recognition of plant cell walls by microbial xylan-specific carbohydrate-binding modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glycoside hydrolases that degrade plant cell walls have complex molecular architectures in which one or more catalytic modules are appended to noncatalytic carbohydrate-binding modules (CBMs). CBMs promote binding to polysaccharides and potentiate enzymic hydrolysis. Although there are diverse sequence-based families of xylan-binding CBMs, these modules, in general, recognize both decorated and unsubstituted forms of the target polysaccharide, and thus the evolutionary rationale for this diversity is unclear. Using immunohistochemistry to interrogate the specificity of six xylan-binding CBMs for their target polysaccharides in cell walls has revealed considerable differences in the recognition of plant materials between these protein modules. Family 2b and 15 CBMs bind to xylan in secondary cell walls in a range of dicotyledon species, whereas family 4, 6, and 22 CBMs display a more limited capability to bind to secondary cell walls. A family 35 CBM, which displays more restricted ligand specificity against purified xylans than the other five protein modules, reveals a highly distinctive binding pattern to plant material including the recognition of primary cell walls of certain dicotyledons, a feature shared with CBM15. Differences in the specificity of the CBMs toward walls of wheat grain and maize coleoptiles were also evident. The variation in CBM specificity for ligands located in plant cell walls provides a biological rationale for the repertoire of structurally distinct xylan-binding CBMs present in nature, and points to the utility of these modules in probing the molecular architecture of cell walls.
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) | 0.000 | 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".