MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2162201862 · doi:10.1139/w09-091

Rapid method for extracting the antibiotic mutacin 1140 from complex fermentation medium yeast extract

2009· article· en· W2162201862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noel Chaney, Shawanda Wilson-Stanford, James Kastrantas, Neeti Dahal, Leif Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLantibioticsNisinAmmonium sulfate precipitationYeastFermentationYeast extractChromatographyBacteriocinBiochemistryAntibioticsChemistryAmmonium sulfateBioassayBiologyMicrobiologyEnzymeSize-exclusion chromatographyAntimicrobial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The peptide antibiotic mutacin 1140 belongs to the group of antibiotics called lantibiotics. They are ribosomally synthesized and undergo extensive enzymatic modifications before being excreted into the culture medium. By using reverse-phase-high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) and a semiquantitative bacteriocin bioassay to track mutacin 1140, an efficient ammonium sulfate (AS) precipitation method has been developed for removing mutacin 1140 from a complex medium containing 5% yeast extract. This method minimizes the amounts of fermentation by-products and media components that make downstream purification processes more difficult and economically infeasible. The method may be adaptable for the initial purification step of other lantibiotics. A threefold decrease in the precipitation of the medium components found in yeast extract, at pH 8.0 vs. pH 2.0, may have broad utility for the isolation of secondary metabolites produced in this complex medium. The average yield of mutacin 1140 from the fermentation medium was determined as 66%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicProbiotics and Fermented Foods→French-language works237,207→