Comparison of enzymatic antioxidant defence systems in different metabolic types of yeasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enzymatic defence system in the 2 yeasts Kluyveromyces marxianus and Rhodotorula glutinis, differing in their mode of oxygen uptake and energy generation, was characterized and compared with the well-studied facultatively fermentative Crabtree-positive Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain. Twofold higher superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase activities were detected in K. marxianus and R. glutinis when cells were cultured on glucose. Further increases of 10%-15% in SOD activity and 30%-50% in catalase were measured in all studied yeasts strains after transfer to media containing ethanol. An evaluation of the ratio of Cu/Zn SOD / Mn SOD was performed as a measure of the oxidative metabolism. A 20% decrease was observed when the respiratory source of energy was ethanol, with the lowest ratio being observed for the oxidative type of K. marxianus yeasts. Electrophoretic analysis revealed that all tested strains possess active Cu/Zn and Mn SODs. A reverse electrophoretic mobility pattern of K. marxianus and R. glutinis SOD enzymes was observed in comparison with the same couple in S. cerevisiae. The investigation of electrophoretic profile of catalase enzymes showed that alongside their different taxonomic status and fermentative capacity, all tested strains possess 2 separate catalases. The role of antioxidant enzymes in preventing oxidant-induced cytotoxicity (treatment with hydrogen peroxide, paraquat, and menadione) was shown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".