Keratinolytic potential of<i>Bacillus licheniformis</i>RG1: structural and biochemical mechanism of feather degradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keratinolytic Bacillus licheniformis RG1 was used to study the mechanism of keratinolysis. Scanning electron microscopy studies revealed that bacterial cells grew closely adhered to the barbules of feathers, completely degrading them within 24 h. Biochemical studies indicated that the Bacillus strain produced an extracellular protease, which had keratinolytic potential. The extracellular keratinolytic activity (425 U) was synergistically enhanced by the addition of intracellular disulfide reductases (1712 U). However, these enzymes alone (keratinase and disulfide reductase), without live bacterial cells, failed to degrade the feather. Complete feather degradation was obtained only when living bacterial cells were present, emphasizing that bacterial adhesion plays a key role during the degradation process. The bacterial cells probably provide a continuous supply of reductant to break disulfide bridges. In addition, sulfite detected in the extracellular broth during feather degradation indicated that sulfitolysis may also play a role in feather degradation by the bacterium.
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".