Secretion of small proteins is species‐specific within <i>Aspergillus</i> sp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small secreted proteins (SSP) have been defined as proteins containing a signal peptide and a sequence of less than 300 amino acids. In this analysis, we have compared the secretion pattern of SSPs among eight aspergilli species in the context of plant biomass degradation and have highlighted putative interesting candidates that could be involved in the degradative process or in the strategies developed by fungi to resist the associated stress that could be due to the toxicity of some aromatic compounds or reactive oxygen species released during degradation. Among these candidates, for example, some stress-related superoxide dismutases or some hydrophobic surface binding proteins (HsbA) are specifically secreted according to the species . Since these latter proteins are able to recruit lytic enzymes to the surface of hydrophobic solid materials and promote their degradation, a synergistic action of HsbA with the degradative system may be considered and need further investigations. These SSPs could have great applications in biotechnology by optimizing the efficiency of the enzymatic systems for biomass degradation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".