MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413421032 · doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-723-5_8

Microbial Expression of Alkaloid Biosynthetic Enzymes for Characterization of Their Properties

2010· article· en· W2413421032 on OpenAlexaff
Hiromichi Minami, Nobuhiro Ikezawa, Fumihiko Sato

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnzymeBiochemistryEscherichia coliBiosynthesisSecondary metabolismBiologyCytochrome P450MetabolismMetaboliteSecondary metaboliteChemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide variety of secondary metabolites are produced in higher plants. These metabolites are synthesized in specific organs/cells at certain developmental stages and/or under specific environmental conditions. Since these biosynthetic activities are rather restricted and difficult to detect, the biochemical characterization of biosynthetic enzymes involved in secondary metabolism has been limited compared to those involved in primary metabolism. Recently, however, progress in tissue culture and molecular biology has made it easier to study biosynthetic enzymes. Here we describe protocols for expressing some biosynthetic enzymes in Escherichia coli expression systems, since this system is both efficient and cost-effective. First, we describe a standard system for expressing biosynthetic enzymes as a soluble protein under the T7 promoter of the pET expression system in E. coli. In addition, the successful expression of cytochrome P450 in E. coli in an active soluble form with N-terminal modification is discussed, since P450 is the critical enzyme in secondary metabolite biosynthesis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207