MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516033135 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.6b02751

Site Directed Mutagenesis of Dextransucrase DsrM from <i>Weissella cibaria</i>: Transformation to a Reuteransucrase

2016· article· en· W2516033135 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael G. Gänzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilAlberta Livestock and Meat Agency
KeywordsDextransucraseChemistrySite-directed mutagenesisMutagenesisWeissellaTransformation (genetics)BiochemistryMutationBiologyGeneGeneticsFermentationLeuconostoc mesenteroidesBacteriaLeuconostoc

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glucansucrases produce α-glucans and gluco-oligosaccharides; the linkage type and molecular weight of glucans impacts their functionality. This study compared the catalytic specificities of dextransucrase DsrM from Weissella cibaria 10M and derivatives of this enzymes with GtfA from Lactobacillus reuteri TMW1.656. The N-variable region, which is dispensable for GtfA activity, was essential for DsrM activity. Parallel amino acid substitutions in DsrM-ΔS and GtfA-ΔN indicated that the acceptor binding site residues determining the linkage type differ in these enzymes. DsrM-V583P:V586I had comparable enzyme activity as the respective GtfA derivative but did not increase the proportion of α-(1→4) linkages. DsrM-S622N had low enzyme activity and an unaltered proportion of α-(1→4) linkages while the analogous GtfA-S1062N maintained enzyme activity but increased the proportion of α-(1→4) linkages. This study of dextransucrase from Weissella spp. thus elucidated differences between glucansucrases and will facilitate study of the structure-function relationships of dextran and isomalto-oligosaccharides.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207