MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625365722 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.48

Screening of Microorganisms and Raw Materials for Lipase Production by Solid-State Fermentation

2017· article· en· W2625365722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grety Márquez Peñamaría, Giselle Morell-Nápoles, Mario César Cujilema-Quitio, Gualberto León-Revelo, Patrick Fickers, Luís Beltrán Ramos-Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Catalysis and Immobilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid-state fermentationLipaseFood scienceBiodiesel productionFermentationMicroorganismChemistryRaw materialBiofuelBiodieselSunflower oilHuskBiotechnologyPulp and paper industryBiologyBiochemistryEnzymeBotanyBacteriaOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of biodiesel from vegetable oils using eco-friendly processes is a hot topic actually. These processes are based on enzymatic biocatalysts, namely lipases, and present many advantages over classical processes i.e. they do not require the use of sodium hydroxide, nor huge quantities of water. Lipases are widespread in nature, being produced by many microorganisms. However, fungal lipases have benefits over bacterial lipases due to their low cost of production, thermal and pH stability, substrate specificity and activity in organic solvents. These low cost production processes rely, most of the time, on solid-state fermentation (SSF). The aim of this research was to select microorganisms for their ability to secrete lipolytic enzymes and to grow on a solid support compatible with SSF. Thirty-five yeast and mold strains were tested in term of growth rate and extracellular lipase production. Different solid support such as vermiculite, crushed wheat husk, cacao seed-husk and carbon sources such as soy oil, sunflower oil, olive oil or sucrose were also tested for their ability to support cell growth and lipase production.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicEnzyme Catalysis and ImmobilizationFrench-language works237,207