The distribution of active β-glucosidase-producing microbial communities in composting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The composting ecosystem is a suitable source for the discovery of novel microorganisms and secondary metabolites. Cellulose degradation is an important part of the global carbon cycle, and β-glucosidases complete the final step of cellulose hydrolysis by converting cellobiose to glucose. This work analyzes the succession of β-glucosidase-producing microbial communities that persist throughout cattle manure - rice straw composting, and evaluates their metabolic activities and community advantage during the various phases of composting. Fungal and bacterial β-glucosidase genes belonging to glycoside hydrolase families 1 and 3 (GH1 and GH3) amplified from DNA were classified and gene abundance levels were analyzed. The major reservoirs of β-glucosidase genes were the fungal phylum Ascomycota and the bacterial phyla Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Deinococcus-Thermus. This indicates that a diverse microbial community utilizes cellobiose. The succession of dominant bacteria was also detected during composting. Firmicutes was the dominant bacteria in the thermophilic phase of composting; there was a shift to Actinomycetes in the maturing stage. Proteobacteria accounted for the highest proportions during the heating and thermophilic phases of composting. By contrast, the fungal phylum Ascomycota was a minor microbial community constituent in thermophilic phase of composting. Combined with the analysis of the temperature, cellulose degradation rate and the carboxymethyl cellulase and β-glucosidase activities showed that the bacterial GH1 family β-glucosidase genes make greater contribution in cellulose degradation at the later thermophilic stage of composting. In summary, even GH1 bacteria families β-glucosidase genes showing low abundance in DNA may be functionally important in the later thermophilic phase of composting. The results indicate that a complex community of bacteria and fungi expresses β-glucosidases in compost. Several β-glucosidase-producing bacteria and fungi identified in this study may represent potential indicators of composting in cellulose 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".