Model Study To Assess Softwood Hemicellulose Hydrolysates as the Carbon Source for PHB Production in <i>Paraburkholderia sacchari</i> IPT 101
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Softwood hemicellulose hydrolysates are a cheap source of sugars that can be used as a feedstock to produce polyhydroxybutyrates (PHB), which are biobased and compostable bacterial polyesters. To assess the potential of the hemicellulosic sugars as a carbon source for PHB production, synthetic media containing softwood hemicellulose sugars (glucose, mannose, galactose, xylose, arabinose) and the potentially inhibitory lignocellulose degradation products (acetic acid, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), furfural, and vanillin) were fermented with the model strain Paraburkholderia sacchari IPT 101. Relative to pure glucose, individual fermentation for 24 h with 20 g/L mannose or galactose exhibited maximum specific growth rates of 97% and 60%, respectively. On the other hand, with sugar mixtures of glucose, mannose, galactose, xylose, and arabinose, the strain converted all sugars simultaneously to reach a maximum PHB concentration of 5.72 g/L and 80.5% PHB after 51 h. The addition of the inhibitor mixture at the following concentration, sodium acetate (2.11 g/L), HMF (0.67 g/L), furfural (0.66 g/L), and vanillin (0.93 g/L), to the sugar mixture stopped the growth entirely within 24 h. Individually, the inhibitors either had no effect or only reduced growth. Moreover, it was found that a bacterial inoculum with high initial cell density (optical density, OD ≥ 5.6) could overcome the growth inhibition to yield an OD of 13 within 24 h. Therefore, softwood hemicellulose sugars are viable carbon sources for PHB production. Nevertheless, real softwood hemicellulose hydrolysates need detoxification or a high inoculum to overcome inhibitory effects and allow bacterial growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".