MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901812771 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1812605115

Design and in vitro realization of carbon-conserving photorespiration

2018· article· en· W2901812771 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Devin L. Trudeau, Christian Edlich‐Muth, Jan Zarzycki, Marieke Scheffen, Moshe Goldsmith, Olga Khersonsky, Ziv Avizemer, Sarel J. Fleishman, Charles A. R. Cotton, Tobias J. Erb, Dan S. Tawfik, Arren Bar‐Even

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCoenzyme Q10 studies and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020Azrieli FoundationMax-Planck-GesellschaftEuropean Commission
KeywordsPhotorespirationRealization (probability)In vitroCarbon fibersBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental scienceBiologyComputer scienceBotanyEngineeringMathematicsBiochemistryPhotosynthesisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Photorespiration limits plant carbon fixation by releasing CO 2 and using cellular resources to recycle the product of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) oxygenation, 2-phosphoglycolate. We systematically designed synthetic photorespiration bypasses that combine existing and new-to-nature enzymatic activities and that do not release CO 2 . Our computational model shows that these bypasses could enhance carbon fixation rate under a range of physiological conditions. To realize the designed bypasses, a glycolate reduction module, which does not exist in nature, is needed to be engineered. By reshaping the substrate and cofactor specificity of two natural enzymes, we established glycolate reduction to glycolaldehyde. With the addition of three natural enzymes, we observed recycling of glycolate to the key Calvin Cycle intermediate ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate with no carbon loss.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations137
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCoenzyme Q10 studies and effectsFrench-language works237,207