MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963983949 · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.14756

A comparison of the nitrogen metabolic networks of <i>Kluyveromyces marxianus</i> and <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2019· article· en· W2963983949 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphanie Rollero, Audrey Bloem, Anne Ortiz-Julien, Florian F. Bauer, Carole Camarasa, Benoit Divol

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Microbiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)
FundersLallemandUniversiteit StellenboschNational Science Foundation, United Arab EmiratesNational Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyKluyveromycesKluyveromyces marxianusSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeastAmmoniumBiochemistryAnabolismKluyveromyces lactisWineYeast in winemakingNitrogen assimilationFood scienceGeneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In grape must, nitrogen is available as a complex mixture of various compounds (ammonium and amino acids). Wine yeasts assimilate these multiple sources in order to suitably fulfil their anabolic requirements during alcoholic fermentation. Nevertheless, the order of uptake and the intracellular fate of these sources are likely to differ between strains and species. Using a two-pronged strategy of isotopic filiation and RNA sequencing, the metabolic network of nitrogen utilization and its regulation in Kluyveromyces marxianus were described, in comparison with those of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The data highlighted differences in the assimilation of ammonium and arginine between the two species. The data also revealed that the metabolic fate of certain nitrogen sources differed, thereby resulting in the production of various amounts of key wine aroma compounds. These observations were corroborated by the gene expression analysis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental MicrobiologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207