The use of fluorescent protein-tagged carbohydrate-binding modules to evaluate the influence of drying on cellulose accessibility and enzymatic hydrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of drying on cellulose accessibility and enzymatic hydrolysis was assessed. Dissolving pulp was differentially dried by freeze-, air- and oven-drying at 50 °C and subsequently hydrolyzed using the commercial CTec 3 cellulase preparation. It was apparent that drying reduced the ease of enzymatic hydrolysis of all of the substrates with a pronounced reduction (48%) exhibited by the oven-dried pulp. To assess if the ease of hydrolysis was due to enzyme accessibility to the substrate, microscopy (SEM), FTIR spectroscopy, water retention value (WRV), fiber aspect ratio analysis, Simons' stain and the selective binding of Fluorescent Protein-tagged Carbohydrate Binding Modules (FP-CBMs): CBM3a (crystalline cellulose) and CBM17 (amorphous cellulose) in combination with confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) were used. The combined methods indicated that, if the gross characteristics of the substrate limited enzyme accessibility, the cellulases, as represented by the FP-CBMs, could not in turn access the finer structural components of the cellulosic substrates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".