Screening for Methane Utilizing Mixed Communities with High Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) Production Capacity Using Different Design Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the adverse environmental ramifications of the use of petroleum-based plastic outweighing the challenges facing the industrialization of bioplastics, polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) biopolymer has gained broad interest in recent years. Thus, an efficient approach for maximizing polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) polymer production in methanotrophic bacteria has been developed using the methane gas produced in the anaerobic digestion process in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPS) as a carbon substrate and an electron donor. A comparison study was conducted between two experimental setups using two different recycling strategies, namely new and conventional setups. The former setup aims to recycle PHB producers into the system after the PHB accumulation phase, while the latter recycles the biomass back into the system after the exponential phase of growth or the growth phase. The goal of this study was to compare both setups in terms of PHB production and other operational parameters such as growth rate, methane uptake rate, and biomass yield using two different nitrogen sources, namely nitrate and ammonia. The newly proposed setup is aimed at stimulating PHB accumulating type II methanotroph growth whilst enabling other PHB accumulators to grow simultaneously. The success of the proposed method was confirmed as it achieved highest recorded PHB accumulation percentages for a mixed culture community in both ammonia- and nitrate-enriched media of 59.4% and 54.3%, respectively, compared to 37.8% and 9.1% for the conventional setup. Finally, the sequencing of microbial samples showed a significant increase in the abundance of type II methanotrophs along with other PHB producers, confirming the success of the newly proposed technique in screening for PHB producers and achieving higher PHB accumulation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".