MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190745408 · doi:10.3390/fermentation7030150

Co-Production of Isobutanol and Ethanol from Prairie Grain Starch Using Engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae

2021· article· en· W3190745408 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaodong Liu, Ebele Unaegbunam

Bibliographic record

VenueFermentation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsobutanolEthanol fuelRaw materialBiofuelTriticaleStarchFood scienceFermentationChemistryBiotechnologyEthanolAgronomyBiochemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isobutanol is an important and valuable platform chemical and an appealing biofuel that is compatible with contemporary combustion engines and existing fuel distribution infrastructure. The present study aimed to compare the potential of triticale, wheat and barley starch as feedstock for isobutanol production using an engineered strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) approach showed that all three starches were viable feedstock for co-production of isobutanol and ethanol and could produce titres similar to that produced using purified sugar as feedstock. A fed-batch process using triticale starch yielded 0.006 g isobutanol and 0.28 g ethanol/g starch. Additionally, it is demonstrated that Fusarium graminearum infected grain starch contaminated with mycotoxin can be used as an effective feedstock for isobutanol and ethanol co-production. These findings demonstrate the potential for triticale as a purpose grown energy crop and show that mycotoxin-contaminated grain starch can be used as feedstock for isobutanol biosynthesis, thus adding value to a grain that would otherwise be of limited use.

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 score0.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFermentationSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207