Production of R- and S-1,2-propanediol in engineered Lactococcus lactis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1,2-propanediol (1,2-PDO) is a versatile chemical used in multiple manufacturing processes. To date, some engineered and non-engineered microbes, such as Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus buchneri, and Clostridium thermosaccharolyticum, have been used to produce 1,2-PDO. In this study, we demonstrated the production of R- and S-1,2-PDO using engineered Lactococcus lactis. The L- and D-lactic acid-producing L. lactis strains NZ9000 and AH1 were transformed with the plasmid pNZ8048-ppy harboring pct, pduP, and yahK genes for 1,2-PDO biosynthesis, resulting in L. lactis LL1 and LL2, respectively. These engineered L. lactis produced S- and R-1,2-PDO at concentrations of 0.69 and 0.50 g/L with 94.4 and 78.0% ee optical purities, respectively, from 1% glucose after 72 h of cultivation. Both 1% mannitol and 1% gluconate were added instead of glucose to the culture of L. lactis LL1 to supply NADH and NADPH to the 1,2-PDO production pathway, resulting in 75% enhancement of S-1,2-PDO production. Production of S-1,2-PDO from 5% mannitol and 5% gluconate was demonstrated using L. lactis LL1 with a pH-stat approach. This resulted in S-1,2-PDO production at a concentration of 1.88 g/L after 96 h of cultivation. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the production of R- and S-1,2-PDO using engineered lactic acid bacteria.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".