An Overview of Bioprocesses Employing Specifically Selected Microbial Catalysts for γ-Aminobutyric Acid Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is an important chemical compound in the human brain. GABA acts as an inhibitory neurotransmitter by inducing hyperpolarization of cellular membranes. Usually, this pharmaceutically important compound is synthesized using a chemical process, but in this short overview we have only analysed microbial processes, which have been studied for the biosynthesis of this commercially important compound. The content of this article includes the following summarised information: the search for biological processes showed a number of lactic acid bacteria and certain species of fungi, which could be effectively used for the production of GABA. Strains found to possess GABA-producing pathways include Lactobacillus brevis CRL 1942, L. plantarum FNCC 260, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus Y2, Bifidobacterium strains, Monascus spp., and Rhizopus spp. Each of these strains required specific growth conditions. However, several factors were common among these strains, such as the use of two main supplements in their fermentation medium—monosodium glutamate and pyridoxal phosphate—and maintaining an acidic pH. Optimization studies of GABA production were comprised of altering the media constituents, modifying growth conditions, types of cultivation system, and genetic manipulation. Some strains increased the production of GABA under anaerobic conditions. Genetic manipulation focused on silencing some genes or overexpression of gadB and gadC. The conclusion, based on the review of information available in published research, is that the targeted manipulation of selected microorganisms, as well as the culture conditions for an optimised bioprocess, should be adopted for an increased production of GABA to meet its increasing demand for food and pharmaceutical applications.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".