Xylitol production by different yeasts: Kinetic study and biosynthesis from cashew apple bagasse hydrolysate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Xylitol is a polyol with sweetening and anti‐cariogenic properties and is highly relevant to the food and pharmaceutical industries. This work evaluates xylitol production by three yeasts ( Candida tropicalis , Kluyveromyces marxianus CCA510, and Kluyveromyces marxianus ATCC 36907) from different carbon sources: D‐xylose (medium xylose [MX]) and D‐xylose plus D‐glucose (medium xylose and glucose [MXG]). The potential of xylitol production from hemicellulose hydrolysate of cashew bagasse was evaluated. In MX medium, K. marxianus CCA510 was the strain that produced higher xylitol concentration (17.04 g · L −1 ). However, K. marxianus ATCC 36907 and C. tropicalis produced 13.22 and 9.54 g · L −1 , respectively. On the other hand, in MXG medium, probably due to the presence of glucose as a carbon source, lower xylitol production was observed for all microorganisms: the CCA510 strain produced 13.30 g · L −1 of xylitol, while C. tropicalis and ATCC 36907 produced 11.42 and 0.64 g · L −1 , respectively. Additionally, the production of ethanol as a secondary product was also noted. According to the results of the kinetic study, xylitol formation is associated with the growth and consumption of substrate (xylose), which is a typical behaviour of a primary metabolite for the three yeasts. Furthermore, the strain K. marxianus CCA510 was able to produce xylitol from cashew apple bagasse hydrolysate (CABH), evidencing its potential for use in bioprocesses related to biorefinery. In view of the results reported here, it was possible to clarify in detail the kinetics of xylitol production by the yeast strains evaluated, which had the ability to produce xylitol from CABH, providing added value to this agro‐industrial residue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".