MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392229761 · doi:10.1139/er-2023-0107

Recent advances in screening and identification of PET-degrading enzymes

2024· article· en· W4392229761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shengwei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsIdentification (biology)BiologyEnvironmental scienceComputational biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is widely used in plastic bottles, packaging, and textile fibers. However, PET is difficult to degrade in nature and rapidly accumulates into the environment, causing serious environmental pollution and threatening human health. At present, the recycling methods for PET mainly focus on physical recycling and chemical degradation, but these methods have severe limitations, resulting in the great loss of valuable materials and secondary pollution. In contrast, the biodegradation of PET is gradually attracting attention because of its environmental friendliness, high efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Several PET-degrading enzymes (PDEs) have been previously identified, such as cutinase, IsPETase, lipase, and esterase. Thereafter, many efforts have been made to push the boundaries of evolution schemes, attempting to create stronger PDEs with improved activity and stability. Nevertheless, most of these enzymes show preferences toward low-crystallinity (<10%) PET, while in situ enzymatic degradation of high-crystallinity PET (30%–50%) remains a major challenge. Exploring and engineering PDEs that can efficiently degrade bottle-grade PET plastics has recently become a research hotspot. This review systematically introduces the current advances in PDEs and emphasizes the role of metagenomics in screening and identifying new PDEs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207