Insights into the action of phylogenetically diverse microbial expansins on the structure of cellulose microfibrils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbial expansins (EXLXs) are non-lytic proteins homologous to plant expansins involved in plant cell wall formation. Due to their non-lytic cell wall loosening properties and potential to disaggregate cellulosic structures, there is considerable interest in exploring the ability of microbial expansins (EXLX) to assist the processing of cellulosic biomass for broader biotechnological applications. Herein, EXLXs with different modular structure and from diverse phylogenetic origin were compared in terms of ability to bind cellulosic, xylosic, and chitinous substrates, to structurally modify cellulosic fibrils, and to boost enzymatic deconstruction of hardwood pulp. RESULTS: Five heterogeneously produced EXLXs (Clavibacter michiganensis; CmiEXLX2, Dickeya aquatica; DaqEXLX1, Xanthomonas sacchari; XsaEXLX1, Nothophytophthora sp.; NspEXLX1 and Phytophthora cactorum; PcaEXLX1) were shown to bind xylan and hardwood pulp at pH 5.5 and CmiEXLX2 (harboring a family-2 carbohydrate-binding module) also bound well to crystalline cellulose. Small-angle X-ray scattering revealed a 20-25% increase in interfibrillar distance between neighboring cellulose microfibrils following treatment with CmiEXLX2, DaqEXLX1, or NspEXLX1. Correspondingly, combining xylanase with CmiEXLX2 and DaqEXLX1 increased product yield from hardwood pulp by ~ 25%, while supplementing the TrAA9A LPMO from Trichoderma reesei with CmiEXLX2, DaqEXLX1, and NspEXLX1 increased total product yield by over 35%. CONCLUSION: This direct comparison of diverse EXLXs revealed consistent impacts on interfibrillar spacing of cellulose microfibers and performance of carbohydrate-active enzymes predicted to act on fiber surfaces. These findings uncover new possibilities to employ EXLXs in the creation of value-added materials from cellulosic biomass.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".