Transcriptional and secretome analysis of Rasamsonia emersonii lytic polysaccharide mono-oxygenases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study is the first to describe the temporal and differential transcriptional expression of two lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase (LPMO) genes of Rasamsonia emersonii in response to various carbon sources. The mass spectrometry based secretome analysis of carbohydrate active enzymes (CAZymes) expression in response to different carbon sources showed varying levels of LPMOs (AA9), AA3, AA7, catalase, and superoxide dismutase enzymes pointing toward the redox-interplay between the LPMOs and auxiliary enzymes. Moreover, it was observed that cello-oligosaccharides have a negative impact on the expression of LPMOs, which has not been highlighted in previous reports. The LPMO1 (30 kDa) and LPMO2 (47 kDa), cloned and expressed in Pichia pastoris, were catalytically active with (kcat/Km) of 6.6×10-2 mg-1 ml min-1 and 1.8×10-2 mg-1 ml min-1 against Avicel, respectively. The mass spectrometry of hydrolysis products of Avicel/carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) showed presence of C1/C4 oxidized oligosaccharides indicating them to be Type 3 LPMOs. The 3D structural analysis of LPMO1 and LPMO2 revealed distinct arrangements of conserved catalytic residues at their active site. The developed enzyme cocktails consisting of cellulase from R. emersonii mutant M36 supplemented with recombinant LPMO1/LPMO2 resulted in significantly enhanced saccharification of steam/acid pretreated unwashed rice straw slurry from PRAJ industries (Pune, India). The current work indicates that LPMO1 and LPMO2 are catalytically efficient and have a high degree of thermostability, emphasizing their usefulness in improving benchmark enzyme cocktail performance. • Mass spectrometry depicts subtle interactions between LPMOs and auxiliary enzymes. • Cello-oligosaccharides strongly downregulated the LPMO1 expression. • Developed LPMO cocktails showed superior hydrolysis in comparison to CellicCTec3.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".