MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402317381 · doi:10.3390/blsf2024036008

Study of the Amylolytic Activity of Thermophilic Bacteria Isolated from an Algerian Hot Spring (Azzaba, Skikda)

2024· article· en· W4402317381 on OpenAlexaff
Sarra Bouaita, Zahra Sayad, Douaa Ziani, Rayane Bouguerba, Mohamed Amine Gomri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermophileHot springSpring (device)BacteriaMicrobiologyBiologyEngineeringGeneticsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermostable amylases are among the most widely used and desirable enzymes in the food industry.Indeed, they guarantee faster reactions at high temperatures, enhanced substrate solubility and reduced microbial contamination and cooling costs.The objective of this work is to study the amylase activity of three strains of aerobic thermophilic bacteria isolated from the hot spring of Hammam Salhine, located in the wilaya of Skikda, Algeria.The three extracellular amylase-producing strains were subjected to the quantification of amylase activity.They presented medium to high activity, with significantly the best production for the AS1 strain with an activity of 10.62 1.289 U (p > 0.05).Monitoring the kinetics of AS1 amylase activity reveals that the maximum enzymatic activity was reached after 52 h with a value of 53.665 2.534 U.The maximum growth was reached after 54 h of fermentation at an OD of 0.865 0.081 at 600 nm.The study of the effect of the variation in physicochemical parameters on the activity of AS1 amylase extract shows that the enzymatic activity was maximal at a temperature of 100 C, a pH of 8.0 and in the absence of NaCl.The amylase extract of this strain showed significant thermostability at 100 C.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207