Enzymatic Routes to Designer Hemicelluloses for Use in Biobased Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various enzymes can be used to modify the structure of hemicelluloses directly in vivo or following extraction from biomass sources, such as wood and agricultural residues. Generally, these enzymes can contribute to designer hemicelluloses through four main strategies: (1) enzymatic hydrolysis such as selective removal of side groups by glycoside hydrolases (GH) and carbohydrate esterases (CE), (2) enzymatic cross-linking, for instance, the selective addition of side groups by glycosyltransferases (GT) with activated sugars, (3) enzymatic polymerization by glycosynthases (GS) with activated glycosyl donors or transglycosylation, and (4) enzymatic functionalization, particularly via oxidation by carbohydrate oxidoreductases and via amination by amine transaminases. Thus, this Perspective will first highlight enzymes that play a role in regulating the degree of polymerization and side group composition of hemicelluloses, and subsequently, it will explore enzymes that enhance cross-linking capabilities and incorporate novel chemical functionalities into saccharide structures. These enzymatic routes offer a precise way to tailor the properties of hemicelluloses for specific applications in biobased materials, contributing to the development of renewable alternatives to conventional materials derived from fossil fuels.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".