MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410830697 · doi:10.1021/acs.biomac.5c00192

Designing Amyloid-Like Protein Aggregates from Microalgal Biomass

2025· article· en· W4410830697 on OpenAlexafffund
Yidan Wen, Andrea Petkovic, John S. Allingham, Kevin J. De France

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicAlgal biology and biofuel production
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAmyloid (mycology)ChemistryBiomass (ecology)Protein aggregationAmyloid fibrilBiophysicsChemical engineeringBiochemistryAmyloid βBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our societal dependence on petrochemical-derived plastics has significant environmental ramifications, with about 80% of such plastics ending up as persistent waste. To this end, we investigate the extraction and purification of proteins from microalgae, specifically spirulina and chlorella, and their self-assembly into amyloid-like aggregates as building blocks toward the development of sustainable bioplastic materials. After self-assembly, spirulina proteins formed beta-sheet-rich structures with a typical (albeit short and worm-like) fibrillar morphology, while chlorella proteins predominantly aggregated into nonfibrillar, spherical/annular structures. Despite their morphological differences, both microalgal protein aggregates exhibited impressive stability across a wide pH range, persisting up to pH 11 before disaggregating at pH 12. In short, this work highlights the importance of biomass source, protein purity, and composition on the aggregation process of differing proteins. Given the high protein content and expanding industrial production of microalgae, spirulina and chlorella present an untapped resource for the development of sustainable bioplastics.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicAlgal biology and biofuel productionFrench-language works237,207