Genome mining of tailoring enzymes from biosynthetic gene clusters for synthetic biology: A case study with fungal methyltransferases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harnessing the potential of tailoring enzymes within fungal natural product (NP) biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) can significantly enhance NP diversity and production efficiency via artificially constructed microbial cell factories. To achieve this, an efficient genome mining method is crucial, especially since the functions of many putative enzymes in databases are unknown. As a test case, we aimed to identify methyltransferases (MTs) that modify a polyketide substrate without a known cognate MT. 16,748 putative MTs were annotated in 101,321 fungal BGCs and grouped into orthologous families. Three methods were explored to prioritize suitable enzymes. Among these, the machine learning method proved superior, with 11 out of 15 tested MTs successfully methylating the test substrate. This demonstrates the effectiveness of machine learning to mine tailoring enzymes that modify selected compounds, aiding synthetic biology in optimizing NP biosynthesis and facilitating the production of "unnatural products" for pharmaceutical or other bioindustrial applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".