MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416082631 · doi:10.1021/acs.biomac.5c01419

Structural Elucidation of Lignosulfonate–Cellulase Complexes: Formation, Composition, and Spatial Reconstruction

2025· article· en· W4416082631 on OpenAlexaff
Peipei Wang, Tian Liu, Usama Shakeel, Wenyuan Zhu, Jiaqi Guo, Yongcan Jin, Orlando J. Rojas, Junlong Song

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGraduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu ProvincePriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education InstitutionsChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCellulaseQuartz crystal microbalanceAdsorptionSmall-angle X-ray scatteringHydrolysisIonic strengthCelluloseSurface plasmon resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lignosulfonate (LS) can enhance lignocellulose saccharification by forming complexes with cellulase. However, the composition and spatial structure of lignosulfonate-cellulase complexes (LCCs) are not clear. This study employed quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring, surface plasmon resonance, and small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) to investigate the composition and spatial arrangement of LCCs. Results revealed that LS molecules self-assemble into aggregates in buffer (pH 4.8), which subsequently form distinct complexes with cellulase depending on the molar ratio. At LS:cellulase ratios of 4:1 or higher, one LS aggregate binds to a single cellulase molecule, while at lower ratios, one LS aggregate binds to multiple cellulase molecules. SAXS analysis revealed that cellulase's adsorption domain interacts with LS aggregates, suggesting a mechanism to reduce nonproductive binding to lignin. Ionic strength was found to influence the complex formation through electrostatic interactions. These findings elucidate the structural basis for LS-mediated saccharification, providing insights for optimizing lignocellulosic biomass conversion.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207