Production of chitinases with Trichoderma harzianum isolates using solid substrate fermentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over forty Trichoderma harzianum isolates have been screened in solid substrate fermentation (SSF) for chitinase production. Strains were isolated from Asian soil and tree bark samples. Identification was performed in Canada and Austria by classical and molecular taxonomical methods.Four SSF media were used for the screening. They contained wheat bran, crude chitin from crab shells (SIGMA) and different salt solutions for wetting of the substrate.In a five day fermentation at 30 ℃ the best chitinase producers were T. harzianum TUB F-691, TUB F-693, TUB F-699, TUB F-700, TUB F-927, TUB F-947 and TUB F-972 isolates (TUB=Technical University of Budapest culture collection). The best producers yielded between 3.5-5.5 International Unit/g dry matter (DM) chitinase.T. harzianum TUB F-947 was selected for further optimization. This strain was isolated from a soil of Thailand. The optimum moisture content (67%), optimal alternative substrate-carrier for SSF (wheat straw) and chitin content of the substrate (30%) were determined. Temperature and pH optima of chitinase produced by T. harzianum TUB F-947 were found to be at 50 ℃ and 5.0, respectively. The enzyme complex was thermally not stable at 50 ℃. Medium optimization experiments to enhance the chitinase production using statistical methods also have been performed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".