Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on the hydrolysis and fermentation of pure cellulose and xylan by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro1,2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of in vitro studies was conducted to determine the effects of adding a commercial enzyme product on the hydrolysis and fermentation of cellulose, xylan, and a mixture (1:1 wt/wt) of both. The enzyme product (Liquicell 2500, Specialty Enzymes and Biochemicals, Fresno, CA) was derived from Trichoderma reesei and contained mainly xylanase and cellulase activities. Addition of enzyme (0.5, 2.55 and 5.1 microL/g of DM) in the absence of ruminal fluid increased (P < 0.001) the release of reducing sugars from xylan and the mixture after 20 h of incubation at 20 degrees C. Incubations with ruminal fluid showed that enzyme (0.5 and 2.55 microL/g of DM) increased (P < 0.05) the initial (up to 6 h) xylanase, endoglucanase, and beta-D-glucosidase activities in the liquid fraction by an average of 85%. Xylanase and endoglucanase activities in the solid fraction also were increased (P < 0.05) by enzyme addition, indicating an increase in fibrolytic activity due to ruminal microbes. Gas production over 96 h of incubation was determined using a gas pressure measurement technique. Incremental levels of enzyme increased (P < 0.05) the rate of gas production of all substrates, suggesting that fermentation of cellulose and xylan was enzyme-limited. However, adding the enzyme at levels higher than 2.55 microL/g of DM failed to further increase the rate of gas production, indicating that the maximal level of stimulation was already achieved at lower enzyme concentrations. It was concluded that enzymes enhanced the fermentation of cellulose and xylan by a combination of pre- and postincubation effects (i.e., an increase in the release of reducing sugars during the pretreatment phase and an increase in the hydrolytic activity of the liquid and solid fractions of the ruminal fluid), which was reflected in a higher rate of fermentation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".