24 research outputs found
MOESM1 of Metabolic engineering of Acremonium chrysogenum for improving cephalosporin C production independent of methionine stimulation
Additional file 1: Table S1. Strains and plasmids used in this study. Table S2. Primers used in this study. Fig. S1. Cephalosporin C production of WT detected by UPLC/MS in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 3.2Â g/L methionine. Fig. S2. Mycelium dry weight of A. chrysogenum in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 3.2Â g/L methionine. Fig. S3. Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis of the SAM synthetase family proteins. Fig. S4. Cephalosporin C production of WT and WT/pAg1PT-G418 in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 3.2Â g/L methionine. Fig. S5. Construction and validation of the AcsamS overexpressed strain (AcsamsOE). Fig. S6. Cephalosporin C production of WT and AcsamsOE was detected by UPLC/MS in MDFA medium. Fig. S7. Mycelium dry weight of AcsamsOE in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 3.2Â g/L methionine. Fig. S8. Cephalosporin C production of AcsamsOE in the MDFA medium supplemented with different concentration of SAM. Fig. S9. Sequence alignment of the leucine carboxyl methyltransferase superfamily proteins. Fig. S10. Construction and validation of the Acppm1 disruption mutant (Acppm1DM). Fig. S11. Cephalosporin C production of WT and Acppm1DM was detected by UPLC/MS. Fig. S12. Mycelium dry weight of Acppm1DM, Acppm1CM, Acppm1OE in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 0.32Â g/L methionine. Fig. S13. The relative transcriptional level of AcsamS in WT and Acppm1DM. Fig. S14. The relative transcriptional level of AcmetH, AccysD, AcmecA and mecB of WT in the MDFA medium with or without addition of 3.2Â g/L methionine. Fig. S15. Cephalosporin C production of Acppm1DM and Acppm1DM-AcsamsOE. Fig. S16. The relative transcriptional level of mecB in Acppm1DM. Fig. S17. Construction and validation of the mecB overexpressed strain (Acppm1DM-mecBOE). Fig. S18. Cephalosporin C production of WT and Acppm1DM-mecBOE was detected by UPLC/MS in MDFA medium. Fig. S19. Mycelium dry weight of WT and Acppm1DM-mecBOE in the MDFA medium supplemented with 0, 0.32Â g/L and 3.2Â g/L of methionine respectively. Fig. S20. Construction and validation of Acppm1DM-mecBOE-AcsamsOE. Fig. S21. Cephalosporin C production of Acppm1DM-mecBOE-AcsamsOE
3D face scans acquired with face scanning APP and CAD of retainer.
Panel A shows anatomical facial landmarks used to determine border of retainer: A, rhinion; B, margo infraorbitalis; C, processus temporalis ossis zygomatici; D, vertical line at angulus oris plane; E, angulus oris. Panel B shows CAD of retainer merged on 3D face scan. Panel C shows CAD of retainer merged on 3D face scan with mask. CAD, computer aided design.</p
3D face scan by using scanning APP.
Participant taking 3D face scan with scanning APP installed on a smartphone. Whole process cost less than 1 minute.</p
Participant taking fit factor test.
Shown is fit testing situation for participant wearing surgical mask supplemented by retainer. The subjects’ favorite pattern is added to the upper left corner of the retainer.</p
Scores of FF of surgical mask with and without retainer.
Scores of FF of surgical mask with and without retainer.</p
Fit factor test data.
M group: surgical masks without a retainer. MR, group of surgical masks with retainers. iNB, initial normal breathing. DB, deep breathing. Head L/R, head movement from side to side. Head U/D, head movement up and down. fNB, final normal breathing. (DOCX)</p
Rating scale of subjective perceived discomfort.
Questionnaire of quantifying eight domains of comfort/discomfort of wearing a mask.</p
Subjective ratings of discomfort in eight domains of 10 subjects.
M group: surgical masks without a retainer. MR, group of surgical masks with retainers. The participants were asked at 60, 80 and 100 min of the intermittent exercise how they perceived the comfort in the questionnaire. (DOCX)</p