4.5 Review

IS THE GROWTH RATE HYPOTHESIS APPLICABLE TO MICROALGAE?

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 1-12

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2009.00756.x

Keywords

growth rate hypothesis; nutrient limitation; phytoplankton; protein; ribosome; RNA

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council New Zealand (ARC-NZ)
  2. University of Dundee [SC015096]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The growth rate hypothesis (GRH) asserts, from known biochemistry, that maintaining high growth rates requires high concentrations of ribosomes. Since ribosomes are rich in phosphorus (P), the GRH predicts a positive correlation between growth rate and P content; this correlation is observed in some organisms. We consider the application of the GRH to phytoplankton and identify several key problems that require further research before the hypothesis can be accepted for these organisms. There are severe methodological problems that confound interpretation of data for testing the GRH. These problems include the measurement of protein and nucleic acids (such that ratio of these components carries a high level of uncertainty), studies of steady-state versus dynamic systems, and the presentation of data per cell (especially as cell size varies with growth rate limitations) and the calculation of growth rates. In addition, because of the short generation times and rapid responses of these organisms to perturbations, ribosome and RNA content is expected to vary in response to (de)repression of various systems; content may increase on application of growth-limiting stress. Finally, that most phytoplankton accumulate P when not P stressed conflicts with the GRH. In consequence, the value of the GRH for any sort of predictive role in nature appears to be severely limited. We conclude that the GRH cannot be assumed to apply to phytoplankton taxa without first performing experimental tests under transient conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available