4.3 Article

The characterization and comparison of exopolysaccharides from two benthic diatoms with different biofilm formation abilities

Journal

ANAIS DA ACADEMIA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS
Volume 90, Issue 2, Pages 1503-1519

Publisher

ACAD BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS
DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765201820170721

Keywords

benthic diatom; EPS; biofilm formation ability; monosaccharide composition; Glc-A

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41776156, 41306131, 41271521]
  2. Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education [211065]
  3. Natural Science Foundation Grant of Jiangsu Province, China [BK20130440]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exopolysaccharide (EPS) of two benthic diatoms, Amphora sp. and Stauroneis sp., with different biofilm formation abilities were investigated. The ratio of suspension-cells/biofilm-cells was employed to indicate the diatom biofilm formation abilities. The soluble EPS from the supernatant of whole culture, tightly bound EPS from floating cells, loosely and tightly bound EPS from biofilm cells were fractionated as SL-EPS, F-TB-EPS, BF-LB-EPS and BF-TB-EPS, respectively. The analysis for productions and monosaccharide compositions indicated that EPS from two diatoms were different in terms of the productions, distributions, and monomer compositions. Amphora sp. produced more (1.5-fold) total exopolysaccharides, but less (< 0.4-fold) BF-TB-EPS than Stauroneis sp. The monosaccharides of the EPS from Amphora sp. were more diverse than those of Stauroneis sp., with 13 and 10 monomers, respectively. Neutral sugars, Glc, Xyl and Man, were abundant in Stauroneis sp., while Gal, Glc and Xyl were rich in Amphora sp. Uronic acid and hexosamine were present in all fractions of two diatoms, especially Glc-A being the most abundant monomer in SL-EPS of Amphora sp. It was proposed that the high content of uronic acid (especially Glc-A) might be crucial for the strong biofilm formation abilities of Amphora sp.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available