4.1 Article

Analysis of morphological relationship between micro- and macromorphology of Mortierella species using a flow-through chamber coupled with image analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 199-203

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2006.00094.x

Keywords

flow-through chamber; fungus; image analysis; morphology; Mortierella

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using a flow-through chamber coupled with image analysis, the morphological parameters of 11 Mortierella species were quantified, and the relationship between micro- and macromorphology was investigated. On potato-dextrose-agar plates, 5 species formed rose petal-like colonies, 3 formed large round colonies, and 3 formed donut-like colonies. By observing micromorphology in a flow-through chamber, fungi were divided into 3 groups, classified according to morphological parameters: (i) a group with a high branch formation rate (q(b): tip/mu m/h) and a low tip extension rate (q(tip): mu m/tip/h); (ii) a group with a low branch formation rate and a high tip extension rate; and (iii) a group intermediate between the former and the latter groups. In suspension culture, group (i) fungi formed a hyphal bundle with a pulpy pellet-like morphology and a pellet core. In contrast, group (ii) fungi showed an aggregation of hyphae without the pellet core. In a narrow-specific hyphal growth rate (mu(l)) range (0.35-0.45 h(-1)), a higher branch formation rate led to increased hyphal branching, resulting in the formation of a hyphal bundle with a pulpy pellet-like morphology and a pellet core. When the branch formation rate was lower than 2 x 10(-3) tips/mu m/h, the mycelia formed less branched but longer hypha. Our study surmises that a micromorphology consisting of a high hyphal growth rate (0.4 h(-1)), low tip extension rate (20 tips/mu m/h), and high branch formation rate (8 x 10(-3) tips/mu m/h) forms the suitable macromorphology for arachidonic acid production.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available