4.6 Article

Formation and regeneration of protoplasts in Sclerotium rolfsii ATCC 201126

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages 254-262

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02145.x

Keywords

filamentous fungi; protoplast formation; protoplast regeneration; Sclerotium rolfsii

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Different cultural conditions for forming and reverting protoplasts were systematically studied to establish a rapid and efficient protocol for Sclerotium rolfsii ATCC 201126. Methods and Results: Osmotic stabilizer, lytic enzymes and mycelial age were the main factors influencing protoplast yields. An optimized protocol involving 1-h hydrolysis of 45-h-old mycelium with Trichoderma harzianum enzymes in a 1 : 1 (w/w) biomass : enzyme ratio and 0.6 mol l(-1) MgSO4 as osmotic stabilizer was designed to produce approx. 2 x 10(9) protoplasts per gram biomass dry weight, with 99% viability. Differences on the lytic activity between batches of commercial enzymes were clearly evidenced. Protoplast release was highly efficient showing no remaining cell wall material as witnessed by fluorescent brightener 28. Up to 26% of purified protoplasts developed into the typical filamentous form after 50 h of incubation on 0.6 mol l(-1) sucrose agar media. Conclusions: The methodology herein proposed allowed a rapid, inexpensive and efficient protoplast production. Optimum yields were higher or in the order of that elsewhere reported for other S. rolfsii strains and the required lytic time was significantly shorter. Purified protoplasts successfully reverted to the filamentous morphology. Significance and Impact of the Study: The present research reports the former protocol for the isolation and reversion of protoplasts in S. rolfsii ATCC 201126 providing key factors to ensure optimum results. In addition, the described procedure constitutes a starting point for downstream genetic manipulation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available