4.7 Article

Differences in the cell walls and extracellular polymers of the two Trebouxia microalgae coexisting in the lichen Ramalina farinacea are consistent with their distinct capacity to immobilize extracellular Pb

期刊

PLANT SCIENCE
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 195-204

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.04.003

关键词

Cell wall; Extracellular polymers; Heavy metal; Lichen; Microalgae; Trebouxia

资金

  1. MINECO-Spain [CGL2012-40058-C02]
  2. FAPESP (Sao Paulo, Brazil) [2005/04139-7, 2012/16332-0]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana-Spain [PrometeoII/2013/021]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [12/16332-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trebouxia TR1 and T. TR9 are the two microalgae that coexist within Ramalina farinacea thalli. In the presence of Pb, TR9 formed extracellular aggregates, while TR1 showed a lower wall lead retention capability. Herein, we studied the cell walls and extracellular polymers (EPS) of TR1 and TR9, and their possible implication in the different Pb retention capacity of these microalgae. The proportion of cell walls on the overall cell biomass was 2.6 times higher in TR9 than in TR1. Glycosyl linkage analysis indicated the presence of hot-water soluble beta-galactofuranan(s) in both cell walls, distinct from that previously described in Asterochloris, with increased rhamnose content in TR9 and a higher substitution by side chains in TR1. In the EPS of both microalgae, monosaccharide composition resembled their cell walls; however, TR9 produced two times more EPS than TR1. EPS also contained proteins, displaying distinct polypeptide patterns, modulated by Pb in TR9. Uronic acid content in EPS was higher in TR9, and increased in this phycobiont after the addition of Pb. Our findings suggest that the differential extracellular Pb retention capabilities of TR1 and TR9 microalgae can be related to differences in the main features of their cell walls and EPS. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据