4.7 Article

Peptide hydrolysis and the uptake of dipeptides by phytoplankton

期刊

LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 856-868

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.4319/lo.2009.54.3.0856

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. United States Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Program
  3. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency
  4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  5. Office of Naval Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rates of peptide hydrolysis (using the fluorescent substrate, lucifer yellow anhydride-labeled tetra-alanine) and dipeptide uptake (using dually labeled, N-15 and C-13, dialanine) were measured in phytoplankton cultures and in natural populations during algal blooms dominated by one or two taxa. During most sampling events, both peptide hydrolysis and dipeptide uptake were greatest in the size fraction containing the dominant phytoplankter, suggesting that phytoplankton contribute substantially to or may even dominate observed extracellular peptide hydrolysis and dipeptide uptake in the environment. These are the first data suggesting that dipeptides may be taken up directly by phytoplankton and this may represent a previously unaccounted-for nitrogen source in aquatic systems. Like many other processes in phytoplankton, peptide hydrolysis appears sensitive to the diel light cycle and the nutrient environment, with rates varying depending on the dominant N source, but with no clear pattern. Uptake of dialanine, the dominant product of the hydrolysis of the peptide tetra-alanine, also varied depending on the dominant taxa and the nutrient regime. Most of the time, it appeared that low production of dialanine by tetra-alanine hydrolysis limited the uptake of the dipeptide. Close coupling between peptide hydrolysis and dipeptide uptake may also help explain the absence of correlations between rates of peptide hydrolysis and the concentration and composition of the free amino acid pool.

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