4.6 Article

Aragonite Precipitation by Proto-Polyps in Coral Cell Cultures

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035049

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [EF1041143]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Emerging Frontiers [1041143] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms of coral calcification at the molecular, cellular and tissue levels are poorly understood. In this study, we examine calcium carbonate precipitation using novel coral tissue cultures that aggregate to form proto-polyps. Our goal is to establish an experimental system in which calcification is facilitated at the cellular level, while simultaneously allowing in vitro manipulations of the calcifying fluid. This novel coral culturing technique enables us to study the mechanisms of biomineralization and their implications for geochemical proxies. Viable cell cultures of the hermatypic, zooxanthellate coral, Stylophora pistillata, have been maintained for 6 to 8 weeks. Using an enriched seawater medium with aragonite saturation state similar to open ocean surface waters (Omega(arag) similar to 4), the primary cell cultures assemble into proto-polyps which form an extracellular organic matrix (ECM) and precipitate aragonite crystals. These extracellular aragonite crystals, about 10 mm in length, are formed on the external face of the proto-polyps and are identified by their distinctive elongated crystallography and X-ray diffraction pattern. The precipitation of aragonite is independent of photosynthesis by the zooxanthellae, and does not occur in control experiments lacking coral cells or when the coral cells are poisoned with sodium azide. Our results demonstrate that proto-polyps, aggregated from primary coral tissue culture, function (from a biomineralization perspective) similarly to whole corals. This approach provides a novel tool for investigating the biophysical mechanism of calcification in these organisms.

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

4.6
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