4.5 Article

A strategy to obtain axenic cultures of Arthrospira spp. cyanobacteria

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY & BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 1045-1053

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-010-0549-6

关键词

Antibiotics; Axenic cultures; Central composite rotatable design (CCRD); Optimization; Response surface methodology (RSM); Arthrospira

资金

  1. BID-FONACIT [200600537]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A strategy to obtain axenic cultures of the cyanobacterium Arthrospira sp. ('platensis') Lefevre 1963/M-132-1 strain, consisting of a series of physical and chemical procedures, and the application of an optimized pool of antibiotics, is described in this paper. This strategy, which is an inexpensive and fast way to obtain axenic cultures, can be applied to Arthrospira spp. from culture collections or samples from their natural habitats to eliminate a wide spectrum of contaminants. A high alkaline treatment (pH 12, using KOH) of 72 h is a determinant initial procedure applied to eliminate protozoa and Microcystis sp. Bacteria were eliminated by an optimal antibiotic pool treatment, and Chroococcus sp. residuals were discarded by serial dilution. Optimal concentrations of the antibiotics composing the pool were obtained by a 2(4) factorial central composite rotatable design (CCRD) and Response Surface Methodology (RSM), resulting in: ampicillin 61.6 mu g/ml, penicillin 85.8 mu g/ml, cefoxitin 76.9 mu g/ml, and meropenem 38.9 mu g/ml. The results also indicate that cefoxitin was the most effective antibiotic of this pool. After obtaining the axenic culture, identification of Lefevre 1963/M-132-1 strain was performed using amplification and sequencing of the ITS region (including part of 16S rRNA, tRNA Ile, ITS, tRNA Ala and part of 23S rRNA region) and fatty acid composition data. Data base comparison revealed that Lefevre strain is closely related to A. platensis species (99% identity), while fatty acid composition data suggested A. maxima. These seemingly contradictory results are discussed.

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

4.5
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