4.7 Article

Effects of cryopreservation on viability and functional stability of an industrially relevant alga

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-38588-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. BBSRC-DBT [BB/K020633/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/E036252/1]
  3. BBSRC [BB/K020633/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. EPSRC [EP/E036252/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As algal biotechnology develops, there is an increasing requirement to conserve cultures without the cost, time and genetic stability implications of conventional serial transfers, including issues regarding potential loss by failure to regrow, contamination on transfer, mix up and/or errors in the documentation on transfer. Furthermore, it is crucial to ensure both viability and functionality are retained by stored stock-cultures. Low temperature storage, ranging from the use of domestic freezers to storage under liquid nitrogen, is widely being used, but the implication to stability and function rarely investigated. We report for the first time, retention of functionality in the maintenance of master stock-cultures of an industrially relevant, lipid-producing alga, under a variety of cryopreservation regimes. Storage in domestic (-15 degrees C), or conventional -80 degrees C freezers was suboptimal, with a rapid reduction in viability observed for samples at -15 degrees C and a > 50% loss of viability, within one month, for samples stored at -80 degrees C. No reduction in viability occurred at -196 degrees C. Post-thaw culture functional performance was also influenced by the cryopreservation approach employed. Only samples held at -196 degrees C responded to nitrogen limitation in terms of growth characteristics and biochemical profiles (lipid production and chlorophyll a) comparable to the untreated control, cultured prior to cryopreservation. These results have important implications in microbial biotechnology, especially for those responsible for the conservation of genetic resources.

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