4.7 Article

Survival and ice nucleation activity of Pseudomonas syringae strains exposed to simulated high-altitude atmospheric conditions

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44283-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education CAPES
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP [2016/06160-8, 2012/18936-0]
  3. Microsfera project of the Brazilian Antarctic Program (ProAntar) [407816/2013-5]
  4. Brazilian National Council of Technological and Scientific Development - CNPq [CNPq 424367/2016-5]
  5. INCT-Criosfera [CNPq 028306/2009]
  6. University of Sao Paulo - USP, through the Brazilian Research Unity in Astrobiology NAP/Astrobio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudomonas syringae produces highly efficient biological ice nuclei (IN) that were proposed to influence precipitation by freezing water in clouds. This bacterium may be capable of dispersing through the atmosphere, having been reported in rain, snow, and cloud water samples. This study assesses its survival and maintenance of IN activity under stressing conditions present at high altitudes, such as UV radiation within clouds. Strains of the pathovars syringae and garcae were compared to Escherichia coli. While UV-C effectively inactivated these cells, the Pseudomonas were much more tolerant to UV-B. The P. syringae strains were also more resistant to radiation from a solar simulator, composed of UV-A and UV-B, while only one of them suffered a decline in IN activity at -5 degrees C after long exposures. Desiccation at different relative humidity values also affected the IN, but some activity at -5 degrees C was always maintained. The pathovar garcae tended to be more resistant than the pathovar syringae, particularly to desiccation, though its IN were found to be generally more sensitive. Compared to E. coli, the P. syringae strains appear to be better adapted to survival under conditions present at high altitudes and in clouds.

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