4.6 Article

Raman Characterization of Fungal DHN and DOPA Melanin Biosynthesis Pathways

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof7100841

关键词

Raman; SERDS; fungi; DHN; DOPA; Aspergillus fumigatus; Cryptococcus neoformans; Aspergillus nidulans; melanin

资金

  1. Herman F. Heep and Minnie Belle Heep Texas A&M University Endowed Fund
  2. Gene E. Michaels Endowment fund
  3. USDA NIFA [TEX0-1-9018]
  4. Robert A. Welch Foundation [A-1547]
  5. Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-20-1-0366 DEF, 000595651800041]
  6. Office of Naval Research [N00014-20-1-2184]
  7. National Science Foundation [PHY-2013771]
  8. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)
  9. [A-1261]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used Raman spectroscopy to analyze fungal melanins and provided a rough map of melanin biosynthetic pathways. It revealed that A. nidulans melanin is unique and cannot be classified solely based on existing pathways.
Fungal melanins represent a resource for important breakthroughs in industry and medicine, but the characterization of their composition, synthesis, and structure is not well understood. Raman spectroscopy is a powerful tool for the elucidation of molecular composition and structure. In this work, we characterize the Raman spectra of wild-type Aspergillus fumigatus and Cryptococcus neoformans and their melanin biosynthetic mutants and provide a rough map of the DHN (A. fumigatus) and DOPA (C. neoformans) melanin biosynthetic pathways. We compare this map to the Raman spectral data of Aspergillus nidulans wild-type and melanin biosynthetic mutants obtained from a previous study. We find that the fully polymerized A. nidulans melanin cannot be classified according to the DOPA pathway; nor can it be solely classified according to the DHN pathway, consistent with mutational analysis and chemical inhibition studies. Our approach points the way forward for an increased understanding of, and methodology for, investigating fungal melanins.

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