3.8 Article

Transcriptomic analyses of nitrogen assimilation processes in a Chinese strain of Aureococcus anophagefferens

期刊

GENOMICS DATA
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 344-345

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gdata.2015.07.005

关键词

Aureococcus anophagefferens; Transcriptome; Nitrogen assimilation; Nitrogen limitation; Ornithine-urea cycle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aureococcus anophagefferens is a harmful alga that dominates plankton communities during brown tides in North America, Africa, and Asia. In order to figure out the processes of nitrogen assimilation in a Chinese strain of A. anophagefferens, RNA-seq technology was used to examine transcriptomic differences in A. anophagefferens that was grown on urea, nitrate, or a mixture of urea and nitrate, and that was under N-replete, limited and recovery conditions. We noted that transcripts upregulated by nitrate and N-limitation included those encoding proteins involved in amino acid, nucleotide and aminosugar transport, degradation of amides and cyanates, and nitrate assimilation pathway. The data suggest that A. anophagefferens possesses an ability to utilize a variety of dissolved organic nitrogen. Moreover, transcripts for synthesis of proteins, glutamate-derived amino acids, spermines and sterols were upregulated by urea. Transcripts encoding key enzymes that are involved in the ornithine-urea cycle (OUC) and TCA cycle were differentially regulated by urea and nitrogen concentration, which suggests that the OUC may be linked to the TCA cycle and involved in reallocation of intracellular carbon and nitrogen. These genes regulated by urea may be crucial for the rapid proliferation of A. anophagefferens when urea is provided as the N source. Here, we provide the experimental procedures and analytical processes in detail. The data set is deposited in GEO with the accession number GSE60576. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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

3.8
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