4.5 Article

THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES IN THE CONTENT OF MYCOSPORINE-LIKE AMINO ACIDS IN RED MARINE ALGAE ALONG THE BRAZILIAN COAST

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 380-390

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12640

关键词

Brazil; ecological response; MAAs; red seaweeds; ultraviolet radiation

资金

  1. CAPES [480612/2013-7]
  2. CNPq [480612/2013-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycosporine-like amino acids (MAA) are ultraviolet screen substances synthesized by marine algae. The physiological function of these substances is related to cellular protection against UV radiation and as a protective mechanism against oxidative stress. These substances can be found mainly in the ocean, among red seaweeds. Its concentration in organisms has been related to ultraviolet radiation and availability of inorganic nitrogen in the environment. We start our study of MAA content in different species to understand if environmental conditions influence the concentration of MAAs in red seaweeds. The Brazilian coast presents abiotic factors that interact to create different physical-chemical features in the environment. We collected 441 samples from 39 species of red seaweed easily found in the intertidal zone, in low tide, during the summer of 2015. The sampling encompassed a latitudinal gradient (3 degrees S to 28 degrees 5 S) at 23 points along the coast. We quantified and identified the content of MAAs in species through the method of high performance liquid chromatography. We detected for the first time the occurrence of MAAs in certain species of red algae that have not been reported to contain MAAs before. We confirmed that some environmental factors influenced the content of MAAs. Enhanced MAA contents, for example, were found in environments with a basic pH, a high ultraviolet index, and high concentrations of phosphate and nitrate. Salinity, dissolved oxygen and variations of sea surface temperature also influenced, in a secondary way, MAA content in algae in their natural environments.

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