4.4 Article

Branching is coordinated with mitosis in growing hyphae of Aspergillus nidulans

期刊

FUNGAL GENETICS AND BIOLOGY
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 15-24

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S1087-1845(03)00053-7

关键词

Aspergillus nidulans; branching; morphology; cell cycle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Filamentous fungi like Aspergillus nidulans can effectively colonize their surroundings by the formation of new branches along the existing hyphae. While growth conditions, chemical perturbations, and mutations affecting branch formation have received great attention during the last decades, the mechanisms that regulates branching is still poorly understood. In this study, a possible relation between cell cycle progression and branching was studied by testing the effect of a nuclei distribution mutation, cell cycle inhibitors. and conditional cell cycle mutations in combination with tip-growth inhibitors and varying substrate concentrations on branch initiation. Formation of branches was blocked after inhibition of nuclear division, which was not caused by a reduced growth rate. In hyphae of a nuclei distribution mutant branching was severely reduced in anucleated hyphae whereas the number of branches per hyphal length was linearly correlated to the concentration of nuclei, in the nucleated hyphae. In wild type cells, branching intensity was increased when the tip extension was reduced, and reduced when growing on poor substrates. In these situations, the hyphal concentration of nuclei was maintained and it is suggested that branching is correlated to cell cycle progression in order to maintain a minimum required cytoplasmic volume per nucleus and to avoid the formation of anucleated hyphae in the absence of nuclear divisions. The presented results further suggest the hyphal diameter as a key point through which the hyphal element regulates its branching intensity in response to the surrounding substrate concentrations. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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