4.4 Article

Isolation and characterization of Microbulbifer species 6532A degrading seaweed thalli to single cell detritus particles

期刊

BIODEGRADATION
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 93-105

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10532-011-9489-6

关键词

Seaweed; Degradation; Alginate lyase; Cellulase; Microbulbifer

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [11J10085] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To reduce the volume of seaweed wastes and extract polysaccharides, seaweed-degrading bacteria were isolated from drifting macroalgae harvested along the coast of Toyama Bay, Japan. Sixty-four bacterial isolates were capable of degrading Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida) thallus fragments into single cell detritus (SCD) particles. Amongst these, strain 6532A was the most active degrader of thallus fragments, and was capable of degrading thallus fragments to SCD particles within a day. Although the sequence similarity of the 16S rRNA gene of strain 6532A was 100% similar to that of Microbulbifer elongatus JAMB-A7, several distinct differences were observed between strains, including motility, morphology, and utilization of d-arabinose and gelatin. Consequently, strain 6532A was classified as a new Microbulbifer strain, and was designated Microbulbifer sp. 6532A. Strain 6532A was capable of degrading both alginate and cellulose in the culture medium, zymogram analysis of which revealed the presence of multiple alginate lyases and cellulases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to directly demonstrate the existence of these enzymes in Microbulbifer species. Shotgun cloning and sequencing of the alginate lyase gene in 6532A revealed a 1,074-bp open reading frame, which was designated algMsp. The reading frame encoded a PL family seven enzyme composed of 358 amino acids (38,181 Da). With a similarity of 74.2%, the deduced amino acid sequence was most similar to a Saccharophagus enzyme (alg 7C). These findings suggest that algMsp in strain 6532A is a novel alginate lyase gene.

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