4.3 Article

Evaluation of the production of paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins by extracellular bacteria isolated from the toxic dinoflagellate Atexandrium minutum

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 8, 页码 943-954

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/W09-047

关键词

Alexandrium minutum; bacteria; paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins; high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); mass spectrometry (MS)

资金

  1. CYCYT [REN2001-4869-E, REN2002-10643E/MAR]
  2. European Union [CE EVK3-2001-00050]
  3. Xunta de Galicia [PGIDIT02PXIC3105PM]
  4. Fundacion Provigo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the study was to determine if paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins are present in extracellular bacteria isolated from a toxic strain of the dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum. A quantitative analysis was carried out of viable culturable bacteria attached to the surface of dinoflagellates and of bacteria present in dinoflagellate culture medium. A numerical taxonomy study was undertaken for presumptive identification of bacteria attached to the surface of dinoflagellates. Members of the following genera were detected on the cell surface of A. minutum: Cellulophaga, Marinomonas, Pseudoalteromonas, and Vibrio. The presence of intracellular PSP toxins in bacteria isolated from the cell surface of dinoflagellates was analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection (HPLC-FLD). Compounds that eluted at the same time as the standards of the PSP toxins GTX-2, GTX-3, GTX-4, dcGTX-2, and dcGTX-3 were present in some of the bacterial cell extracts. Natural fluorescent bacterial compounds, coeluting with some PSP toxins, were also detected. The results obtained showed that the fluorescent compounds, identified as putative PSP toxins by HPLC-FLD, did not correspond to any PSP analogue. This allowed us to reject the hypothesis that extracellular bacteria attached to the surface of dinoflagellates produce PSP toxins.

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

4.3
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