4.6 Article

Nutrient-regulated transcriptional responses in the brown tide-forming alga Aureococcus anophagefferens

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 468-481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02351.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Center [NA09NOS4780206]
  2. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  3. Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Human Health
  4. Woods Hole Coastal Ocean Institute
  5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [R-83041501-0]
  6. EPA STAR [FP916901]
  7. US Department of Energy's Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research
  8. University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  9. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  10. Los Alamos National Laboratory [DE-AC02-06NA25396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Long-SAGE (serial analysis of gene expression) was used to profile the transcriptome of the brown tide-forming alga, Aureococcus anophagefferens, under nutrient replete (control), and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) deficiency to understand how this organism responds at the transcriptional level to varying nutrient conditions. This approach has aided A. anophagefferens genome annotation efforts and identified a suite of genes upregulated by N and P deficiency, some of which have known roles in nutrient metabolism. Genes upregulated under N deficiency include an ammonium transporter, an acetamidase/formamidase and two peptidases. This suggests an ability to utilize reduced N compounds and dissolved organic nitrogen, supporting the hypothesized importance of these N sources in A. anophagefferens bloom formation. There are also a broad suite of P-regulated genes, including an alkaline phosphatase, and two 5'-nucleotidases, suggesting A. anophagefferens may use dissolved organic phosphorus under low phosphate conditions. These N- and P-regulated genes may be important targets for exploring nutrient controls on bloom formation in field populations.

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

4.6
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