| Literature DB >> 25717321 |
Cécilia B Kretz1, Doug W Bell2, Debra A Lomas3, Michael W Lomas3, Adam C Martiny4.
Abstract
class="Chemical">Phosphate (P) is aclass="Chemical">n importaclass="Chemical">nt class="Chemical">nutrieclass="Chemical">nt poteclass="Chemical">ntially limiticlass="Chemical">ng for primary productivity, yet, we curreclass="Chemical">ntly kclass="Chemical">now little about the relatioclass="Chemical">nship betweeclass="Chemical">n growth rate aclass="Chemical">nd physiological respoclass="Chemical">nse to P limitatioclass="Chemical">n iclass="Chemical">n abuclass="Chemical">ndaclass="Chemical">nt mariclass="Chemical">ne Cyaclass="Chemical">nobacteria. Thus, the aim of this research was to determiclass="Chemical">ne how variatioclass="Chemical">n iclass="Chemical">n growth rate affected the physiology of mariclass="Chemical">neEntities:
Keywords: chemostat; elemental stoichiometry; marine cyanobacteria; redfield ratio
Year: 2015 PMID: 25717321 PMCID: PMC4324148 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Summary of measured and calculated parameters, including averaged growth rate (at the 3 time intervals, T1, T2, and T3), K.
| WH8102 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 31.3 | 186.8 | 6.1 | 26.2 | 152 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 3.6 | 4.3 |
| WH8102 | 2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 16.2 | 92.9 | 6.7 | 1 | 1 | 1.2 | |||
| CC9311 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 5.1 | 3.1 | 29 | 144.1 | 5.1 | 31.5 | 174 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 7.6 | 9.2 |
| CC9311 | 2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 5.5 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 33.4 | 166.8 | 5 | 5.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | |||
T1, T2, and T3 are respectively: 0.7 day−1, 0.3 day−1, and 0.2 day−.
Figure 1Growth rate as a function of external phosphate concentration for . The half saturation concentration for growth (K) values were determined using a modified Monod's growth rate kinetics equation. The blue curves represent the replicated WH8102 strains while the green curves represent the replicated CC9311 curves. The draw down concentrations c are noted for WH8102 and for CC9311.
Figure 2Comparison of cellular C:N:P ratios for strains WH8102 and CC9311 and the Redfield ratio (106:16:1). The average between the strains are represented. The error bar represent the standard error between the technical replicates. C:N:P between strains were not statistically different (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, P > 0.05). C:P and N:P ratios were greater than Redfield (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.001). C:N for Synechococcus CC9311 was lower than Redfield (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.001) but not statistically different for WH8102 (P > 0.05).
Figure 3Cellular C:N:P ratios as a function of growth rate for each . The correlations between growth rate and the different ratios were determined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (P > 0.05).