| Literature DB >> 30533250 |
Marcela Alejandra Sadañoski1, Juan Ernesto Velázquez1, María Isabel Fonseca1, Pedro Darío Zapata1, Laura Noemí Levin2, Laura Lidia Villalba1.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to assess the ability of different white-rot fungi to tolerate polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) using predictive mycology, by relating fungal growth inhibition to ligninolityc enzyme secretion. Fungal strains were grown in the presence of PCBs in solid media and their radial growth values were modelled through the Dantigny-logistic like function in order to estimate the time required by the fungal colonies to attain half their maximum diameter. The principal component analysis (PCA) revealed an inverse correlation between strain tolerance to PCBs and the laccase secretion over time, being laccase production closely associated with fungal growth capacity. Finally, a PCA was run to regroup and split between resistant and sensitive fungi. Simultaneously, a function associated with a model predicting the tolerance to PCBs was developed. Some of the assayed isolates showed a promising capacity to be applied in PCB bioremediation. Abbreviations: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), white-rot fungi (WRF).Entities:
Keywords: Polychlorinated biphenyls; laccase; modelling; predictive mycology; white-rot fungi
Year: 2018 PMID: 30533250 PMCID: PMC6282474 DOI: 10.1080/21501203.2018.1481152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycology ISSN: 2150-1203
Fungal species studied.
| Rn | Fungal species | Strain | Locality | Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | C61 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 019 | |
| 2 | BAFC 266 | Lago Filo Hua Hum, Neuquén, Argentina | BAFC 266 | |
| 3 | C24 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 012 | |
| 4 | JA7 | Jardín América, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 001 | |
| 5 | BAFC 1168D | Eldorado, Misiones, Argentina | BAFC 1168D | |
| 6 | BAFC 1171 | Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina | BAFC 1171 | |
| 7 | BAFC 2127 | Santa Ana, Misiones, Argentina | BAFC 2127 | |
| 8 | O4 | Oberá, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 027 | |
| 9 | BKM-F 1767 | USA | BKM-F 1767 | |
| 10 | LBM 105 | Eldorado, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 105 | |
| 11 | A5 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 020 | |
| 12 | A7 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 021 | |
| 13 | C37 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 014 | |
| 14 | KF1 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 023 | |
| 15 | L1 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 024 | |
| 16 | BAFC 2126 | Garupá, Misiones, Argentina | BAFC 2126 | |
| 17 | M1 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 025 | |
| 18 | A8 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 022 | |
| 19 | P21 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 008 | |
| 20 | P12 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 026 | |
| 21 | C53 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 017 | |
| 22 | C1 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 009 | |
| 23 | C2 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 010 | |
| 24 | C60 | Campo Ramón, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 018 | |
| 25 | P4 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | LBM 002 | |
| 26 | BAFC 2755 | Posadas, Misiones, Argentina | BAFC 2755 |
Figure 1.Example of diameter vs time plot for Pleurotus sajor-caju LBM 105 growing in both control and PCB-supplemented media.
Figure 2.Nonlinear regression plot applied to Pleurotus sajor-caju LBM 105. Lac, MnP and LiP enzyme secretion adjusted to Bevilacqua’s equation.
Fungal τ (time to attain a half of the maximum diameter) (days) and k of ligninolytic activities (time/diameter of growth) on solid media.
| Rn | Δτ | τLac | τMnP | τLiP | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 1.00 ± 0.01 | 2.93 ± 0.07 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 11.19 ± 1.09 | – | – |
| 2 | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 1.96 ± 0.03 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 7.38 ± 0.04 | 0.67 ± 0.04 | 6.95 ± 0.05 |
| 3 | 1.22 ± 0.30 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 3.56 ± 0.13 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 9.24 ± 0.16 | 1.11 ± 0.04 | 9.82 ± 0.04 |
| 4 | 4.12 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 5.58 ± 0.36 | - | - | - | - |
| 5 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 2.33 ± 0.29 | 3.72 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 6.71 ± 0.22 | 0.79 ± 0.01 | 5.30 ± 0.04 |
| 6 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.69 ± 0.04 | 3.04 ± 0.08 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 11.1 ± 1.08 | - | - |
| 7 | 0.36 ± 0.02 | 1.23 ± 0.01 | 3.17 ± 0.01 | 6.58 ± 0.24 | 4.1 ± 0.21 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 5.92 ± 0.11 |
| 8 | 2.49 ± 0.04 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 4.11 ± 0.11 | - | - | - | - |
| 9 | 0.93 ± 0.06 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 4.84 ± 0.08 | - | - | 2.25 ± 0.12 | 4.28 ± 0.02 |
| 10 | 0.56 ± 0.01 | 0.99 ± 0.01 | 3.63 ± 0.01 | 1.10 ± 0.21 | 5.22 ± 0.33 | 0.43 ± 0.11 | 8.90 ± 1.17 |
| 11 | 1.44 ± 0.01 | 1.22 ± 0.07 | 3.10 ± 0.09 | - | - | 0.59 ± 0.03 | 5.31 ± 0.07 |
| 12 | 1.03 ± 0.01 | 1.00 ± 0.04 | 1.68 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.03 | 12.5 ± 0.59 | 0.74 ± 0.03 | 5.09 ± 0.19 |
| 13 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 2.71 ± 0.02 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 14.65 ± 0.85 | 0.74 ± 0.02 | 4.29 ± 0.06 |
| 14 | 1.05 ± 0.03 | 1.13 ± 0.11 | 3.34 ± 0.04 | - | - | 0.54 ± 0.01 | 4.08 ± 0.04 |
| 15 | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 0.90 ± 0.03 | 1.83 ± 0.01 | - | - | 0.69 ± 0.01 | 4.38 ± 0.13 |
| 16 | 0.74 ± 0.01 | 0.78 ± 0.06 | 3.28 ± 0.07 | - | - | 0.48 ± 0.01 | 5.12 ± 0.02 |
| 17 | 1.34 ± 0.29 | 1.08 ± 0.01 | 2.29 ± 0.01 | 11.14 ± 0.06 | 11.99 ± 0.01 | - | - |
| 18 | 1.31 ± 0.06 | 1.12 ± 0.03 | 3.18 ± 0.07 | 1.17 ± 0.03 | 6.79 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.05 | 5.99 ± 0.16 |
| 19 | 1.01 ± 0.04 | 0.89 ± 0.10 | 2.83 ± 0.26 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 15.51 ± 0.10 | - | - |
| 20 | 0.45 ± 0.12 | 0.48 ± 0.03 | 4.36 ± 0.01 | - | - | - | - |
| 21 | 2.98 ± 0.01 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 4.98 ± 0.18 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 13.37 ± 0.21 | 0.27 ± 0.04 | 10.43 ± 0.21 |
| 22 | 3.24 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 5.46 ± 0.14 | - | - | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 17.14 ± 0.32 |
| 23 | 1.02 ± 0.14 | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 2.32 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 5.55 ± 0.05 | 0.79 ± 0.09 | 5.08 ± 0.05 |
| 24 | 1.31 ± 0.06 | 1.00 ± 0.05 | 2.38 ± 0.02 | 3.19 ± 0.23 | 2.83 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.01 | 5.75 ± 0.09 |
| 25 | 1.24 ± 0.04 | 1.02 ± 0.04 | 2.53 ± 0.03 | 0.55 ± 0.49 | 6.17 ± 0.13 | 1.25 ± 0.01 | 4.49 ± 0.13 |
| 26 | 1.55 ± 0.01 | 1.36 ± 0.04 | 2.98 ± 0.04 | 0.83 ± 0.01 | 4.16 ± 0.12 | 0.87 ± 0.01 | 3.43 ± 0.04 |
Figure 3.Score plot of PC1 vs PC2 illustrating the distribution of WRF, plotting with all variables. Fungal identification numbers are displayed in Table 1.
Figure 4.Score plot of PC1 vs PC2 illustrating the distribution of WRF, plotting after the elimination of kMnP and τMnP. Fungal identification numbers are displayed in Table 1.
Figure 5.Validated dendrogram of 26 fungal isolates based on their Δτ, Lac activity and LiP activity, prepared using Infostat 2016 software linked to R software.
Figure 6.Function and fitted model of Δτ2 with the simple variable τLac.
Figure 7.Δτ determination at three different PCB concentrations and identification of two homogenates fungal groups with p < .05.