A comparison of the biofouling potential of field-collected and laboratory-cultured Ulva.

IF 2.6 3区 生物学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Biofouling Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1080/08927014.2024.2403371
Kayla R Kurtz,Lindsay Green-Gavrielidis,Lucie Maranda,Carol S Thornber,Danielle M Moloney,Vinka Oyanedel-Craver
{"title":"A comparison of the biofouling potential of field-collected and laboratory-cultured Ulva.","authors":"Kayla R Kurtz,Lindsay Green-Gavrielidis,Lucie Maranda,Carol S Thornber,Danielle M Moloney,Vinka Oyanedel-Craver","doi":"10.1080/08927014.2024.2403371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The marine algae Ulva spp. are commonly used as model biofouling organisms. As biofouling studies are primarily conducted using field-collected specimens, factors including species identity, seasonal availability, and physiological status can hinder the replicability of the results. To address these limitations, a protocol was developed for the on-demand laboratory culture and release of Ulva zoospores. The biofouling potential of laboratory-cultured and field-collected Ulva blades was compared using a waterjet. No significant differences were found between field and laboratory-cultured samples in either spore adhesion (before waterjet) or the proportion of spores retained after waterjet exposure. However, there was significant variability within each session type in pre- and post-waterjet exposures, indicating that spore adhesion and retention levels vary significantly among trial runs. In addition, all our laboratory cultures were Ulva Clade C (LPP complex). In contrast, our field samples contained a mix of Ulva Clade C, U. compressa clade I, and U. flexuosa Clade D. This protocol for on-demand production of Ulva spores can improve biofouling research approaches, enables comparison of results across laboratories and regions, and accelerate the development of anti-biofouling strategies.","PeriodicalId":8898,"journal":{"name":"Biofouling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biofouling","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2024.2403371","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The marine algae Ulva spp. are commonly used as model biofouling organisms. As biofouling studies are primarily conducted using field-collected specimens, factors including species identity, seasonal availability, and physiological status can hinder the replicability of the results. To address these limitations, a protocol was developed for the on-demand laboratory culture and release of Ulva zoospores. The biofouling potential of laboratory-cultured and field-collected Ulva blades was compared using a waterjet. No significant differences were found between field and laboratory-cultured samples in either spore adhesion (before waterjet) or the proportion of spores retained after waterjet exposure. However, there was significant variability within each session type in pre- and post-waterjet exposures, indicating that spore adhesion and retention levels vary significantly among trial runs. In addition, all our laboratory cultures were Ulva Clade C (LPP complex). In contrast, our field samples contained a mix of Ulva Clade C, U. compressa clade I, and U. flexuosa Clade D. This protocol for on-demand production of Ulva spores can improve biofouling research approaches, enables comparison of results across laboratories and regions, and accelerate the development of anti-biofouling strategies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
野外采集的莼菜和实验室培养的莼菜生物污染潜力比较。
海洋藻类石灰莼通常被用作生物污损模式生物。由于生物污损研究主要使用野外采集的标本,包括物种特征、季节性可用性和生理状态等因素都会妨碍研究结果的可复制性。为了解决这些限制因素,我们制定了一套按需实验室培养和释放莼菜动物孢子的方案。使用水刀比较了实验室培养的莼菜叶片和野外采集的莼菜叶片的生物污损潜力。在孢子附着力(水喷射前)或水喷射后孢子保留比例方面,野外和实验室培养的样本之间没有发现明显差异。不过,在每种试验类型中,水刀暴露前和暴露后的差异都很大,这表明孢子粘附和保留水平在不同的试验中差异很大。此外,我们所有的实验室培养物都是 C 支系莼菜(LPP 复合体)。这种按需生产莼菜孢子的方案可以改进生物污损研究方法,对不同实验室和地区的结果进行比较,并加快防生物污损策略的开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biofouling
Biofouling 生物-海洋与淡水生物学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.40%
发文量
57
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Biofouling is an international, peer-reviewed, multi-discliplinary journal which publishes original articles and mini-reviews and provides a forum for publication of pure and applied work on protein, microbial, fungal, plant and animal fouling and its control, as well as studies of all kinds on biofilms and bioadhesion. Papers may be based on studies relating to characterisation, attachment, growth and control on any natural (living) or man-made surface in the freshwater, marine or aerial environments, including fouling, biofilms and bioadhesion in the medical, dental, and industrial context. Specific areas of interest include antifouling technologies and coatings including transmission of invasive species, antimicrobial agents, biological interfaces, biomaterials, microbiologically influenced corrosion, membrane biofouling, food industry biofilms, biofilm based diseases and indwelling biomedical devices as substrata for fouling and biofilm growth, including papers based on clinically-relevant work using models that mimic the realistic environment in which they are intended to be used.
期刊最新文献
A comparison of the biofouling potential of field-collected and laboratory-cultured Ulva. Effect of flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) on Desulfovibrio desulfuricans corrosion of pipeline welded joint. Amphotericin B and micafungin duo-loaded nanoemulsion as a potential strategy against Candida auris biofilms. The effect of Dunaliella salina extracts on the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to 3D printed polyethylene terephthalate and polylactic acid. Influence of slope, material, and temperature on Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa mono- and dual-species biofilms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1