4.6 Article

Carotenoid-to-chlorophyll ratio as a proxy for assay of total fatty acids and arachidonic acid content in the green microalga Parietochloris incisa

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 361-366

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10811-008-9377-6

关键词

Absorption spectra; Non-destructive assay; Fatty acids; Photoadaptation; Scattering correction

资金

  1. Blaustein Center for Scientific Cooperation (BCSC)
  2. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [06-04-48883]
  3. Russian President's Grant Council [MK-3433.2008.4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationships between pigment (carotenoid and chlorophyll) content with accumulation of total fatty acids (TFA) and arachidonic acid (AA) were studied in the green microalga Parietochloris incisa (Trebouxiophyceae, Chlorophyta) grown under different PFDs (35, 200, and 400 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1)) and nitrogen availabilities. The growth of P. incisa under higher light and nitrogen deficiency was accompanied by accumulation of FA, an increase in carotenoid and a decline in chlorophyll content. It was found that the carotenoid-to-chlorophyll ratio (but not the individual pigment content) correlates closely with the volumetric content of both TFA and AA. Analysis of scattering-compensated absorption spectra of P. incisa suspensions revealed their tight relationship in the blue-green range of the spectrum with the carotenoid-to-chlorophyll ratio, TFA, and AA content. These findings allowed the development of algorithms for the non-destructive assay of TFA and AA in cell suspensions in the ranges of 0.09-3.04 and 0.04-1.7 mu g mL(-1), with accuracy of 0.06 and 0.01 mu g mL(-1), respectively, via analytically measured carotenoid-to-chlorophyll ratio and using the ratio of absorption coefficients at 510 and 678 nm, with accuracy of 0.07 and 0.02 mu g mL(-1), respectively. The feasibility of obtaining essential spectral information concerning the physiological condition of P. incisa using a standard spectrophotometer is also shown.

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