4.4 Article

Endogenous ergothioneine is required for wild type levels of conidiogenesis and conidial survival but does not protect against 254 nm UV-induced mutagenesis or kill

期刊

FUNGAL GENETICS AND BIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 120-127

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.fgb.2014.10.007

关键词

Ergothioneine; Neurospora crassa; Antioxidant; Conidia; Conidiogenesis; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ergothioneine, a histidine derivative, is concentrated in conidia of ascomycetous fungi. To investigate the function of ergothioneine, we crossed the wild type Neurospora crassa (Egt(+)) and an ergothioneine non-producer (Egt(-), Delta egt-1, a knockout in NCU04343.5) and used the Egt(+) and Egt(-) progeny strains for phenotypic analyses. Compared to the Egt(+) strains, Egt(-) strains had a 59% reduction in the number of conidia produced on Vogel's agar. After storage of Egt(+) and Egt(-) conidia at 97% and 52% relative humidity (RH) for a time course to either 17 or 98 days, respectively, Egt(-) strains had a 23% and a 18% reduction in life expectancy at 97% and 52% RH, respectively, compared to the Egt(+) strains. Based on a Cu(II) reduction assay with the chelator bathocuproinedisulfonic acid disodium salt, ergothioneine accounts for 38% and 33% of water-soluble antioxidant capacity in N. crassa conidia from seven and 20 day-old cultures, respectively. In contrast, ergothioneine did not account for significant (alpha = 0.05) anti-oxidant capacity in mycelia, which have lower concentrations of ergothioneine than conidia. The data are consistent with the hypothesis that ergothioneine has an antioxidant function in vivo. In contrast, experiments on the spontaneous mutation rate in Egt(+) and Egt(-) strains and on the effects of 254 nm UV light on mutation rate and conidial viability do not support the hypothesis that ergothioneine protects DNA in vivo. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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