The effects of sequential inoculation of mixed rumen protozoa on the degradation of orchard grass cell walls by anaerobic fungus Anaeromyces mucronatus 543

Citation
Ss. Lee et al., The effects of sequential inoculation of mixed rumen protozoa on the degradation of orchard grass cell walls by anaerobic fungus Anaeromyces mucronatus 543, CAN J MICRO, 47(8), 2001, pp. 754-760
Citations number
31
Categorie Soggetti
Biotecnology & Applied Microbiology",Microbiology
Journal title
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
ISSN journal
00084166 → ACNP
Volume
47
Issue
8
Year of publication
2001
Pages
754 - 760
Database
ISI
SICI code
0008-4166(200108)47:8<754:TEOSIO>2.0.ZU;2-N
Abstract
The effects of protozoa on the degradation of plant cell walls (CW) during different growth stages of the fungus Anaeromyces mucronatus have been inve stigated. Since fungi show a marked lag in their in vitro cultures and many protozoa rapidly die during a prolonged incubation time, the effects of pr otozoa may vary according to the growth phase of the fungi. Therefore, the approach adopted was (i) to inoculate CW with fungus monoculture, (ii) to i noculate CW with fungus-protozoa coculture, or (iii) to sequentially inocul ate fungal cultures that had been grown in CW for 24 (initial stage of grow th), 48, and 72 h (late stage of growth) with mixed protozoa. When a fungus was associated with protozoa, a growth phase dependent effect was observed . Ruminal protozoa adversely affected the growth and activity when introduc ed in the initial growth stage of A. mucronatus, but a synergetic interacti on was detected when added to late growth stage cultures. Although there is no immediate explanation for these results, the data suggested that protoz oa can engulf the fungal zoospores, which are in ruminal fluids and (or) at tached to small feed particles, but cannot engulf the fungal thallus that i s tightly attached to feed particles by a rhizoidal system. Our data indica ted that the protozoa did not influence cellulolysis by the fungi in expone ntial and (or) stationary phase, but they had a marked inhibitory effect on fungi that were in lag phase. Inhibition during lag phase could result fro m the protozoal predation of fungal zoospores that had failed to attach to substrates.