↓ Skip to main content

Amino Acids Are an Ineffective Fertilizer for Dunaliella spp. Growth

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Amino Acids Are an Ineffective Fertilizer for Dunaliella spp. Growth
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.00847
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin A. Murphree, Jacob T. Dums, Siddharth K. Jain, Chengsong Zhao, Danielle Y. Young, Nicole Khoshnoodi, Andrey Tikunov, Jeffrey Macdonald, Guillaume Pilot, Heike Sederoff

Abstract

Autotrophic microalgae are a promising bioproducts platform. However, the fundamental requirements these organisms have for nitrogen fertilizer severely limit the impact and scale of their cultivation. As an alternative to inorganic fertilizers, we investigated the possibility of using amino acids from deconstructed biomass as a nitrogen source in the genus Dunaliella. We found that only four amino acids (glutamine, histidine, cysteine, and tryptophan) rescue Dunaliella spp. growth in nitrogen depleted media, and that supplementation of these amino acids altered the metabolic profile of Dunaliella cells. Our investigations revealed that histidine is transported across the cell membrane, and that glutamine and cysteine are not transported. Rather, glutamine, cysteine, and tryptophan are degraded in solution by a set of oxidative chemical reactions, releasing ammonium that in turn supports growth. Utilization of biomass-derived amino acids is therefore not a suitable option unless additional amino acid nitrogen uptake is enabled through genetic modifications of these algae.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Chemistry 4 11%
Engineering 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 13 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,431,953
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#16,329
of 20,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,760
of 313,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#508
of 589 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,435 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 589 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.