Current Microbiology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 83–86 | Cite as

Ultrastructural study of two rumen fungi:Piromonas communis andSphaeromonas communis

  • Brigitte Gaillard
  • Anne Citron
Article

Abstract

Two species of strictly anaerobic rumen fungi,Sphaeromonas communis andPiromonas communis, were examined by light and electron microscopy (scanning and transmission). Although morphologically different (vegetative body, number of flagella per zoospore), the ultrastructure of these two microorganisms was rather similar to that ofNeocallimastix frontalis andN. patriciarum. Two types of organelles were regularly found, i.e., isolated or associated ribosomes in the form of aggregates and hydrogenosome-like organelles with an amorphous content that may be involved in energy generation for these mitochondria-free strictly anaerobic fungi. UnlikeN. frontalis, the distribution of organelles was homogenous.

Keywords

Microscopy Electron Microscopy Energy Generation Ultrastructural Study Amorphous Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Fonty G, Breton A, Fevre M, Citron A, Hebraud M, Gouet Ph (1987) Isolement et caractérisation des champignons anaérobies stricts du rumen de moutons. Premiers résultats. Reprod Nutr Develop 27 (1B):237–238Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health IB, Bauchop T, Skipp A (1983) Assignmen of the rumen anaerobeNeocallimastix frontalis to the spizellomycetales (chytridiomycetes) on the basis of its polyflagellate zoospore ultrastructure. Can J Bot 61:295–307Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muller M (1980), pp. 127–142. In: Gooday GW, Lloyd D, Trinci APJ (eds) The eukaryotic microbial cell. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Munn EA, Orpin CG, Hall J (1981) Ultrastructural studies of the free zoospore of the rumen phycomyceteNeocallimastix frontalis. J Gen Microbiol 125:311–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orpin CG (1975) Studies on the rumen flagellateNeocallimastix frontalis. J Gen Microbiol 94:249–262Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Orpin CG (1977) On the induction of zoosporogenesis in the rumen phycomycetesNeocallimastix frontalis, Piromonas communis andSphaeromonas communis. J Gen Microbiol 101:181–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orpin CG, Bountiff L (1978) Zoospore chemotaxis in the rumen phycomyceteNeocallimastix frontalis. J Gen Microbiol 104:113–122Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orpin CG, Munn EA (1986)Neocallimastix patriciarum sp nov a new member of theNeocallimasticaceae inhabiting the rumen of sheep. Trans Br Mycol Soc 86(1):178–181Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reynolds ES (1963) The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in electron microscopy. J Cell Biol 17:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yarlett N, Orpin CG, Munn EA, Yarlett NC, Greenwood CA (1986) Hydrogenosomes in the rumen fungusNeocallimastix patriciarum. Biochem J 236:729–739PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brigitte Gaillard
    • 1
  • Anne Citron
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Microbiology, Unit of Electron MicroscopyCenter of Research of Clermont-FerrandCeyratFrance

Personalised recommendations