Nutritional studies on some members of mucorales. VI
- 12 Downloads
Sulphur requirements of six different species viz.,Absidia orchidis (Vuill.)Hagem,Absidia sp.,Actinomucor elegans (Eidam)Benjamin &Hesseltine,Cunninghamella bertholletiaeStadel,Chaetocladium hesseltiniiMehrotra &Sarbhoy andMortierella indicaMehrotra were studied.
Out of the nineteen various sulphur compounds tried sulphate, sulphite and bi-sulphate were utilized satisfactorily by all the six species.
Potassium hypo-sulphite was good forAbsidia sp. andCunninghamella bertholletiae, while for the rest it was a moderate source. Sodium bi-sulphite supported good growth ofAbsidia sp., poor ofC. hesseltinii but for the rest it was moderate.
Meta bi-sulphites of sodium and potassium responded differently in all the above six species. Potassium and sodium thio-sulphates were more or less mediocre sources for all the species exceptAbsidia sp. andC. hesseltinii in which case these were favourable.
Among the organic sources of sulphur thio-urea was found to be good forC. hesseltinii and moderate for the remaining species. Cystin and methionine supported moderate growth of all the species with the exception ofC. bertholletiae for which cystin was a poor source.
There was no correlation between the growth and sporulation for the species.
In all the cases growth was accompanied with the acidification of the media.
KeywordsCystin Sulphite Organic Source Nutritional Study Moderate Source
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Armstrong, G. M. 1921. Studies in the Physiology of Fungi. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard.,16: (6) 237–80.Google Scholar
- Bhargava, K. S. 1945. Physiological studies on some members of the Family Saprolegniaceae II. Sulphur and Phosphorus requirements. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. B.21: 344–349.Google Scholar
- Davis, B. D. 1955. Advances in Enzymol. Vol.16: 247–312.Google Scholar
- Kumar, D. 1958. Physiological and Cytological studies of some members of Sphaeropsidales. M. Sc. Thesis, Allahabad University, Allahabad.Google Scholar
- Lwoff, A. 1932. La nutrition des Protozoaires. Monogr. Inst. Pasteur (Paris).Google Scholar
- Leonian, L. H. &V. G. Lilly. 1938. Studies on the nutrition of fungi (1). Thiamin, its constituents, and the source of nitrogen. Phytopath.,28: 531–548.Google Scholar
- Mehrotra, B. S. 1949. Studies on some Phytophthoras and Soil Fungi. D. Phil. Thesis, University of Allahabad, Allahabad.Google Scholar
- Ram Dayal. 1961. Sulphur requirements of some members of the family Saprolegniaceae. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.31: (4) 399–401.Google Scholar
- Saksena, R. K., S. K. Jain &S. M. N. Jafri. 1952. Sulphur and nitrogen requirements, J. Ind. Bot. Soc.23 (4):, 281–286.Google Scholar
- Saksena, R. K. &A. K. Sarbhoy. 1960. Some physiological studies on two species ofCunninghamella. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Sec. B.30 (4): 380–390.Google Scholar
- Tandon, R. N. &K. S. Bilgrami. 1958. Sulphur requirements of two species ofPhyllosticta. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.28: 293–297.Google Scholar
- Volkonsky, M. 1933. Sur les conditions de culture et le pouvoir de synthèse deSaprolegnia sp. Etude qualitative de l'alimentation carbonée, azotée et sulfurée. Ann. Inst. Pasteur (Paris)50: 703–730.Google Scholar
- Volkonsky, M. 1933a. Sur l'assimilation des sulphates par les Champignons; euthiotrophic et parathiotrophic. Compt. rend. acad. Sci.197: 712–714.Google Scholar
- Originals not seen.Google Scholar