Claim · model-written summary
Sixteen attachment-minus mutants lacked a positive surface charge.
- Taxon
- Rhodosporidium toruloidesRhodotorula toruloidest0
- Material
- Att- mutantse0
- Outcome
- did not exhibit a positive cell surface chargee0
- Value
- Sixteene0
Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier
Verbatim
e0“Sixteen Att- mutants did not exhibit a positive cell surface charge”
t0“Rhodosporidium toruloides”
Title
James W. Buck; John H. Andrews Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1999. doi:10.1128/aem.65.5.2179-2183.1999
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Observation Nonencapsulated wild-type yeast hydrophobicity and adhesiveness decreased from mid-log to late stationary phase.
- Observation Encapsulated wild-type yeast was more hydrophobic and adhesive than nonencapsulated cells.
- Observation Two encapsulated attachment-minus mutants were more hydrophobic than wild type.
- Observation Yeast adhesion levels were similar on polystyrene and less hydrophobic glass.
- Association Wild-type yeast adhesion to barley and polystyrene correlated with CM-Sephadex attachment, indicating positive surface charge.
- Observation Wild-type cells failing to attach to CM-Sephadex also failed to adhere to polystyrene or barley.
- Observation Wild-type yeast attached to CM-Sephadex by cell poles, indicating localized positive charge also visualized with India ink.
- Mechanism Localized positive charge rather than hydrophobic interactions mediates yeast attachment to barley leaves.