English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Planktonic cells and those grown on surfaces (or as colony biofilm) are known to show significant differences regarding growth behavior, cell physiology, gene expression and stress tolerance. In order to compare stress behavior of different growth forms, shake cultures for planktonic growth and agar plate cultivation for colony growth, were carried out with the well investigated model organism,  Pseudomonas putida  mt-2. Cells were exposed to sodium chloride to cause osmotic stress as one main environmental stressor bacteria have to cope with when growing in soil. Planktonic cells were more tolerant with a complete inhibition of growth at 0.7 M NaCl, compared to 0.5 M for agar-grown cells. Cell surface hydrophobicity, measured as water contact angles, was significantly higher for agar-grown cells (92°) than for planktonic cells (40°), and increased in the presence of NaCl. Agar-grown cells also showed a significantly higher degree of saturation of membrane fatty acids that increased in the presence of NaCl. These results demonstrate that planktonic and colony grown bacteria show different responses when confronted with osmotic stress suggesting that the tolerance and adaptive mechanisms are dependent on the environmental conditions as well as the initial physiological state.

Osmotic stress in colony and planktonic cells of Pseudomonas putida mt-2 revealed significant differences in adaptive response mechanisms