ArticlePloS one2020
High throughput, small scale methods to characterise the growth of marine fungi.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fungal-Based Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Mathematical Modeling and Application.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accurate monitoring of substrate-dependent growth reveals ecotypic differentiation among marine yeasts.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Five-Year Time Series Reveals Short-Term Blooms of Planktonic Fungi in a Coastal Mediterranean Site.Environmental microbiology reports · 2025Article
- Optimizing microbioreactor cultivation strategies for Trichoderma reesei: from batch to fed-batch operations.Microbial cell factories · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various marine fungi have been shown to produce interesting, bioactive compounds, but scaling up the production of these compounds can be challenging, particularly because little is generally known about how the producing organisms grow. Here we assessed the suitability of using 100-well BioScreen plates or 96-well plates incubated in a robot hotel to cultivate eight filamentous marine fungi, six sporulating and two non-sporulating, to obtain data on growth and substrate (glucose, xylose, galactose or glycerol) utilisation in a high throughput manner. All eight fungi grew in both cultivation systems, but growth was more variable and with more noise in the data in the Cytomat plate hotel than in the BioScreen. Specific growth rates between 0.01 (no added substrate) and 0.07 h-1 were measured for strains growing in the BioScreen and between 0.01 and 0.27 h-1 for strains in the plate hotel. Three strains, Dendryphiella salina LF304, Penicillium chrysogenum KF657 and Penicillium pinophilum LF458, consistently had higher specific growth rates on glucose and xylose in the plate hotel than in the BioScreen, but otherwise results were similar in the two systems. However, because of the noise in data from the plate hotel, the data obtained from it could only be used to distinguish between substrates which did or did not support growth, whereas data from BioScreen also provided information on substrate preference. Glucose was the preferred substrate for all strains, followed by xylose and galactose. Five strains also grew on glycerol. Therefore it was important to minimise the amount of glycerol introduced with the inoculum to avoid misinterpreting the results for growth on poor substrates. We concluded that both systems could provide physiological data with filamentous fungi, provided sufficient replicates are included in the measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.