The challenges faced by living stock collections in the USA

  1. Kevin McCluskey
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills
  3. Greg Dye
  4. Erin Ehmke
  5. Gregg Gunnell
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris
  7. Maxi Polihronakis Richmond
  8. Anne D Yoder
  9. Daniel R Zeigler
  10. Sarah Zehr
  11. Erich Grotewold  Is a corresponding author
  1. Kansas State University, United States
  2. University of California, Davis, United States
  3. Duke University, United States
  4. University of South Carolina, United States
  5. University of California, San Diego, United States
  6. The Ohio State University, United States

Abstract

Many discoveries in the life sciences have been made using material from living stock collections. These collections provide a uniform and stable supply of living organisms and related materials that enhance the reproducibility of research and minimize the need for repetitive calibration. While collections differ in many ways, they all require expertise in maintaining living organisms and good logistical systems for keeping track of stocks and fulfilling requests for specimens. Here, we review some of the contributions made by living stock collections to research across all branches of the tree of life, and outline the challenges they face.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kevin McCluskey

    Fungal Genetics Stock Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills

    Phaff Yeast Culture Collection, Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, Davis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Greg Dye

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Erin Ehmke

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gregg Gunnell

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris

    Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maxi Polihronakis Richmond

    Drosophila Species Stock Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anne D Yoder

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Daniel R Zeigler

    Bacillus Genetics Stock Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sarah Zehr

    Duke Lemur Center, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Erich Grotewold

    Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States
    For correspondence
    Grotewold.1@osu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4720-7290

Funding

National Science Foundation (DBI-1642534)

  • Anne D Yoder

National Science Foundation (DBI-1534564)

  • Kevin McCluskey

National Science Foundation (DBI-1561210)

  • Erich Grotewold

National Science Foundation (DBI-1351502)

  • Maxi Polihronakis Richmond

National Science Foundation (DBI-1561691)

  • Erich Grotewold

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2017, McCluskey et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,418
    views
  • 277
    downloads
  • 8
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kevin McCluskey
  2. Kyria Boundy-Mills
  3. Greg Dye
  4. Erin Ehmke
  5. Gregg Gunnell
  6. Hippokratis Kiaris
  7. Maxi Polihronakis Richmond
  8. Anne D Yoder
  9. Daniel R Zeigler
  10. Sarah Zehr
  11. Erich Grotewold
(2017)
The challenges faced by living stock collections in the USA
eLife 6:e24611.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24611

Further reading

    1. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Tao Tang, Weiming Zhong ... Zhipeng Gao
    Research Article

    Saprolegnia parasitica is one of the most virulent oomycete species in freshwater aquatic environments, causing severe saprolegniasis and leading to significant economic losses in the aquaculture industry. Thus far, the prevention and control of saprolegniasis face a shortage of medications. Linalool, a natural antibiotic alternative found in various essential oils, exhibits promising antimicrobial activity against a wide range of pathogens. In this study, the specific role of linalool in protecting S. parasitica infection at both in vitro and in vivo levels was investigated. Linalool showed multifaceted anti-oomycetes potential by both of antimicrobial efficacy and immunomodulatory efficacy. For in vitro test, linalool exhibited strong anti-oomycetes activity and mode of action included: (1) Linalool disrupted the cell membrane of the mycelium, causing the intracellular components leak out; (2) Linalool prohibited ribosome function, thereby inhibiting protein synthesis and ultimately affecting mycelium growth. Surprisingly, meanwhile we found the potential immune protective mechanism of linalool in the in vivo test: (1) Linalool enhanced the complement and coagulation system which in turn activated host immune defense and lysate S. parasitica cells; (2) Linalool promoted wound healing, tissue repair, and phagocytosis to cope with S. parasitica infection; (3) Linalool positively modulated the immune response by increasing the abundance of beneficial Actinobacteriota; (4) Linalool stimulated the production of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines to lyse S. parasitica cells. In all, our findings showed that linalool possessed multifaceted anti-oomycetes potential which would be a promising natural antibiotic alternative to cope with S. parasitica infection in the aquaculture industry.

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Iti Mehta, Jacob B Hogins ... Larry Reitzer
    Research Article

    Polyamines are biologically ubiquitous cations that bind to nucleic acids, ribosomes, and phospholipids and, thereby, modulate numerous processes, including surface motility in Escherichia coli. We characterized the metabolic pathways that contribute to polyamine-dependent control of surface motility in the commonly used strain W3110 and the transcriptome of a mutant lacking a putrescine synthetic pathway that was required for surface motility. Genetic analysis showed that surface motility required type 1 pili, the simultaneous presence of two independent putrescine anabolic pathways, and modulation by putrescine transport and catabolism. An immunological assay for FimA—the major pili subunit, reverse transcription quantitative PCR of fimA, and transmission electron microscopy confirmed that pili synthesis required putrescine. Comparative RNAseq analysis of a wild type and ΔspeB mutant which exhibits impaired pili synthesis showed that the latter had fewer transcripts for pili structural genes and for fimB which codes for the phase variation recombinase that orients the fim operon promoter in the ON phase, although loss of speB did not affect the promoter orientation. Results from the RNAseq analysis also suggested (a) changes in transcripts for several transcription factor genes that affect fim operon expression, (b) compensatory mechanisms for low putrescine which implies a putrescine homeostatic network, and (c) decreased transcripts of genes for oxidative energy metabolism and iron transport which a previous genetic analysis suggests may be sufficient to account for the pili defect in putrescine synthesis mutants. We conclude that pili synthesis requires putrescine and putrescine concentration is controlled by a complex homeostatic network that includes the genes of oxidative energy metabolism.