:

2007
 .1

.
) Mason .(1994

.

) Biester .(2002

.

.


75 .
Hg Hg2+
).(1993 Weber

)Hg(OH
HgCl2
. ) Hg(II
.

.
Hg(II) fulvic
.

.

1

% 95
).(1997 EPA

) Morrno-Jimnez (2006
) Wang
.(2003
% 90
) (1995 Fitzgerald
) (Hg
) Lindqvist (1991

) (1976 WHO


).(1976 WHO

.
) Miersch (2001


) Ow.(1998

) (1970s
) (HgS .
800


) (SO2

2
 .
% 95 HgS % 5
.

2004

.

:

-1 )(0-20 cm
) (20-40 cm 18 .
-2
) (APC .
-3

.
-4 ) (0-20 cm
.
-5
) (0-20 cm
) (APC .
-6
.
-7
:


-8
RAPD-PCR

3
 -9
.
-10


.

4
5
 .2

1.2

1.1.2

. .

.
.

) (Hg ) (Hg2+
) .(Hg22+ ) (1987 Glinkac :

-1 Hg
-2 80
-3 200.89
-4 2 1 0
-5 356.72
-6 38.72
-7 ) 25( 13.534

.

2.1.2
. .
Hg2Cl2
.HgCl2 R-Hg-
X R .

6
 . Me-Hg-Me
.

) (Hg
Hg2+
).(1979 keck

3.1.2

1.3.1.2

.

.50 ng/g
) (1972 Lofroth
) . (Hg

).(1979 keck
.


) Wallace (1979

.

2.3.1.2

1.2.3.1,2

180

7
 ) (1972 Dtiri

) .(1976 WHO
) Pierce(1972
) Bakir (1973
.
) (1976 WHO
.(1979 Wheathyly) 1973
.

.

2.2.3.1,2

) .(1976 Wallin


) .(1979 keck

) Jernelov .(1969 Jensen

) Swedish
(1979 Expert Groups
1 mg/Kg
5 mg/Kg
10 .(1977 Trukayama) 30 ppm

.

).(1979 WHO

8
 2.2

.
.
. .
.
.

.

1.2.2

.


: ) (pH
.

1.1.2.2

. .

Mucor Penicillium
Trichoderma Apergillus Fusarium

9




.

2.1.2.2 )(pH

.



. .

3-2
9
9



.

3.1.2.2

%95 %80
.
. .

Mucor
.

10
 4.1.2.2

) Gunner .(1964 Alexndar

O 2 O 2

.
.
.

5.1.2.2

50 55 37
.
Mucor Humicola Chaetomium
Aspergillus
6 Cladosporium Penicillium Mucor
.

6.2.2

B


.
O2
CO2 .

11
 3.2

.



:

.1 .
.2 .
.3 .in vitro
.4 .
.5
.

.
/
.
.
) Cooke .(1984 Ragner
. (1981) States Fritze (1993) Basth
) (Sporulation capacity

.
) Boath .(1980 Soderstrom

So2
.in vitro
) (microfungi .

.

12
 in vitro

Polysaccharides
.
) Hughes .(1991 Poole
.

.
in vitro ) ( interaction
.

.
.
oligodynamic
) .paradoxical

1.3.2

.

.

.
) (species diversity
.
.
.

13
 .


:

.1 .
.2 ) (.
.3 break down .
.4.

.

) Yamamato .(1985

.
)Wainwright
(1992
.
.

.
.

2.3.2

) (1990 Gadd

) .(b1992 Gadd) (1991 Baath

14

-glutamyl )Mehra
.(1991 Winge
) .(b 1992 Gadd


) . (1993 Gadd

.

) (

) .(sequestration
in vitro
.

4.2

(1975) Ross
) (desorption
. 38 cystein %90 72
% 40 HgCl2
18 mM/Kg . UO22+

.1 mM/Kg Ligands
) .(1959 Rosthstein
) .(1959 Rothstein
K +
K + ) Passaw

15
 .(1960 S-Hg-S
.
203
Owens (1958) Miller Hg
Aspergillus niger . Neurospora sitophela
80000-10000 x g (1958 ) Miller, Owens
.

.
P. avence (a ) (PMA
)(1972 Greenaway Phenyl Hg+
2mM . cysteine )Greenaway
(1972 Phenyl Hg+ cystein
. Hg2+ cystein
) Passaw (1960 Rothstein
cystein 2mM .

).(1975 Ross

1.4.2

(1966) Weeb SH

.
) Matsui (1962
) .(1975,Ross
MeHg+
. HgCl2
(1971 Landner) Nerospora crassa Vonk) A. niger Kaars
.(1973 sijpesteijn (1971) Landner DL-Homosystein Hg+2
DL homocystein .(ref) Nerospora
(1971) Landner SH .DL homocystein

16
 DL homocystein .
Vonk (1973) Kaais Sijpesteijn homocystein
A. Niger . S. brevicaulis
Ashworth) A. niger (1964 Amin
.

2.4.2

Spanis) (1962
Penicillium sp Aspergillus sp
.
(1975 Ross) Pyrenophora avenae .(1955 Russel) Penicillium roqueforti
)Greenaway
.(1972 Bonaly) Candida utilis (1961
Ashworth Aspergillus niger 1964 Amin
. Ross
(1973) Old pyrenophora avenae
) reagent
.

P.avenae
) .(1974, Ross
) (1971 Greenaway Sheridan)
(1971 .

P.avenae Phenyl Hg+
) .(1971 Greenaway
) Singh (1974 Sherman .(1971 Landner) Nerospora crassa
Saccharomyces cervisiae
MeHg+ MeHg+
) Singh (1974 Sherman

17
 MeHg+
. MeHg+
.MeHg+ N.crassa
. HgCl2 ).(1971 Landner

) .(1966 Webb Aspergillus Niger
HgCl2

. Hg+2
Birgerson) in vitro (1973
.

1.2.4.2

1.1.2.4.2

Hg2+
Robinson (1984) Tuovinen :
.1
.
.2 .

)Ortiz
.(1995
) Winge
.(1998 .

.
Cd(II)-GSH Dameron) Candida glabrata (1989


Li) Schizosaccharomyces pombe .(1997 ) Miersch(1997

18
 Heliscus ludumensis
Varicosporium elodeae
.

100
) Robinson (1984 Tuovinen
) .(1 mercuric reductase
P. aureginosa
... P. putida T. ferroxidants S.aureus .
203
Hg2+ Hgcl2
. S.aureus E. coli 203
Hg- PMA
Pseudomonas sp. Hg2+
.
) (Hg
. ) (Hg
Hg
. E. coli
HgCl2 .
Hg2+ NADPH Hg2+
.

Hg2+
. E. coli
chlocoform cyclohexone benzene toluene
) Summers .(1972 Silver 10-5 M
) Moser .(1957 Voight

. toluene
7 37 203
HgCl2

19
 .
) RobinsonTuovinen
.(1984 Hg2+

.
NADPH .Hg2+
Hg2+
.

2.1.2.4.2

C-Hg
mercuric organamercurial lyase Hg2+ Hg
.reductase .
Peusodomonas sp.
14C (PMA PMA 203
. ) Hg
14
C 203
Hg . %70 Hg
.
toluene C-Hg .
PMA
. )Furukawa
.(1969 pHMB
Hg
) Tezuka 1976 Tonomura .(1978
Pseudomonas aeruginosa EMC MMC PMA
pHMB merbromin thimerosal
. E. coli
PMA .thimerosal E. coli
pHMB MMC EMC
. E.coli Pseudomonas aeruginosa merbromin
FMA . Stophylococcus

20
 )Weiss aureus thimerosal pHMB PMA
.(1978
.
organomercurial lyase Pseudomonas sp K62
pHMB aeraginose Pseudomonas pHMB
.

2.2.4.2

mercuric
reductase organomercurial lyase Hg2+
.
100 .
mercuric reductase organomercurial lyase
.

. cross- induction
Hg2+
. mercuric reductase
organomercurial lyase
) Robinson.(1984 Tuovinen

3.2.4.2 .

.
Hg Hg2+ Hg
.
SH .
.
)( .
.

21
 .
.

1.3.2.4.2
:

.1 . Hg2+
.2 Hg2+ methyl cobalamine
.
.3 .methy cobalamin
.
. methyl cobalamin
S-adenosyl methionine :
methyl cobalamin B12 .Methyl tetrahydiopfolatre B12
Hg2+
) .(17.5) (carbanion methyl
. carbanion ) De
Simone (1973 :
CH3B12 CH3B12
Hg2+ (CH3)Hg+ (CH3)2Hg

6000 .methyl cobalanin

HgCl2 .
.
cobalmine methionine homocysteine .
.
.

1.1.3.2.4.2

.Hg2+
Wood) methanogene .(1968
methylcobalamin ATP

22
 . Co2+ Hg2+
. Hg2+
Co 2+ Hg2+ .

Hg(CH 3COO)2 HgSO4 Hg(NO3)2 HgO HgI2 HgCl2 HgS
.Clostridium cochlearium
1.1.3.2.4.2

) Hamdy .(1975 Noyes
San Fransisco HgCl2
)Olson
(1976 Cooper Enterobacter aerogenes
Hg2+ Hamdy) Hgo
.(1975 Noyes .
L-cysteines methylcobalamine
. Pseudamonas
E. coli Bacillus megaterium fluorescens Enterobacter aerogenes
Hg2+ 240 865 ng/l
20 mg/l HgCl2 . methyl cobalamin
E. coli methyl
cobalamin Vonk) Enterobacter aerogenes .(1973 Sijpesteijn
Saccharomyces Scopalariopsis brevicaulis A. niger
cerevisae ) 240 mg/g ( 28
. .Neurosporo crassa

).(1975 Rowland

23
 4.2.4.2

1 ) Silver (2007 Hobman

.
. E. coli P. aeruginasa

24
 .Hg2+
.


.
.
Hg2+
.

1.4.2.4.2 Mercuric reductase Oyanomercurial lyase

. organomercurial lyase PMA
Hg2+ Hg2+ Hg0 mercuric reductase

S.aureus Weiss ) Pseudomonas sp(1977
.
organomercurial lyase mercuric reductase
operotor-promotor
. lyase
.
Hg2+
.
5.2.4.2

) (transposons DNA
DNA
. ) .(1981 Kleckner

.
transposan .

25

DNA deletion
excision inversion ) .(1981 Kleckner
transpsons .
Tn501 .
Tn501 DNA 5.2 Mdal
Tn 501 . Tn 501
.E. coli .auxotrophic
38
Tn 501 5
DNA . Pseudmonas
Tn1861 .5.2 Mdal
P. putida E. coli
.
1.5.2.4.2 mer
Pseudomonas Tn 501
aeruginosa (mer A) mercuic reductase
mer T mer P mer R mer D
.
mer RTPAD mer R mer TPAD
promotor.
mer E mer d
. mer R
. mer R
Hg2+ mer .
. . mer
tn21 mer operon R 100 Tn 501
mer C .mer RTPCADE
pMER 327/419 mer F mer C

26
 Blaghen) Tn 502 .(1983
pDU 1258 .organomercurial lyase
2.5.2.4.2 mer
r 100
:
:Mer A .Mercuric reductase
:Mer B organomercuial lyase
:Mer C .Hg2+
:Mer T .Hg2+
:Mer R .

5.2

.
/ .
.

.
) (biomaterials
.
) (
.

.alkalines.

.
.

.

27
 ) (biomass
.
) (ion exchanger .
)Volesky
.(1990
) (1995 ModakNatarayan
:

-1 ) (biomass ) (non living

.
.
-2 ) (
.
-3 .
-4

.
-5
.

-6

.

28
 6.2

2 ) Silver (2007 Hobman

29
30
 .3
1-3
500
36 76 08 36 85 35 7 20 7 40 .
koudiat Ousfan 1 7
3 2
5 .

.

31
 2-3
18
.1
.1
. ) (5

) 20-0(
) 40 -20( .
.
mm 2 4
.
1

)( )(
1750 1
1100 2
1500 3
2300-870 D1
2300 4
1500 5
870 6
2600 7
2800 8
3250-2600 D2
3250 16
3200 17
5000 10
4500 9
5000-4500 D3
5000 15
4700 18
6300 11
6750 12
6850-6300 D4
6850 13
6750 14

32
 3-3
pH(H2O) - ) (2.5 :1 .
- K 2Cr2O7
) Cottenie.(1979
- ) ( NH4+
Cottenie) K +
.(1979
- ) (H2SO 4
CaCO 3 .CaCO 3 + H 2SO4 CaSO 4 + CO2 + H 2O H2SO4
Cottenie) NaOH.(1979
-
Robinson Stokes 50
m 200 Mathieu) USDA
.(1998 Pieltain

4-3

Hatch (1968) OTT Colman MAS50
) (KMnO4
Hg2+ ) (Hg2+ ) (SnCl2
Hg0 )253.8 =
.(nm ) (T % ) (A = 2 - log T %
. ) (g/g 0.08
) (Blank t Student
) (Blank ) (SD
) (CV . % 10

33
 5-3

1.5.3

) Devet Rouxel
(1997 10 90
1-
10
10 90
. 10-7
. Parkinson 1965 Thomas
).(rhizosphere
(PDA) Potabo Dextrose Agar)(MSA
6-10 20 5-
Malt agar salt 1 10
.
25 .

2.5.3

PDA 25
4 .

6.3

1.6.3

Domsch) : (1970
(1971) Booth Raper (1971) Pitt Ellis Samson (1973) Fennell(1985) Pitt
Domsch (1993) Samson(1998) Multon (1997) Champion .(1972) Gams
Samson ) .(1995 :

- .
- .

34
 - .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .

- 2.6.3

PDA
(MEA) Malt Extract AGAR (CYA) Czapek Yeast Extract
525 37
7 :

- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- )
(.
-
3.6.3

) Soft-Imaging Gm bH Software (analysis Pro, Ver. 3

Aspergillus.Penicillium
35
 7.3

1.7.3

1 0.5
10 ppm 5 2.5 HgCl2
.
.

MAS50
) (SnCl2
) .(NaBH4 SnCl2 Hg2+ ) (Hg0
. NaBH4 Hg2+ CH3Hg+
) .(Hg0 .

= NaBH4
) .(SnCl2 .SnCl2

2.7.3 .A. tubingensisA. niveus

1.2.7.3

) Roland (1984 Benchat 0.5
10 ppm

2.2.7.3

/ SHIMADZU
GC/MS-QP 5050A
) 25 0.5m (1.5m
dimenthyl polysiloxane 110) (
200 5/ 260 3.5
/ Dectetor Injector 280.

36
 ) (Peak
.

3.2.7.3 TLC

- :

/ )(v/v 1:2
2 . Silica gel
) (20 x 20 cm 80 5
1.5 1.5
10l . Griseofulvin
/ ) .(v/v 1 :2
2 // )(v/v/v 20 :15 :85
17 . TLC UV
365m . TLC Ceric Sulphate
3M (365nm) UV
110 8.

Rf
database) Paterson .(1994 Bridge

4.2.7.3

Capillary electrophase
ependorf
) . (1 : 2
4000.

ependorf
90 l 90 l 10 l

37
 5 .
.

0 Multi-wave lenght
scanning detector
.

5.2.7.3

Amino-acid analyzer
%70
HCl 6 N
) 12(
Ependorf 15000
Holder Watman 3
Ependorf .

Ependorf
20/1
. 10 190

.
.
)Ependorf / Biotronik (LC3000
) Column P 125 x 4 mm P60 x 4 mm pre-column [4n mol /
aminoacid .

38
 6.2.7.3

) GBC HPLC Hypersil

C250x4.6 mm ) (0.08 (0.72) 0.2M
) UV 254nm (Dedector
) (GC/MS system : SHIMADZU QP 5050A
.

7.2.7.3

4
) (6 mm 7 200
% 0.5 % 0.1 .

. ) 4 80.(
(1991) Grill Miersch
) (1997 (1959) Ellman 100 l
) H2O 3 pH (TFA 900 l Ellman
5 . . 410 nm
.10 - 100 /ml nmol
1 g .

8.2.7.3

) 2g/g(
4 . )20 mM TrispH 7.5
(1mM EDETA 6200 x g
10 18.000 x g 4 ) Azevedo.(2007

39
 1.8.2.7.3 )superoxide dismutase (SOD

SOD Fridovich (1969) McCord xanthine

xanthine oxidase SOD
C .% 50

2.8.2.7.3 )catalase (CAT

CAT (1984) Aebi H2O2

30 . .240 mn
(G6PDH) Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase
3.8.2.7.3 G6PDH
G6PDH 340 mn NADP
.(1989) Postma
U/mg .
Lowry ) (1951
.

4.8.2.7.3 Glutathione peroxidase

340 mn NADPH 37
1 umol NADPH ) Rapoport
.(1994
8.3 RAPD-PCR
1.8.3 DNA
MEA
100 ml YES 250 ml
48 . 20-
Ependorf DNA
DNeasy Kit .Kit

40
 RAPD-PCR 2.8.3
DNA )(Thermo cycler
)(primers
)Primer 2 : 5-d (GTTTCGCTCC
)Primer 4 : 5-d (AAGAGCCCT
)Primer 6 : 5-d (CCCGTCAGCA
3.8.3
PCR % 2 . TBE
ethidium bromide 55 DNA trasilluminator
. documentation gel

9.3

1.9.3

(% 5) KOH
15 .
pH % 0.1 .
2.9.3
pH 50 ml 250 ml
0.3 g 300
rpm 25 . 24 ) (0.45 um Hg
. qe :
V
)qe = (C 0 Ce
m
= C0 :
= C e Hg2+
= V
= m

41
 3.9.3 Equilibrium isotherms

) (isotherms )(adsorbates
) .(adsorbents
) (theorectical ) (empirical
. Langmuir
Freundlich

4.9.3
HCl
) (% 0.5 ) (% 20 60
.

5.9.3
(0.1 M) NaOH
.

10.3

Statistica 6
Pearson ) (ANOVA Newman-keuls
) (APC .

42
43
 . 4

1-4
1-1-4

2
% % %
45,47 30,20 24,13 1
48,67 30,79 20,97 2
20,36 53,61 25,33 3
23,07 24,39 51,64 4
D1
23,10 24,77 51,13 5
24,18 25,81 49,02 6
24,50 52,64 21,86 7
26,59 52,27 20,13 8
51,05 28,81 19,04 16
D2
24,95 52,55 21,10 17
25,24 52,09 21,67 9
20,56 53,14 26,31 10
52,06 27,94 18,96 15
D3
19,32 52,01 27,67 18
24,92 56,29 17,90 11
23,30 54,31 21,40 12
21,04 54,72 23,24 13
D4
49,16 29,20 19,87 14

)(A )(B
65 45
60
55
20-0 20-0
50 40
45 40-20 40-20
)(%

40
35
35
)(%

30
25
30
20
15
10 25
5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

20

15
D1 D2 D3 D4

4 (A) : (B)

44
 )(A )(B
65 60
60 20-0 55
20-0
55
50
40-20 50
40-20
)(%

45
45

)(%
40
35
40
30
25 35

20
30
15
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
25

20
D1 D2 D3 D4

5 (A) : (B)

)(A )(B
60 50
55
20-0 45 20-0
50
45 40
40 40-20 40-20
)(%

35 35
)(%

30
30
25
20 25
15
10 20
5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 15

10
D1 D2 D3 D4

6 (A) : (B)

USDA 2
16 15 14 2 1
6 5 4
. ) 20-0(
) 40-20( A4 .B4

A5
) (D1 .B5
)(6 5 4

45
 18 16 15 14 .A6
.B6

2- 1- 4

)(A )(B
7,0 6,8
6,8 20 6,6 20
6,6
6,4
6,4 40 40
6,2
6,2

6,0 6,0
pH

pH
5,8 5,8
5,6 5,6
5,4
5,4
5,2
5,2
5,0

4,8 5,0

4,6 4,8
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 D1 D2 D3 D4

7 ) (pH (A) : (B)

6 -1 ) (D1 16 15
15 - 7 18 17 .A7
.B7

3- 1 -4

)(A )(B
2,4 1,8
20-0
2,2
2,0 40-20 1,6 20-0
1,8
)(%

1,6 1,4
40-20
)(%

1,4
1,2
1,2
1,0 1,0
0,8
0,6 0,8
0,4
0,6
0,2
0,0 0,4
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

0,2

0,0
D1 D2 D3 D4

8 (A) : (B)

46
 .
A8
.B8

4-1-4 ) (

)(A )(B
35 28

30 20-0 26 20-0
25
)(%

24
40-20
20 40-20
22

15
20
10
18
5
16
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 14

12
D1 D2 D3 D4

9 ) ( (A) : (B)

10 13
) .(A 9
D2
.B9

5- 1 -4 )(CaCO3
)(A )(B
8 4,6

7 20-0 4,4 20-0

6 4,2
)CaCO 3 (%

4,0 40- 20
5
40-20
4 3,8
)CaCO3 (%

3 3,6
3,4
2
3,2
1
3,0
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 2,8

2,6
2,4
2,2
D1 D2 D3 D4

10 ) (CaCO3 (A) : (B)

47

. 13 18
.A10 .B10

2-4
)(A )(B
3,0 3,0

20-0 20-0
2,5
2,5
)(g /g

2,0 40-20 40-20

)(g /g
2,0
1,5

1,5
1,0

0,5 1,0

0,0 0,5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

0,0
D1 D2 D3 D4

11 (A) : (B)

3 ) (g/g
0-40 cm 0-20 cm
0.691,59 0.050,94 0.062,24 1
0.451,74 0.061,31 0.042,17 2
0.661,19 0.050,57 0.061,81 3
0.452,04 0.101,62 0.082,47 4
0.312,12 0.031,85 0.172,40 5
0.282,18 0.041,92 0.072,44 6
0.210,87 0.020,67 0.051,07 7
0.350,78 0.040,45 0.091,11 8
0.230,58 0.040,37 0.050,79 9
0.240,59 0.030,36 0.040,82 10
0.360,70 0.010,36 0.021,04 11
0.200,57 0.040,39 0.060,76 12
0.220,69 0.050,48 0.020,89 13
0.230,45 0.030,23 0.040,66 14
0.360,69 0.020,34 0.031,03 15
0.961,64 0.020,75 0.312,53 16
0.290,62 0.030,34 0.040,89 17
0.330,58 0.020,27 0.090,89 18
0.72 1.09 0.550.74 0.711.44

48
) .(3 g/g 0.72 1.09

1 6 16
.A11 ) (D1
.B11
.

3-4

0,721,09 )(g/g
0,570,95 )(%
12,9730,42 )(%
1.16 g/g )(g/g

)Adriano g/g 0.05

.(1995 % 10
% 2 .
:
N(X,Y) = A + XB + Y
A + 10B + 2C
= X : .
= Y .

C B A 0.55 = A
0 = C 0.0046 = B

49

g/g 1.16 .4

4-4 )(APC

)(A )(B
Active 4 Active
1,0
3
CaCO3
4
2 10 7
12
0,5 9 5
1 6
11 83

)%27,65 (2
)%27,65 (2

pH 18
13 17
0

0,0 1
-1
2

-2
16
14
-0,5
-3 15

-4

-1,0 -5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0
)%43,30 : (1
)%43,30 : (1

) (B
) (A

12 ) (A ) (B ) (2 1 APC

5 APC

)(2 )(1
-0,34 -0,69
-0,11 -0,87
0,068 0,93
0,18 -0,94 pH
0,65 -0,20
0,69 0,24 CaCO3
-0,71 0,08
-0,88 0,21
0,44 -0,78
0,44 0,71

APC

.

50
 % 70.95 APC % 43.30
% 27.65 . A12 APC
5 pH
) (r = -0.94 ) .(r = -0.88
. pH
APC B12
: )( 6 5 4 )(
16 15 14 2 1 .

5 -3 .

CaCO3 pH


-0,00
*-0,75 -0,30
*-0,88 *0,78 *0,37 pH
-0,23 0,22 0,01 *-0.93
0,22 -0,00 0,26 -0,25 0,00 CaCO3
-0,13 0,19 -0,24 0,07 -0,14 -0,24
*0,81 -0,36 0,06 -0,29 0,10 -0,05 -0,19
-0,59 -0,41 0,01 0,10 *0,69 -0,71 0,51 0,06
-0.48 -0,43 -0,41 0,40 -0,16 -0,48 *0,71 -0,55 0,13
p < 0.05 *

51
 pH vs. pH vs.
= 8,8181 - 1,302 * pH = -87,16 + 21,393 * pH

: r =-0,88 : r =0,69
95% de confiance 60 95% de confiance
2,4
2,2 55
2,0
50
1,8
)(g/g
1,6 45

)(%
1,4 40
1,2
35
1,0
0,8 30
0,6
25
0,4
0,2 20
5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6,0 6,2 6,4 6,6 6,8
0,0
5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6,0 6,2 6,4 6,6 6,8 pH
pH

)(A )(B
vs. vs.
* = -,1655 + ,03822 * = 40,417 - ,3860

: r = 0,71 : r = -0,75 95% de c onfianc e

95% de confiance
2,4 2,4
2,2 2,2
2,0 2,0

)(g/g
1,8
1,8
1,6
)(%

1,6
1,4
1,4 1,2
1,2 1,0
1,0 0,8
0,8 0,6
0,6 0,4
0,4 0,2
0,2 0,0
100,5 101,0 101,5 102,0 102,5 103,0 103,5 104,0 104,5
0,0 D2 D3 D4
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 D1

)(%

)(D )(C
vs. vs.
* = 9,8797 + ,33053
x 0,53 + 54,50 = - : r =0,81
Corrlation : r = -0,9256 30 95% de c onfianc e
1,4 95% de confiance 28
26
1,2 24
22
1,0

20

18
0,8
16
14
0,6
12
0,4 10
8
0,2 6
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0,0
100,8 101,0 101,2 101,4 101,6 101,8 102,0 102,2 )(%
0-20 40-20

)(F )(E
13

6
pH ) (r = -0.88 A13
) (r = 0.69 .B13
) (r = 0.71 C13 ) (r = -0.75
.D13
) (r = -0.93 .F13
).(r = 0.81

52
 6-4

Aspergillus tubingensis -1

14 Aspergillus tubingensis

7 Aspergillus tubingensis

6.5 cm 10 28 :
Czapeck .
15 m

280 m

39 m
:
sterigmata 15 4 m
sterigmata
sterigmata 8.5 3.9 m
3.9 m Conidia

53
 Aspergillus niveus -2

15 Aspergillus niveus

8 Aspergillus tubingensis

4-3 cm 7 28 :
Czapeck .
4.5 m

30.5 m

12.3 m
:
sterigmata 5.6 2.4 m
sterigmata
sterigmata 4.5 2.2 m
3.9 m conidia

54
 Penicillium citrinum-3

16 Penicillium citrinum

9 Penicillium citrinum
2.8 cm CYA

.
1.7 cm MEA 5
12 .CYA 37.
) (Biverticillate penicillia 5-3

)(divrgents Penicillus

12.3 x 5.3 m Metulae

7.5 x 3 m Phialides
.2.8 m Conidia

55
 Penicillium viridicatum-4

17 Penicillium viridicatum

10 Penicillium citrinum
25 cm CYA
2.5 .

0.6 cm CYA 5
37.
Terverticillate
Penicillus
2-1 12 3.3 m penicillus

9.1 3.6 m Metulae

7.2 1.9 m Phialides

3.2 m Conidia

56
 Trichoderma viride-5

18 Trichoderma viride

11 Trichoderma viride
4.5 -7.5 cm 5 .


.
.

2 4 6.2 2.7 m Phialides

.3 m conidia

chlamydospores

57
 Trichoderma atraviride-6

19 Trichoderma atraviride

12 Trichoderma viride
7.5 cm 5 .
.
.

10.2 2.5 m Phialides

.3.2 2.8 m conidia

chlamydospores

58
 Fusarium chlamydosporum-7

20 Fusarium chlamydosporum

13 Fusarium chlamydosporum
3.5 cm PDA 4

. .

colvate Micro-conidia blastospores

Micro-conidia
9 3.1 m
Macro-conidia 4-3 4.1 m
Macro-conidia
32
chlamydospores 11 m chlamydospores

59
 Erotium rubrum -8

21 Erotium rubrum

14 Erotium rubrum
PDA .2 cm
.clestothecia

.
200 m

10 m
2.5 m
5.5 m conidia
112 m cleistothecia
13 m Asci

60
 Mucor racemosum-9

(A) chlamydospores + collumella (B) sporangia

(B) sporangium
22 Mucor racemosum

15 Erotium rubrum


.clestothecia .

sporangiophore

sporangia
39 m .
pyriform
columella
. 32 m
sporangiospores 5.6 4.1 m

chlamydospores
.

61
 7 -4

62
 (B) A . niveus (A) A. tubingensis
Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95 Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95
22 35

20
30

18

A. tubungensis
25
16
A. niveus

14 20

12
15

10
10
8

5
6 D1 D2 D3 D4
D1 D2 D3 D4

(D) P. viridicatum (C) P. citrinum

Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95 Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95
15 18

14
16
13

12 14
P.viridicatum

11
P.citrinum

12
10

9 10

8
8
7

6 6

5
4
4

3 2
D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4

(F) T. atraviride (E) T. viride

Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95 Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95
16 16

15

14 14

13
12
12
T. atraviride

11
T. viride

10
10

9
8
8

6 7

4 5

4
2 3
D1 D2 D3 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4

25

63
 (H) E. rubrum (G) F. cladosporium
Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95 Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95
18 13

16 12

14

F. cladosporium
11

12
10
E.rubrum

10
9
8
8
6
7
4
6
2
5
0 D1 D2 D3 D4
D1 D2 D3 D4

(I)MM. racemosum
Les barres verticales reprsentent les intervalles de confiance 0,95
18

16

14
M. racemosum

12

10

2
D1 D2 D3 D4

25

16
M. E. F.
T. atraviride T. viride P. viridicatum P. citrinum A. niveus A. tubungensis
racemosum rubrum cladosporium

1,00

1,00 -0,83

1,00 0,70 -0,86 A. tubingensis

1,00 0,71 0,58 -0,68 A. niveus

1,00 -0,37 -0,55 -0,39 0,40 P.citrinum

1,00 -0,11 -0,27 -0,17 -0,33 0,39 P. viridicatum

1,00 0,30 0,15 -0,45 -0,56 -0,62 0,64 T. viride

1,00 0,12 0,01 0,21 -0,34 -0,42 -0,23 0,31 T; atraviride

1,00 0,03 -0,08 -0,16 0,04 -0,20 -0,19 -0,06 0,17 F;cladosporium

1,00 0,01 0,04 0,09 0,10 0,12 -0,37 -0,39 -0,20 0,44 E. rubrum

1,00 0,04 0,24 0,25 0,18 0,03 0,48 -0,50 -0,62 -0,31 0,42 M. racemosum

64
 Newman-keuls 17

D4 D3 D2 D1

D1

A. tubungensis
0,013329* D2
0,00163* 0,000127* D3
0,002097* 0,00127* 0,00159* D4
D1

A. niveus
0,003881* D2
0,54 0,002046* D3
0,038674* 0,024123* 0,000162* D4
D1

P.citrinum
0,457479 D2
0,048044* 0,021904* D3
0,508155 0,026732* 0,007312* D4

P. viridicatum
D1

0,258411 D2
0,871754 0,159136 D3
0,277256 0,171903 0,024447* D4
D1
0,013077* D2

T. viride
0,119096 0,000568* D3
0,077342 0,004517* 0,000161* D4
D1 T. atraviride
0,673702 D2
0,217831 0,209232 D3
0,558323 0,118319 0,162190 D4
F. cladosporium

D1

0,792623 D2
0,844303 0,888991 D3
0,208949 0,185152 0,134455 D4
D1
E.rubrum

0,481896 D2
0,002394* 0,005795* D3
0,877163 0,002933* 0,010355* D4
M. racemosum

D1

0,446160 D2
0,472797 0,304722 D3
0,106362 0,057389 0,016477* D4

65
 23 A. tubigensis
% 4.1 23.77 A. niveus % 3.99 18.11
) .(P<0.05
) (D3 D2 D1
A. tubigensis A. niveus . D4
) ) (P<0.05 .(24

.
(r = -0.86) A. tubigensis ) (r = -0.68) A. niveus
(16 ) (B A 25
Newmankeuls ) P<0.05 .(17 T. viride
) r = 0.64 (16
) (E25 D3 D4
) Newmankeuls .(17 E. rubrum P . viridicatum P . citrinum
M. racemosum r = 0.40
r = 0.42 r = 0.44 r = 0.39 ) .(16
.
Newman-keuls D1
D3 D4 D2 D3 D4 .
D1 D2 D3 D4
) 17 .(C 25 P . viridicatum M. racemosum
) D4 17 D 25 .(I
E. rubrum D1
D3 D4 D1 D2
) 17 .(C 25 T. atraviride ) (r = 0.31
) (16 ) 17 .(F 25
. F. cladosporium
) (16
) 17 .(G 25 .

66
 8 -4 ) (APC

)Projection des variables sur le plan factoriel ( 1 x 2

1,0

P.viridicatum

0,5
T. viride

Fact. 2 : 13,15%

A. tubungensis

E.rubrum A. niveus
0,0

T. atraviride

P.citrinum
M. racemosumF. cladosporium
-0,5

-1,0

-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0

Active
Fact. 1 : 42,79%

26
) (2 x1APC

18
.APC

Fact.2 Fact.1
0.13 -0.94
0.23 -0.74
-0.19 0.83
0.18 0.93 A. tubingensis
0.08 0.81 A. niveus
-0.46 -0.54 P. citrinum
0.68 -0.36 P. viridicatum
0.38 -0.64 T. viride
-0.26 -0.41 T. atraviride
-0.52 -0.16 F. cladosporium
0.08 -0.38 E. tuburum
-0.52 -0.57 M. racemosum

67

) % 55.97 (APC % 42.79
) % 13.15 .(26 APC
18
) (r = -94 .(r = 0.68) P. viridicatum


.

68
 9 -4

(B) A . niveus (A) A. tubingensis

vs. A. niveus vs. A. tubungensis
A. niveus = 10,020 + 3,2353 * A. tubungensis = 10,945 + 5,4122 *
Corrlation: r = ,57879 Corrlation: r = ,70335
28 32

26 30

24 28

22 26

20 24

A. tubungensis
22
A. niveus

18
20
16
18
14
16
12
14
10
12
8
10
6
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0 8
95% de confiance 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de confiance

(D) P. viridicatum C) P. citrinum

vs . P.viridic atum vs. P.citrinum
P.viridic atum = 11,079 - 1,212 * P.citrinum = 12,154 - 1,283 *
C orrlation: r = -,3267 Corrlation: r = -,3866
18 16

16
14
14

12 12
P.viridicatum

P.citrinum

10
10
8

8
6

4
6

2
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
4
95% de c onfianc e 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de confiance

(F) T. atraviride (E) T. viride

vs . T. atraviride vs. T. viride
T. atraviride = 11,331 - 1,011 * T. viride = 12,900 - 2,302 *
C orrlation: r = -,2333 Corrlation: r = -,6188
20 16

18

14
16

14
12
T. atraviride

12
T. viride

10 10

8
8
6

4 6

2
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de c onfianc e 4
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de confiance

27

69
 (H) E. rubrum (G) F. cladosporium
vs. E.rubrum vs. F. cladosporium
* E.rubrum = 10,546 - ,8437 * F. cladosporium = 9,3922 - ,2237
Corrlation: r = -,2027 Corrlation: r = -,0586
16 16

14 14

12 12

F. cladosporium
E.rubrum

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de confiance 95% de confiance

(I)MM. racemosum
vs. M. racemosum
* M. racemosum = 10,787 - 1,157
Corrlation: r = -,3148
18

16

14

12
M. racemosum

10

2
0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
95% de confiance

27

)) (r = -0.83 (16
. A. tubingensis A. niveus

r = 0.58 r = 0.70 ) .(16

) (B A 27
A. tubingensis = 10.94 + 5.41 x :
. A. niveus = 10.02 + 3.23 x

T. viride ) r = -0.62 (16

: . T. viride = 12.9 + 2.3 x

70
 M. rocemosum P. viridicatum P. citrinum
r = -0.31 r = -0.33 r = -0.39 ) (16
:

P. citrinum = 12.15 + 1.28 x

P. viridicatum = 10.94 + 5.41 x

M. rocesmosum = 10.94 + 5.41 x

E. rubrum F. cladosporium T. atraviride

.

10 -4

1- 10-4

28
HgCl2 0.5 10 ppm .
A. tubingensis A. niveus
. 2.5 ppm
A. tubingensis A. niveus
.

71
 2- 10-4 A. tubingensis A. niveus

1 -2- 10-4 A. tubingensis A. niveus

29 A. tubingensis

30 A. niveus

72
 19
A. tubingensis A. niveus

A. tubingensis

*-0,73
*0,05 *0,85
*0,98 *0,04 *0,89
A. niveus

1,00
1,00 *-0,63
1,00 *-0,77 *0,89
1,00 *0,97 *-0,77 *0,95
* P<0.05

29 30 19
HgCl2 . ppm5
r=-0.73
A. tubingensis r=-0.63 A. niveus
(r=-0.04 r=-0.05) A. tubingensis
A. niveus ) .(r=-0.77

0.85 A. tubingensis 0.89 A. niveus .

73
 2 -2- 10-4

31 A. tubingensis A. niveus
HgCl2

74
 )(A

(B) 2.5 gHg/ml

(C) 5gHg/ml

32 A. tubingensis HgCl2

75
 )(A

(B) 2.5 gHg/ml

(C) 5gHg/ml

33 A. niveus HgCl2

76
 *

)(A )(B

34 ) (% A. tubingensis A. niveus .HgCl2

.
2.5 ppm .
.
Glycolic 2.5 ppm
A. tubingensis Hg . 5 ppm A. niveus

.Hg maleic
A. tubingensis Hg
. A. niveus Fumaric
A. niveus .
.5 ppm Succinic
A. tubingensis
A. niveus
.

77
 3 -2- 10-4

)(A

(2.5) (B) 2.5 gHg/ml1

(C) 5gHg/ml

35 A. tubingensis HgCl2

78
 )(A

(C) 2.5gHg/ml

(C) 5gHg/ml

36 A. niveus HgCl2

79
 )(A )(B

37 A. tubingensis A. niveus .HgCl2

.
A. tubingensis 6 .
( %51.65) palmitic .(% 35.95 ) myristic
butyric stearic % 1.49
% 1.15 . capric % 0.99
.% 8.76 A.
tubingensis
myritic butyric stearic
. A. tubingensis palmitic %72.45 2.5 ppm
.5 ppm
capric
.10ppm A. niveus 5
) .( % 1.67 myristic
% 90.21 palmitic % 3.75 linoleic .% 4.37

80
stearic ( profile)
.(6:0) capric ( 4 :0) butyric (14:0) myristic (16:0 ) palmitic (18:0)
(18 :2 9.19)
.linoleic

4 -2- 10-4

A. tubingensis 20
.HgCl2 A. niveus

(g/g)
5 2.5 0
+ - - Grisofrelin 1
+ + + Cytochalasine 2
+ + + Rubrofusarine 3
+ + + Hevalonic acid 4
+ - - Desturkin 5
+ - - Ochratoxin 6

A. tubingensis
+ + + 5-hydroxyaspernten 7
+ + + Xanthocillin 8
- - + Rugulovasine 9
- - + Physodic acid 10
+ + + Dehydroxycarolic acid 11
+ - - Carolic acid 12
- + - Wartmanin 13
+ - - Unknown Rf = 2 14
+ + + Unknown Rf = 6 15
+ + + Unknown Rf = 10 16
+ + + Unknown Rf = 63 17
- + + Scytalone 1
+ + - Brivianamide B 2
+ - - Destruxin A 3
+ + + Grseofulvin 4
A. niveus

+ + + Hevalonic acid 5
+ + + Cytochalasin 6
- + - Erthroskyrine 7
+ + + Gradiolic acid 8
- + + Carlosic acid 9
- + - Stiptatic acid 10
- + - Unknown Rf = 55 11

81
 5 -2- 10-4

(A) 1 gHg/ml )(A

(C) 5 gHg/ml (B) 2.5 gHg/ml

(C) 10 gHg/ml
38 A. tubingensis
HgCl2

82
 (A) 1 gHg/ml )(A

(C) 5 gHg/ml (B) 2.5 gHg/ml

(C) 10 gHg/ml
39 A. niveus HgCl2

83
 )(A )(B

(C )(D

)(E )(F
40 ) (g/g A. tubingensis A. niveus HgCl2

84
 )(G )(H

)(I )(J

)(K )(L
40 ) (g/g A. tubingensis A. niveus HgCl2

85
 glutamic histidine argenine proline
glutamate ) (catabolismeglutamate
aspartate .-Ketoglutarate
. argenine
histidine glubamic aspartate
) A. tubingensis (A 40
5ppm .10 ppm ) A. niveus (B 40
1 ppm 2.5ppm
. proline
A. tubingensis
5 ppm 10 ppm
proline .A. niveus .
valine succinyl-coA
) A. tubingensis (C 40 ) A. niveus .(D 40
. Aspartic
.Oxaloacetate
. ) A. tubingensis (C 40
2.5 ppm
5 ppm .10 ppm ) A. niveus (D 40
1 ppm 2.5 ppm
. pyruvate
serine glycine alanine threanine

2.5ppm 5 ppm ) 10 ppm .(F E 40

2.5ppm

86

5 ppm
10ppm . glycine
glutathine serine
sphingol
. O-phosphe serine sphyngomgline
alanine threonine alanine
threonine
O-phospho threonine .serine leucine
lysine acetaocetyl-coA
. ) A. tubingensis (G 40
.10 ppm A. niveus
) (H 40 1 ppm )(
5 ppm .
phenylalanine tyrosine
A. tubingensis
2.5 ppm 5 ppm .10 ppm
A. niveus phenylalanine
2.5 ppm
. tyrosine
A. niveus .phenylalanine
fumarate oxalaocetate
acetocetyl-coA .acetyl-coA
cystine methionine
) A. tubingensis (K 40
2.5 ppm 5 ppm

87
 .10 ppm ) A. niveus (L 40
1ppm 2.5 ppm 5ppm
.10 ppm

6 -2- 10-4

)(A

(B) 2.5gHg/ml

(C) 5 gHg/ml
41 ) (KDa A. tubingensis
HgCl2

88
 21 ) (KDa A. tubingensis
.HgCl2

)(g/g
5 2.5 0

)(min )(min )(min
2.86 2.81 2.87
> 10.5 3.22 > 10.5 2.91 > 10.5 3.16
> 10.5 4.1 > 10.5 3 > 10.5 3.21
10.5 4.31 > 10.5 3.12 > 10.5 3.44
12 4.39 > 10.5 3.21 > 10.5 3.96
45 5.30 > 10.5 4.25 > 10.5 4.26
61 6.40 > 10.5 3.45 > 10.5 4.35
85 6.86 > 10.5 3.93 10.5 4.46
91 7.16 > 10.5 4.31 12 4.64
110 8.55 10.5 4.4 14 4.73
117 8.95 12 4.51 21.5 4.87
- - 14 4.67 45 5.29
- - 21.5 4.76 61 6.53
- - 33 5.02 85 6.85
- - 45 5.3 91 7.15
- - 61 6.45 93 7.52
- - 67 6.75 97 7.59
- - 85 6.98 110 8.9
- - 91 7.49 120 9.53
- - 97 7.65 125 10.66
- - 110 8.64 150 10.86
- - 117 8.95 200 12.57
- - 120 9.62 220 13.57
- - 125 10.6 250 13.97
- - 200 12.72 - -
- - 220 13.73 - -
- - < 250 14.98 - -

89
 )(A

(B) 2.5gHg/ml

(B) 5 gHg/ml
42 ) (KDa A. niveus
.HgCl2

90
 22 ) (KDa A. niveus
.HgCl2

)(g/g
5 2.5 0

)(min )(min )(min
2.79 2.88 2.81

> 10.5 3.74 > 10.5 3.5 > 10.5 3.4
> 10.5 3.91 > 10.5 4.03 > 10.5 3.66
> 10.5 4.31 10.5 4.56 > 10.5 3.76
10.5 4.53 12 4.59 > 10.5 3.91
12 4.77 14 4.91 10.5 4.3
14 4.83 21.5 5.13 12 4.68
25 5.05 23 5.20 14 4.81
33 5.31 33 5.26 25 5.08
45 5.6 45 5.38 33 5.35
61 6.09 61 5.82 45 5.43
66 7.23 63 5.9 61 6.45
97 7.61 85 6.39 91 7.2
150 11.23 97 7.55 97 7.49
- - 110 8.09 120 10.44

A. tubigensis A. niveus
2.5 5 ppm . 7
YES . ) A. tubigensis (21
2.5ppm KDa
10.5 .
93 KDa .150 KDa 5 ppm
6 10.5 KDa 14
34 KDa 93 KDa 97 KDa
.120 KDa ) A. niveus (22
A. tubigensis
10.5 KDa 117 KDa 110 93 85 67
.125 KDa

91
 2.5ppm 10.5 KDa
125 KDa 85
KDa . 110 KDa A. niveus 10 ppm
10.5 KDa
93 .120 KDa ) (110 KDa 85 KDa
.2.5 ppm ) (10 ppm
150KDa .2.5 ppm

7 -2- 10-4

23 HgCl2 A. niveus A. tubigensis

)(
7 3

0.8 6.2 0.8 14.3 0.9 15.3 3.1 7.9 (U/mg protein) SOD
1.8 38.7 1.7 13.9 1.4 13.5 0.8 4.5 (U/mg protein) CAT

A. tubigensis
54 2590 30 1020 50 1001 20 604 (U/mg protein) GPx
5- 5- 5- 5-
)10(2.862 )10(2.880 )10(6.740.3 )10(1.525 (U/mg protein) G6PDH
0.05 0.4 0.8 4.2 0.8 6 0.9 3 (nmol/mg protein ) GSH
0.95 9.19 0.753.16 0.358.75 0.95 3.06
8.1 40.34 2.4 20.6 2.6 30.4 1.9 15.3 (U/mg protein) SOD
1.7 15.3 1.4 24.8 4.8 20.1 0.9 9.4 (U/mg protein) CAT A. niveus
36 1900 34 1200 50 1500 31 890 (U/mg protein) GPx
5- 5- 5- 5-
)10(373.78 )10(3.425.6 )10(3.121.5 )10(2.110.5 (U/mg protein) G6PDH
1.2 12.1 2.1 18.3 0.8 3.2 0.8 7.4 (nmol/mg protein ) GSH
0.73 9.69 0.833.18 0.968.72 0.85 4.08

92
 (A) TA. tubingensis

(B) TA. niveus

43 A. niveus A. tubigensis
HgCl2

93
 43 A. tubigensis 5 ppm
SOD G6PDH 3
7 % 5.71 43.35 % 3.5 77.5
CAT
GPx 7.

3 ) (% 1.1995.23
7 . A. niveus 43 SOD G6PDH
3
7 CAT 3
7 .% 6.85 61.69 GPx
7 3
7
% 10.81 43.23
% 6.55 66.12 .
8 - 2- 10- 4 A. TubingensisA. niveus
1- 8 -2- 10-4
A. tubingensis

2.5 g/ml 0 g/ml

5 g/ml
44 A. tubingensis HgCl2

94
 A. niveus

2.5 g/ml 0 g/ml

5 g/ml
45 A. niveus HgCl2

24 A. tubingensis A. niveus

A. niveus A. tubingensis
5 2.5 0 5 2.5 0 )(g/ml
3.3 3.4 4.5 5.3 8.6 15
9x7 10.3 x 8.7 12.3 x 10.3 34.8 x 34 39.5 x 31.4 39 x 31.3
4.1 x 1.3 4.3 x2.2 5.6 x 2.4 6.4 x 2 8.1 x 2.6 15 x3.7 Primary strigmata
- - 4.5 x 2.2 4.6 x 1.7 7 x 2.7 8 x 3.8 Secondary strigmata
1.9 2 2.5 3 3.1 3.6
15.8 16.3 30.5 88.7 114 280.3

95
 2-8-2-10-4
A. tubingensis 1- 2- 8-2- 10-4

WO
SP N M

Pm
V
ER
M N
Cm
EDGs
)(A )(B
46 ) (A ) (B A. tubingensis

V ER

V M CW
SV

)(A )(B
A. tubingensis Hg 2.5 ppm A. tubingensis Hg 2.5 ppm
CW

)(C )(D
A. tubingensis Hg 5 ppm A. tubingensis Hg 5 ppm
47 ) (D B ) (C A A. tubingensis

96
 transmission lectron
46 ) (ascomycetes
spitzentioper electron opacity
shaped ) electron
(opaque ) .(monoglycoproteins ) (cw

.
A. tubigensis HgCl2
plasmolemma ] 47 ) (D B ) A
[(C HgCl2
. cw
) (lectron opaque
) (Sptun plasmolema
) (2.5 ppm
.

97
 A. niveus 2- 2- 8 -2- 10-4
CW M

V
N

A. niveus )(A
SR

ER CW
V
Cm
V
N
SV V
V V M SV M
ER
M M
V

)(C ) (D
A. niveus 2.5 ppm 5 A. niveus ppm

48 A. niveus ) (A )(C B

98
 CW Lb

V
V

Pn

)(A )(B

49 A. niveus )(B A

48 A. niveus ).(A

. .
.
.

. ]
[(C B) 48 ) (49




.

99
 -9- 10-4 RAPD-PCR A. TubingensisA. niveus

1 -9- 10-4 A. tubingensis

1 - 1-9-10-4 Primer 2

250

500

750
1000
1250
1308.3 1500

5 ppm 2.5 ppm Lader

50 RAPD-PCR A. tubingensis
) Primer 2 : 5-d (GTTTCGCTCC

2 -1-9-10-4 Primer 4

250

497.4 500

750
966.53 1000
1250
1320 1500
1473

5 ppm 2.5 ppm Lader

51 RAPD-PCR A. tubingensis
) Primer 4 : 5-d (AAGAGCCCT

100
 Primer 2 A .tubingensis
.1308.3 bp
) .(50 ) Primer 4 (51

1473 bp 1320 bp 966.53 bp497.4 bp
1320 bp
.51

2 -9- 10-4 A.niveus

Primer 2 1- 2-9-10-4

1846
1736
1651
1500
1343 1250

1000
750
1268

641 500

250

5 ppm 2.5 ppm Lader

52 RAPD-PCR A.niveus
) Primer 2 : 5-d (GTTTCGCTCC

101
 Primer 4 2 - 2-9-10-4

1558
1500
1239 1250
1102.3
1000
750
678
618
475.9 500

250

5 ppm 2.5 ppm Lader

53 RAPD-PCR A.niveus
) Primer 4 : 5-d (AAGAGCCCT

Primer 6 3-2-9-10-4

1758
1636 2000
1750
1355 1310 1500
1250
1000
830.3
750 750

500
453

250

5 ppm 2.5 ppm Lader

54 RAPD-PCR A.niveus
) Primer 6 : 5-d (CCCGTCAGCA

102
 A .niveus Primer 4
1558 bp 1102.3 bp 678.2 bp .53
1102.3 bp
. 678.2 bp 1558 bp
618.8 bp 475.9 bp
.1239 bp 618.8 bp 1102.3 bp
.53

Primer 2 1343
bp .

1846 bp 1736 bp 1651 bp 1417 bp
641 bp .52

Primer 6 A .niveus 750.7 bp

1758 bp 1636 bp 1355 bp 830.3 bp
453.3 bp .54

11-4

1- 11-4 )(isothermes

Freundlish Langmuir Freundlish Langmuir
Ce . Ln qe
qe

103
 1-1- 11-4 Langmuir

Langmuir
) ( enthalpies
) (29
Langmuir :

Ce 1 a L
= + Ce
qe KL KL
: K L, aL : .Langmuir
Langmuir KL = (mmol/ g) q
= qm m
aL
2 -1- 11-4 Freundlich
Freundlich
) (adsorbent
Langmuir .

= KF = bF Freudlich . Freundlich qe = K F CbFe

Lnqe = bF Ln Ce + Ln KF :

25 Langmuir Freundlish
A.ttubingensis
A . niveus
Freundlish Langmuir
qm KL aL/KL
R bF KF R 4
)(mmol/ g )(mg/g )(x 10 mol/l
A.ttubin
0.98 1.63 2.11 0.0082 0.89 9.42 121.3
gensis
0.94 0.93 4.85 0.0790 0.87 12.11 153.15 A . niveus

104
 25 Freundlish
Langmuir ).(0.94 0.98

Langmuir

. Langmuir
Langmuir
) Ng 2002
.(2005 Ozacar, sengil Langmuir

qm = KL . .25
aL

2- 11-4 )(Desorption
1-2- 11-4

55 A. tubingensis
.HgCl2 A. niveus

A. tubigensis A. niveus 10 ml 10 g/ml
5 7 55
% 65 - % 56.4
30 -15

105
 30
5 .7 30
5 .

2-2- 11-4

56 A. tubingensis A. niveus
. HgCl2

56
A. tubigensis A. niveus HCl 1M HCl
% 90 A. tubigensis % 80
A. niveus
.HCl

106
 3-3- 11-4

A. tubingensis A. niveus
%

57 A. tubingensis
A. niveus

NaOH
. 57
A. tubigensis . A. niveus

. Hg2+

107
 4 -2- 12-4

58 A. tubigensisA. niveus

A. tubigensis
6 / A. niveus
) (adsorption/desorption Hg2+ 1M HCl
) (56 .
5 ) (55
. 58
Hg2+ .

108
109
 -5

1 -5

) (APC B10
)
( .
.(1974) MCF pH
. HgS
SO2

.
(1997) Steinnes pH 6.86-4.6
Hg2+
.pH=7 4.6-4 pH
) Do Valle.(2005


. (2003) Tomiyasu
5
Biester ) (a 2002
.

) Macnab .(1997 Biester ) (b 2002
.

) (CuPb Zn
) Tack.(2005

110

) Adriano.(1995

) Takashi .(2003
.

. SO2
.

) .(1991 Schuster Trost
(1972) Bisque .
(1978) Fang (1978) Landa
.

) Hissler.(2006
Gotoh ) (1978


) (COOH
) (humic ) (fulvic

.

pH .

)(1991 Schuster
.


. ) (r = 0.71

111


) Kakeliya.(1976



.


.


.
) 6-1
(16
) (1.16 g 4

.
.

2-5

.
/ .
" "Zn, Cu, Cd
/ / ) Hiroki .(1992

) .(1985 Doelman

) Gadd .(1978 Griffithis
112
 Zn As Pb Cd Cu

.
Zn, Cu Geomyces Paecilomyces
Penicillium Oidodendrin
) (.(1988 Nordgren Trichoderma Tricherma hanatum
Zygorrhynchus moelleri chrysosporium pannrum asperum

Fusarium Paecilymyces Chaetomium Penicillium
) William . (1975 Pugh
Penicillium
) (Strain-specific Penicillium ochrochloum
Gadd) CuSO 4 (1984 Penicillium lilacinium
) Tatsuama .(1975 (1977) Smith
Phialophora verrucosa
Aureobasidium pullulans Epicoecum sp Gnomia
Pleurophomella sp Cladosporium sp platini
Pestalotiopsis Chaetomium .
Penicillium Pyrenophora avenae
Syncephalastrum racemosam Cladosporium cladosporates crustosum
.(1975 Ross) Ulocladium atrum

.




%50 700 M Jordan) Zn
.(1975 Lechevalier Ni
Co Fe Cu .

113
 Cu ) Ni 1,6 mM Cu (Ni
) Penicillium (60% Oidodenron Rhodorula Trichoderma
.Mucor Mortierella

) .(1978 Arnebrant

.

).(a 1993
A. tubingensis A.niveus

.
.
0.5 ppm
.
(1971) Greenaway
.



.

.

.
15 Baldrian (1997 ) Gabriel
Innotus obliquus S. hirsultum
. Lag
) Mandal .(1998 Palmans
) (1995 T. versicolor Hg

114
 . (2003) Baldrian
.

.
.
.
.

ATP ) Frostegard (1993


) .(2003 Baldrian


.

pH . Tobin ) (1984 Rhizopus arrhizus


) < 0.14 g/m2 ( .(1979) Soderstrom

.

) krantz-Rlker .(1996

.
Volvariella volrracea Cu Pb, Hg .
Pb
.Cd

115

.

.
) Gadd
.(1988 ) (limitating
. starvation
Zn, Cd, Hg pH
) (passive .

) (1988 Gadd .

) Townoley .(1986 Ross
) krantz-Rlker (1996 Penicillium
spinulasum
. Higham ) (1984

Paxillus involutus
Cd .
.
%50 % 30 % 20
) Blaudez .(2002

3-5

Phanerocheate . mM 0.25 0.05
chrysosporium
) Dhawale .(1996

116
 S. hirsutum Ganoderma
K luidum .lag phase
lag phase Pycnoporus cinnabarinus
) Mandal .(1998

. S. commune Cd
.
. K
D. quercia Cd
Gabriel) Cd
.(1996
.
Cd P. involutus
.
S. horsutum
0.25 mM Baldian) Cd
(1996 S. commune
).(2003 Baldrian

SH
. Cd Cu


) Stohs.(1995 Baghi


.
laccase
. laccases
.

117
 Arylalchol oxidase P. eryngu P. chrysosporium
-gluosidase T. gibbosa Glucosidases
Gloephyllum sepiarium Mansfield) G. trabeum.(1998

. Hg ribonuclease Wang) P. tuberregum
.(2000 superoxide dismutase

.
). (2003 Baldrian ) (O-2
)
(
) .(2003 Bladrian V. volvacea

) Purkayastha .(1994


. ) (immobilization

)
.(metallothioneins

.


white-rot Brown- rot ) .(Oxalate oxalic

) Sayer .(1997 Gadd

) Gadd . (1988 De Rom
.

118



.

).(2003 Mehrag

oxalic maleic citric

. Martino ) (2003

.
citric
maleic .

oxalic

) Ahonen-Jonnarth .(2000
oxalic .
oxalic
oxalic .

.
.
.

) Weber de
.(1996 Bont
. palmitic .
) (2007 palmitic Bernat Dlugonski

119
 Cunninghamella elegans tributylin chloride
xenbiotic

) .(biocid Mysyatina (2000) Funtikova
ATPase
Kuyyakamond (1992 ) Quesnol chlorhexidine
ATPase E. coli .


.

.

.
Hennebert) 1962
A. flavus .(1998 Vancanneyt kulik (1970) Brooks
A. fumugatus A. ochraceus
. A. flavus
A. flavus A. parasiticus
.
) Guimaras-soares (2006
63 KDa
Cd . Joho) (1985
30 KDa Cd S. servisiae Cd
70 KDa %70
) .(1978 Macara SH

120

) Guimaras-soares (2006
) (ROS peroxyl ) Bai
.(2003
metallothionins
) Ghoshal (1997 S. cerevisiae
ROS peroxyls ) Miura .(1997


Bai ) DNA (2003 ) Quesada
.(1996

.
.


.
) (anabolic ) (catabolic
) (control ) (regulation .

ATP ase
tonoplost-H+ .tonoplast H+ Phosphatase
.

.

S-S
.Coenzym-A

121

Zn2+ Cu2+



.(1993 Gadd) metallothionins
) (ROS

) Bai (2003

.
.
HgCl2

CAT SOD GPX G6PDH .GSH
CAT A. tubingensis SOD A .niveus
HgCl2 3 7
O-2 Pocsi) H2O2.(2004
H2O2
OH Fenton Peroxidase
) Kwon .(2001 Anderson CAT A. niveus
HgCl2
7.

3 7 .
.
GSH
.
G6PDH NADPH
) Pocsi (2004

122
 SH GR . SOD
A.tubingensis 7 CAT
SOD
SOD
Culotte ) metallothionin.( 1995
GSH
GSH GSH-
) Pocsi (2004 GSH phytochelatin ) Clemens
(2003 Simin GSH
) .(2004 Zak
S. cerevisiac Cd-bis-glutathionate
Lie ) ABC- Transport YCF1 .(1997 Cd
( Cd-(GSH)2 Cds-crisallites coated .(2000 Poninckx) GSH

. X
X

) (oxidation state . Mullen ) (1986
Ag2+

.X
Mclean (2001) Beveridge Pseudomonas
X Cr(VI)
) Cr(III
.
.
(1988) Beveridge TEM EDS Cr(III)
.

123

.
) (
.
.

.
) (cycling
.
A. tubingensis A. niveus .
Hg A. tubingensis A. niveus
ascrobate peroxide catalase peroxidase
phytochelatin sequestration
.

HgCl2
.
.
X-Ray photo electron spectroscopy chemical
Sar Gssun Fe2+
Fe3+ ) Cr (VI ) Cr (III
) Nelean .(2001 Beveridge

. .
Geordan ) (1996
Neeta Candida albicans Carera Papaya lute .
(2006) Abhishek
Phythuin ultimum Thym Lavender Oil

. Abyane) (2006 A. purasiticus

124
 Cotton-leuf volatil

.Aflatoxin A. niveus
50

Oxalic acid 100
XRD ) Papini.(2001
) (1993 Gadd
.




S-adenosyl- methionne sufonuim )Amor
.(2000

DNA ) (RAPD-fingerprinting
.DNA RAPD-PCR
. RAPD
: DNA
.
locci
.

.

.


.

125

) Bridge
.(1998

4 -5

) Hg2+ (

) (

) Silver
.(1996 Hobman
mer Hg2+ Hg2+
) (cascade cysteine
) (thiol bucket brigade
cysteine Mercuric reduetase .

) (59 B mer P Hg2+ ) periplasm
( ) ( .
72 ) (
4 -
gly-met asp Cys33- Ala-Ala -Cys 36 pro Hg2+ S-
Hg-S ) .(1999 Miller Mer P Hg2+
cysteine Met T Mer T
3 Barkay) - 2003 Wilson
(2000 cysteine Hg2+
.Mer P cysteine
Hg2+ cysteine ) Wilson .(2000

126
)(A

)(B

59 ) Silver .(1996 Hobman

127
 ATP Hg2+ Mer T
cystein cysteine .
Mer T Mer operen
Mer C. Mer F Mer C 4 Mer T
Mer F Mer T ) ( Mer F Mer C Mer T
) (
Mer E
.
Hg2+
Mer T Mercury reductase
) glutathione Mercaptoethanol
( .
cysteine-to-Cysteine ) (N cysteine Mercuric
.(Mer A) reductase Mer A ) ( streptomyces
N ) ( Bacillus
. Mer P
Hg2+ N- Mercuric reductase
Mercuric ) (proteolytic ) (expression )
( reductase Mercuric reductase
Pai) Bacillus (1991
Mer P Tn 501 ) Ledwige .(2005
Mercuric reductase Bacillus
Mer P
Mer A N in vitro N
. Hg2+
cysteine cysteine
) (C (C 558 C 559) cysteine Mer
. A cysteine
. Hg2+ Mercuric reductase Cys 557 - 558

128
 thiolthiol thiol cys 135 cys 140
cys 135 cys 140 ) . (2003 Backay Hg2+
.FAD cystein
) Pai (1991 Tyr .Hg2+
Mercuric reductase FAD Flavoprotein
glutathione reductase ) lipoamide dehydrogenase
(
. organomercurial
)Pr (ton Hg-C ) Begley (2004 Ealick
cysteine
) Begley (2004 Ealick tyrosine

organomercurial . ) (mutagenisis
Benison) lyase (2004
silver) Hg-C .(2007 Hobman cys 96) cysteine
cys117 (cys 159 Mer B R831
organomercurial lyase cys 96 ) cys 159 (cys117
in vitro cys117
) Benison .(2004 cys 160 organomercurial lyase
) cysteine (cys 159 .
cys 215 cys 216 cysteine C
organomercurial lyase . cys 196
Hg H+ cys 96 tyr 93
aspartate glutamate ) asp 98 organomercurial lyase
( Hg - C ) (alkyl )(aryl
) Benison Barkay 2004 .(2003 Hg
Hg 2+
) organomercurial lyase (
) (thiols
cysteines
C Mercuric reductase ) Benison .(2004

129
 Mer B

.
Mer R
) (activators
) (regulators ) Permina ( 2006
) (stress ) (nonmetal
) silver .(2007 Hobman Mer R
Hg2+ 140 )
Mer R streptongces luidans Mer R
) (repressor .
Mer R Mer R Cue R Znt R
Change la ) E. coli (2003 .
Mer promotor Mer R
Mer R
Mer R Cue R Znt R Mer R
Mer Hg2+ .
Bacillus RC 607 Mer Mer R Tn 21Tn 501
Mer R Mer R )(homodimer
DNA ) (symmetrical 10 (elements) 35
) (promoter RNA polymerase .
/ RNA poly merase / apo - Mer
DNA ) .(promoter DNA Mer
35 10 19 ) (bp
18 -16 ) .(bp
RNA polymerase .
(cys 82 ) cysteine ) (monomers Mer R
cys 117 ) cysteine (cys 126 ) (monomers Mer
) (coordination . Mer homodimer
Mer R Mer R

130
 Mer R CueR Znt R
Mer Hg2+ Mer homdimer
DNA DNA Mer
Mer homdimer 10 35 MER
) .(Mer promobor Hg2+ Hg2+
.
DNA merD DNA N
Mer D .Mer R Mer D
Mer . Mer D
/ Mer / Mer O / P Hg2+ apo Mer R
Champier) Mer ( 2004

5 -5

.
Saglam ) .
.(2002
Langmuir Freudrdlish

.

pH .

.


.
ligand
.
131

) Gupa .(2000
.

) (glucan ) (chitin monans . phospho- manans
ligand .
.(1980 Farkas) % 90


) ( ) .(1980 Farkas % 30 Aspergillus niger
) Muzzorilli .(1982 Tranfari
Muraleedharan (1990) Venkobachar
Ganoderma lucidum
.

) (
.
) Ahliluwalia .(2007 Goyal

) Tobin
(1984 .
ligand

.
.
X

) Gupta.(2000

) (1989 Beveridge, Doyle

132



.

:
.
.

.
.


.

.

) (saturation kinetics .
.
.

Rhizopus arrhizus
Phanerochaete chrysosporium
. A. niger 5
) Saglam .(2002
Stirring ) (support

( ) (Sorbent

.

133
 6- 5

Langmuir.Freundlish

Hg2+ /
) .(10 g/ml

.

.Hg2+

.
) (Hg2+ ) (Hg

.


) (

.

A. tubingensis

.

134

.



.
.

135
136
 -7

2004

18
4 2300-870 ) D1 :( 3250- 2600) D2 ( 5000-4500) D3 ( D4
) 6850-6300( ) 20-0( ) 40-20
( .
.HgCl2


.

. glutathione peroxidase catalase (SOD) suprooxide dismutase

. RAPD-PCR



.


. APC pH
.
. Pearson
(r = -0.88) pH ).(r = 0.71

.g/g 1.16

137
 . .
9 A. niveus A. tubingensis
E. F. cladosporium T. atraviride T. viride P. viridicatum P. citrinum
. M. racemosum tuburum A. tubingensis
A. niveus % 4.10 23 % 3.99 18.11 .
) (APC
.
. A. niveus A. tubingensis
.
.

) ( .
.
RAPD-PCR
.

Langmuir Freundlish Freundlish
Freundlish
.
% 90 A. tubingensis
.

138
 Effect of mercury pollution on the distribution of soil fungi at the
district of Azzaba.

Abstract

This is the first ever study concerned with evaluation of the contents and
distribution of mercury at the vicinity of the closed factory of mercury located
at Azzaba district, Eastern Algeria, since its closure. Total mercury content, as
well as the physicochemical characteristics of the agricultural soils was studied
in 18 sites. The soil specimens were collected fume the sites of the study in two
levels of depth: a 0 20 cm and b- 20-40 cm. The sites of study were divided
into four groups designated D1-D4 according to the distance from the mercury
factory remains; D1 (870-2300m) D2 (2600-3250), D3 (4500-5000m) and D4
(6300-6850m). Distribution of fungi in the soil correlated to the concentrations
of mercury was the parameter of this study. The fungal ecology of (the zone) of
study was investigated. The fungi were isolated, purified and identified from the
shallow soil specimens collected from all the sites of the study. The effect of
mercury on the isolated fungi was studied. Fungal isolates were grown in media
containing different concentrations of HgCl2 as sources of mercury among those
isolates. In addition, the mechanisms of resistance to mercury in the mercury
resistant isolated fungi were studied via bioaccumulation, analysis of fatty acid,
amino acids, organic acids, thiols, secondary metabolites, and proteins in fungi.
The mercury induced oxidant stress on two mercury resistant fungal isolates, A.
tubingensis and A. niveus, was studied through the determination of the
antioxidant enzymatic activity of superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione
peroxidase. This was illustrated through analysis of the fungal morphology as
seen by light microscopy and the study of cellular organelles as seen by electron
microscopy and as confirmed by RAPD-PCR manipulation. The possibility of
using the fungal biomass to scavenge the mercury released intro drainage water
of mercurial industries and recover it for further use without any environmental
pollution was studied. This was achieved by adsorption of mercury by the
inactivated fungal mycelia of mercury resistant fungi. The isotherm curves
which control the adsorption processes were determined. Texture classification
of the soil showed that the soils were clay in 5 sites, sandy clay beam in 3 sites,
and silty beam in the other sites. Study of the pH of the soil specimens showed
that all of the specimens were acidic and the acidity increases as the sites
become closer to the mercury factory remains. All the studied soil specimens
showed low content of the organic matter. The calcium carbonate content of the
studied soil specimens (as a parameter of their calcium content) indicated the
decrease of CaCo3 in the soil with the increase in distance far from the factory
remains. No difference in CaCo3 content was detected on the two studied
depths. The cation exchange capacity of the studied soil specimens showed

139
medium levels. Analysis of principal component (APC) indicates that the pH is
the dominant factor which controls the behavior of the other soil characteristics.
Mercury, prevailing in the tops soil specimens decreased with depth and
distance away off the factory. Pearsons coefficient reveals that mercury is very
highly negatively correlated with the pH (r = - 0.88) and highly positively
correlated with sand (r = 0.71). According to the content of clay and organic in
the soil of the studied zone, using the equation of Adriano et al, 1995, at 1.16
g/g. Topsoil specimens of the site borated close to the factory remains are
considered polluted because their total mercury content exceeded the admissible
limit motioned above. The concentration of mercury in the other sites study and
in deep soil specimens of all sites were within the admissible limit. The amount
of water soluble mercury in all of the studied samples was beyond the limit of
detection. Nine fungal species were isolated during the current study. This
includes A. tubingensis, A. niveus, P. citrinum, P. viridicatum, T. viride, T.
atraviride, F. cladosporium, E. tuburum, M. racemoum. The most prominent
fungi in the topsoil specimens were A. tubingensis and A. niveus with a
frequency of 23.77 4.10 % and 18.11 3.99 % respectively. APC analysis
indicated that the distance from the mercury factory remains was the critical
factor in determing the distribution of the fungal ecology in the studied area.
The isolated fungi differed in their response to the presence of HgCl2 in the
growth medium. The most mercury resistant isolate were A. Tubingensis and A.
niveus. It found that mercury has an adverse affect on their cellular level. It
causes oxidant stress in the mercury resistant fungi, through their effect in the
activity of antioxidant enzymes. The harmful effect of mercury at the two
species is expressed at the morphological level by the reduction of the conidies,
the head conidienne and the reduction in the width of the hyphes and the
conidiophores. At the cellular level, it is translated by a tearing of the cellulose
wall, a distance of the cytoplasmic membrane and a deformation of the
cellularorganites (mitochondries, vacuoles, endoplasmic reticulum). The
oxidiative stress caused by mercury is characterized by the disturbance of the
enzymatic activity of the enzymes antioxidantes. Analysis RAPD-PCR
revealed new different bands genomic between the two species, which reflects
the capital role of the hereditary potential of resistance fungi of soil to mercury.
The adsorption of mercury by the inactive biomass of the two resistant species
is controlled by isotherms belonging to the models of Langmuir and
Freundlish. Considering the very significant coefficient of correlation of the
linear regression of the isotherme of Freundlish, it could better be placed for
the description of the adsorption of mercury by the inactived biomass of the
two studied species. The desorption of mercury by the inactive biomass of
species A. tubingensis is about more 90 % what allows its re-use for the
recovery of mercury from their aqueous solutions.

140
Impact de pollution par le mercure sur la rpartition des champignons du
sol dans la rgion de Azzaba

Rsum

Dans le cadre de cette tude nous nous proposons, dans une premire tape,
dvaluer la teneur en mercure total (Hg) dans les sols vocation agricole
situs au voisinage de lancienne usine de mercure dAzzaba (wilaya de
Skikda-Est Algrien), ferme, il y a de cela trois ans. Afin de mettre en
vidence les phnomnes de microvariabilit et linfluence de lusine sur le
profil mercuriel, tant vertical quhorizontal, nous avons procd des
prlvements de sol en surface et en profondeur. Ainsi 18 sites ont t choisis
et rpartis en quatre groupes selon leur distance par rapport lusine, D1 (870-
2300 m), D2 (2600-3250 m), D3 (4500-5000 m) et D4 (6300-6850 m). Les
prlvements en profondeur se font 0-20 et 20-40 cm de profondeur.Dans
une seconde tape, ltude de la distribution des champignons du sol corrle
la concentration du mercure fut notre objectif primordial. Ainsi, les myctes des
chantillons collectes de la profondeur 0-20 cm ont t isoles, purifies et
identifies. Limpact du mercure sur les espces isoles a t valu en
utilisant des milieux de cultures contenant diffrentes concentrations de
mercure sous forme de HgCl2. Les mcanicismes de la rsistance au mercure
chez les espces rsistantes furent lucids par le biais de la bioaccumulation
du mercure, le dosage des acides organiques, les acides gras, les acides
amins, les protines, les thiols et les mtabolites secondaires. Le stress
oxydant provoqu par le mercure a t tudi en dosant lactivit enzymatique
des enzymes antioxydants, la superoxide dismutase (SOD), la catalase (CAT),
et la glutathione peroxidase (GPX). Leffet du mercure a t illustr au niveau
morphologique par microscopie optique, au niveau des organites cellulaires
par microscopie lectronique et au niveau molculaire par des analyses
RAPD-PCR. Ladsorption du mercure par la biomasse inactive des espces
rsistantes fut dtermine par les constantes des isothermes qui gouvernent ce
phnomne.
Lanalyse granulomtrique a mis en vidence cinq sites de texture argileuse;
trois sites appartenant la classe Loamo-argilosableuse et le reste Laomo-limoneux.
Paralllement aux analyses physico-chimiques, nous avons men une tude
statistique (APC). Les rsultats de lanalyse statistique ont dmontr que le pH est le
facteur dominant. Une forte corrlation ngative mais hautement significative existe
entre le pH et la teneur en mercure avec un coefficient r = -0.88; et une corrlation
trs significative entre le pH et la teneur en sable (r = 0.71). Enfin les rsultats
obtenus montrent que les teneurs en mercure diminuent avec la profondeur et
lloignement par rapport lusine et restent en de de la valeur norme tolre en
fonction de la teneur en argile et en matire organique et qui est de 1.16 g/g. Par
contre, cette valeur est largement dpasse en surface dans les sites situs au
141
voisinage de lusine. Le taux du mercure hydrosoluble tait infrieur la limite de
dtection dans tous les chantillons tudis.
Ce travail a permet dobtention de neuf espces fongiques : A. tubingensis,
A. niveus, P. citrinum, P. viridicatum, T. viride, T. atraviride, F. cladosporium,
E. tuburum, M. racemoum. Les deux espces A. tubingensis et A. niveus sont
les plus dominantes avec une frquence de 23.77 4.10 % et 18.11 3.99 %.
Ltude statistique (APC) a montr que la distance par rapport lusine est le facteur
le plus important dans la rpartition des champignons du sol de la zone tudie.
Ltude de la tolrance des espces isoles au mercure a confirm que
A. tubingensis et A. niveus sont les plus rsistantes; seulement les paramteres
du mcanisme de la rsistante, slctionns dans notre tude, ont rvl une
variabilit trs importante entre les deux espces.
Leffet nocif du mercure chez les deux espces est manifest au niveau
morphologique par la rduction des conidies, de la tte conidienne et la
diminution de la largeur des hyphes et des conidiophores. Au niveau cellulaire,
il est traduit par un dchirement de la paroi cellulosique, un loignement de la
membrane cytoplasmique et une dformation des organites cellulaires
(mitochondries, vacuoles, rticulum endoplasmique). Le stress oxydant
provoqu par le mercure est caractris par la perturbation de lactivit
enzymatique des enzymes antioxidantes. Lanalyse RAPD-PCR a fait apparaitre
de nouvelles bandes gnomiques diffrentes entre les deux espces, ce qui
reflte le rle capital du potentiel hrditaire de la rsistance au mercure chez
les champignons du sol.
Ladsorption du mercure par la biomasse inactive des deux espces
rsistantes est gouverne par des isothermes appartenant aux modles de
Langmuir et Freundlish.Vu le coefficient de corrlation trs important de
l'isotherme de Freundlish, il pourrait tre mieux plac pour la description de
l'adsorption du mercure par la biomasse inactive des deux mycetes tudies. La
dsorption du mercure par la biomasse inactive de lespce A. tubingensis est de
lordre de plus 90 % ce qui permet sa rutilisation pour la rcupration du
mercure de ses solutions aqueuses.

142
143
 -7

1. Abyaneh MP ; Ghehfarokhi, M,S ; Kawachi, M ; Eslamifar A Schmidt OJ,

Schmidt , A ; Allameh , A ; Joshi nari, T ; (2006) . Ultrostructural evidences of
growth intibitory effects of a novel biocide, Kacid on a aflatoxigenic.Aspergillus
parasiticus Toxicin 48: 1075-1082

2. Adachi H, Ishii N, (2000). Effects of tokotrienols on life span and protein

carbonylation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journals of Gerontology, Series A, Biological
and Medical Sciences 55: B280-B285

3. Adriano, D.C. ; Chlopecka, A. ; Kaplan, D.I. Clusters, H.; Vangronsveld, J.

(1995). Soil contamination and remediation: philosophy, science and technology.
Contaminated soils, 3rd International Conference on the Biogeochemistry of Trace
elements, Paris (France), May, 15-19, 1995.

4. Ahluwalia, S.S; Goyal, D. (2007). Microbial and plant derived biomass for removal
of heary metals from wastewater. Bioressource technol, 98, 2243-2257.

5. Arnebrant K, Baath E, Nordgren A (1987) Copper tolerance of microfungi isolated

from polluted and unpolluted forest soil. Mycologia 79:890 -895.

6. Ashworth, L.J.; J.R. Amin, J. V. (1964). A mechanism for mercury tolerance in

fungi. Phytopathology 54, 1459-1463.

7. Baath, E (1991). Tolerance of copper by entomogenous fungi and the use of copper-
amended media for isolation of entomogenous fungi from soil .Mycol Res 95: 1140-
1152.

8. Bai, Z, Harvey LM, McNeil, B. (2003). Oxidative stress in submerged cultures of

fungi. Crit Rev Biotechnol; 23:267-302.

9. Baldrian P, Gabriel J, Nerud, F. (1996). Effect of cadmium on the ligninolytic

activity of Stereum hirsutum and Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Folia
Microbiol;41:363-7.

10. Baldrian P, Gabriel J. (1997).Effect of heavy metals on the growth of selected wood-
rotting basidiomycetes. Folia Microbiol;42: 521-3.

11. Baldrian, P. (2003). Interaction of heavy metals with white- rot fungi. Enz Micidsiol,
32, 78-91.

12. Barkay T, Miller SM, Summers A.O (2003). Bacterial mercury resistance from
atoms to ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27:355384

144
13. Barkay T, Miller SM, Summers AO (2003). Bacterial mercury resistance from
atoms to ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27:355-384.

14. Bath, E, Soderstrom, B. (1980) .Comparison of the agar film and membrane filter
methods for the estimation of hyphal lengths in soil with particular reference the effect
of magnification. Soil Biol Biochem 12:385- 387.

15. Begley TP, Ealick SE (2004). Enzymatic reactions involving novel mechanisms of
carbonation stabilization. Curr opin Chem Biol 8:508-515.

16. Benison GC, Di Lello P, Shokes JE, Cosper NJ, Scott RA, Legault P, Omichinski
JG (2004) .A stable mercury-containing complex of the organomercurial lyase MerB:
catalysis, product release, and direct transfer to MerA. Biochemistry

17. Beverridge, T.C., Doyle, R.J., (1989). Metal Ions and Bacteria. Wiley Interscience,
New York.

18. Biester, H.; Mller, G.; Schler, H.F. (2002 a). Estimating distribution and retention
of mercury in Three different soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants:
part I. Science of the Total Environment 284, 177189.

19. Biester, H.; Mller, G.; Schler, H.F. (2002 b). Binding and mobility of mercury in
soils contaminated by emissions from chlor-alkali plants/ Science of the Total
Environment 284, 191203.

20. Birgersson, B., Drakenberg, T. & Neville, G. A. (1973). Mercury (II) complexes of
methionine. Acta Chemica Scandinavica 27, 3953-3960.

21. Brown, N. L., C.-L. Choi, J. Grinsted, M. H. Richmond, andP. R. Whitehead.

(1980). Nucleotide sequences at the ends of the mercury resistance transposon,
Tn501. Nucleic Acids Res. 8:1933-1945.

22. Champier L, Duarte V, Michaud-Soret I, Coves J (2004). Characterization of the

MerD protein from ralstonia metallidurans CH34: a possible role in bacterial mercury
resistance by switching off induction of the mer operon. Mol Microbiol 52:1475-1485.

23. Champier L, Duarte V, Michaud-Soret I, Coves J (2004). Characterization of the

MerD protein from Ralstonia metallidurans CH34: a possible role in bacterial mercury
resistance by switching off the induction of the mer operon. Mol Microbiol 52:1475
1485

24. Cook RC, Rayner ADM (1984). Ecology of saptotrophic fungi. Longman, London.

145
25. Cottenie, A. ; Verloo, M. ; Velghe, G. ; Kiekens, L. (1979). Analytical methods for
plants and soils. Laboratory of Anlytical and Agrochemistry State, University of
Ghent-Belgium, p 21-38

26. Dameron, C. T., Smith, B. R. & Winge, D. R. (1989). Glutathione-coated cadmium-

sulphide crystallites in Candida glabrata. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 264:
17355-17360.

27. Deleo, P.C.; Ehrlich. H.L (1994). Rduction of exavalent chromium by pseudomonas
fluoreans LB 300 in batch and continuous cultures. Appl Microbiol. Biotech 40: 765-
759.
28. Dhawale, S.S.; Lane, A.C.; Dhawale, S.W. (1996). Effects of mercury on the xhite-rot
fungus Phanerocheate chrysosporium . Bull. Environ. Contamn. Toxicol. 56, 397-407

29. Do Valle C.M.; Santana; G.P.; Augusti, R.; Egreja Filho, F.B.;
Windmller, C.C. (2005). Speciation and quantification of mercury in Oxisol,
Ultisol, and Spodosol from Amazon (Manaus, Brazil). Chemosphere 58, 779
792.

30. Doelman, P. (1985). Resistance of soil microbial communities to heavy metals. In:
Jensen V, Kjoller A, Sorensen LH (eds) Microbial communities in soil. Elsevier,
London, pp 369-384.

31. Domsch K. H., Gams W. and Anderson T. H. (1980). Compendium of Soil Fungi.
Academie Press, London.

32. Ellman, G. L. (1959). Tissue sulfhydryl groups. Archives of Biochemistry and

Biophysics 82: 70-77.

33. Emri, T., Pocsi, I., Szentirmai, A., (1998). Analysis of the oxidative stress
response of Penicillium chrysogenum to menadione. Free Radical Research 30,
125-132

34. Engst S, Miller SM (1999). Alternative routes for entry of HgX2 into the active site of
mercuric ion reductase depend on the nature of the X ligands. Biochemistry 38:3519
3529

35. Engst S, Millet S.M. (1998). Rapid reduction of Hg(II) by mercuric ion reductase
does not require the conserved C-terminal cysteine pair using HgBr2 as the substrate.
Biochemistry 37:11496-11507.

36. Fang, S.C. (1978). Sorption and transformation of mercury vapor by dry soil. Environ.
Sci. Tcchnol. 12:285-288.

37. Farkas, V., (1980). Biosynthesis of cell wall of fungi. Microbiological Reviews 44m
117-141.

146
38. Farkas, V., (1980). Biosynthesis of cell wall of fungi. Microbiological Reviews 44,
117-141.

39. Fitzgerald, W.F. (1995). Is mercury increasing in the atmosphere ? The need for an
atmosphere network. Water, Air, Soil Pollution 80, 245-254.

40. Fritze H, Baath, E. (1993). Microfungal Species composition and fungal biomass in a
coniferous forest soil polluted by alkaline deposition. Microbial Ecol 25: 83 -92

41. Frostcgard, A, Tunlid A, Baath E. (1993). Phospholipid fatty acid composition,

biomass, and activity of microbial communities from two soil types experimentally
exposed to different heavy metals. Appi Environ Microbiol,59:3605-17.

42. Furukawa, K., T. Suzuki, and K. Tonomura. (1969). Decomposition of organic

mercurial compounds by mercury-resistant bacteria. Agric. Biol. Chem. 33:128-
130.

43. Furukawa, K.,., Tonomura, K. (1969). Decomposition of organic mercurial

compounds by mercury-resistant bacteria, Agric. Bin!. Chem. (Tokyo), 33, 12K 130

44. Furukawa, K; Suzuki, T.,.Tonomura, K. (1969).Decomposition of organic mercurial

compounds by mercury resistant bacteria . Agric. Biol. Chem. 33:128-130.

45. Gabriel. J.; Kofronova, O.; Rysolvsky, P (1996). Accumulation and effect of
cadmium in the wood-rotting basidiomycetes Daedalea quercina Bull.
Environ.Contamn.Toxicol., 57, 383-390.

46. Gadd, G.M . (1993 a) Interaction of fungi with toxic metals. New Phytol 124:25- 60

47. Gadd, G.M .(1993b). Microbial formation and transformation of organometallic and
organometalloid compounds. FEMS Microbiol Rev 11: 297 -316.

48. Gadd G. M. (1988) Accumulation of metals by microorganisms and algae. In

Biotechnology A Comprehenswe Treatise (H. J. Rehm and G. Reed, Eds), pp. 401-
133. VCH Verlagsgeselischaft, Weinheim.

49. Gadd G.M, (1993). Interaction of fungal production of citric acid and oxalic acid :
importance in metal speciation, physiology and biogeochemical processes. Adv Micro
Phys 41 : 47-92.

50. Gadd GM (1990). Metal tolerance. In: Edwards C (ed) Microbiology of extreme
environments. Open University press, Milton Keynes, pp 178 -210.

147
51. Gadd GM (1992 b) Metals and microorganisms : a problem of definition .FEMS
Microbiol lett 100 : 197 -204

52. Gadd, G.M., De Rom, L. (1988).Biosorption of copper by fungal melanins. Appl.

Microbiol. Biotechnol. , 29, 610-619.

53. Gadd, G.M., Griffiths A.J. (1978). Microorganisms and heavy metal toxicity.
Microbial Ecol 4: 303 -317

54. Ghoshal K, Majumder S, Li Z, Bray T.M, Jacob S.T. (1999). Transcriptional

induction ofinetallothionein-I and -II genes in the livers of Cu. Zn-superoxide
dismulase knockout mice. Biochem Biophys Res Commun,264 :735 42.

55. Giordani, R.; Cardenas, M.L, Moulin-Traffort, J.; Regli, P.; (1996). Fungicidal
activity of latex sap from Cervia papaya and antifungal effect of D-(+)- glucisamine on
Condida albinas growth. My coses39, 103-110.

56. Gotoh, S. ; Tkudome, S. ; Koga,H. (1978). Mercuty in soil derived from igneous
rock I northern Kyushu, Japan. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 24(3), 391-406.

57. Greenaway, W. (1971). Relationship between mercury resistance and pigment

production in Pyrenophora avenae. Transactions of the British Mycological Society
56, 37-44.

58. Greenaway, W. (1972 a). Permeability of phenyl-Hg+-resistant and phenyl-Hg+-

susceptible isolates of Pyrenophora avenae to the phenyl-Hg+ ion. Journal of
Microbiology 73, 251-255

59. Greenaway, W. (1972 b). Epiflora of oat seed treated with organomercury.
Transactions of the British Mycological Society 58, 321-327.

60. Guimaras-Soores, L ; Felicia, H ; Jao Bebiano, M ; Cassio, F ; (2006). Metal

binding proteins and peptides in the aquatic fuagi fontanos pora fusira mosa and
Flagellospora curta exposed to sever metal stress Sci. Total environ, 372, 148-156.

61. Gupta, R., Ahuja, P., Khan, S., Saxena, R.K., Mohapatra, M., (2000). Microbial
biosorbents: meetings challenges of heavy metals pollution in aqueous solution.
Current Science 78 (8), 967-973.

62. Hamdy, M.K., O.R. Noyes.(1975). Formation of methyl mercury by bacteria. Appl.
Microbiol. 30: 424-432.

63. Hart, P.J, Belbirine M.M, Ogihara M.L, Nersissian A.M, Weiss M.S, Valentine
J.S, Eisenberg D. (1999). A structure-base mechanism for copper-zinc superoxide
dismutase. Biochemistry 38: 2167-2178

148
64. Hatch, W.R. ; OTT, , W ;L. ; (1968). Determination of sub-microgram quantities of
mercury by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Analytical Chemistry 40, 2085-
2087.

65. Higham D., Sadier P. J. and Scawen M. D. (1984). Cadmium-resistant Pseudomonas

putida synthesizes novel cadmium proteins. Science 125, 1043-1046.

66. Hiroki, M (1992). Effects of heavy metal contamination on soil microbial population.
Soil Sci Plant Nutr 38: 141 -147

67. Hissler ; C. ; Probst, J. (2006). Impact of mercury atmospheric deposition on soils

and streams in a mountainous catchement (Vosges, Fance) polluted by Chlor-alkali
industrial activity: The important trpping role of the organic matter. Science of the
Total Environment 361, 163178.

68. Hobman JL, Wilkie J, Brown NL (2005) A design for life: prokaryotic metal-binding
MerR family regulators, Biometlas 18:429-436.
69. Hogg T.J., J.W.B. Stewart, and J.R. Bettany. 1978. Influence of the chemical form of
mercury on its adsorption and ability to leach through soils. J. Environ. Qual. 7:440-
444.

70. Hughes M.N, Poole R.K (1991). Metal speciation and microbial growth the hard
and soft facts. J Gen Microbiol 137: 725 -734

71. Izumi Y, Furuya Y, Yamada H. (1990). Purification and properties of pyranose

oxidase from basidiomycetous fungus 52. Agric Biol Chem,54:1393-9.

72. Jamieson, D.J., (1995). The effect of oxidative stress on Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Redox Report 1, 89-95.

73. Jenson, S. A.; Jernelov, A. (1969). Biological methylation of mercury in aquatic

organisms, Nature, 223, 753-754

74. Joho M.; Imai M, Murayama T. (1985). Different distribution of Cd2+ between Cd-
sensitive and Cd-resistant strains of Succharomyces cerevisiae. J Gen
Microbiol,131:53-56.

75. Kakeliya, S.A. ; Ambokadze, A.N.; Gudushauri, M.P. (1976). Characteistic of

distribution of mercury mineralization in the ore provinces of Miditeranean belto (as
illustrated by greater Caucasus and Northen Algeria). Prob. Geol. Metallog. Kavk , 90-
112 . In Chimcal Abstracts, 88, 1978.

76. Kapoor, A. Viraraghavan,T. (1995). Fungal biosorption and alternative treatement

option of heavy metal bearing waster water : Areview .Biores TechnoL 53 : 196.

149
77. Kleckner, N. (1981). Transposable elements in prokaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet.
15:341-404.

78. Kranty- Rcker, C ; Allard, B ; Schnurer, J. (1996). Adsoption of II B-metals by

three common soil fungi composition and assessment of importance for metal
distribution in natural sol systems Siol boil. Biochem; 28 (7), 967-975.

79. Lander, L.1971.Biochemical model for the biological methylation of mercury

suggested from methylation studies in vivo with neurospora crassa . Nature (London)
230:452-454.

80. Landner, L. (1972). The biological alkylation of mercury. Biochemical Journal 130,
67-69.

81. Landner, L.W. (1971). Biochemical model for the biological methylation of
mercury suggested from methylation studies in vivo with Neurospora crassa.
Nature (London) 230:452-454.

82. Ledwidge R, Patel B, Dong A, Fiedler D, Falkowski M, Zelikova J, Summers A.O,

Pai EF, Miller S.M (2005).NmerA, the metal binding domain of mercuric ion
reductase, removes Hg2+ from proteins, delivers it to the catalytic core, and protects
cells under glutathione-depleted conditions. Biochemistry 44:11402-11416.

83. Li, Z. S., Lu, Y. P., Zhen, R. G., Szczypka, M., Thiele, D.). S Red, P. A: (1997) A
new pathway for vacuolar cadmium sequestration in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: YCFl-
catalyzed transport of bis (glutathionato) cadmium. Proceeding of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA 94: 42-47.

84. Lindqvist, O. ; Johansson, K. ; Aastrop, M. ; Anderson, A. ; Bringmark, L. ;

Hovsenius, G. ; Hkanson, L.; Iverfldt, .; Meili, M.; Timm, B. (1991). Mercury
in the Swedish environment. Air, Soil Pollution 55, 1-261.

85. Lo, W. Chua H, Jam KH, Bi S.P. (1999). A comparative investigation on the
biosorption of lead by filamentous fungal biomass. Chemosphere ; 39 : 2723-36

86. Macara, I.G.( 1978). Accommodation of yeast to toxic levels of cadmium ions. J Gen
Microbiol,104:321-4.

87. Macnab, N.J. ; Hughes, J.C. ; Howard, G.R. (1997). Pollution effecte of
wastewater sludge application to sndy soils with particular reference to the behaviour
of mercury.Appl. Geochem. 12, 321-325.

88. Magyarosy,A ; Laidlaw R,D ; Killas, R, Echer,C ; Clarck.D.S, Keasling.J.D,

(2002). McLean.J, Bevridge TJ(2001). Chromate reduction by a pseudomonad isolated
from a site contaminatide with chromated with chromate copper arsenate. Appl Env

150
 Microbiol 67(3)

89. Mandal TK, Baldrian P, Gabriel J, Nerud F, Zadrazil F. (1998). Effect of mercury
on the growth of wood-rotting basidiomycctes Pleurotus ostreatus, Pycnoporus
cinnabarinus and Serpula lacrymans. Chemosphere, 36: 435.

90. Mansfield SD, Saddler JN, Gbitz GM. (1998). Characterization of endoglucanases
from the brown-rot fungi Gloeophyllum sepiarium and Gloeophyllum trabeum.
Enzyme Microb Technol,23:133-40.

91. Mathieu, C. ; Pieltain, F. (1998). Analyse physiques des sols. Techniques &
Documentation. p 39-74.

92. Matsui, C., Nozu, M., Kikumoto, T. & Matsuura, M. (1962). Electron microscopy
of fungus conidia after immersion in mercuric chloride solution. Phytopathology 52,
88-90.

93. MCF (Minstre de la Coopration Franais) (1974). Memento de lagronomie. Ed.,

INRA,Paris, p.1591

94. Mehra R.K, Winge DR (1991). Metalion resistance in fungi molecular mechanisms
and their related expression. J Cell Biochem 45 :30-40.

95. Miersch, J., Barlocher, F., Bruns, I. & Krauss, G.-J. (1997). Effect of cadmium
copper, and zinc on growth and thiol content of aquatic hyphomycetes. Hydrobiohgia
346: 77-84

96. Miller, S.M. (1999). Bacterial detoxification of Hg (II) and organomercurials, Essays
Biochem 34 : 17-30.

97. Miura T, Muraoka S, Ogiso T. (1997). Antioxidant activity of metallothionein

compared with reduced glutathione. Life Sci,60:301-309.

98. Purkayastha, R.P., Mitra, A.K.. Bhatacharyya, B. (1994). Uptake and toxicological
effects of some heavy metals on Pleurotus sajor-caju. Ectoxicol. Environ.Safety, 27, 7-
13.

99. Modak, J.M., Natarajan, K..A. (1995). Biosorption of metals using non living
biomassa review. Mineral and Metal Process, 189-196.

100.Modak, J.M., Natarajan, K..A., (1995). Biosorption of metals using non living
biomass-a review. Mineral and Metal Process, 189-196.

101.Morrno-Jimnez, E. ; Gamara, R.; Carpena-Ruiz, R.O.; Millan, R.; Pealosa,

J.M. ; Asteban, E. (2006). Mercury bioaccumulation and phytotoxicityin two wild

151
 plant species of Almaden area. Chemosphere 63, 1969-1973.

102.Moser, H. C., and A.F. Voight. (1957). Dismutation of the mercurous 152immer in
dilute solutions. J.Am. Chem.Soc. 79: 1837 -1839.

103.Mullen, L.D., Wolf, D.C., Ferris, F.G., Beveridge, T.J., Fleming, C.A., Bailey,
G.W., (1989). Removal of silver from photographic wastewater effluent using
Acinetobacler baumannii BL54. Applied Environmental Microbiology 55, 3143-3149.

104.Muraleedharan, T.R., Venkobachar, C., (1990). Mechanism of Biosorption of

copper (II) by Ganoderma lucidium. Biotechnology & Bioengineering 35, 320-325.

105.Muzzarelli, R.A., Tanfari, F., (1982). The chelating ability of chitinous material
from Aspergillus niger, Streplomyces, Mucor rouxii, Phycomyces blukeseunus and
Choamephora curcurnitium in Chitin and Chitiosan. S. Mirano, S. Tokura (Eds.),
Japanese Society of Chitin and Chitiosan, pp. 183-186.

106.Neeta, A.; Abhishek, T; (2006). Fungi toxicity of the essential oil of Citrus sinensis
on post-harvest pathogens. Nickel accumulation and nickel oxalate precipitation by
Aspergillus niger. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59 : 583-588.

107.Owens, R. G. & Miller, L. P. (1958). Intracellular distribution of metal ions and

organic fungicides in fungus spores. Contributions of the Boyce Thompson Institute
19, 177-188.

108.Palmans E, Mares G, Poppe J, Hfte M. (1995). Biodcgradation of xenobiotics by

heavy metal resistant higher fungi. Mod Fac Landbouww Univ Gent,60 :2563.

109.Papini M.P ; Majone M ; Rolle, E ; (2001). Kaolinite sorption of Cd,Ni and Cu

from Landfill leachates : Influence of leachate composition. Water Sci Technol 44 :
343-350.

110.Passow, H., Rothstein, A. & Clarkson, T. W. (1961). The general pharmacology of

the heavy metals. Pharmacological Reviews 13, 185-224.

111.Penninckx, M. J. & Elskens, M. T. (1993). Mctaholisin and function of glutathione

in microorganisms. Advances in Microbial physiology 34: 239-301.

112.Permina E.A, Kazakov A.E, Kalinina O.V, Gelfand M.S. (2006) .Comparative
genomics of regulation of heavy metal resistance in eubacteria. BMC Microbiol 6:49.

113.Pitts K.E, Summers, A.O. (2002).The roles of thiols in the bacterial organomercurial
lyase (MerB). Biochemistry 41:10287-10296.

114.Pocsi I, Prade RA, Penninckx J.( 2004). Glutathione altruistic metabolite in fungi.
Adv Microbial Physiol ; 49 : 1-76.

152
115.Ramamoorthy, S.,. Cheng, T. C; Kushner, D.J. (1982). Effect of microbial life
stages on the fate of methylmercury in natural waters,
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.29:167-173.

116.Rapoport, R., Hanukoglu, I., Sklan, D.(1994). A fluorimetric assay for hydrogen
peroxide, suitable for NAD(P) H-dependent superoxide generating redox systems.
Analytical Biochemistry 218, 309-313.
117.Ross, i. S. & old, k. M. (1973 b). thiol compounds and resistance of pyrenophora
avenae to mercury. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 60, 301-310.

118.Ross, I.S. (1975). Some effect of heavy metals en fungol cells. Trans. Br. :ycol. Socm
64 52- 175-193.

119.Rothstein, A. (1959). Cell membrance as a site of action of heavy metals. Federation

Proceedings 18, 1026-1035.

120.Rowland, I. R., Grasso, P.; . Davis, M.J. (1975). The methylation of mercuric
chloride by human intestinal bacteria. Experientia 31: 1064- 1065

121.Saglam, A ; yalcinkaya, y ; Denizli, A ; Arica, M.Y, Gene, ; Bektas, S; (2002).

Biosorption of mercury by carboxy methyl cellulose and immobilized Phamerochaete
Chrysosporium. Microbiol. J ; 71, 73-81.

122.Sanglimguwan S, Yoshida N, Morinaga T, Murooka Y. Resistance to and uptake of

heavy metals in mushrooms. J Ferment Bioeng 1993;75:112-4.

123.Sayer J, Gadd. G.M. (1997). Solubilization and transformation of insoluble

inorganic metal compounds to insoluble metal oxalates by Aspergillus niger. Mycol
Res., 106:653-61.

124.Schuster, E. (1991). The behaviour of mercury in the soil with special emphasis on
complexation and adsorption porccesses- A reviewof the literature. Air, Soil Pollution
56, 667-680.

125.Silver, S.; . Hobman, J. L. (2007). Mercury Microbiology: Resistance Systems,

Environmental Aspects, Methylation, and Human Health. Microbiol Monogr (6) D. H.
Nies, S. Silver: Molecular Microbiology of Heavy Metals DOI
10.1007/7171_2006_085/Published online. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
126.Singh, A. & Sherman, F. (1974). Association of methionine requirement with methyl
mercury resistant mutants of yeast. Nature, London 247, 227-229.

127.Spanis, W.C., Munneke, D. E. & Solberg, R. A. (1962). Biological breakdown of

two organic mercurial fungicides. Phytopathology 52, 455-462.

153
128.Steinnes, E (1997). Mercury. In: Alloway, B.J. (ed.) Heavy metals in soils, second
edition. Blackie Academic and Professional, p.245-259.

129.Stohs S.J., Bagchi D. (1995). Oxidative mechanisms in the toxicity of heavy metals.
Free. Radio. Biol. Med.18: 321-36.

130.STROHAI, P. and HULJEV, D., Investigation of mercury pollutant interaction with humic
acids by means of radiotracers, In Nuclear Techniques in Environmental Pollution,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Viena, 1971. p. 439 (cited from Alberts et al..
1974)

131.Summers, A.O., and S .Silver. (1972). Mercury resistance in a plasmid bearing

strain of Escherichia coli .J Bacteriol. 112: 1228-1236.

132.Tack, F.M.G.; Vanhaesebroeck, T.; Verloo M.G., Van Rompaey, K. ;

Van Ranst, E. (2005). Mercury baseline levels in Flemish soils (Belgium)
Environmental Pollution 134, 173179.
133.Takashi, T.; Morimichi, O.; Ryusuke, I.; Hayao, S. (2003). Vertical variations in
the concentration of mercury in soils around Sakurajima Volcano, Southern Kyushu,
Japan. Science of the Total Environment 304, 221230.

134.Tezuka, T., and K .Tonomura. 1978. Purification and properties of an enzyme

catalyzing the splitting of carbon- mercury linkages from mercury resistant
Pseudomonas K-62 J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 80: 79 -87.

135.Tezuka, T., and K. Tonomura. (1976). Purification and proper-ties of an

enzyme catalyzing the splitting of carbon-mercury linkages from mercury-
resistant Pseudomonas K-62 strain. J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 80:79-87.

136.Tezuka, T., and K. Tonomura. (1978). Purification and proper-ties of a second

enzyme catalyzing the splitting of carbon-mercury linkages from mercury-
resistant Pseudomonas K-62. J. Bacteriol. 135:138-143 .
137.Tobin J. M.. Cooper D. G. and Neufeld R. J. (1984). Uptake of metal ions by
Rhizopus arrhizus biomass. Applied Environmental Microbiologv 47, 821-824.

138.Tomiyasu,, T Okada, M. ; Imura, R. ;Sakamoto, H. (2003). Vertical variations in

the concentration of mercury in soils around Sakurajima Volcano, Southern Kyushi,
Japan. Science of the Total Environment 284, 177189.

139.Tomsett, A.B. (1993). Genetics and molecular biology of metal tolerance in fungi.
In: Jennings DH, editor. Stress tolerance in fungi. Marcel Dekker: New York;, p. 69-
95.

140.Townsley C. C.; Ross I.S. (1986). Copper uptake in Aspergillus niger during and in
nongrowing mycelia suspensions. Experimental Mycology 10, 281-288.

154
141.Trost, P.B. ; Bisque, R.E. (1970). Distribution of mercury in residual soils. P 178-
196. In Hartung, R. and Dinman, B.D. (ed.). Environmental mercury contamination.
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Zrbor, MI.

142.Volesky, B., (1990). Biosorption of Heavy Metals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, F.L.

143.Vonk, J.W. ; Kaars Sijpesteijn, A. (1973). Studies on the methylation of mercuric

chloride by pure cultures of bacteria and fungi. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Journal of
Microbiology and Serology 39, 505-513.

144.Wallace, .R.A. Flukerson.W.; Shults.W.D. Lyon.W.S.; (1979). "Mercury in the

environment the human element. Oak Ridge national laboratory -mp.rs 1971-1961 pp.

145.Wang, D. ; Shi, X. ; Wei, S. (2003). Accumulation and transformation of

atmospheric mercury in soil. Science of the Total Environment 304, 209214.

146.Wase, J.; Foster, C., (1997). In: Biosorbent for Metal Ions. Taylor and Francis, Ltd.,
London

147.Webb, J. L. (1966). Enzyme and metabolic inhibitors, vol. 2, pp. 729-985. New
York: Academic Press.

148.Weiss, A .A ., J. L .Schottel, D.L. Clark, R. G. Beller, and S. Silver.(1978) .

Mercury and organomercurial resistance with enteric, staphylococcal, and
pseudomonad plasmids, p.121-124. In D. Schlessinger (ed), Microbiology -1978.
American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.

149. Weiss, A. A., J. L. Schottel, D. L. Clark, R. G. Beller, and Silver, S. (1978).

Mercury and organomercurial resistance with enteric, staphylococcal, and
pseudomonad plasmids, p. 121-124. In D. Schlessinger (ed.), Microbiology-
1978. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C.

150.Weiss, A. A., S. D. Murphy, and S. Silver. 1977. Mercury and organomercurial

resistances determined by plasmids in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol.
132:197-208.

151.Weiss, A. A., S. D. Murphy, and S. Silver. 1977. Mercury and organomercurial

resistances determined by plasmids in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Bacteriol. 132:197-
208.

152.WHO (World Health Organization) (1976). Environmental health criteria 86,

mercury-environmental aspects. Geneva.

153.Wilson JR, Leang C, Morby AP, Hobman JL, Brown NL (2000). MerF is a
mercury transport protein: different structures but a common mechanism for mercuric

155
 ion transporters? FEBS Lett 472:78-82.

154.Winge, D. R., Sewell, A. K., Yu, W., Thorvaldsen, J. L & Farrell. H. (1998) Metal
ion stress in ye.ist. In Metal Ions in Gene Regulation (S. Silver & W. Walden, eds):
279-315. Chapman & Hall, New York.

155.Wood, J.M., F.S. Kennedy , and C .G .Rosen. (1968) Synthesis of methyl- mercury
Compounds by extract of a methanogenic bacterium . Nature (London) 220: 173-174.

156.Zak, J.C., Wildman, H.G., (2004). Fungi in stressful environments. In : Mueller,

G.M., Bills, G.F., Foster, M.S. (Eds.), Biodiversity of fungi. Inventory and Monitoring
Methods. Elsevier Academic press, Amsterdam.

156