Next Article in Journal
Discovery of Oleaginous Yeast from Mountain Forest Soil in Thailand
Next Article in Special Issue
Morphological and Transcriptional Characteristics of the Symbiotic Interaction between Pinus massoniana and Suillus bovinus
Previous Article in Journal
The Epichloë festucae Antifungal Protein Efe-AfpA Protects Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) from the Plant Pathogen Clarireedia jacksonii, the Causal Agent of Dollar Spot Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Reduce Cadmium Leaching from Sand Columns by Reducing Availability and Enhancing Uptake by Maize Roots
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Fungal Contamination in Microalgal Cultivation: Biological and Biotechnological Aspects of Fungi-Microalgae Interaction

1
Dipartimento di Agraria, Università di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 133, Portici, 80055 Napoli, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Napoli Federico II, Via Cinthia 21, 80126 Napoli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(10), 1099; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8101099
Submission received: 24 September 2022 / Revised: 12 October 2022 / Accepted: 15 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant and Fungal Interactions, 2nd Edition)

Abstract

:
In the last few decades, the increasing interest in microalgae as sources of new biomolecules and environmental remediators stimulated scientists’ investigations and industrial applications. Nowadays, microalgae are exploited in different fields such as cosmeceuticals, nutraceuticals and as human and animal food supplements. Microalgae can be grown using various cultivation systems depending on their final application. One of the main problems in microalgae cultivations is the possible presence of biological contaminants. Fungi, among the main contaminants in microalgal cultures, are able to influence the production and quality of biomass significantly. Here, we describe fungal contamination considering both shortcomings and benefits of fungi-microalgae interactions, highlighting the biological aspects of this interaction and the possible biotechnological applications.

1. Introduction

Microalgae are photosynthetic unicellular or simple-multicellular microorganisms, smaller than 400 µm, that form the base of the entire aquatic food chain [1]. They have been able to adapt to a large range of temperatures, pH, salinities, and light intensities and this led them to evolve into a wide variety of species, colonizing many places on earth including extremophilic habitats [2,3,4]. In the last few decades, the increasing interest in these microorganisms stimulated scientists to investigate how to use them as sources of biomolecules or as sustainable solutions for environmental issues [5,6,7,8,9]. For instance, microalgae can be used for bioremediation [8,9,10], or as biofertilizers and biostimulants or biopesticides [7,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Due to their high concentrations of proteins, vitamins, and fatty acids, microalgae have been also evaluated as possible nutrients for different animals including both aquatic and terrestrial species [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Moreover, antioxidant molecules and pigments can have beneficial effects on animal and human wellness [25,26,27,28].
For biotechnological applications, very large volumes of microalgae are required to produce considerable amounts of biomass, which enhances the possibility of contaminations. The presence of biological contaminants can often cause a decrease in biomass production [29,30,31,32,33,34,35] and sometimes massive death of microalgae within cultures [36].
Thus, a balance in the coexistence of microalgae and contaminants should be pursued beneficially for large-scale cultivation. To this end, microalgae-mixed cultures and co-cultures are effective methods to use. In mixed cultures, microalgae are mixed with a varied spectrum of microorganisms [37,38,39,40,41,42]. Co-cultures consist of microalgae growing with another particular species that is usually effective to boost the production of algal biomass [20,43,44,45].
The interaction between microalgae and fungi is very interesting to consider even if less investigated than the interaction between microalgae and bacteria [46]. In commercial cultivations, fungi contamination is of particular concern [47]. On the other hand, according to recent literature, the microalgae-fungi interaction can be used to improve wastewater treatment, to facilitate cultivation management, and to produce valuable metabolites [20,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. In fact, fungi are often used in co-cultures as they can promote the flocculation of microalgae, improving their harvesting without using more expensive chemical flocculants [37,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62].
Here, we will review the mechanisms of interaction between fungi and microalgae in cultivation systems, highlighting some possible advantages for the industrial and biotechnological applications.

2. Overview on Biological Contaminants in Microalgal Cultivation Systems

Globally, more than 80% of algal biomass is generated in open reactors due to the low costs of these cultivation systems [62]. Nevertheless, the use of closed cultivation systems is expected to grow by 2024 because of their benefits [63]. Closed systems are mainly represented by photobioreactors (PBRs), in which temperature, light, pH, and nutrients are controlled, resulting in increased cell density and biomass collection [62]. However, both systems have their downsides. In open systems, light saturation and seasonal influences can affect algal biomass growth, making difficult the control of the culture. In closed systems, the cost of the equipment used to maintain constant cultivation parameters and sterilization is too expensive. Moreover, these two systems share the crucial challenge of contamination [64]. The interactions between microalgae and other organisms such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and others are regularly present in nature [65]. Thus, it is common for these types of relationships also to develop in open systems and, to a smaller degree, in closed systems used for microalgae cultivation [66,67].
The groups of microorganisms considered as common contaminants in microalgae cultivation systems are grazers, bacteria, fungi, photosynthetic organisms, and viruses [46,68]. The relationships among these classes of organisms and microalgae can be: (i) mutualistic or symbiotic; (ii) commensalistic; (iii) parasitic. For instance, a symbiosis can be established between bacteria and microalgae (e.g., Dunaliella salina with Marinobacter sp., Porphyridium purpureum with Halomonas sp., Chlamydomonas nivali with Mesorhizobiums sp.), and they are often co-cultivated for many purposes [56,65]. Interesting results were achieved in terms of lipid production with the co-cultivation of Characium sp. And the heterotrophic bacterium, Pseudomonas composti, or with Chlorella vulgaris and Stenotrophomona smaltophilia [69,70]. Parasitism occurs when an organism steals a resource from another organism. For example, bacteria belonging to genera such as Alteromonas, Flavobacterium, Bacillus, Pseudomonas can attack microalgae by cell-to-cell contact or by releasing extracellular compounds [71,72,73], breaking the integrity of the microalgal cell walls, entering the cells, and destroying the DNA [74].
Another example of organisms competing with microalgae are grazers such as ciliates, rotifers, copepods, and Cladocera. These are larger than microalgae and can cause a rapid and significant depletion in microalgal biomass [36]. Other photosynthetic groups, such as competing microalgal species, can overwhelm the cultivated strain. Harmful microalgae are probably the most difficult form of contamination to control, since the biological and physical properties of the contaminant are very similar to those of the desired species [75].
Microalgae cultures may also be affected by several species of fungi [76]. Chytridiomycetes spp. are host-specific parasites and among the most pathogenic fungal groups for microalgal populations. The main concern in this case is that fungi can survive without their host if they have enough organic compounds to live on [77]. This explains why different fungal species are found in heterotrophic cultures in closed systems and why the possibility of a fungal outbreak in the cultivation may occur.

3. Fungi in Aquatic Environment

Fungal cells have a true nucleus, internal cell structures, and a cell wall. A unique property of their nuclear membrane and nucleolus is that they persist throughout the metaphase of cellular division, unlike animals and plants cells. An important structure of fungal cells is the wall that protects them from osmotic pressure and environmental stress and determines the cell shape. The fungal wall also prevents the intrusion of toxic macromolecules, and this may cause fungal resistance to certain fungicidal products [78]. Although the cell wall composition differs among the different fungal species, most varieties consist of: (1→3)-β-glucan, (1→6)-β-glucan, (1→3)-α-glucan, chitin, and glycoproteins [79].
A hypha is another fungi trait which consists of one or more cells surrounded by a cell wall. The multitude of cells forming the hypha is internally divided by cross-walls called ‘‘septa’’. This fungal structure is classified as a true hypha in molds (multicellular filamentous fungi) and pseudo-hyphae in yeasts (unicellular filamentous fungi). A mass of hyphae constitutes the thallus (vegetative body) of the fungus, composed of mycelium. These filaments branch out in all directions, thus colonizing wide spaces in their habitat.
In natural aquatic environments, the key function of fungi is the degradation of dead plants or other organic material. Decomposition is vital for the nutrient cycle, resulting in the production of fungal biomass, the formation of reproductive spores, and transformation products as dissolved organic matter [80]. This process enhances the palatability and nutritional quality of the litter for the invertebrates [81], consequently transferring energy and nutrients to higher trophic levels [82]. Nevertheless, the fungal role in the natural environment is still largely underexplored even if fungal presence has been frequently observed [6,83,84]. Different classes of fungi were identified also in artificial aquatic habitats such as: (i) urban wastewaters [85]; (ii) algal mass cultures [86]; (iii) hydroponic systems for plants [87].
Predominant genera of fungi in different aquatic habitats are shown in Figure 1. In these habitats, the fungi contribution and their interaction with other organisms are influenced by several abiotic factors such as nutrient availability, light, temperature, and pH. Visible light is an important source of energy for autotrophic organisms, and, although fungi are not photosynthetic organisms, they are affected by light. Over the last few years, some studies analyzed the effects of light on primary metabolic pathways, the production of secondary metabolites, and sporulation related to fungi [88]. Fungi exploit light to adapt to stressful conditions and to orient themselves in the environment and produce reproductive structures in the right place and the right time [88,89]. In addition, light has different effects on the biosynthesis of mycotoxin, depending on light intensity and wavelength, as well as on the species of fungi. In Penicillium nordicum and Penicillium verrucosum, blue (455–470 nm) and red (627 nm) wavelengths reduce the biosynthesis of the ochratoxin A and influence their growth and metabolism [90,91]. Other influencing factors for fungal growth are environmental temperature and pH [92]. In general, fungi prefer a liquid media with pH ranging from 3.0 to 8.0, with a growth optimum around pH 5.0 [92]. For instance, Aspergillus spp. are more tolerant to alkaline pH, while Penicillium spp. appear to be more tolerant to acidic pH [93]. Fungi can actively modify the pH of their environment, adapting it to their needs, by secreting acids or alkali [94]. The ability of pH change depends on the nutrient availability, the organic acids being produced, and the ability of the fungus to remove ammonium ions from media and to excrete H+ deriving from NH4+ assimilation [94,95]. Several pathogenic fungi acidify the environmental media as a strategy to damage host tissues [94]. Temperature is another environmental factor influencing metabolic functions of microorganisms [96]. Fungi can adapt at a relatively large range of temperatures; in aquatic environments (natural and not), they are found at temperatures ranging from 0 to 34 °C [97].

4. How Fungi Interact with Other Organisms in Aquatic Habitats

Although fungi are fundamental for aquatic food chains, they can also operate as parasites. Fungal parasitism can highly influence the dynamics that occur among the species that populate aquatic ecosystems [98]. Parasitism is not often clearly distinguishable from mutualism [99], but there is evidence that both parasitic and mutualistic fungal species exist. Fungi are considered among the most dangerous parasitic species for other organisms, as they can strongly reduce the number of parasitised individuals [77]. However, fungi are not obligate parasites and only use the host for completing their life cycle. The most common modus operandi of fungi when interfacing with other organisms is the release of metabolites. Fungi synthesize a broad spectrum of chemical compounds from either primary or secondary metabolism. Different secondary metabolites have been studied for their potential as pathogenic substances, such as mycotoxins, enzymes, siderophores, pigments, and others. Secondary metabolites released by species belonging to Fusarium and Aspergillus are able to activate specific gene clusters within bacteria, establishing either a mutualist or competitive interaction [100,101]. Antagonism between fungi and bacteria seems to be frequent, and it is related to nutrient competition. Nevertheless, synergistic interactions have also been demonstrated [87]. Baudy et al. [102] described the positive effect that bacteria can have on the competition occurring between different fungi species. Bacterial inhibition of fungal growth plays a pivotal role during fungi colonization, enabling fungal species with lower growth rates to colonize the aquatic environment under lower competitive pressure. Fungi also hold a relation with viruses that can be both mutualistic and antagonistic [87]. Recently, it was demonstrated that viruses can infect fungi in aquatic habitats [103,104]. However, further studies need to be conducted on this relation. Furthermore, both microalgae and fungi can be present in the same waterbody, and they are usually in competition for the nutritional resources [105]. In marine habitats, physical associations between fungi and microalgae have been reported to induce microalgal aggregation, while no data are available on their chemical interactions [56,84].
In summary, fungi can have a positive or negative impact on other organisms as they can be involved in a range of interactions shifting from cooperation to competition [106].

5. Fungi in Microalgae Cultures

Fungi can act as a competitor or symbiont with freshwater and marine microalgae cultures. There are many examples of spontaneous and induced fungal contamination of microalgae cultures (Table 1). Complete removal of undesired biological parasites at the industrial scale is neither cost-effective nor achievable [107].
Members of the Chytridiomycota are one of the most common fungal parasites associated with microalgae in both open and closed culture systems. Their hosts’ spectrum can be narrow or wide, depending on the species. This group of fungi causes huge losses in microalgae populations, and unfortunately is resistant to several disinfection techniques [77]. Aphelids are intracellular parasites that feed on microalgae and are close to the taxon of chytrids [126]. The group of Labyrinthulyds includes some important parasites of marine microalgae. However, they have not been described in commercial systems yet [77]. Zoosporic fungi negatively affect diatoms’ biomass production [127]. Many of these fungal pathogens caused the disappearance of several marine microalgae in specific areas of India, the USA, and Europe, and it is thought that these species can be even more harmful in commercial systems [128].
Fungal infection occurs in several crucial steps. The attack occurs within a few days, and fungi damage the microalgae’s cell walls. Specific enzymes are presumably involved in this stage. Subsequently, pathogens settle, encyst, and germinate inside the host. Microalgae usually lose their green color, turning brown. Young microalgae during their motile phase are not infected but are targeted as soon as they mature [129].
The nutrients present in the culture systems and that may facilitate the spread of fungal parasites are inorganic salts, potassium, magnesium, sulphate, phosphate. In hetero- and mixo-trophic microalgal cultures, the presence of organic substrates such as glucose or sucrose induces a significant growth in the fungal population and increases contamination. On the contrary, the presence of bicarbonate or galactose in the medium severely limits the contamination of microalgal cultures [108,130].
Generally, a molecular identification of fungal contamination is time-consuming and costly. Rather, strategies to eliminate or reduce contaminants should be applied. Several methods are used to deal with contamination. An example of a biological approach is the adoption of viruses attacking fungi as well as bacteria [131]. This is a viable strategy as long as viruses also parasitize microalgae culture. A most traditional, chemical resolution is the application of triticonazole and other commercial fungicides. However, these fungicides have been reported to be toxic also for some microalgae species [117].
In summary, it is of pivotal importance to manage the cleaning and sanitization phases correctly, to avoid large contaminations by pathogenic fungi, specifically in closed systems. Contamination can be caused by inadequate sterilization of facilities, control of inocula, culture media, water supply, and aeration gases [68]. Studying interactions and dynamics in fungi-microalgae relationships is becoming very important for optimizing yields and the productivity of algal factories.

6. Co-Culture of Fungi-Microalgae: The Biotechnological Use

The interaction between microalgae and fungi existed for more than 600 million years [132]. However, it was recently investigated since the fungi-microalgae consortium serves several biotechnological applications.
One of the most important advantages of co-cultures is related to microalgae harvesting. This can be economically challenging because of microalgae’s small size (2–40 μm), motility, negatively charged surface, and low cell density (0.3–0.5 g/L) [133,134]. In fact, harvesting can account for more than 50% of total production costs [52]. Different approaches have been used to collect microalgae, and each of them has evident limitations [52,54,135]. Fungi have potential as bio-flocculants since self-pelletization of fungi occurs in various fungal strains. This same property can lead to the increase in algal biomass collection [135].
The co-pelletization is made possible since the surface of microalgae is negatively charged because of phosphoric, phosphodiester, amine, hydroxyl, and proton-active carboxylic functional groups, while the surface of fungi is positively charged by their surface containing polysaccharides [135]. This causes microalgae to be entrapped in fungal hyphae (Figure 2), ranging in diameter from 2 to 10 mm, where they aggregate, segregating from the surrounding liquid, which also facilitates microalgae recovery [52,56,136].
Fungal spores or fungal pellets can be included in the microalgae culture for a more efficient symbiosis and the consequent enhancement of co-pelletization. However, the technique is expensive as the pellet consumes nutrients. This technique would be more applicable when fungal growth is achieved without economic investment, as cultivating fungi or waste [137]. Costs of co-pelletization are further reduced as fungi consume sugars and nutrients produced by microalgae photosynthesis, and, in return, the algal biomass increases due to the retention of water and nutrients by fungi [52,138,139].
Different parameters can however affect the microalgae-fungi interaction in both positive and negative ways. Strain selection is one of the major factors to consider when developing an effective binary culture system. Assuming the primary partner is a well-defined microalgal species, the secondary partner (the fungus) needs to (i) be able to co-exist with this species; (ii) neither inhibit its growth nor be toxic for it; (iii) have an adequate communication (metabolite/peptide) profile; (iv) be able to use the primary species’ wastes as feedstock for its growth. In most cases, choosing two species already living in the same habitat can be a good starting point for the development of the fungi-microalgae consortium [52,139,140].
It is also important to consider when, during the cultivation, to add the fungal inoculum, and in which ratio with the primary partner to avoid overgrowth of either species at the expense of the other [51,141]. To limit growth imbalance, control of the amount of nutrient within the medium culture is also essential. It was previously established that the fungi-microalgae consortium usually requires mixotrophic conditions as the fungi are obligate heterotrophs, and green microalgae are photoautotrophs [142,143]. This requires fungal growth on expensive nutrients such as glucose. However, cheaper compounds such as sucrose, glycerol, sodium acetate can be used as alternatives to glucose [45], and fungal growth on food wastes is being now attempted, as anticipated. In all cases, it is fundamental that microalgae and fungi do not reach the peak of their growth during the same experimental phase [144] to avoid the overwhelming of one or the other species.
The co-cultivation of microalgae and fungi is also strongly dependent on factors such as pH, temperature, agitation rate, etc. A more acidic pH favors an enhanced growth of fungal hyphae [145]. However, the acidic pH of the growth medium frequently becomes more basic as bicarbonate (HCO3) is commonly converted to CO2 and hydroxide ions (OH) [146]. Microalgae consume CO2, inducing an excess of OH within the growth medium, resulting in a pH increases [147].
Alterations in temperature can also make the system unstable, altering the microalgae lipid profile. Co-culturing fungi and microalgae that are similarly tolerant to stresses (e.g., halotolerant or thermophile) is often suggested [2,4,148].
The fungi-microalgae binary system has been adopted for several scopes. Since wastewaters pose a great risk to human health and ecosystems, as they carry many toxic substances, the fungi-microalgae co-culture was recently considered as a viable approach for their treatments and remediation [149]. In water, as previously mentioned, inorganic carbon is mainly present in the form of HCO3 that microalgae can actively absorb and convert directly into CO2 [146]. Subsequently, they convert CO2 into organic compounds, via photosynthesis, further releasing oxygen. Oxygen will be used by fungi for their respiration process and the organic compounds for their growth.
In most cases, wastewater needs to be purified from heavy metals. It was previously demonstrated that microalgae can face the presence of high concentrations of heavy metals when grown with fungi, as fungi secrete organic acids that create favorable acidic conditions for the transformation of these toxic molecules into less toxic compounds [150]. Fungi and microalgae walls contain functional substances such as cellulose, proteins, and other polymers, and they may help by absorbing other elements due to mechanisms such as electrostatic interactions, ion exchange, and chelation/complexation [45]. Furthermore, fungi are also able to release extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that can bind metal ions, playing an important role in protecting the microalgae from stress and preventing a reduction in total biomass in stressful conditions [151]. Wang et al. [52] demonstrated that the synergic action between Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 and A. fumigatus induces 98% adsorption and immobilization of Cd(II) within wastewater.
Fungi-microalgae systems can be also involved in other wastewater treatments which involve the purification from antibiotics, food organics, and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) [48,152]. Microalgae are not able directly to utilize some substrates, and a binary culture with fungi might represent a suitable option to overcome this obstacle. For example, one-step co-cultivation of C. pyrenoidosa with A. oryzae exhibited an optimal removal efficiency of the chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) [153].
The microalgae-fungi consortium made by Chlorella vulgaris and P. geesteranus prompted a high-rate removal of COD, TN, and TP, as well. Moreover, the presence of the filamentous fungus enhanced growth performance and photosynthesis of C. vulgaris resulting in a consistent CO2 removal ability [54]. Another culture binary system demonstrating effectiveness is Chrorella vulgaris and Aspergillus oryzae. The fungi-microalgae pellet originating by this symbiosis presented a remarkable adsorption capacity of sulfamethazine (SMZ), sulfamonomethoxine (SMM), and sulfamethoxazole (SMX) [20].
Cooperation between microalgae and fungi is not only convenient for wastewater treatments, but also for producing a wide range of distinctive substances of use in food, cosmetic, and renewable energy industries. For instance, the demand for fish oil, rich in polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids (PUFA), is constantly growing, while over-fishing is becoming an urgent issue to cope with. Marine microalgae and diatoms produce an impressive amount of PUFA, among which the most important are Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) [154]. However, up to now, no oil-producing microalgae possess a good ratio of these two compounds. Co-culturing microalgae with fungi has been recognized as a favorable strategy to solve this problem alternatively. For example, the culture system composed by P. tricornutum and A. limacinum produced EPA and DHA in advantageous ratios [155]. Carotenoids’ production is also enhanced when co-culturing fungi and microalgae. Carotenoids produced by co-cultivation of C. vulgaris and R. glutinis were higher than those made by each culture [156].
Microalgae are considered one of the best options for generating energy without impacting the environment, and they gained attention as suitable alternative bio-fuel sources. Moreover, in this case, co-cultivation with fungi may further increase the value of microalgae as energy crops. For example, co-cultures of C. vulgaris and P. geesteranus [54] and of various microalgae with A. niger and T. reesei [157] were considered valuable sources of bioenergy. Indeed, when microalgae were grown with the two filamentous fungi, they exhibited increased cellulase activity. This improves the hydrolysis process of cellulosic materials which is considered a key point for bioethanol production [157].

7. Concluding Remarks

The fungi-microalgae relationship needs to be better explored in systems of microalgae cultivation as some fungal species can contaminate algal culture, leading to an extensive reduction in the algal population. On the other hand, the relationship between fungi and microalgae is a mechanism that could potentially be used for different industrial purposes to develop productions cheaper and more sustainable than with other methods.

Author Contributions

C.L. and G.S. wrote the manuscript; G.S. and S.C. conceived the idea and prepared the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank to the Professor Francesco Loreto for their careful reviewing of this manuscript and providing insightful comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Muller-Feuga, A. The role of microalgae in aquaculture: Situation and trends. J. Appl. Phycol. 2000, 12, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Salbitani, G.; Cipolletta, S.; Vona, V.; Di Martino, C.; Carfagna, S. Heterotrophic Cultures of Galdieria phlegrea Shift to Autotrophy in the Presence or Absence of Glycerol. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 40, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vona, V.; Di Martino Rigano, V.; Andreoli, C.; Lobosco, O.; Caiazzo, M.; Martello, A.; Carfagna, S.; Salbitani, G.; Rigano, C. Comparative analysis of photosynthetic and respiratory parameters in the psychrophilic unicellular green alga Koliella antarctica, cultured in indoor and outdoor photo-bioreactors. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2018, 24, 1139–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carfagna, S.; Bottone, C.; Cataletto, P.R.; Petriccione, M.; Pinto, G.; Salbitani, G.; Vona, V.; Pollio, A.; Ciniglia, C. Impact of Sulfur Starvation in Autotrophic and Heterotrophic Cultures of the Extremophilic Microalga Galdieria phlegrea (Cyanidiophyceae). Plant. Cell. Physiol. 2016, 57, 1890–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Khan, M.I.; Shin, H.; Kim, J.D. The promising future of microalgae: Current status, challenges, and optimization of a sustainable and renewable industry for biofuels, feed, and other products. Microb. Cell Fact. 2018, 17, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, Z.; Wen, X.; Xu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Geng, Y.; Li, Y. Maximizing CO2 biofixation and lipid productivity of oleaginous microalga Graesiella sp. WBG-1 via CO2-regulated pH in indoor and outdoor open reactors. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 619–620, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ronga, D.; Biazzi, E.; Parati, K.; Carminati, D.; Carminati, E.; Tava, A. Microalgal biostimulants and biofertilisers in crop productions. Agron. J. 2019, 9, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Salbitani, G.; Carfagna, S. Ammonium Utilization in Microalgae: A Sustainable Method for Wastewater Treatment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Siciliano, A.; Guida, M.; Serafini, S.; Micillo, M.; Galdiero, E.; Carfagna, S.; Salbitani, G.; Tommasi, F.; Lofrano, G.; Suarez, E.G.P.; et al. Long-term multi-endp1oint exposure of the microalga Raphidocelis subcapitata to lanthanum and cerium. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 790, 148229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Raja, R.; Anbazhagan, C.; Ganesan, V.; Rengasamy, R. Efficacy of Dunaliella salina (Volvocales, Chlorophyta) in salt effluent treatment. Asian J. Chem. 2004, 16, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mutale-joan, C.; Redouane, B.; Najib, E.; Yassine, K.; Lyamloul, K.; Laila, S.; Zeroual, Y.; Hicham, E.A. Screening of microalgae liquid extracts for their bio stimulant properties on plant growth, nutrient uptake and metabolite profile of Solanum lycopersicum L. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Caradonia, F.; Ronga, D.; Tava, A.; Francia, E. Plant Biostimulants in Sustainable Potato Production: An Overview. Potato Res. 2022, 65, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ferreira, A.; Melkonyan, L.; Carapinha, S.; Ribeiro, B.; Figueiredo, D.; Avetisova, G.; Gouveia, L. Biostimulant and biopesticide potential of microalgae growing in piggery wastewater. Environ. Advanc. 2021, 4, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gonçalves, A.L. The Use of Microalgae and Cyanobacteria in the Improvement of Agricultural Practices: A Review on Their Biofertilising, Biostimulating and Biopesticide Roles. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. González-Pérez, B.K.; Rivas-Castillo, A.M.; Valdez-Calderón, A.; Gayosso-Morales, A. Microalgae as biostimulants: A new approach in agriculture. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 38, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Salbitani, G.; Carillo, P.; Di Martino, C.; Bolinesi, F.; Mangoni, O.; Loreto, F.; Carfagna, S. Microalgae cross-fertilization: Short-term effects of Galdieria phleg extract on growth, photosynthesis and enzyme activity of Chlorella sorokiniana cells. J. Appl. Phycol. 2022, 34, 1957–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Carfagna, S.; Landi, V.; Coraggio, F.; Salbitani, G.; Vona, V.; Pinto, G.; Pollio, A.; Ciniglia, C. Different characteristics of C-phycocyanin (C-PC) in two strains of the extremophilic Galdieria phlegrea. Algal Res. 2018, 31, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Du Preez, R.; Majzoub, M.E.; Thomas, T.; Panchal, S.K.; Brown, L. Nannochloropsis oceanica as microalgal food intervention in diet-induced metabolic syndrome in rats. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stiefvatter, L.; Lehnert, K.; Frick, K.; Montoya-Arroyo, A.; Frank, J.; Vetter, W.; Schmid-Staiger, U.; Bischoff, S.C. Oral bioavailability of omega-3 fatty acids and carotenoids from microalgae Phaeodactylum tricornutum in healthy young adults. Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, S.; Li, Z.; Liu, D.; Yin, Z.; Hu, D.; Yu, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhu, L. Response of fungi-microalgae pellets to copper regulation in the removal of sulfonamides and release of dissolved organic matters. J. Hazar. Mater. 2022, 434, 128932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mellor, C.; Embling, R.; Neilson, L.; Randall, T.; Wakeham, C.; Lee, M.C.; Wilkinson, L.L. Consumer knowledge and acceptance of “algae” as a protein alternative: A UK-based qualitative study. Foods 2022, 11, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mendes, M.C.; Navalho, S.; Ferreira, A.; Paulino, C.; Figueiredo, D.; Silva, D.; Gao, F.; Gama, F.; Bombo, G.; Jacinto, R.; et al. Algae as food in Europe: An overview of species diversity and their application. Foods 2022, 11, 1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Molfetta, M.; Morais, E.G.; Barreira, L.; Bruno, G.L.; Porcelli, F.; Dugat-Bony, E.; Bonnarme, P.; Minervini, F. Protein sources alternative to meat: State of art and involvement of fermentation. Foods 2022, 11, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Santiago-Díaz, P.; Rico, M.; Rivero, A.; Santana-Casiano, M. Bioactive metabolites of microalgae from Canary Islands for functional food and feed uses. Chem. Biodivers. 2022, 19, e202200230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bottone, C.; Camerlingo, R.; Miceli, R.; Salbitani, G.; Sessa, G.; Pirozzi, G.; Carfagna, S. Antioxidant and anti-proliferative properties of extracts from heterotrophic cultures of Galdieria sulphuraria. Nat. Prod. Res. 2019, 33, 1659–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Napolitano, G.; Fasciolo, G.; Salbitani, G.; Venditti, P. Chlorella sorokiniana Dietary Supplementation Increases Antioxidant Capacities and Reduces ROS Release in Mitochondria of Hyperthyroid Rat Liver. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, C.; Hu, B.; Cheng, Y.; Guo, Y.; Yao, W.; Qian, H. Carotenoids from fungi and microalgae: A review on their recent production, extraction, and developments. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Srivastava, A.; Kalwani, M.; Chakdar, H.; Pabbi, S.; Shukla, P. Biosynthesis and biotechnological interventions for commercial production of microalgal pigments: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 352, 127071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Day, J.G.; Slocombe, S.P.; Stanley, M.S. Overcoming biological constraints to enable the exploitation of microalgae for biofuels. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 109, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hue, N.T.K.; Deruyck, B.; Decaestecker, E.; Vandamme, D.; Muylaert, K. Natural chemicals produced by marine microalgae as predator deterrents can be used to control ciliates contamination in microalgal cultures. Algal Res. 2018, 29, 297–303. [Google Scholar]
  31. Deruyck, B.; Nguyen, K.H.T.; Decaestecker, E.; Muylaert, K. Modeling the impact of rotifer contamination on microalgal production in open pond, photobioreactor and thin layer cultivation system. Algal Res. 2019, 38, 101398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pulgarin, A.; Giannakis, S.; Pulgarin, C.; Ludwig, C.; Refardt, D. A novel proposition for a citrate-modified photo-Fenton process against bacterial contamination of microalgae culture. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2020, 265, 118615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhu, Z.; Jiang, J.; Fa, Y. Overcoming the biological contamination in microalgae and cyanobacteria mass cultivations for photosynthetic biofuel production. Molecules 2020, 25, 5220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grivalský, T.; Střížek, A.; Přibyl, P.; Lukavský, J.; Čegan, R.; Hobza, R.; Hrouzek, P. Comparison of various approaches to detect algal culture contamination: A case study of Chlorella sp. Contamination in a Phaeodactylum tricornutum culture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 5189–5200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Di Caprio, F.; Proietti Tocca, G.; Stoller, M.; Pagnanelli, F.; Altimaria, P. Control of bacterial contamination in microalgae cultures integrated with wastewater treatment by applying feast and famine conditions. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, H.; Zhang, W.; Chen, L.; Wang, J.; Liu, T. The contamination and control of biological pollutants in mass cultivation of microalgae. Biores. Technol. 2013, 128, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alam, M.A.; Vandamme, D.; Chun, W.; Zhao, X.; Foubert, I.; Wang, Z.; Muylaert, K.; Yuan, Z. Bioflocculation as an innovative harvesting strategy for microalgae. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 15, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Katam, K.; Bhattacharyya, D. Simultaneous treatment of domestic wastewater and bio-lipid synthesis using immobilized and suspended cultures of microalgae and activated sludge. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2019, 69, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mansour, E.A.; El-Enin, S.A.A.; Hamouda, A.S.; Mahmoud, H.M. Efficacy of extraction techniques and solvent polarity on lipid recovery from domestic wastewater microalgae. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2019, 12, 100271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhu, L.; Shuangxi, L.; Hu, T.; Nugroho, Y.K.; Yin, Z.; Hu, D.; Chu, R.; Mo, F.; Liu, C.; Hiltunen, E. Effects of nitrogen source heterogeneity on nutrient removal and biodiesel production of mono- and mix-cultured microalgae. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 201, 112144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yu, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, C. Potential of mixed-culture microalgae enriched from aerobic and anaerobic sludges for nutrient removal and biomass production from anaerobic effluents. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 280, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Vassalle, L.; Sunyer-Caldù, A.; Uggetti, E.; Dìez-Montero, R.; Dìaz-Cruz, M.S.; Garcìa, J.; García-Galán, M.J. Bioremediation of emerging micropollutants in irrigation water. The alternative of microalgae-based treatments. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 274, 111081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Toyama, T.; Hanaoka, T.; Yamada, K.; Suzuki, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Morikawa, M.; Mori, K. Enhanced production of biomass and lipids by Euglena gracilis via co-culturing with microalga growth-promoting bacterium, Emticicia sp. EG3. Biotechnol. Biofuels. 2019, 12, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kumsiri, B.; Pekkoh, J.; Pathom-aree, W.; Lumyong, S.; Phinyo, K.; Pumas, C.; Srinuanpan, S. Enhanced production of microalgal biomass and lipid as an environmentally friendly biodiesel feedstock through actinomycete co-culture in biogas digestate. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leng, L.; Li, L.; Chen, J.; Leng, S.; Chen, J.; Wei, L.; Peng, H.; Li, J.; Zhou, W.; Huang, H. Co-culture of fungi-microalgae consortium for wastewater treatment: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 330, 125008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, W.; Zhang, T.; Tang, X.; Wang, B. Oomycetes and fungi: Important parasites on marine algae. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2010, 29, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lam, T.P.; Lee, T.M.; Chen, C.Y.; Chang, J.S. Strategies to control biological contaminants during microalgal cultivation in open ponds. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 252, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, M.; Kuo-Dahab, W.C.; Dolan, S.; Park, C. Kinetics of nutrient removal and expression of extracellular polymeric substances of the microalgae, Chlorella sp. and Micractinium sp., in wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 154, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Egede, E.J.; Jones, H.; Cook, B.; Purchase, D.; Mouradov, A. Application of microalgae and fungal-microalgal associations for wastewater treatment. Fungal Appl. Sustain. Environ. Biotechnol. 2016, 143–181. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kumsiri, B.; Pekkoh, J.; Pathom-aree, W.; Lumyong, S.; Pumas, C. Synergistic effect of co-culture of microalga and actinomycete in diluted chicken manure digestate for lipid production. Algal Res. 2018, 33, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, Q. A novel one-step method for oil-rich biomass production and harvesting by co-cultivating microalgae with filamentous fungi in molasses wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 275, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, J.; Chen, R.; Fan, L.; Cui, L.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, J.; Wu, X.; Zeng, W.; Tian, Q.; Shen, L. Construction of fungi-microalgae symbiotic system and adsorption study of heavy metal ions. Sep. Pur. Technol. 2021, 268, 118689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Padri, M.; Boontian, N.; Teaumroong, N.; Piromyou, P.; Piasai, C. Co-culture of microalga Chlorella sorokiniana with syntrophic Streptomyces thermocarboxydus in cassava wastewater for wastewater treatment and biodiesel production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 347, 126732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xu, M.; Xue, Z.; Liu, J.; Sun, S.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, H. Observation of few GR24 induced fungal-microalgal pellets performance for higher pollutants removal and biogas quality improvement. Energy 2022, 244, 123171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tate, J.J.; Gutierrez-Wing, M.T.; Rusch, K.A.; Benton, M.G. The effects of plant growth substances and mixed cultures on growth and metabolite production of green algae Chlorella sp.: A review. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 32, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wrede, D.; Taha, M.; Miranda, A.F.; Kadali, K.; Stevenson, T.; Ball, A.S.; Mouradov, A. Co-cultivation of fungal and microalgal cells as an efficient system for harvesting microalgal cells, lipid production and wastewater treatment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, 113497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Ummalyma, S.B.; Gnansounou, E.; Sukumaran, R.K.; Sindhu, R.; Pandey, A.; Sahoo, D. Bioflocculation: An alternative strategy for harvesting of microalgae—An overview. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 242, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Matter, A.I.; Bui, V.J.H.; Jung, M.; Seo, J.Y.; Kim, Y.E.; Lee, Y.C.; Oh, Y.K. Flocculation harvesting techniques for microalgae: A review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Nazari, M.T.; Freitag, J.F.; Cavanhi, V.A.F.; Colla, L.M. Microalgae harvesting by fungal-assisted bioflocculation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 19, 369–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dzurendova, S.; Losada, C.B.; Dupuy-Galet, B.X.; Fjær, K.; Shapaval, V. Mucoromycota fungi as powerful cell factories for modern biorefinery. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 106, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pei, X.; Ren, H.; Liu, B. Flocculation performance and mechanism of fungal pellets on harvesting of microalgal biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 321, 124463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yu, B.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Sim, S.J. Effective contamination control strategies facilitating axenic cultivation of Haematococcus pluvialis: Risks and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zuccaro, G.; Yousuf, A.; Pollio, A.; Steyer, J.P. Microalgae Cultivation for Biofuels Production; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 11–29. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pleissner, D.; Lindner, A.; Ambati, R.R. Techniques to Control Microbial Contaminants in Nonsterile Microalgae Cultivation. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2020, 192, 1376–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yao, S.; Lyu, S.A.Y.; Lu, J.; Gjermansen, C.; Schramm, A. Microalgae-bacteria symbiosis in microalgal growth and biofuel production: A review. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Amin, S.A.; Parker, M.S.; Armbrust, E.V. Interactions between diatoms and bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2012, 76, 667–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Zhang, C.; Ho, S.-H.; Li, A.; Fu, L.; Zhou, D. Co-culture of Chlorella and Scenedesmus could enhance total lipid production under bacteria quorum sensing molecule stress. J. Water Proc. Eng. 2021, 39, 101739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Molina-Grima, E.; García-Camacho, F.; Acién-Fernández, F.G.; Sánchez-Mirón, A.; Plouviez, M.; Shene, C.; Chisti, Y. Pathogens and predators impacting commercial production of microalgae and cyanobacteria. Biotechnol. Adv. 2022, 55, 107884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Xue, L.; Shang, H.; Ma, P.; Wang, X.; He, X.; Niu, J.; Wu, J. Analysis of growth and lipid production characteristics of Chlorella vulgaris in artificially constructed consortia with symbiotic bacteria. J. Basic Microbio. 2018, 58, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Scognamiglio, V.; Giardi, M.T.; Zappi, D.; Touloupakis, E.; Antonacci, A. Photoautotrophs-Bacteria Co-Cultures: Advances, Challenges and Applications. Materials 2021, 14, 3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fukami, K.; Yuzawa, A.; Nishijima, T.; Hata, Y. Isolation and Properties of a Bacterium Inhibiting the Growth of Gymnodinium nagasakiense. Nippon. Suisan Gakkaishi 1992, 58, 1073–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Imai, I.; Ishida, Y.; Sakaguchi, K.; Hata, Y. Algicidal marine bacteria isolated from northern Hiroshima Bay. Jpn. Fish Sci. 1995, 61, 628–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kim, J.D.; Kim, B.; Lee, C. Alga-lytic activity of Pseudomonas fluorescens against the red tide causing marine alga Heterosigma akashiwo (Raphidophyceae). Biol. Control 2007, 41, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sakai, H.; Oguma, K.; Katayama, H.; Ohgaki, S. Effects of low- or medium- pressure ultraviolet lamp irradiation on Microcystis aeruginosa and Anabaena variablili. Water Res. 2007, 41, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mooij, P.R.; Stouten, G.R.; Van Loosdrecht, M.C.; Kleerebezem, R. Ecology-based selective environments as solution to contamination in microalgal cultivation. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Carney, L.T.; Lane, T.W. Parasites in algae mass culture. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Longcore, J.E. Morphology and zoospore ultrastructure of Entophlyctis luteolus sp. nov. (Chytridiales): Implications for chytrid taxonomy. Mycologia 1995, 87, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bueno, D.J.; Silva, J.O. Fungi: The Fungal Hypha. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  79. Gow, N.A.R.; Latge, J.P.; Munro, C.A. The Fungal Cell Wall: Structure, Biosynthesis, and Function. Microbiol. Spectr. 2017, 5, 28513415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Gessner, M.O.; Gulis, V.; Kuehn, K.A.; Chauvet, E.; Suberkropp, K. Fungal Decomposers of Plant Litter in Aquatic Ecosystems. Mycota 2007, 301–324. [Google Scholar]
  81. Graça, M.A.S. The Role of Invertebrates on Leaf Litter Decomposition in Streams—A Review. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 2001, 86, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Barros, J.; Seena, S. Fungi in Freshwaters: Prioritising Aquatic Hyphomycetes in Conservation Goals. Water 2022, 14, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, X.; Xia, Z.; Tang, J.; Wu, J.; Tong, J.; Li, M.; Ju, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, L. Identification and biological evaluation of secondary metabolites from marine derived fungi-Aspergillus sp. SCSIOW3, cultivated in the presence of epigenetic modifying agents. Molecules 2017, 22, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Berry, O.; Briand, E.; Bagot, A.; Chaigne, M.; Meslet-Cladière, L.; Wang, J.; Grovel, O.; Jansen, J.J.; Ruiz, N.; Robiou du Pont, T.; et al. Deciphering microbiome impacts on fungal-microalgal interaction in a marine environment using metabolomics. bioRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar]
  85. Becker, J.G.; Shaw, C.G. Fungi in domestic sewage-treatment plants. Appl. Microbiol. 1955, 3, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Letcher, P.M.; Longcore, J.E.; Quandt, C.A.; Da Silvia Leite, D.; James, T.Y.; Powell, M.J. Morphological, molecular, and ultrastructural characterization of Rozella rhizoclosmatii, a new species in Cryptomycota. Fungal Biol. 2017, 121, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Grossart, H.P.; Van den Wyngaert, S.; Kagami, M.; Wurzbacher, C.; Cunliffe, M.; Rojas-Jimenez, K. Fungi in aquatic ecosystems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 17, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Yu, Z.; Fischer, R. Light sensing and responses in fungi. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 17, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fuller, K.K.; Loros, J.J.; Dunlap, J.C. Fungal photobiology: Visible light as a signal for stress, space and time. Curr. Genet. 2015, 61, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. De Lucca, A.J.; Carter-Wientjes, C.; Williams, K.A.; Bhatnagar, D. Blue light (470 nm) effectively inhibits bacterial and fungal growth. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 55, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Fanelli, F.; Geisen, R.; Schmidt-Heydt, M.; Logrieco, A.; Mule, G. Light regulation of mycotoxin biosynthesis: New perspectives for food safety. World Mycotoxin J. 2016, 9, 129–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ali, S.R.M.; Fradi, A.J.; Al-Aaraji, A.M. Effect of some physical factors on growth of five fungal species. Eur. Acad. Res. 2017, 5, 1069–1078. [Google Scholar]
  93. Pardo, E.; Marín, S.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V. Ecophysiology of ochratoxigenic Aspergillus ochraceus and Penicillium verrucosum isolates. Predictive models for fungal spoilage prevention—A review. Food Addit. Contam. 2006, 23, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Vylkova, S. Environmental pH modulation by pathogenic fungi as a strategy to conquer the host. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, 1006149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Bi, F.; Barad, S.; Ment, D.; Luria, N.; Dubey, A.; Casado, V.; Glam, N.; Minguez, J.D.; Espeso, E.A.; Fluhr, R.; et al. Carbon regulation of environmental pH by secreted small molecules that modulate pathogenicity in phytopathogenic fungi. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2016, 17, 1178–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Krauss, G.J.; Solé, M.; Krauss, G.; Schlosser, D.; Wesenberg, D.; Bärlocher, F. Fungi in freshwaters: Ecology, physiology and biochemical potential. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 35, 620–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Duarte, S.; Fernandes, I.; Nogueira, M.J.; Cássio, F.; Pascoal, C. Temperature alters interspecific relationships among aquatic fungi. Fungal Ecol. 2013, 6, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Miki, T.; Takimoto, G.; Kagami, M. Roles of parasitic fungi in aquatic food webs: A theoretical approach. Freshwater Biol. 2011, 56, 1173–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jobard, M.; Rasconi, S.; Sime-Ngando, T. Diversity and functions of microsporic fungi: A missing component in pelagic food webs. Aquat. Sci. 2010, 72, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Notz, R.; Maurhofer, M.; Dubach, H.; Haas, D.; Defago, G. Fusaric acid–producing strains of Fusarium oxysporum alter 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol biosynthetic gene expression in Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 in vitro and in the rhizosphere of wheat. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 2229–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Schroeckh, V.; Scherlach, K.; Nützmann, H.W.; Shelest, E.; Schmidt-Heck, W.; Schuemann, J.; Martin, K.; Hertweck, C.; Brakhage, A.A. Intimate bacterial-fungal interaction triggers biosynthesis of archetypal polyketides in Aspergillus nidulans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 14558–14563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Baudy, P.; Zubrod, J.C.; Konschak, M.; Kolbenshlag, S.; Pollit, A.; Baschien, C.; Schulz, R.; Bundschuh, M. Fungal-Fungal and fungal-bacterial interactions in acquatic decomposer communities: Bacteria promote fungal diversity. Ecology 2021, 102, 03471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hassett, B.T.; Borrego, E.J.; Vonnahme, T.R.; Rämä, T.; Kolomiets, M.V.; Gradinger, R. Arctic marine fungi: Biomass, functional genes, and putative ecological roles. ISME J. 2019, 13, 1484–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Carreira, C.; Lønborg, C.; Kühl, M.; Lillebø, A.I.; Sandaa, R.A.; Villanueva, L.; Cruz, S. Fungi and viruses as important players in microbial mats. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020, 96, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bulai, I.M.; Venturino, E. Competition between algae and fungi in a lake: A mathematical model. CMMSE 2016 Proceedings 1. J. Vigo-Aguiar. 2016, 1, 261–272. [Google Scholar]
  106. Brakhage, A.A. Regulation of fungal secondary metabolism. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Cooper, M.B.; Smith, A.G. Exploring mutualistic interactions between microalgae and bacteria in the omics age. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 26, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Hoffman, Y.; Aflalo, C.; Zarka, A.; Gutman, J.; James, T.Y.; Boussiba, S. Isolation and characterization of a novel chytrid species (phylum Blastocladiomycota), parasitic on the green alga Haematococcus. Mycol. Res. 2008, 112, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gutman, J.; Zarka, A.; Boussiba, S. The host-range of Paraphysoderma sedebokerensis, a chytrid that infects Haematococcus pluvialis. Eur. J. Phycol. 2009, 44, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lin, J.; Yan, H.; Zhao, L.; Li, Y.; Nahidian, B.; Zhu, M.; Hu, Q.; Han, D. Interaction between the cell walls of microalgal host and fungal carbohydrate-activate enzymes is essential for the pathogenic parasitism process. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 5114–5130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Papone, T.; Kookkunthod, S.; Leesing, R. Microbial oil production by monoculture and mixed cultures of microalgae and oleaginous yeasts using sugarcane juice as substrate. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 64, 1127–1131. [Google Scholar]
  112. Canter, H.M.; Jaworski, G. The occurrence of a hypersensitive reaction in the planktonic diatom Asterionella formosa Hassal parasitized by the chytrid Rhizophydium planktonicum Canter emend., in culture. New phytol. 1979, 82, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Gromov, B.V.; Mamkaeva, K.A. The fine structure of Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum—An endoparasite of green alga Scenedesmus. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1970, 67, 452–459. [Google Scholar]
  114. Pouneva, I.D. Effect of abscisic acid and ontogenic phases of the host alga on the infection process in the pathosystem Scenedemus acutusPhlyctidium scenedesmi. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2006, 28, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bruning, K.; Ringelberg, J. The influence of phosphorus limitation of the diatom Asterionella Formosa on the zoospore production of its fungal parasite Rhizophydium Planktonicum. Hydrobiol. Bull. 1987, 21, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Du, Z.Y.; Zienkiewicz, K.; Pol, N.V.; Ostrom, N.E.; Benning, C.; Bonito, G.M. Algal-fungal symbiosis leads to photosynthetic mycelium. Elife 2019, 8, 47815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Gan, Q.; Zhou, W.; Wang, S.; Li, X.; Xie, Z.; Wang, J.; Jiang, J.; Lu, Y. A customized contamination controlling approach for culturing oleaginous Nannochloropsis oceanica. Algal Res. 2017, 27, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gromov, B.V.; Pljusch, A.V.; Mamkaeva, K.A. Morphology and possible host range of Rhyizophydium algavorum sp. Nov. (chytridiales)-and obligate parasite of algae. Protistology. 1999, 1, 62–65. [Google Scholar]
  119. Xue, F.; Miao, J.; Zhang, X.; Tan, T. A new strategy for lipid production by mix cultivation of Spirulina platensis and Rhodotorula glutinis. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2010, 160, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hess, S.; Sausen, N.; Melkonian, M. Shedding light on vampires: The phylogeny of vampyrellid amoebae revisited. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 31165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Fott, B. Phylyctidium scenedesmi spec. nova, a new chytrid destroying mass cultures of algae. Z. Allg. Mikrobiol. 1967, 7, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Letcher, P.M.; Lopez, S.; Schmieder, R.; Lee, P.A.; Behnke, C.; Powell, M.J.; McBride, R.C. Characterization of Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum, an algal parasite new to the Cryptomycota isolated from an outdoor algal pond used for the production of biofuel. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, 56232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Carney, L.T.; Reinsch, S.S.; Lane, P.D.; Solberg, O.D.; Jansen, L.S.; Williams, K.; Trent, J.D.; Lane, T.W. Microbiome analysis of a microalgal mass culture growing in municipal wastewater in a prototype OMEGA photobioreactor. Algal. Res. 2014, 4, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. McBride, R.C.; Lopez, S.; Meenach, C.; Burnett, M.; Lee, P.A.; Nohilly, F.; Behnke, C. Contamination management inlow cost open ponds for biofuel production. Industr. Biotechnol. 2014, 10, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ding, Y.; Wen, X.; Peng, X.; Zhang, A.; Wang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Li, Y. Surfactants as fungal parasite control agents in oleaginous microalga, Graesiella sp. WBG-1, mass culture. Algal Res. 2019, 41, 2211–9264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Karpov, S.A.; Mikhailov, K.V.; Mirzaeva, G.S.; Mirabdullaev, I.M.; Mamkaeva, K.A.; Titova, N.N.; Aleoshin, V.V. Obligately Phagotrophic Aphelids Turned out to Branch with the Earliest-diverging Fungi. Protist 2013, 164, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Allen, J.; Leflaive, J.; Bringuier, C.; Ten-Hage, L.; Chauvet, E.; Cornut, J.; Danger, M. Allelopathic inhibition of primary producer growth and photosynthesis by aquatic fungi. Fungal Ecol. 2017, 29, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Raghukumar, C. Algal-fungal interactions in the marine ecosystem: Symbiosis to parasitism. In Recent Advances on Applied Aspects of Indian Marine Algae with Reference to Global Scenario; Tewari, A., Ed.; Central Salt & Marine Chemicals Research Institute: Bhavnagar, India, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  129. Shin, W.; Boo, S.M.; Longcore, J.E. Entophlyctis apiculata, a chytrid parasite of Chlamydomonas sp. (Chlorophyceae). Can. J. Bot. 2001, 79, 1083–1089. [Google Scholar]
  130. Salbitani, G.; Bolinesi, F.; Affuso, M.; Carraturo, F.; Mangoni, O.; Carfagna, S. Rapid and positive effect of bicarbonate addition on growth and photosynthetic efficiency of the green microalgae Chlorella sorokiniana (Chlorophyta, Trebouxiophyceae). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Simkvosky, R.; Daniels, E.F.; Tang, K.; Huynh, S.C.; Golden, S.S.; Brahamsha, B. Impairment of O-antigen production confers resistance to grazing in a model amoeba-cyanobacterium predator-prey system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16678–16683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Yuan, X.; Xiao, S.; Taylor, T.N. Lichen-like symbiosis 600 million years ago. Science 2005, 308, 1017–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Gultom, S.O.; Hu, B. Review of microalgae harvesting via co-pelletization with filamentous fungus. Energies 2013, 6, 5921–5939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Prajapati, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Malik, A.; Choudhary, P. Exploring pellet forming filamentous fungi as tool for harvesting non-flocculating unicellular microalgae. Bioenergy Res. 2014, 7, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Gultom, S.O.; Zamalloa, C.; Hu, B. Microalgae Harvest through Fungal Pelletization-Co-Culture of Chlorella vulgaris and Aspergillus niger. Energies 2014, 7, 4417–4429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Li, B.; Zhang, T.; Yang, Z. Immobilizing unicellular microalga on pellet-forming filamentous fungus: Can this provide new insights into the remediation of arsenic from contaminated water? Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 284, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chen, J.; Leng, L.; Ye, C.; Lu, Q.; Addy, M.; Wang, J.; Liu, J.; Chen, P.; Ruan, R.; Zhou, W. A comparative study between fungal pellet- and spore-assisted microalgae harvesting methods for algae bioflocculation. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 259, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Muradow, N.; Taha, M.; Miranda, A.; Wrede, D.; Kadali, K.; Gujar, A.; Stevenson, T.; Ball, A.; Mouradov, A. Fungal-assisted algal flocculation: Application in wastewater treatment and biofuel production. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2015, 8, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Guo, G.; Cao, W.; Sun, S.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, C. Nutrient removal and biogas upgrading by integrating fungal–microalgal cultivation with anaerobically digested swine wastewater treatment. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 2857–2866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Orphan, V. Methods for unveiling cryptic microbial partnerships in nature. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2009, 12, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Chase, J. Community assembly: When should history matter? Oecologia 2003, 136, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Zhan, J.; Rong, J.; Wang, Q. Mixotrophic cultivation, a preferable microalgae cultivation mode for biomass/bioenergy production, and bioremediation, advances and prospect. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 8505–8517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Das, P.K.; Rani, J.; Rawat, S.; Kunmar, S. Microalgal Co-cultivation for Biofuel Production and Bioremediation: Current Status and Benefits. Bioenerg. Res. 2021, 15, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Sitepu, I.; Sestric, R.; Ignatia, L.; Levin, D.; German, J.; Gillies, L.; Almada, L.; Boundy-Mills, K. Manipulation of culture conditions alters lipid content and fatty acid profiles of a wide variety of known and new oleaginous yeast species. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Papagianni, M. Fungal morphology and metabolite production in submerged mycelial processes. Biotechnol. Adv. 2004, 22, 189–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Salbitani, G.; Del Prete, S.; Bolinesi, F.; Mangoni, O.; De Luca, V.; Carginale, V.; Donald, W.A.; Supuran, C.T.; Carfagna, S.; Capasso, C. Use of an immobilized thermostable α-CA (SspCA) for enhancing the metabolic efficiency of the freshwater green microalga Chlorella sorokiniana. J. Enzyme. Inhib. Med. Chem. 2020, 35, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  147. Nayak, M.; Suh, W.; Lee, B.; Chang, Y. Enhanced carbon utilization efficiency and FAME production of Chlorella sp. HS2 through combined supplementation of bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 156, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Arora, N.; Patel, A.; Mehtani, J.; Pruthi, P.; Pruthi, V.; Poluri, K. Co-culturing of oleaginous microalgae and yeast: Paradigm shift towards enhanced lipid productivity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 16952–16973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wang, X.; Bao, K.; Cao, W.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, C.W. Screening of microalgae for integral biogas slurry nutrient removal and biogas upgrading by different microalgae cultivation technology. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 5426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Park, D.; Yun, Y.; Jo, J.; Park, J. Mechanism of hexavalent chromium removal by dead fungal biomass of Aspergillus niger. Water Res. 2005, 39, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Shen, L.; Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Liu, A.; Li, Z.; Yu, R.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Zeng, W. Characterization of extracellular polysaccharide/protein contents during the adsorption of Cd(II) by Synechocystis sp. PCC6803. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 20713–20722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Rahimi, S.; Modin, O.; Mijakovic, I. Technologies for biological removal and recovery of nitrogen from wastewater. Biotechnol. Adv. 2020, 43, 107570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Wang, S.; Yang, K.; Zhu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Nie, D.; Jiao, N.; Angelidaki, I. One-step co-cultivation and flocculation of microalgae with filamentous fungi to valorize starch wastewater into high-value biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 361, 127625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ward, O.; Singh, A. Omega-3/6 fatty acids: Alternative sources of production. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 3627–3652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kadalg, N.; Pawar, P.; Prakash, G. Co-cultivation of Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Aurantiochytrium limacinum for polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids production. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Zhang, Z.; Pang, Z.; Xu, S.; Wei, T.; Song, L.; Wang, G.; Zhang, J.; Yang, X. Improved Carotenoid Productivity and COD Removal Efficiency by Co-culture of Rhodotorula glutinis and Chlorella vulgaris Using Starch Wastewaters as Raw Material. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 189, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Shokrkar, H.; Zamani, M.; Ebrahimi, S. Exploring strategies for the use of mixed microalgae in cellulase production and its application for bioethanol production. Biofuels. Bioprod. Biorefining 2022, 16, 816–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Predominant genera in different aquatic habitats. Yellow: coastal and oceanic environments; Blue: deep sea and sub-sea floor; Purple: lakes; Red: rivers, streams, and ponds.
Figure 1. Predominant genera in different aquatic habitats. Yellow: coastal and oceanic environments; Blue: deep sea and sub-sea floor; Purple: lakes; Red: rivers, streams, and ponds.
Jof 08 01099 g001
Figure 2. (a). Interaction between microalga (negative charge) and fungus (positive charge); (b). microalga entrapped among fungal hyphae; (c). nutrients exchange between microalga and fungus.
Figure 2. (a). Interaction between microalga (negative charge) and fungus (positive charge); (b). microalga entrapped among fungal hyphae; (c). nutrients exchange between microalga and fungus.
Jof 08 01099 g002
Table 1. Parasites reported for microalgae in laboratory culture and open raceways.
Table 1. Parasites reported for microalgae in laboratory culture and open raceways.
SystemMicroalgal HostParasite’s SpeciesReferences
Laboratory cultureHaematococcus pluvialisParaphysoderma sedebokerensis (Chytrid)[108,109,110]
Chlorella vulgarisAspergillus niger[69]
Chlorella vulgarisMucor sp.[111]
Various diatomsChytriomyces sp. and Zygorhizidium sp. (Chytrid)[112]
Scenedesmus sp.Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum (Aphelid)[113]
Scenedesmus sp.Phlyctidium scenedesmi[114]
Asterionella FormosaRhizophydium planktonicum
(Chytrid)
[115]
Nannochloropsis oceanicaMortierella elongata[116]
Nannochloropsis oceanicaAspergillus sydowii[117]
Chlorococcorum minutumRhizophydium algavorum (Chytrid)[118]
Spirulina platensisRhodotorula glutinis[119]
Closterium sp.Leptophyrs vorax (Amoebae/Endomyxa)[120]
Mass cultureScenedesmus sp.Phlyctidium scenedesmi (Chytrid)[114,121]
Scenedesmus sp.Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum (Aphelid)[122]
Scenedesmus sp.Rhizophidium sp.[123]
Scenedesmus dimorphusAmoeboaphelidium protococcarum[124]
Grasiella sp.Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum (Aphelid) and Rhizophydium scenedesmi (Chytrid)[125]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laezza, C.; Salbitani, G.; Carfagna, S. Fungal Contamination in Microalgal Cultivation: Biological and Biotechnological Aspects of Fungi-Microalgae Interaction. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8101099

AMA Style

Laezza C, Salbitani G, Carfagna S. Fungal Contamination in Microalgal Cultivation: Biological and Biotechnological Aspects of Fungi-Microalgae Interaction. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(10):1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8101099

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laezza, Carmen, Giovanna Salbitani, and Simona Carfagna. 2022. "Fungal Contamination in Microalgal Cultivation: Biological and Biotechnological Aspects of Fungi-Microalgae Interaction" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 10: 1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8101099

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop