Hydrophobicity and surface electrostatic charge of conidia of the mycoparasite Coniothyrium minitans

The effect of increasing culture age on cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) and cell surface electrostatic charge (measured as zeta potential) of conidia from five isolates of Coniothyrium minitans representing three different morphological types was examined. Conidial CSH of three isolates (A2 960/1, CH1 and CH2) decreased with culture age, whereas CSH of two others (B 1300/2 and IMI 134523) remained high for the whole 42 day experimental period. In contrast, cell surface electrostatic charge decreased uniformly in conidia of all five isolates for the first 34 d and then rose slightly at 42 d. The variation in cell surface electrostatic charge (spectrum width) of the sampled conidia decreased with age for all five isolates. In all five isolates cell surface electrostatic charge of conidia became increasingly negative as the pH of the buffer used to suspend conidia was increased from pH 3.0 to 9.0. No relationship between colony morphology of C. minitans and conidial CSH and cell surface electrostatic charge was found.

Seeing and believing: three episodes in the history of neurophysiology

In this contribution I look at three episodes in the history of neurophysiology that bring out the complex relationship between seeing and believing. I start with Vesalius in the mid-sixteenth century who writes that he can in no way see any cavity in nerves, even in the optic nerves. He thus questions the age-old theory (dating back to the Alexandrians in the third century BC) but, because of the overarching psychophysiology of his time, does not press his case. This conflict between observation and theory persisted for a quarter of a millennium until finally resolved at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the discoveries of Galvani and Volta. The second case is provided by the early history of retinal synaptology. Schultze in 1866 had represented rod spherules and bipolar dendrites in the outer plexiform layer as being separated by a (synaptic) gap, yet in his written account, because of his theoretical commitments, held them to be continuous. Cajal later, 1892, criticized Schultze for this pusillanimity, but his own figure in La Cellule is by no means clear. It was only with the advent of the electron microscopy in the mid-twentieth century that the true complexity of the junction was revealed and it was shown that both investigators were partially right. My final example comes from the Hodgkin-Huxley biophysics of the 1950s. Their theory of the action potential depended on the existence of unseen ion pores with quite complex biophysical characteristics. These were not seen until the Nobel-Prize-winning X-ray diffraction analyses of the early twenty-first century. Seeing, even at several removes, then confirmed Hodgkin and Huxley’s belief. The relation between seeing and believing is by no means straightforward.