CELL SURVIVAL CHARACTERISTICS AND MOLECULAR RESPONSES OF ANTARCTIC PHYTOPLANKTON TO ULTRAVIOLET‐B RADIATION¹

Abstract

ABSTRACT Twelve species of Antarctic diatoms were studied to assess UV sensitivity in relation to cellular and molecular aspects of DNA damage and repair. Responses of cell survival, induction of DNA damage, and DNA repair capacity were determined. There was a wide range of interspecific UV‐sensitivity among diatoms. D 37 values (average fluence to kill one cell) ranged from 681 J · m −2 (most sensitive) to 25,338 J · m −2 (most resistant). Molecular analysis (by radioimmunoassay) of UV‐induced DNA damage [induction of cys‐syn cyclobutane dimers and pyrimidine (6‐4) pyrimidone photoproducts] also revealed considerable variability among species [0.98–84 lesions · (10 8 daltons DNA) −1 induced by exposure to 2500 J · m −2 ]. Repair of DNA damage ranged from 0.18 to 2.72 lesions removed · (10 8 daltons DNA) −1 in 6 h; removal represented 0.72–73.5% of initial damage. Comparison of cellular responses associated with photoenhanced repair and nucleotide excision (“dark”) repair indicated that light‐mediated correction of UV damage was an important factor in cell survival. There was a relationship between the number of photoproducts induced and cell survival, but not between repair efficiency and survival. The data also indicate a general dependence of photoproduct induction and D 37 values on cell size and shape (expressed as the surface area: volume ratio which ranged from 0.07 to 0.66 between species) and suggest that these factors are indicators of UV sensitivity. Smaller cells with greater surface area: volume ratios sustained more damage per unit of DNA, had lower D 37 values, and were more sensitive to UV exposure. The wide species variations observed in molecular and cellular responses to UV exposure emphasize the ecological implications of changes in natural UV regimes. These changes can act as determinants of cell size and taxonomic structure within phytoplankton communities and have as yet unknown effects on trophic interactions within the Antarctic ecosystem.