{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026217228464419477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.028089887640449437, 'mean_word_length': 5.707112970711297, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of acenaphthene on nuclear division of Basidiobolus ranarum.

SUMMARY The effects of acenaphthene on nuclear division of Basidiobolus ranarntm are described and illustrated. The time required for metaphase and anaphase was significantly longer and the protoplast underwent nuclear division oftener in treated agar-coated slide cultures than in untreated cultures. Hyphae growing on cellulose acetate preparations in Petri dishes were treated for 6, 12, and 18 hr with acenaphthene vapors; the 18-hr treatment produced gross alterations in nuclear division. The spindle fibers were rendered unstainable but were not completely inactivated. The effects of acenaphthene were cumulative and at least partially reversible. Although acenaphthene was reported as a fungistatic agent as early as 1923 (Bateman and Henningsen), few investigators have studied its effects on fungi (Curtis, 1954). Whittingham (1962) reported that tolerance to acenaphthene resulted from a single gene mutation in Neurospora sitophila Shear & Dodge. Tews (1965) explored the possibility that acenaphthene-resistant mutants might synthesize an adaptive enzyme, but concluded that this was an unlikely explanation for acenaphthene resistance. Tews (1968) also studied 55 species of fungi selected from several major taxonomic groups and found that sensitivity to acenaphthene apparently was not correlated with taxonomic grouping. Nuclear and cytological changes induced in fungi by acenaphthene have been reported by Subramaniam and Ranganathan (1946), Horsfall and Rich (1953), Reiss (1969), and Seshadri and Payak (1970).