References [ 2 ]
Smith JK, Parry JD, Day JG & Smith RJ (1998) A PCR technique based on HIP1 interspersed repetitive sequence distinguishes cyanobacterial species and strains. Microbiology 144: 2791-2801.
Li HB, Cheng KW, Wong CC, Fan KW, Chen F & Jiang Y (2007) Evaluation of antioxident capacity and total phenolic content of different fractions of selected microalgae. Food Chemistry 102: 771-776.
Division/Phylum: Cyanophyta Class: Cyanophyceae Order: Nostocales

Note: for strains where we have DNA barcodes we can be reasonably confident of identity, however for those not yet sequenced we rely on morphology and the original identification, usually made by the depositor. Although CCAP makes every effort to ensure the correct taxonomic identity of strains, we cannot guarantee that a strain is correctly identified at the species, genus or class levels. On this basis users are responsible for confirming the identity of the strain(s) they receive from us on arrival before starting experiments.
For strain taxonomy we generally use AlgaeBase for algae and Adl et al. (2019) for protists.

Culture media, purity and growth conditions:
Medium: BG110; Bacteria and other organisms present; maintained by serial subculture and cryopreserved;
Attributes
Authority(Desmazières) Bornet & Flahault 1886
IsolatorGeorge (1950)
Collection Site Sweden
Notes filament with differentiated cells (akinete/heterocyst); LC-MS analysis by RGU in 2021 for cylindrospermopsins, microcystins and anatoxins: None Detected.
Axenicity Status Bacteria and other organisms present
Area Europe
Country Sweden
Environment Freshwater
GMO No
Group Cyanobacteria
Pathogen Not pathogenic: Hazard Class 1
Strain Maintenance Sheet SM_FreshwaterCyanobacteria.pdf
Toxin Producer Not Toxic / No Data
Type Culture No
Taxonomy WoRMS ID 610159

CCAP 1453/11

Nostoc ellipsosporum