Red Sea NO3:POX4X Real Time Review.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Look into the interactions of yeast in a marine environment.
Cmon Randy, I've said it to you before. Are you saying you're still giving the same old advice after having been presented new data?


I have looked into it since you started mentioning it. I see nothing special. Yeast and bacteria metabolize methanol into formaldehyde then formic acid then CO2.

What do you believe is special and important about it?
 
This was some of the noteworthy things I found. They define a larger interaction.
Though you're somewhat correct, remember we're dealing with circumstances that have yet to be fully discovered. But the main part of it all? Methanol. (and algae/detritus consuming organisms that rely on methanol)

So please, I said it before, stop saying nopox is the same as vodka and vinegar. And your 'definitive' analysis couple years back, was not. The resolution was not at maximum, so it's like looking at something under a microscope and calling a 2000x magnification analysis "good enough" to determine 100% content analysis.

Oh, and as far as which is "stronger", bacteria or fungus, there's multiple areas of medical science reconsidering fungus being a bigger 'problem' than bacteria. Purely because of their survival rates and toughness compared to bacteria. Just a thought.


Eukaryotic methylotrophs, which are able to obtain all the carbon and energy needed for growth from methanol, are restricted to a limited number of yeast species. When these yeasts are grown on methanol as the sole carbon and energy source, the enzymes involved in methanol metabolism are strongly induced, and the membrane-bound organelles, peroxisomes, which contain key enzymes of methanol metabolism, proliferate massively. These features have made methylotrophic yeasts attractive hosts for the production of heterologous proteins and useful model organisms for the study of peroxisome biogenesis and degradation. In this paper, we describe recent insights into the molecular basis of yeast methylotrophy.

Prokaryotic methylotrophs can utilize a variety of C1-compounds (e.g., methane, methanol, methylamine), while eukaryotic methylotrophs can only use methanol as a carbon source, and methylamine not as a carbon source but as a nitrogen source. The latter group of organisms is limited to a number of yeast genera including Candida, Pichia, and some genera that were recently separated from Pichia, that is, Ogataea, Kuraishia, and Komagataella [5].
Since the first isolation in 1969 [6], methylotrophic yeasts have been studied intensively in terms of both physiological activities and potential applications. In the early 1970s, production of single cell protein (SCP) using methanol as a carbon source was studied intensively [7, 8]. These studies established a high-cell-density cultivation method although large-scale production of SCP from methanol was eventually found not to be economically feasible. The metabolic pathways involved in methanol assimilation and dissimilation and characterization of the enzymes have been described in Hansenula polymorpha (Pichia angusta) and Candida boidinii [9–12]. One major finding was the strong inducibility of these enzymes by methanol. A variety of genes encoding enzymes and proteins involved in methanol metabolism have since been cloned, and the regulation of methanol-inducible gene expression has been studied [13, 14]. Methylotrophic yeasts also have been used as model organisms for peroxisome biogenesis and degradation, because methylotrophic growth in yeasts is accompanied by the massive proliferation of peroxisomes, membrane-bound organelles that contain several methanol-metabolizing enzymes [15–17].

Methanol is oxidized to CO2 by methylotrophic bacteria and yeasts. Thus, methylotrophs play indispensable roles in the global carbon cycle between methane and CO2 called “the methane cycle.” A thorough understanding of the molecular basis of methylotrophy is needed not only to better understand the global methane cycle but also to permit more efficient use of methanol as a renewable carbon source.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijmicro/2011/101298/

Yeasts are ubiquitous in their distribution and populations mainly depend on the type and concentration of organic materials. The distribution of species, as well as their numbers and metabolic characteristics were found to be governed by existing environmental conditions. Marine yeasts were first discovered from the Atlantic Ocean and following this discovery, yeasts were isolated from different sources, viz. seawater, marine deposits, seaweeds, fish, marine mammals and sea birds. Nearshore environments are usually inhabited by tens to thousands of cells per litre of water, whereas low organic surface to deep-sea oceanic regions contain 10 or fewer cells/litre. Aerobic forms are found more in clean waters and fermentative forms in polluted waters. Yeasts are more abundant in silty muds than in sandy sediments. The isolation frequency of yeasts fell as the depth of the sampling site is increased. Major genera isolated in this study were Candida, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and Rhodotorula. For biomass estimation ergosterol method was used. Classification and identification of yeastswere performed using different criteria, i.e. morphology,sexual reproduction and physiological/biochemical characteristics. Fatty acid profiling or molecular sequencing of the IGS and ITS regions and 28S gene rDNA ensured accurate identification



Studies on the distribution of yeasts world-wide are presented in Figure 1. A truly marine yeast must be able to grow on or in a marine substrate. Direct examination of living marine invertebrates, however, has demonstrated the presence of parasitic and pathogenic yeasts [54,126,131] and, if such species have grown in situ in the animal and its native habitat, they could rightly be called indigenous marine species. So far, no physiological clues have been found to explain why marine-occurring yeasts are able to live in this special habitat. Salinity tolerance does not distinguish marine species from terrestrial species because almost all yeasts can grow in sodium chloride concentrations exceeding those normally present in the sea. Certain distinctive metabolic attributes of yeasts are associated with environmental distribution. Yeasts found in aquatic environments are generally asporogenous and oxidative or weakly fermentative. [119] Marine yeasts are reported to be truly versatile agents of biodegradation. [36,71] They participate in a range of ecologically significant processes in the sea, especially in estuarine and near-shore environments. Among such activities, decomposition of plant substrates, nutrient-recycling, biodegradation of oil/recalcitrant compounds and parasitism of marine animals are important. Biomass data and repeated observations of microhabitat colonization by various marine-occurring yeasts support ancillary laboratory evidence for the contribution of this segment of the marine mycota to productivity and transformation activities in the sea. [93]



Kriss and Rukina [73] also found plankton blooms in the Black sea and the Pacific Ocean to be locations of greatest density of yeast populations in the sea.



Yeast populations have been observed to decrease with increased distance from land [5] and certain yeast species frequently collected from seawater were obtained in the highest quantities from the vicinity of heavily polluted areas. [45] However, such facts could also indicate that the collected yeasts were merely contaminants from terrestrial sources, surviving passively in the sea. These incidents and the related arguments may very well question the statement that there are truly indigenous marine yeasts. Near-shore environments are usually inhabited by tens to thousands of cells/litre of water, whereas low organic surface to deep-sea oceanic regions contain 10 or fewer cells/litre, although local nutrient areas may foster concentrations of yeast cells that reach 3000–4000 cells/litre. Kriss and Novozhilova [77] reported that budding yeasts were observed by direct microscopic examination of water samples down to depths of 2000 m. This fact would be evidence for growth of yeasts in seawater; however, the collection technique with Nansen bottles used by Kriss and co-workers was questioned later, when such containers were found to be easily contaminated. [134] In a survey of marineoccurring yeasts, Kohlmeyer and Kohlmeyer [72] have compiled a list of 177 species that were isolated from water, sediment, algae, animals and other organic matter in the marine habitat. Of those, only 26 species were regarded as obligate marine forms. The most important genera of true marine yeasts are Metchnikowia, Kluyveromyces, Rhodosporidium, Candida, Cryptococcus, Rhodotorula and Torulopsis. From these studies it was found that marine yeasts do not belong to a specific genus or group, but that they are distributed among a wide variety of well-known genera, such as Candida, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces, Pichia, Hansenula, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, Trichosporon and Torulopsis. The isolation frequency of yeasts falls with depth. Yeasts in the class Ascomycetes (e.g. Candida, Debaryomyces, Kluyveromyces, Pichia and Saccharomyces) are common in shallow waters, whilst yeasts belonging to the Basidiomycetes (Cryptococcus, Rhodosporidium, Rhodotorula, Sporobolomyces) are common in deep waters, e.g. Rhodotorula has been isolated from a depth of 11000 m. [99]



Yamasato et al. [156] conducted an ecological survey of yeasts from the Pacific Ocean and yeasts were isolated from the surface to a depth of 4000 m and were found belonging to the genera Rhodotorula, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and Candida. Cryptococcus and Rhodotorula species were predominant among yeasts isolated from deep-sea waters from Loma Trough, off San Diego, CA, USA. In samples collected off La Jolla, CA, USA, total yeast count varied in the range 0–1920 viable cells/l. [146] Fell and Castelo-Branco (146) reported observations on the distribution, ecology and taxonomy of yeasts isolated from the subtropical Atlantic near Miami, FL, USA and the warm temperature Pacific adjacent to La Jolla, CA, USA. From the open ocean waters of the Gulf Stream near Bimini, Bahamas, genera such as Candida, Rhodotorula, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces and black yeasts were isolated. The distribution of species as well as their numbers and metabolic characteristics were found to be governed by existing environmental conditions.



http://dyuthi.cusat.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/purl/2035/Marine%20yeasts-a%20rewiew.pdf

Affecting algae?



  1. Boidinii can grow on pectin and this ability depends on methylotrophy


Golden-brown algae (Chrysophyta). The Chrysophyta, or golden-brown algae and diatoms, are named for the yellow pigments they possess. These single-celled algae live both in freshwater and salt water. Their cell walls have no cellulose but are composed mostly of pectin



From <http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Algae.html>

Sulfate-limiting anaerobic conditions



Methanogenic archaea have an unusual type of metabolism because they use H2 + CO2, formate, methylated C1 compounds, or acetate as energy and carbon sources for growth. The methanogens produce methane as the major end product of their metabolism in a unique energy-generating process. The organisms received much attention because they catalyze the terminal step in the anaerobic breakdown of organic matter under sulfate-limiting conditions and are essential for both the recycling of carbon compounds and the maintenance of the global carbon flux on Earth.



Other energy-transducing enzymes involved in methanogenesis are the membrane-integral methyltransferase and the formylmethanofuran dehydrogenase complex.



Furthermore, the review addresses questions related to the biochemical and genetic characteristics of the energy-transducing enzymes and to the mechanisms of ion translocation.





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12102556
 
Of course this is all aside from the fact yeast is used for breaking down of algae to ethanol and co2.
But the question is, how do you KEEP the yeast in those downturns of algae and ethanol? Introducing methanol perhaps? This again, would enable more organisms than ethanol alone. (see previous post)
 
Last edited:
Sorry , but I fail to see any importance to what you have posted to a reef tank and why methanol would be an especially useful component of organic carbon dosing.

Your continued inability to accept a very simple chemical analysis run by an unbiased expert using a very widely used technique (in fact, one of the main tools used by every organic chemist identifying organic compounds) also seems odd. Perhaps not having training how to identify organic compounds contributes to this skepticism, but the wider world of chemistry experts does not doubt the ability of NMR to identify simple organic compounds like ethanol.

I'll address the specific yeast comments in other posts.
 
Lol... I'm not bashing the guy who did the test, I'm challenging the test resolution.
From what I found in the manual for a similar test, 500MHZ resolution did not identify a peak. The 800MHZ resolution clearly produced a peak, which lead to identification of another compound.
Not my fault you keep ignoring that fact.

Also, those examples are not straight-forward. But are you saying that hydrogen sulfide is not something we deal with in our tanks? (yes, that's an offshoot of another fact of yeast in anoxic conditions) Are you also saying that algae is not something we deal with in our tanks?

Bottom line is, it's still another compound that's utilized by microbials, why the heck would you ignore all of that? Just to defend your 'carbond dosing diy' recipe? lol

It's times like this I really hate forums, because you're definitely not here to help the hobby progress. Otherwise you would entertain the possibility we don't know everything. (because the probability of that is 99.9%)

Or are you going to say I'm wrong about that too?
 
Starting with the last segment on sulfate limiting conditions, that NEVER happens in a reef tank. It means nearly all of the 2800 ppm of sulfate in seawater is gone. That is a condition where there would be massive production of hydrogen sulfide (that is what the sulfate would turn into).

Perhaps it happens in some deep sediments or anoxic basins in the ocean where there has been hydrogen sulfide production for a very long time, but more likely it is important in fresh water where sulfate is low to begin with. So I think it safe to say we can discount any hypothesis that assumes sulfate limiting conditions are present in a living reef aquarium.
 
So are you saying we know to this day 100% of what happens with sulfur in our tanks?
http://aem.asm.org/content/69/9/5472.short
Isn't it feasible that algae and sulfur could be utilized in a positive way?

And I did not bring up sulfate-limiting conditions. You did.

You enjoy brining up side-notes, that have nothing to do with the point, just to have a correct statement.. lol
 
Bottom line is, it's still another compound that's utilized by microbials, why the heck would you ignore all of that? Just to defend your 'carbond dosing diy' recipe? lol

My DIY recipe?

My recipe that I recommend is not based on anyones analysis of anyone's product.

I choose to use vinegar for a variety of reasons that I have explained many times. That is what I recommend.

What I have done for others who might ask is suggest how they can dose a mixture of simple chemicals that in composition and concentration is similar to the two primary components on NOPOX. I don't feel the need to defend it as it is not even my recommendation to dose it over individual chemicals like vinegar.
 
@JaysLittleOcean Did you notice any brown spider web looking 'aglae' from as a result of your dosing? This started about the time I started with NoPoX. It flourishes in the day and resides at night... It's extremely annoying and is aggravating my coral. I will say that I did have GHA and it went away almost over night when I started dosing. I would gladly trade this 'stuff' for the GHA though. If you look on the left edge of the rock you can see what I'm talking about.


45901725-F649-47B5-9528-16B66196B21E_zpse0k2ksz3.jpg
 
Lol... I'm not bashing the guy who did the test, I'm challenging the test resolution.
From what I found in the manual for a similar test, 500MHZ resolution did not identify a peak. The 800MHZ resolution clearly produced a peak, which lead to identification of another compound.
Not my fault you keep ignoring that fact.

Unfortunately, your lack of understanding of NMR apparently makes it difficult to explain what that is nonsense and your seeming example is just your misunderstanding of how the method works.

As I have explained before, high resolution NMR is not necessary to distinguish simple organic chemicals. High resolution is needed when there are protons with nearly identical chemical shifts, which means they have very nearly the same nearby chemical environment. That is not true of any of the small solvent molecules. The integrated peak height being directly related to the number of protons at that position ensures that there are not hidden peaks under those identified, while in the super complex organic chemical of your example where there are many, many protons, one cannot know how many protons may be under each peak.
 
TD13, that pic looks like algae that didn't completely die off.(unless it's fan-like, like bryopsis? can't tell, pic is fuzzy)
Took about 2-3 months before the nopox cleaned out my tank completely. Of course at that point you have to cut back the dosage considerably. (at least I had to)

And Randy, I'm not sure what else to say to you. You dodge points, make up statements, ignore even what Red Sea says about their product. Again, not sure what the drive is behind your attitude, whether it's monetary or egotistical, but if vinegar was the fix-all for our tanks, it would have been established long ago. If Nopox was the fix-all for our tanks, it would have been established long ago.

But I believe nopox has done more for me than vinegar ever did, and I'm looking into *why* that could be. Because my tank is sure not special or unique. It looks better than 95% of the tanks I see, but that doesn't mean anything on our understanding of why.
 
Nopox killed every coral in my tank and didn't lower nitrate at all. Debate over!!
Lol... I do find people use too much and don't use another vital component: Reef Energy..

Really, RE and Nopox should ONLY be sold as a combo imo. Using foods that contain phosphate really inhibits the whole thing.. (see 'I can't get rid of my phosphate' posts)
 
It's times like this I really hate forums, because you're definitely not here to help the hobby progress. Otherwise you would entertain the possibility we don't know everything. (because the probability of that is 99.9%)

Or are you going to say I'm wrong about that too?

Of course we do not know everything about our aquaria. If you read my posts you will frequently find that my answer to a question is "sorry, I just do not know". I think there was even one earlier today.

But there is a lot we can and should know, and reefers often need assistance with the chemistry aspects of their tanks.

That is why I am here. That is how I help the hobby progress. That way individuals can sort the crap from the wisdom for themselves when spouted to them by other reefers, manufacturers, or even supposed experts.

Sometimes that means figuring out something new that wasn't well known by reefers and trying to teach others.

Sometimes that means exposing nonsense claims by manufacturers.

Sometimes that means supplying folks with the knowledge to do things correctly for themselves.

If you want me to post the ways that I have made the hobby progress in very clear terms, let's start with a few here:

1. Everyone believed that refractometers were perfect until I showed that many were not even designed for seawater and would only give accurate values when calibrated differently than the manufacturer claimed.

2. It was claimed by one big expert that soda water reduces alkalinity. I showed that wasnt true, though he still has things on line saying otherwise.

3. I showed recipes for DIY two part systems that many people use and save considerable money.

4. The relationships between the different ways of supplementing alkalinity and how that impacts pH and the nature of the alkalinity present has often been misunderstood, even by experts that made untrue claims. I clarified these through a variety of articles and communications.

5. Many manufacturers make untrue claims. Some have been retracted with a thank you from the company when I explained the problem. Others go unchanged, but readers of the discussion are better educated about the issues.

So before you start claiming I am not here to help the hobby progress, you might take a closer look at my efforts. Unfortunately for you, I list my corrections of your comments as a plus in my progressing of the hobby by reducing misleading information.
 
Lol... I do find people use too much and don't use another vital component: Reef Energy..

Really, RE and Nopox should ONLY be sold as a combo imo. Using foods that contain phosphate really inhibits the whole thing.. (see 'I can't get rid of my phosphate' posts)

All foods must contain phosphate. There's no way around that.
 
So are you saying we know to this day 100% of what happens with sulfur in our tanks?
http://aem.asm.org/content/69/9/5472.short
Isn't it feasible that algae and sulfur could be utilized in a positive way?

And I did not bring up sulfate-limiting conditions. You did.

You enjoy brining up side-notes, that have nothing to do with the point, just to have a correct statement.. lol

Lots of processes in our tanks involve sulfate and sulfur. None of then are in sulfate limiting conditions. None that actually happen in reef tanks need involve methanol specifically, and I don't see any reason to think they do.

Your big post specifically says sulfate-limiting anaerobic conditions. Hopefully you read the stuff you posted. :(
 
Maybe if you actually researched Reef Energy and their sources, you would find it is possibly to have tryptophan and other substances included that contain zero phosphate. But w/e.

Sorry Randy, done talking to ya. Can't block ya cause you're a mod, but I'm just going to ignore you from here on.

You, FutureDoc from RC and Geoff from TRT should get together. You're all alike in being the "definitive" never-ending, conclusive, always 100% correct "geniuses" that know more than teams and teams of researchers around the globe actively studying the reefs and oceans.

The only certainty in life, is uncertainty.
 
Maybe if you actually researched Reef Energy and their sources, you would find it is possibly to have tryptophan and other substances included that contain zero phosphate. But w/e.

Sorry Randy, done talking to ya. Can't block ya cause you're a mod, but I'm just going to ignore you from here on.

You, FutureDoc from RC and Geoff from TRT should get together. You're all alike in being the "definitive" never-ending, conclusive, always 100% correct "geniuses" that know more than teams and teams of researchers around the globe actively studying the reefs and oceans.

The only certainty in life, is uncertainty.

An amino acid is not a food. It is a supplement. Obviously purified amino acids might not contain phosphate. Amino acids are a fine thing to add to a reef tank, but are not suitable fish foods. Nothing can live without phosphate, and no food made from tissue of any organisms will be phosphate free.

Sorry, I am resistant to your continued name calling that always comes around when you find that your arguments are not as convincing as you apparently thought. I'm not sure what teams of researchers have to do with this discussion, however. It's not like they weighed in supporting your unusual conclusions.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top