4.3 Article

Quantitative 3D comparison of biofilm imaged by X-ray micro-tomography and two-photon laser scanning microscopy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY
Volume 271, Issue 3, Pages 302-314

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jmi.12718

Keywords

Biofilms; contrast agent; porous media; two-photon microscopy; X-ray micro-tomography; 3D printing

Categories

Funding

  1. grant BioPorousLab (Transversalite) from the IDEX UNITI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optical imaging techniques for biofilm observation, like laser scanning microscopy, are not applicable when investigating biofilm formation in opaque porous media. X-ray micro-tomography (X-ray CMT) might be an alternative but it finds limitations in similarity of X-ray absorption coefficients for the biofilm and aqueous phases. To overcome this difficulty, barium sulphate was used in Davit etal. (2011) to enable high-resolution 3D imaging of biofilm via X-ray CMT. However, this approach lacks comparison with well-established imaging methods, which are known to capture the fine structures of biofilms, as well as uncertainty quantification. Here, we compare two-photon laser scanning microscopy (TPLSM) images of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa biofilm grown in glass capillaries against X-ray CMT using an improved protocol where barium sulphate is combined with low-gelling temperature agarose to avoid sedimentation. Calibrated phantoms consisting of mono-dispersed fluorescent and X-ray absorbent beads were used to evaluate the uncertainty associated with our protocol along with three different segmentation techniques, namely hysteresis, watershed and region growing, to determine the bias relative to image binarization. Metrics such as volume, 3D surface area and thickness were measured and comparison of both imaging modalities shows that X-ray CMT of biofilm using our protocol yields an accuracy that is comparable and even better in certain respects than TPLSM, even in a nonporous system that is largely favourable to TPLSM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available