4.4 Article

New methodology for viability testing in environmental samples

Journal

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR PROBES
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 141-146

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcp.2005.11.006

Keywords

microbial viability; nucleic acid dyes; wastewater; confocal microscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Environmental samples can be complex and are comprised of microorganisms and a matrix of decaying organic matter as well as an inorganic phase such as sand or precipitated material (waste water, sludge, soils, etc.). Nucleic acid dyes have recently been developed to address the Growing need for environmental analyses (cell staining, counting, viability testing and specific organism identification). However, certain dyes may not be ideally suited for testing of environmental samples, because they readily adhere to the substrate material as well as their target Molecule, resulting in increased non-specific binding and background fluorescence. The aim of this study was to address the limitations of the widely used and commercially available Live/Dead BacLight (TM) Bacterial Viability kit (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR). A new combination of nucleic acid dyes, i.e. SYTO (R) 13 and SYTOX (R) Orange (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR), was proposed as an alternative. The dyes were carefully chosen for their spectral separation and increase Of fluorescence quantum yield. A protocol for this combination was first designed and optimized and the two staining assays were compared against suspensions of live and dead E. coli, mixed in different proportions and it was shown that both protocols performed equally oil pure cultures. However, when testing activated sludge samples, the commercial kit showed greater background fluorescence and non-specific binding than the alternate combination. Therefore, the proposed dye combination and its corresponding protocol are deemed more suitable for use oil complex environmental samples than the Live/Dead BacLight (TM) Bacterial Viability kit. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available