4.6 Article

Experimental design for the optimization of propidium monoazide treatment to quantify viable and non-viable bacteria in piggery effluents

期刊

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-015-0505-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES)
  2. French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME)
  3. Irstea-Region Bretagne fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Distinguishing between viable and dead bacteria in animal and urban effluents is a major challenge. Among existing methods, propidium monoazide (PMA)-qPCR is a promising way to quantify viable cells. However, its efficiency depends on the composition of the effluent, particularly on total suspended solids (TSS)) and on methodological parameters. The aim of this study was evaluate the influence of three methodological factors (concentration of PMA, incubation time and photoactivation time) on the efficiency of PMA-qPCR to quantify viable and dead cells of Listeria monocytogenes used as a microorganism model, in two piggery effluents (manure and lagoon effluent containing 20 and 0.4 TSS g.kg(-1), respectively). An experimental design strategy (Doehlert design and desirability function) was used to identify the experimental conditions to achieve optimal PMA-qPCR results. Results: The quantification of viable cells of L. monocytogenes was mainly influenced by the concentration of PMA in the manure and by the duration of photoactivation in the lagoon effluent. Optimal values differed with the matrix: 55 mu M PMA, 5 min incubation and 56 min photoactivation for manure and 20 mu M PMA, 20 min incubation and 30 min photoactivation for lagoon effluent. Applied to five manure and four lagoon samples, these conditions resulted in satisfactory quantification of viable and dead cells. Conclusion: PMA-qPCR can be used on undiluted turbid effluent with high levels of TSS, provided preliminary tests are performed to identify the optimal conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据