4.4 Article

Enhanced Reproducibility and Precision of High-Throughput Quantification of Bacterial Growth Data Using a Microplate Reader

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS
DOI: 10.3791/63849

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) /Halifax Water Industrial Research Chair in Water Quality and Treatment [IRCPJ 349838-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to develop a repeatable and reliable protocol to monitor bacterial growth and analyze the maximum growth rate in 96-well plates. By investigating various issues and assessing the repeatability, the researchers obtained reliable and accurate data. This study is of great importance for the application of microplate reader methods.
This study aimed to develop a repeatable, reliable, high-throughput protocol to monitor bacterial growth in 96-well plates and analyze the maximum growth rate. The growth curves and maximum growth rates of two bacterial species were determined. Issues including (i) lid condensation, (ii) pathlength correction, (iii) inoculation size, (iv) sampling time interval, and (v) spatial bias were investigated. The repeatability of the protocol was assessed with three independent technical replications, with a standard deviation of 0.03 between the runs. The maximum growth rates of Bacillus mycoides and Paenibacillus tundrae were determined to be (mean +/- SD) 0.99 h(-1) +/- 0.03 h(-1) and 0.85 h(-1) +/- 0.025 h(-1), respectively. These bacteria are more challenging to monitor optically due to their affinity to clump together. This study demonstrates the critical importance of inoculation size, path length correction, lid warming, sampling time intervals, and well-plate spatial bias to obtain reliable, accurate, and reproducible data on microplate readers. The developed protocol and its verification steps can be expanded to other methods using microplate readers and high-throughput protocols, reducing the researchers' innate errors and material costs.

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

4.4
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