4.5 Article

An alternative infrared spectroscopy assay for the quantification of polysaccharides in bacterial samples

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 361, 期 1, 页码 7-14

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2006.11.009

关键词

polysaccharide; bacteria; biofilms; infrared spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of bacteria to produce extracellular polysaccharides has been regarded as an indication of biofilm-forming capacity. Therefore, the determination of the sugar content in bacterial samples becomes a significant parameter. The colorimetric methods currently used are rather sensitive to the nature of the sugars and therefore require knowledge of the sugar types present in the samples. Unfortunately, the types of sugars present in bacteria are generally unknown and often composed of a complex mixture. In this article, we propose an alternative method based on Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy for the estimation of the total sugar content in bacterial samples. The method is based on a systematic treatment of FTIR spectra obtained from dried bacteria samples. It is assumed that the total sugar amount can be estimated from the area of characteristic bands between 970 and 1182cm(-1). In parallel, the amide II band (1560-1530cm(-1)) associated with proteins, or the C-H stretching region (2820-3020cm(-1)) associated with the biomass, can be used for normalization purposes. Therefore, the ratio of the band area in the sugar window over that of the amide II or C-H stretching call be used to report the sugar content in bacterial samples. This method has been validated on model bacterial mixtures containing sugars, proteins, and DNA. Results with real bacterial samples are also provided and show conclusively that increased sugar contents in biofilms can be identified. The proposed FTIR approach requires minimal sample preparation and a single acquisition, is rapid, and may be applied to any kind of bacterial growth. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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