4.6 Article

Applications of a rapid endospore viability assay for monitoring UV inactivation and characterizing Arctic ice cores

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 72, 期 10, 页码 6808-6814

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00255-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a rapid endospore viability assay (EVA) in which endospore germination serves as an indicator for viability and applied it to (i) monitor UV inactivation of endospores as a function of dose and (ii) determine the proportion of viable endospores in arctic ice cores (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 [GISP2] cores; 94 m). EVA is based on the detection of dipicolinic acid (DPA), which is released from endospores during germination. DPA concentrations were determined using the terbium ion (Tb3+)-DPA luminescence assay, and germination was induced by L-alanine addition. The concentrations of germinable endospores were determined by comparison to a standard curve. Parallel EVA and phase-contrast microscopy experiments to determine the percentage of germinable spores yielded comparable results (54.3% +/- 3.8% and 48.9% +/- 4.5%, respectively), while only 27.8% +/- 7.6% of spores produced CFU. EVA was applied to monitor the inactivation of spore suspensions as a function of UV dose, yielding reproducible correlations between EVA and CFU inactivation data. The 90% inactivation doses were 2,773 J/m(2), 3,947 J/m(2), and 1,322 J/m(2) for EVA, phase-contrast microscopy, and CFU reduction, respectively. Finally, EVA was applied to quantify germinable and total endospore concentrations in two GISP2 ice cores. The first ice core contained 295 +/- 19 germinable spores/ml and 369 +/- 36 total spores/ml (i.e., the percentage of germinable endospores was 79.9% +/- 9.3%), and the second core contained 131 +/- 4 germinable spores/ml and 162 +/- 17 total spores/ml (i.e., the percentage of germinable endospores was 80.9% +/- 8.8%), whereas only 2 CFU/ml were detected by culturing.

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