4.3 Article

A comparison of enumeration methods for culturable Pseudomonas fluorescens cells marked with green fluorescent protein

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 135-145

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7012(99)00131-1

关键词

bacteria; drop plate; enumeration; green fluorescent protein (GFP); most probable number (MPN); Pseudomonas fluorescens; soil; rhizosphere

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The detection of bacteria in environmental samples using genetic markers is valuable in microbial ecology. The green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter gene was studied under nutrient starvation conditions at 4 degrees C, 23 degrees C and 30 degrees C in Pseudomonas fluorescens R2fG1 cells tagged with a red-shifted gfp. Fluorescence intensity was not significantly different in cells maintained in a buffer for at least 48 days at all the tested temperatures. gfp-Tagged R2fG1 cells were introduced into bulk soil microcosms and soil microcosms with wheat seedlings. GFP-marked cells were enumerated immediately after inoculation into soil and again in soil and root samples after 10 days. Counts of culturable colonies were obtained from drop plates using 5-mu l aliquots of serial dilutions viewed with an epifluorescent microscope. Traditional spread plates (using 100-mu l aliquots) and the most-probable-number (MPN) method using a spectrofluorometer were also used to enumerate the GFP-marked Pseudomonas cells in soil, rhizosphere and rhizoplane samples. Microcolonies were visualized on root surfaces under the epifluorescent microscope after immobilizing in agar and incubation for 24 h. Counts from traditional spread plates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than the population estimates of the MPN method for all treatments at any sampling time. Counts using the drop plate method, however, were not significantly different (P < 0.05) except in one treatment, and provided similar estimates in half the time of spread plates and at an estimated third of the cost. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.3
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