4.3 Article

SYBR green as a fluorescent probe to evaluate the biofilm physiological state of Staphylococcus epidermidis, using flow cytometry

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 850-856

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/W11-078

关键词

Staphylococcus epidermidis; biofilm; flow cytometry; viable but nonculturable bacteria; VBNC; SYBR green; cyanoditolyl tetrazolium chloride; CTC; LIVE/DEAD

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [SFRH/BD/27638/2006, SFRH/BD/31354/2006]
  2. COMPETE [PTDC/BIA-MIC/113450/2009, FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-014309]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/31354/2006, SFRH/BD/27638/2006] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms with different proportions of viable but nonculturable bacteria were used to show that SYBR green (SYBR) may be used as a probe to evaluate the bacterial physiological state using flow cytometry. Biofilms grown in excess glucose presented significantly higher proportions of dormant bacteria than biofilms grown in excess glucose with buffered pH conditions or with exponential-phase planktonic cultures. Bacteria obtained from biofilms with high or low proportions of viable but nonculturable cells were further cultured in broth medium and stained with SYBR at different time points. An association between bacterial growth and SYBR staining intensity was observed. In addition, bacteria presenting higher SYBR fluorescence intensity also stained more intensely with cyanoditolyl tetrazolium chloride, used as a probe to evaluate cellular metabolism. Accordingly, planktonic bacteria treated with rifampicin, an inhibitor of bacterial RNA transcription, presented lower SYBR and cyanoditolyl tetrazolium chloride staining intensity than non-treated bacteria. Overall, our results indicate that SYBR, in addition to being used as a component of LIVE/DEAD stain, may also be used as a probe to evaluate the physiological state of S. epidermidis cells.

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