A comparison of conventional methods for the quantification of bacterial cells after exposure to metal oxide nanoparticles

BMC Microbiology

Huizhong Chen³  Namrata Katagori²  Gui-Xin He²  Yongbin Zhang¹  Hongmiao Pan³ 

[1] Nanotechnology Core Facility, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson 72079, AR, USA;Department of Clinical Laboratory and Nutritional Sciences, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell 01854, MA, USA;Division of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson 72079, AR, USA

关键词: Optical density (OD);    Colony-forming units (CFU);    Flow cytometry (FCM);    Bacterial quantification;    Nanoparticles;   

Others  :  1140583
DOI  :  10.1186/s12866-014-0222-6

 received in 2014-03-17, accepted in 2014-08-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Due to potential interference of nanoparticles on bacterial quantification, there is a challenge to develop a fast, accurate and reproducible method for bacterial quantification. Currently various bacterial quantification methods are used by researchers performing nanoparticles study, but there has been no efficacy evaluation of these methods. Here we study interference of nanoparticles on three most commonly used conventional bacterial quantification methods, including colony counting to determine the colony-forming units (CFU), spectrophotometer method of optical density (OD) measurement, and flow cytometry (FCM).

Results

Three oxide nanoparticles including ZnO, TiO₂, and SiO₂ and four bacterial species including Salmonella enterica serovar Newport, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Enterococcus faecalis, and Escherichia coli were included in the test. Results showed that there is no apparent interference of the oxide nanoparticles on quantifications of all four bacterial species by FCM measurement; CFU counting is time consuming, less accurate and not suitable for automation; and the spectrophotometer method using OD measurement was the most unreliable method to quantify and detect the bacteria in the presence of the nanoparticles.

Conclusion

In summary, FCM measurement proved to be the best method, which is suitable for rapid, accurate and automatic detection of bacteria in the presence of the nanoparticles.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Pan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hajipour MJ, Fromm KM, Ashkarran AA, Jimenez de Aberasturi D, De Larramendi IR, Rojo T, Serpooshan V, Parak WJ, Mahmoudi M: Antibacterial properties of nanoparticles. Trends Biotechnol 2012, 30(10):499-511.
• [2]Allahverdiyev AM, Abamor ES, Bagirova M, Rafailovich M: Antimicrobial effects of TiO(2) and Ag(2)O nanoparticles against drug-resistant bacteria and leishmania parasites. Future Microbiol 2011, 6(8):933-940.
• [3]Suresh AK, Pelletier DA, Doktycz MJ: Relating nanomaterial properties and microbial toxicity. Nanoscale 2013, 5(2):463-474.
• [4]Valdiglesias V, Costa C, Kilic G, Costa S, Pasaro E, Laffon B, Teixeira JP: Neuronal cytotoxicity and genotoxicity induced by zinc oxide nanoparticles. Environ Int 2013, 55:92-100.
• [5]Warheit DB: How to measure hazards/risks following exposures to nanoscale or pigment-grade titanium dioxide particles. Toxicol Lett 2013, 220(2):193-204.
• [6]Hoff D, Sheikh L, Bhattacharya S, Nayar S, Webster TJ: Comparison study of ferrofluid and powder iron oxide nanoparticle permeability across the blood–brain barrier. Int J Nanomedicine 2013, 8:703-710.
• [7]Thorley AJ, Tetley TD: New perspectives in nanomedicine. Pharmacol Ther 2013, 140(2):176-185.
• [8]Ko H-H, Chen H-T, Yen F-L, Lu W-C, Kuo C-W, Wang M-C: Preparation of TiO(2) Nanocrystallite Powders Coated with 9 mol% ZnO for Cosmetic Applications in Sunscreens. Int J Mol Sci 2012, 13(2):1658-1669.
• [9]Battez AH, Gonzalez R, Viesca JL, Fernandez JE, Fernandez JMD, Machado A, Chou R, Riba J: CuO, ZrO2 and ZnO nanoparticles as antiwear additive in oil lubricants. Wear 2008, 265(3–4):422-428.
• [10]Duncan TV: Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interface Sci 2011, 363(1):1-24.
• [11]Gupta S, Tripathi M: A review of TiO2 nanoparticles. Chin Sci Bull 2011, 56(16):1639-1657.
• [12]Applerot G, Lipovsky A, Dror R, Perkas N, Nitzan Y, Lubart R, Gedanken A: Enhanced antibacterial activity of nanocrystalline ZnO Due to increased ROS-mediated cell injury. Adv Funct Mater 2009, 19(6):842-852.
• [13]Warnes SL, Caves V, Keevil CW: Mechanism of copper surface toxicity in Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella involves immediate membrane depolarization followed by slower rate of DNA destruction which differs from that observed for Gram-positive bacteria. Environ Microbiol 2012, 14(7):1730-1743.
• [14]Jena P, Mohanty S, Mallick R, Jacob B, Sonawane A: Toxicity and antibacterial assessment of chitosan-coated silver nanoparticles on human pathogens and macrophage cells. Int J Nanomedicine 2012, 7:1805-1818.
• [15]Wagenvoort JHT, De Brauwer EIGB, Penders RJR, Willems RJ, Top J, Bonten MJ: Environmental survival of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. J Hosp Infect 2011, 77(3):282-283.
• [16]Seil JT, Webster TJ: Antimicrobial applications of nanotechnology: methods and literature. Int J Nanomedicine 2012, 7:2767-2781.
• [17]Saravanan M, Nanda A: Extracellular synthesis of silver bionanoparticles from Aspergillus clavatus and its antimicrobial activity against MRSA and MRSE. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 2010, 77(2):214-218.
• [18]De Lima R, Seabra AB, Duran N: Silver nanoparticles: a brief review of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of chemically and biogenically synthesized nanoparticles. J Appl Toxicol 2012, 32(11):867-879.
• [19]Bondarenko O, Juganson K, Ivask A, Kasemets K, Mortimer M, Kahru A: Toxicity of Ag, CuO and ZnO nanoparticles to selected environmentally relevant test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: a critical review. Arch Toxicol 2013, 87(7):1181-1200.
• [20]Quigley L, O’Sullivan O, Beresford TP, Ross RP, Fitzgerald GF, Cotter PD: Molecular approaches to analysing the microbial composition of raw milk and raw milk cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 2011, 150(2–3):81-94.
• [21]Fang H, Xu J, Ding D, Jackson SA, Patel IR, Frye JG, Zou W, Nayak R, Foley S, Chen J, Su J, Ye Y, Turner S, Harris S, Zhou G, Cerniglia C, Tong W, et al.: An FDA bioinformatics tool for microbial genomics research on molecular characterization of bacterial foodborne pathogens using microarrays. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11(Suppl 6):S4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Zhang K, Cheng L, Imazato S, Antonucci JM, Lin NJ, Lin-Gibson S, Bai Y, Xu HHK: Effects of dual antibacterial agents MDPB and nano-silver in primer on microcosm biofilm, cytotoxicity and dentine bond properties. J Dent 2013, 41(5):464-474.
• [23]Koseki S, Nonaka J: Alternative approach to modeling bacterial lag time, using logistic regression as a function of time, temperature, pH, and sodium chloride concentration. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012, 78(17):6103-6112.
• [24]Schacht VJ, Neumann LV, Sandhi SK, Chen L, Henning T, Klar PJ, Theophel K, Schnell S, Bunge M: Effects of silver nanoparticles on microbial growth dynamics. J Appl Microbiol 2013, 114(1):25-35.
• [25]Dudak FC, Boyaci IH: Rapid and label-free bacteria detection by surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensors. Biotechnol J 2009, 4(7):1003-1011.
• [26]Vital M, Dignum M, Magic-Knezev A, Ross P, Rietveld L, Hammes F: Flow cytometry and adenosine tri-phosphate analysis: alternative possibilities to evaluate major bacteriological changes in drinking water treatment and distribution systems. Water Res 2012, 46(15):4665-4676.
• [27]Zahavy E, Ber R, Gur D, Abramovich H, Freeman E, Maoz S, Yitzhaki S: Application of nanoparticles for the detection and sorting of pathogenic bacteria by flow-cytometry. Adv Exp Med Biol 2012, 733:23-36.
• [28]Masco L, Vanhoutte T, Temmerman R, Swings J, Huys G: Evaluation of real-time PCR targeting the 16S rRNA and recA genes for the enumeration of bifidobacteria in probiotic products. Int J Food Microbiol 2007, 113(3):351-357.
• [29]Lazcka O, Del Campo FJ, Munoz FX: Pathogen detection: a perspective of traditional methods and biosensors. Biosens Bioelectron 2007, 22(7):1205-1217.
• [30]Davey HM: Life, death, and in-between: meanings and methods in microbiology. Appl Environ Microbiol 2011, 77(16):5571-5576.
• [31]Kerstens M, Boulet G, Pintelon I, Hellings M, Voeten L, Delputte P, Maes L, Cos P: Quantification of Candida albicans by flow cytometry using TO-PRO()-3 iodide as a single-stain viability dye. J Microbiol Methods 2013, 92(2):189-191.
• [32]Lehtinen J, Nuutila J, Lilius E-M: Green fluorescent protein-propidium iodide (GFP-PI) based assay for flow cytometric measurement of bacterial viability. Cytometry A 2004, 60(2):165-172.
• [33]Hammes F, Egli T: Cytometric methods for measuring bacteria in water: advantages, pitfalls and applications. Anal Bioanal Chem 2010, 397(3):1083-1095.
• [34]Muller S, Nebe-von-Caron G: Functional single-cell analyses: flow cytometry and cell sorting of microbial populations and communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2010, 34(4):554-587.
• [35]Mallick S, Sharma S, Banerjee M, Ghosh SS, Chattopadhyay A, Paul A: Iodine-stabilized Cu nanoparticle chitosan composite for antibacterial applications. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2012, 4(3):1313-1323.
• [36]Sadiq IM, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A: Studies on Effect of TiO2 Nanoparticles on Growth and Membrane Permeability of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus subtilis. Curr Nanosci 2010, 6(4):381-387.
• [37]Padmavathy N, Vijayaraghavan R: Interaction of ZnO nanoparticles with microbes-a physio and biochemical assay. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2011, 7(6):813-822.
• [38]Fang T-T, Li X, Wang Q-S, Zhang Z-J, Liu P, Zhang C-C: Toxicity evaluation of CdTe quantum dots with different size on Escherichia coli. Toxicol In Vitro 2012, 26(7):1233-1239.
• [39]Kumar A, Pandey AK, Singh SS, Shanker R, Dhawan A: Engineered ZnO and TiO(2) nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and DNA damage leading to reduced viability of Escherichia coli. Free Radic Biol Med 2011, 51(10):1872-1881.
• [40]Pan H, Feng J, Cerniglia CE, Chen H: Effects of Orange II and Sudan III azo dyes and their metabolites on Staphylococcus aureus. J Ind Microbiol Biotechno 2011, 38(10):1729-1738.
• [41]Pan H, Feng J, He G-X, Cerniglia CE, Chen H: Evaluation of impact of exposure of Sudan azo dyes and their metabolites on human intestinal bacteria. Anaerobe 2012, 18(4):445-453.
• [42]Sharma V, Shukla RK, Saxena N, Parmar D, Das M, Dhawan A: DNA damaging potential of zinc oxide nanoparticles in human epidermal cells. Toxicol Lett 2009, 185(3):211-218.
• [43]Zhang Y, Ferguson SA, Watanabe F, Jones Y, Xu Y, Biris AS, Hussain S, Ali SF: Silver nanoparticles decrease body weight and locomotor activity in adult male rats. Small 2013, 9(9–10):1715-1720.
• [44]Xu H, Heinze TM, Paine DD, Cerniglia CE, Chen H: Sudan azo dyes and Para Red degradation by prevalent bacteria of the human gastrointestinal tract. Anaerobe 2010, 16(2):114-119.
• [45]Stingley RL, Zou W, Heinze TM, Chen H, Cerniglia CE: Metabolism of azo dyes by human skin microbiota. J Med Microbiol 2010, 59(Pt 1):108-114.
• [46]Mangoni ML, Papo N, Barra D, Simmaco M, Bozzi A, Di Giulio A, Rinaldi AC: Effects of the antimicrobial peptide temporin L on cell morphology, membrane permeability and viability of Escherichia coli. Biochem J 2004, 380(Pt 3):859-865.