Critical aspects of using bacterial cell viability assays with the fluorophores SYTO9 and propidium iodide

BMC Microbiology

Qun Ren¹  Katharina Maniura-Weber¹  Sabrina Schmidt-Emrich¹  Philipp Stiefel¹ 

[1] Laboratory for Biointerfaces, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa), Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, St. Gallen, CH-9014, Switzerland

关键词: Bacterial live/dead cells;    Viability staining;    Propidium iodide;    SYTO9;   

Others  :  1137426
DOI  :  10.1186/s12866-015-0376-x

 received in 2014-09-30, accepted in 2015-02-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Viability staining with SYTO9 and propidium iodide (PI) is a frequently used tool in microbiological studies. However, data generated by such routinely used method are often not critically evaluated for their accuracy. In this study we aim to investigate the critical aspects of this staining method using Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa as the model microorganisms for high throughput studies in microtiter plates. SYTO9 or PI was added alone or consecutively together to cells and the fluorescence intensities were measured using microplate reader and confocal laser scanning microscope.

Results

We found that staining of S. aureus cells with SYTO9 alone resulted in equal signal intensity for both live and dead cells, whereas staining of P. aeruginosa cells led to 18-fold stronger signal strength for dead cells than for live ones. After counterstaining with PI, the dead P. aeruginosa cells still exhibited stronger SYTO9 signal than the live cells. We also observed that SYTO9 signal showed strong bleaching effect and decreased dramatically over time. PI intensity of the culture increased linearly with the increase of dead cell numbers, however, the maximum intensities were rather weak compared to SYTO9 and background values. Thus, slight inaccuracy in measurement of PI signal could have significant effect on the outcome.

Conclusions

When viability staining with SYTO9 and PI is performed, several factors need to be considered such as the bleaching effect of SYTO9, different binding affinity of SYTO9 to live and dead cells and background fluorescence.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Stiefel et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barer MR, Harwood CR: Bacterial viability and culturability. Adv Microb Physiol 1999, 41:93-137.
• [2]Heinmets F, Taylor WW, Lehman JJ: The Use of metabolites in the restoration of the viability of heat and chemically inactivated escherichia-coli. J Bacteriol 1954, 67(1):5-12.
• [3]Bogosian G, Bourneuf EV: A matter of bacterial life and death. EMBO Rep 2001, 2(9):770-4.
• [4]Trevors JT: Can dead bacterial cells be defined and are genes expressed after cell death? J Microbiol Meth 2012, 90(1):25-8.
• [5]Gregori G, Citterio S, Ghiani A, Labra M, Sgorbati S, Brown S, et al.: Resolution of viable and membrane-compromised bacteria in freshwater and marine waters based on analytical flow cytometry and nucleic acid double staining. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001, 67(10):4662-70.
• [6]Shi L, Gunther S, Hubschmann T, Wick LY, Harms H, Muller S: Limits of propidium iodide as a cell viability indicator for environmental bacteria. Cytom Part A 2007, 71A(8):592-8.
• [7]Boulos L, Prevost M, Barbeau B, Coallier J, Desjardins R: LIVE/DEAD (R) BacLight (TM): application of a new rapid staining method for direct enumeration of viable and total bacteria in drinking water. J Microbiol Meth 1999, 37(1):77-86.
• [8]Virta M, Lineri S, Kankaanpaa P, Karp M, Peltonen K, Nuutila J, et al.: Determination of complement-mediated killing of bacteria by viability staining and bioluminescence. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998, 64(2):515-9.
• [9]Berney M, Hammes F, Bosshard F, Weilenmann HU, Egli T: Assessment and interpretation of bacterial viability by using the LIVE/DEAD BacLight Kit in combination with flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007, 73(10):3283-90.
• [10]Hoefel D, Grooby WL, Monis PT, Andrews S, Saint CP: Enumeration of water-borne bacteria using viability assays and flow cytometry: a comparison to culture-based techniques. J Microbiol Methods 2003, 55(3):585-97.
• [11]Lu J, Turnbull L, Burke CM, Liu M, Carter DA, Schlothauer RC, et al.: Manuka-type honeys can eradicate biofilms produced by Staphylococcus aureus strains with different biofilm-forming abilities. PeerJ 2014, 2:e326.
• [12]Hoerr V, Ziebuhr W, Kozitskaya S, Katzowitsch E, Holzgrabe U: Laser-induced fluorescence - capillary electrophoresis and fluorescence microplate reader measurement: Two methods to quantify the effect of antibiotics. Anal Chem 2007, 79(19):7510-8.
• [13]Leuko S, Legat A, Fendrihan S, Stan-Lotter H: Evaluation of the LIVE/DEAD BacLight kit for detection of extremophilic archaea and visualization of microorganisms in environmental hypersaline samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004, 70(11):6884-6.
• [14]Auty MA, Gardiner GE, McBrearty SJ, O’Sullivan EO, Mulvihill DM, Collins JK, et al.: Direct in situ viability assessment of bacteria in probiotic dairy products using viability staining in conjunction with confocal scanning laser microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001, 67(1):420-5.
• [15]Waring MJ: Complex formation between ethidium bromide and nucleic acids. J Mol Biol 1965, 13(1):269-82.
• [16]Arndt-Jovin DJ, Jovin TM: Fluorescence labeling and microscopy of DNA. Methods Cell Biol 1989, 30:417-48.
• [17]Stocks SM: Mechanism and use of the commercially available viability stain. BacLight Cytometry A 2004, 61(2):189-95.
• [18]Herskovits TT, Gadegbeku B, Jaillet H: On the structural stability and solvent denaturation of proteins. I Denaturation by the alcohols and glycols. J Biol Chem 1970, 245(10):2588-98.
• [19]McDonnell G, Russell AD: Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999, 12(1):147-79.
• [20]Taghi-Kilani R, Gyurek LL, Millard PJ, Finch GR, Belosevic M: Nucleic acid stains as indicators of Giardia muris viability following cyst inactivation. Int J Parasitol 1996, 26(6):637-46.
• [21]Terzieva S, Donnelly J, Ulevicius V, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Stelma GN, et al.: Comparison of methods for detection and enumeration of airborne microorganisms collected by liquid impingement. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996, 62(7):2264-72.
• [22]Langsrud S, Sundheim G: Flow cytometry for rapid assessment of viability after exposure to a quaternary ammonium compound. J Appl Bacteriol 1996, 81(4):411-8.
• [23]Duffy G, Sheridan JJ: Viability staining in a direct count rapid method for the determination of total viable counts on processed meats. J Microbiol Meth 1998, 31(3):167-74.
• [24]Ruger M, Bensch G, Tungler R, Reichl U: A flow cytometric method for viability assessment of Staphylococcus aureus and Burkholderia cepacia in mixed culture. Cytom Part A 2012, 81A(12):1055-66.
• [25]Strauber H, Muller S: Viability states of bacteria–specific mechanisms of selected probes. Cytometry Part A 2010, 77(7):623-34.
• [26]Tawakoli PN, Al-Ahmad A, Hoth-Hannig W, Hannig M, Hannig C: Comparison of different live/dead stainings for detection and quantification of adherent microorganisms in the initial oral biofilm. Clin Oral Investig 2013, 17(3):841-50.
• [27]Müsken M, Di Fiore S, Romling U, Haussler S: A 96-well-plate-based optical method for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and its application to susceptibility testing. Nat Protoc 2010, 5(8):1460-9.
• [28]Barbesti S, Citterio S, Labra M, Baroni MD, Neri MG, Sgorbati S: Two and three-color fluorescence flow cytometric analysis of immunoidentified viable bacteria. Cytometry 2000, 40(3):214-8.
• [29]Lehtinen J, Nuutila J, Lilius EM: Green fluorescent protein-propidium iodide (GFP-PI) based assay for flow cytometric measurement of bacterial viability. Cytom Part A 2004, 60A(2):165-72.
• [30]Benoit MR, Conant CG, Ionescu-Zanetti C, Schwartz M, Matin A: New device for high-throughput viability screening of flow biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 2010, 76(13):4136-42.