Comparison of techniques for counting prokaryotes in marine planktonic and biofilm samples

IF 0.8 4区 生物学 Q4 MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY
Vanessa Ochi Agostini, Letícia Terres Rodrigues, A. Macêdo, E. Muxagata
{"title":"Comparison of techniques for counting prokaryotes in marine planktonic and biofilm samples","authors":"Vanessa Ochi Agostini, Letícia Terres Rodrigues, A. Macêdo, E. Muxagata","doi":"10.3989/scimar.05117.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Though a large number of techniques are available for the study of aquatic bacteria, the aim of this study was to establish a technique for analysing free-living and biofilm prokaryotic cells through laboratory assays. In particular, we wished to analyse the efficiency of ultrasound to detach and disrupt biofilm, to obtain an efficient stain treatment for quantifying free-living and biofilm prokaryotes in flow cytometry (FC), and to compare epifluorescence microscopy (EFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and FC for quantifying free-living and biofilm prokaryotes#. Marine-grade plywood substrates were immersed in natural marine water that was conditioned for 12 days. At 6 and 12 days, water aliquots and substrates were removed to estimate free-living and biofilm prokaryote density. Ultrasound efficiently removed marine biofilm from substrates (up to 94%) without cell damage. FC analysis (unstained) reliably quantified marine plankton and young or mature biofilm prokaryotes compared with other staining (acridine orange, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, propidium iodide and green fluorescent nucleic acid), EFM or SEM techniques. FC and SEM achieved similar results, while a high variability was observed in the EFM technique. FC was faster and more precise than SEM because the count is not dependent on the observer.","PeriodicalId":21600,"journal":{"name":"Scientia Marina","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia Marina","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.05117.019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Though a large number of techniques are available for the study of aquatic bacteria, the aim of this study was to establish a technique for analysing free-living and biofilm prokaryotic cells through laboratory assays. In particular, we wished to analyse the efficiency of ultrasound to detach and disrupt biofilm, to obtain an efficient stain treatment for quantifying free-living and biofilm prokaryotes in flow cytometry (FC), and to compare epifluorescence microscopy (EFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and FC for quantifying free-living and biofilm prokaryotes#. Marine-grade plywood substrates were immersed in natural marine water that was conditioned for 12 days. At 6 and 12 days, water aliquots and substrates were removed to estimate free-living and biofilm prokaryote density. Ultrasound efficiently removed marine biofilm from substrates (up to 94%) without cell damage. FC analysis (unstained) reliably quantified marine plankton and young or mature biofilm prokaryotes compared with other staining (acridine orange, 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, propidium iodide and green fluorescent nucleic acid), EFM or SEM techniques. FC and SEM achieved similar results, while a high variability was observed in the EFM technique. FC was faster and more precise than SEM because the count is not dependent on the observer.
海洋浮游生物与生物膜样品中原核生物计数技术的比较
虽然有大量的技术可用于水生细菌的研究,但本研究的目的是建立一种通过实验室分析自由生活和生物膜原核细胞的技术。特别是,我们希望分析超声分离和破坏生物膜的效率,在流式细胞术(FC)中获得定量游离生物和生物膜原核生物的有效染色处理,并比较荧光显微镜(EFM),扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和FC用于定量游离生物和生物膜原核生物#。海洋级胶合板基材浸泡在自然海水中12天。在第6天和第12天,去除水和底物,以估计自由生物和生物膜原核生物密度。超声波有效地去除基质上的海洋生物膜(高达94%)而不损伤细胞。与其他染色(吖啶橙、4′,6-二氨基-2-苯基吲哚、碘化丙啶和绿色荧光核酸)、EFM或SEM技术相比,FC分析(未染色)可靠地定量了海洋浮游生物和年轻或成熟的生物膜原核生物。FC和SEM得到了类似的结果,而EFM技术观察到高变异性。FC比SEM更快更精确,因为计数不依赖于观察者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scientia Marina
Scientia Marina 生物-海洋与淡水生物学
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Scientia Marina is the successor to Investigación Pesquera, a journal of marine sciences published since 1955 by the Institut de Ciències del Mar de Barcelona (CSIC). Scientia Marina is included in the Science Citation Index since 1998 and publishes original papers, reviews and comments concerning research in the following fields: Marine Biology and Ecology, Fisheries and Fisheries Ecology, Systematics, Faunistics and Marine Biogeography, Physical Oceanography, Chemical Oceanography, and Marine Geology. Emphasis is placed on articles of an interdisciplinary nature and of general interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信