Simultaneous enumeration of yeast and bacterial cells in the context of industrial bioprocesses

IF 3.2 4区 生物学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1093/jimb/kuae029
Carolina Teixeira Martins, Ana Paula Jacobus, Renilson Conceição, Douglas Fernandes Barbin, Helena Bolini, Andreas Karoly Gombert
{"title":"Simultaneous enumeration of yeast and bacterial cells in the context of industrial bioprocesses","authors":"Carolina Teixeira Martins, Ana Paula Jacobus, Renilson Conceição, Douglas Fernandes Barbin, Helena Bolini, Andreas Karoly Gombert","doi":"10.1093/jimb/kuae029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In scenarios where yeast and bacterial cells coexist, it is of interest to simultaneously quantify the concentrations of both cell types, since traditional methods used to determine these concentrations individually take more time and resources. Here, we compared different methods for quantifying the fuel ethanol Saccharomyces cerevisiae PE-2 yeast strain and cells from the probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain in microbial suspensions. Individual suspensions were prepared, mixed in 1:1 or 100:1 yeast-to-bacteria ratios, covering the range typically encountered in sugarcane biorefineries, and analyzed using bright field microscopy, manual and automatic Spread-plate and Drop-plate counting, flow cytometry (at 1:1 and 100:1 ratios), and a Coulter Counter (at 1:1 and 100:1 ratios). We observed that for yeast cell counts in the mixture (1:1 and 100:1 ratios), flow cytometry, the Coulter Counter, and both Spread-plate options (manual and automatic CFU counting) yielded statistically similar results, while the Drop-plate and microscopy-based methods gave statistically different results. For bacterial cell quantification, the microscopy-based method, Drop-plate, and both Spread-plate plating options and flow cytometry (1:1 ratio) produced no significantly different results (p > .05). In contrast, the Coulter Counter (1:1 ratio) and flow cytometry (100:1 ratio) presented results statistically different (p < .05). Additionally, quantifying bacterial cells in a mixed suspension at a 100:1 ratio wasn't possible due to an overlap between yeast cell debris and bacterial cells. We conclude that each method has limitations, advantages, and disadvantages. One-Sentence Summary This study compares methods for simultaneously quantifying yeast and bacterial cells in a mixed sample, highlighting that in different cell proportions, some methods cannot quantify both cell types and present distinct advantages and limitations regarding time, cost, and precision.","PeriodicalId":16092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuae029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In scenarios where yeast and bacterial cells coexist, it is of interest to simultaneously quantify the concentrations of both cell types, since traditional methods used to determine these concentrations individually take more time and resources. Here, we compared different methods for quantifying the fuel ethanol Saccharomyces cerevisiae PE-2 yeast strain and cells from the probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain in microbial suspensions. Individual suspensions were prepared, mixed in 1:1 or 100:1 yeast-to-bacteria ratios, covering the range typically encountered in sugarcane biorefineries, and analyzed using bright field microscopy, manual and automatic Spread-plate and Drop-plate counting, flow cytometry (at 1:1 and 100:1 ratios), and a Coulter Counter (at 1:1 and 100:1 ratios). We observed that for yeast cell counts in the mixture (1:1 and 100:1 ratios), flow cytometry, the Coulter Counter, and both Spread-plate options (manual and automatic CFU counting) yielded statistically similar results, while the Drop-plate and microscopy-based methods gave statistically different results. For bacterial cell quantification, the microscopy-based method, Drop-plate, and both Spread-plate plating options and flow cytometry (1:1 ratio) produced no significantly different results (p > .05). In contrast, the Coulter Counter (1:1 ratio) and flow cytometry (100:1 ratio) presented results statistically different (p < .05). Additionally, quantifying bacterial cells in a mixed suspension at a 100:1 ratio wasn't possible due to an overlap between yeast cell debris and bacterial cells. We conclude that each method has limitations, advantages, and disadvantages. One-Sentence Summary This study compares methods for simultaneously quantifying yeast and bacterial cells in a mixed sample, highlighting that in different cell proportions, some methods cannot quantify both cell types and present distinct advantages and limitations regarding time, cost, and precision.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在工业生物过程中同时枚举酵母和细菌细胞
在酵母细胞和细菌细胞共存的情况下,同时量化这两种细胞类型的浓度是很有意义的,因为单独测定这些浓度的传统方法需要花费更多的时间和资源。在此,我们比较了不同的方法来量化微生物悬浮液中的燃料乙醇酿酒酵母 PE-2 菌株和益生菌植物乳杆菌菌株的细胞。我们制备了单个悬浮液,以 1:1 或 100:1 的酵母菌与细菌比例混合,涵盖了甘蔗生物炼制过程中通常遇到的比例范围,并使用明视野显微镜、手动和自动展板和滴板计数、流式细胞仪(以 1:1 和 100:1 的比例)以及库尔特计数器(以 1:1 和 100:1 的比例)进行分析。我们观察到,对于混合物中的酵母细胞计数(1:1 和 100:1),流式细胞仪、库尔特计数器和两种展板选项(手动和自动 CFU 计数)得出的结果在统计学上相似,而基于滴板和显微镜的方法得出的结果在统计学上不同。在细菌细胞定量方面,基于显微镜的方法、Drop-plate、Spread-plate Plating 选项和流式细胞仪(1:1 比例)得出的结果无明显差异(p&;gt; .05)。相比之下,库尔特计数器(1:1 比例)和流式细胞仪(100:1 比例)得出的结果有统计学差异(p &p;lt;.05)。此外,由于酵母细胞碎片和细菌细胞之间存在重叠,因此无法以 100:1 的比例量化混合悬浮液中的细菌细胞。我们的结论是,每种方法都有其局限性和优缺点。一句话总结 本研究比较了同时定量混合样品中酵母细胞和细菌细胞的方法,强调了在不同细胞比例下,有些方法无法同时定量两种细胞类型,而且在时间、成本和精度方面存在明显的优势和局限性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology is an international journal which publishes papers describing original research, short communications, and critical reviews in the fields of biotechnology, fermentation and cell culture, biocatalysis, environmental microbiology, natural products discovery and biosynthesis, marine natural products, metabolic engineering, genomics, bioinformatics, food microbiology, and other areas of applied microbiology
期刊最新文献
Use of qPCR to Monitor 2,4-Dinitroanisole Degrading Bacteria in Water and Soil Slurry Cultures. Enhancing the erythritol production of Yarrowia lipolytica by high-throughput screening based on highly sensitive artificial sensor and anchor protein cwp2. Characterization of the exopolysaccharides produced by the industrial yeast Komagataella phaffii. A synthetic co-culture for bioproduction of ammonia from methane and air. Valorizing Waste Streams to Enhance Sustainability and Economics in Microbial Oil Production.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1