P N Tawakoli1, A Al-Ahmad, W Hoth-Hannig, M Hannig, C Hannig. 1. Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate different fluorescence-based, two-color viability assays for visualization and quantification of initial bacterial adherence and to establish reliable alternatives to the ethidium bromide staining procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial colonization was attained in situ on bovine enamel slabs (n = 6 subjects). Five different live/dead assays were investigated (fluorescein diacetate (FDA)/propidium iodide (PI), Syto 9/PI (BacLight®), FDA/Sytox red, Calcein acetoxymethyl (AM)/Sytox red, and carboxyfluorescein diacetate (CFDA)/Sytox red). After 120 min of oral exposure, analysis was performed with an epifluorescence microscope. Validation was carried out, using the colony-forming units for quantification and the transmission electron microscopy for visualization after staining. RESULTS: The average number of bacteria amounted to 2.9 ± 0.8 × 10(4) cm(-2). Quantification with Syto 9/PI and Calcein AM/Sytox red yielded an almost equal distribution of cells (Syto 9/PI 45% viable, 55% avital; Calcein AM/Sytox red 52% viable, 48% avital). The live/dead ratio of CFDA/Sytox red and FDA/Sytox red was 3:2. An aberrant dispersal was recorded with FDA/PI (viable 34%, avital 66%). The TEM analysis indicated that all staining procedures affect the structural integrity of the bacterial cells considerably. CONCLUSION: The following live/dead assays are reliable techniques for differentiation of viable and avital adherent bacteria: BacLight, FDA/Sytox red, Calcein AM/Sytox red, and CFDA/Sytox red. These fluorescence-based techniques are applicable alternatives to toxic and instable conventional assays, such as the staining procedure based on ethidium bromide. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Differentiation of viable and avital adherent bacteria offers the possibility for reliable evaluation of different mouth rinses, oral medication, and disinfections.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate different fluorescence-based, two-color viability assays for visualization and quantification of initial bacterial adherence and to establish reliable alternatives to the ethidium bromide staining procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial colonization was attained in situ on bovine enamel slabs (n = 6 subjects). Five different live/dead assays were investigated (fluorescein diacetate (FDA)/propidium iodide (PI), Syto 9/PI (BacLight®), FDA/Sytox red, Calcein acetoxymethyl (AM)/Sytox red, and carboxyfluorescein diacetate (CFDA)/Sytox red). After 120 min of oral exposure, analysis was performed with an epifluorescence microscope. Validation was carried out, using the colony-forming units for quantification and the transmission electron microscopy for visualization after staining. RESULTS: The average number of bacteria amounted to 2.9 ± 0.8 × 10(4) cm(-2). Quantification with Syto 9/PI and Calcein AM/Sytox red yielded an almost equal distribution of cells (Syto 9/PI 45% viable, 55% avital; Calcein AM/Sytox red 52% viable, 48% avital). The live/dead ratio of CFDA/Sytox red and FDA/Sytox red was 3:2. An aberrant dispersal was recorded with FDA/PI (viable 34%, avital 66%). The TEM analysis indicated that all staining procedures affect the structural integrity of the bacterial cells considerably. CONCLUSION: The following live/dead assays are reliable techniques for differentiation of viable and avital adherent bacteria: BacLight, FDA/Sytox red, Calcein AM/Sytox red, and CFDA/Sytox red. These fluorescence-based techniques are applicable alternatives to toxic and instable conventional assays, such as the staining procedure based on ethidium bromide. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Differentiation of viable and avital adherent bacteria offers the possibility for reliable evaluation of different mouth rinses, oral medication, and disinfections.
Authors: G Donelli; P Matarrese; C Fiorentini; B Dainelli; T Taraborelli; E Di Campli; S Di Bartolomeo; L Cellini Journal: FEMS Microbiol Lett Date: 1998-11-01 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: P Breeuwer; J L Drocourt; N Bunschoten; M H Zwietering; F M Rombouts; T Abee Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Christina Wilson; Rachel Lukowicz; Stefan Merchant; Helena Valquier-Flynn; Jeniffer Caballero; Jasmin Sandoval; Macduff Okuom; Christopher Huber; Tessa Durham Brooks; Erin Wilson; Barbara Clement; Christopher D Wentworth; Andrea E Holmes Journal: Res Rev J Eng Technol Date: 2017-10-24
Authors: L Karygianni; S Ruf; M Follo; E Hellwig; M Bucher; A C Anderson; K Vach; A Al-Ahmad Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Alice Abu Dayyih; Bernd Gutberlet; Eduard Preis; Konrad H Engelhardt; Muhammad Umair Amin; Ahmed M Abdelsalam; Martina Bonsu; Udo Bakowsky Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 10.383
Authors: Isabel Prada-López; Víctor Quintas; Maria A Casares-De-Cal; Juan A Suárez-Quintanilla; David Suárez-Quintanilla; Inmaculada Tomás Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 5.640