| Literature DB >> 31718545 |
Meysam Sarshar1,2, Daniela Scribano3,4, Giulia Tranquilli3, Marisa Di Pietro3, Simone Filardo3, Carlo Zagaglia3, Rosa Sessa3, Anna Teresa Palamara1,5, Cecilia Ambrosi6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantification of intracellular bacteria is fundamental in many areas of cellular and clinical microbiology to study acute and chronic infections. Therefore, rapid, accurate and low-cost methods represent valuable tools in determining bacterial ability to persist and proliferate within eukaryotic cells.Entities:
Keywords: CFU; High-throughput; IFU; Immunofluorescence; In-cell Western; Intracellular bacterial quantification
Year: 2019 PMID: 31718545 PMCID: PMC6849193 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1625-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Setting the appropriate primary antibody concentrations for ICW assay. Cell monolayers were individually infected with S. flexneri (strains M90 T), E. coli (strain LF82) and C. trachomatis (strain 434/Bu), for 1 h, 24 and 36 h, respectively. Non-infected control cells (CC) were used as control. Primary antibodies were diluted as indicated, while the secondary antibody was used at 1:800. The bars below representative images indicate the a.u. mean values of specific antibody signals from infected monolayers (red) and from the background of non-infected control cells (black) from three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate. The a.u. values of non-infected cells stained only with the secondary antibody are shown. Dashed yellow rings mark the analyzed areas. Standard deviation (SD), not shown, was below 5% for the entire dataset
Fig. 2Performance comparison between the ICW assay and standard CFU count upon S. flexneri infection. a HeLa cell monolayers were infected with the M90 T strain at MOI 100. Non-infected control cells (CC) were used as control. At the selected time points (hours post-infection, HPI), cells were either lyzed for CFU/ml count or immunostained for the ICW assay. Representative images of wells used for the ICW assay from three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate are shown. b Histogram shows the mean values ± SD of CFU/ml count (blue bars) and a.u. values (red bars). For both methods, equations and R2 values of trendlines are shown. c The linear correlation (dotted black line) with relative equation and the coefficient of determination (R2 value) are shown
Fig. 3Performance comparison between the ICW assay and standard CFU count upon E. coli infection. a Hela cells were infected with the LF82 strain at MOI 10. Non-infected control cells (CC) were used as control. At the selected time points (HPI), cells were either lyzed for CFU/ml count or immunostained for the ICW assay. Representative images of wells used for the ICW assay from three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate are shown. b Histogram shows the mean values ± SD of CFU/ml count (blue bars) and a.u. values (red bars). For both methods, equations and R2 values of trendlines are shown. c The linear correlation (dotted black line) with relative equation and the coefficient of determination (R2 value) are shown
Fig. 4Performance comparison between the ICW assay and standard IFU count upon C. trachomatis infection (a) McCoy cells were infected with 434/Bu strain at different MOIs, as indicated. Non-infected control cells (CC) were used as control. At 36 HPI, cells were immunostained for IFU microscopic count or for the ICW assay. Representative images of wells used for the ICW assay from three independent experiments performed in quadruplicate are shown. b Histogram shows the mean values ± SD of IFU/well count (blue bars) and a.u. values (red bars). For both methods, equations and R2 values of trendlines are shown. c The linear correlation (dotted black line) with relative equation and the coefficient of determination (R2 value) are shown