Cargando…

Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?

BACKGROUND: There is confusion over the definition of the term “viability state(s)” of microorganisms. “Viability staining” or “vital staining techniques” are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when ap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Netuschil, Lutz, Auschill, Thorsten M, Sculean, Anton, Arweiler, Nicole B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24410850
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-2
_version_ 1782300352258768896
author Netuschil, Lutz
Auschill, Thorsten M
Sculean, Anton
Arweiler, Nicole B
author_facet Netuschil, Lutz
Auschill, Thorsten M
Sculean, Anton
Arweiler, Nicole B
author_sort Netuschil, Lutz
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is confusion over the definition of the term “viability state(s)” of microorganisms. “Viability staining” or “vital staining techniques” are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. DISCUSSION: Many terms describe “vitality states” of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define “viable” as “capable to grow”. Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability. The reliability of a commercial “viability” staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the “viability” kit are dependent on the stains’ concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique. To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research. Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. SUMMARY: – The nomenclature regarding “viability” and “vitality” should be used carefully. – The manual of the commercial “viability” kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature. – Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting. – As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison. – Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3898065
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38980652014-01-23 Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable? Netuschil, Lutz Auschill, Thorsten M Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B BMC Oral Health Debate BACKGROUND: There is confusion over the definition of the term “viability state(s)” of microorganisms. “Viability staining” or “vital staining techniques” are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. DISCUSSION: Many terms describe “vitality states” of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define “viable” as “capable to grow”. Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability. The reliability of a commercial “viability” staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the “viability” kit are dependent on the stains’ concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique. To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research. Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. SUMMARY: – The nomenclature regarding “viability” and “vitality” should be used carefully. – The manual of the commercial “viability” kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature. – Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting. – As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison. – Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic. BioMed Central 2014-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3898065/ /pubmed/24410850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-2 Text en Copyright © 2014 Netuschil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Netuschil, Lutz
Auschill, Thorsten M
Sculean, Anton
Arweiler, Nicole B
Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title_full Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title_fullStr Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title_full_unstemmed Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title_short Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
title_sort confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms - which stain is suitable?
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24410850
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-2
work_keys_str_mv AT netuschillutz confusionoverlivedeadstainingsforthedetectionofvitalmicroorganismsinoralbiofilmswhichstainissuitable
AT auschillthorstenm confusionoverlivedeadstainingsforthedetectionofvitalmicroorganismsinoralbiofilmswhichstainissuitable
AT sculeananton confusionoverlivedeadstainingsforthedetectionofvitalmicroorganismsinoralbiofilmswhichstainissuitable
AT arweilernicoleb confusionoverlivedeadstainingsforthedetectionofvitalmicroorganismsinoralbiofilmswhichstainissuitable