Application of EvaGreen for the assessment of <em>Listeria monocytogenes</em> АТСС 13932 cell viability using flow cytometry

Elena Kotenkova; Dagmara Bataeva; Mikhail Minaev; Elena Zaiko; Elena Kotenkova; Dagmara Bataeva; Mikhail Minaev; Elena Zaiko

doi:10.3934/microbiol.2019.1.39

AIMS Microbiology

2019, Volume 5, Issue 1: 39-47. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.1.39

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Application of EvaGreen for the assessment of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cell viability using flow cytometry

.M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems of RAS, 109316, Talalikhina St., 26, Moscow, Russia

Received: 13 November 2018 Accepted: 20 January 2019 Published: 25 January 2019

Determination of eukaryotic cell viability using flow cytometry is widespread and based on the use of fluorescent dyes such as SYTO, DAPI, SYBR, PI, and SYTOX. For many years, traditional microbiological methods have been used to successfully analyze prokaryotic cells, but the application of flow cytometry should be considered because it provides an opportunity for quantitative assessment. A combination of SYTO 9 or SYBR green and PI has been used successfully. DNA-binding dyes such as SYTO 9, SYBR green, and EvaGreen are used in qPCR. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EvaGreen to determine the viability of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells using flow cytometry. RNA from Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was isolated using the MagNA Pure LC RNA Isolation Kit-High Performance (Roche, Germany) according to the kit instructions on MagNA Pure LC® 2.0 (Roche, Switzerland). Chicken DNA was isolated using the Sorb-GMO-B kit (Syntol CJSC, Russia) according to the kit instructions. RNA from E. coli ATCC 25922, chicken DNA, a positive control, and a negative control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 were stained with EvaGreen and analyzed on the Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany). Chicken DNA demonstrated both green and red fluorescence, while E. coli RNA displayed only red fluorescence. While the positive L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 control and chicken DNA demonstrated similar fluorescence properties, the negative control showed a localization similar to that observed with E. coli RNA. Degraded ssDNA and RNA stained with EvaGreen demonstrated red fluorescence. Although EvaGreen is a class III dye, we observed fluorescence of live L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the positive control stained with EvaGreen. The observed phenomenon was linked to the solution composition. It is necessary to repeat this analysis with various solution compositions as well as a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to determine the effects on cell envelope permeability of EvaGreen.
- EvaGreen,
- flow cytometry,
- viability,
- Listeria monocytogenes
Citation: Elena Kotenkova, Dagmara Bataeva, Mikhail Minaev, Elena Zaiko. Application of EvaGreen for the assessment of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cell viability using flow cytometry[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(1): 39-47. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.1.39

Related Papers:

Abstract

Determination of eukaryotic cell viability using flow cytometry is widespread and based on the use of fluorescent dyes such as SYTO, DAPI, SYBR, PI, and SYTOX. For many years, traditional microbiological methods have been used to successfully analyze prokaryotic cells, but the application of flow cytometry should be considered because it provides an opportunity for quantitative assessment. A combination of SYTO 9 or SYBR green and PI has been used successfully. DNA-binding dyes such as SYTO 9, SYBR green, and EvaGreen are used in qPCR. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EvaGreen to determine the viability of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells using flow cytometry. RNA from Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was isolated using the MagNA Pure LC RNA Isolation Kit-High Performance (Roche, Germany) according to the kit instructions on MagNA Pure LC® 2.0 (Roche, Switzerland). Chicken DNA was isolated using the Sorb-GMO-B kit (Syntol CJSC, Russia) according to the kit instructions. RNA from E. coli ATCC 25922, chicken DNA, a positive control, and a negative control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 were stained with EvaGreen and analyzed on the Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany). Chicken DNA demonstrated both green and red fluorescence, while E. coli RNA displayed only red fluorescence. While the positive L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 control and chicken DNA demonstrated similar fluorescence properties, the negative control showed a localization similar to that observed with E. coli RNA. Degraded ssDNA and RNA stained with EvaGreen demonstrated red fluorescence. Although EvaGreen is a class III dye, we observed fluorescence of live L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the positive control stained with EvaGreen. The observed phenomenon was linked to the solution composition. It is necessary to repeat this analysis with various solution compositions as well as a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to determine the effects on cell envelope permeability of EvaGreen.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 17-76-10033).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this paper.

References

[1]	Díaz M, Herrero M, García LA, et al. (2010) Application of flow cytometry to industrial microbial bioprocesses. Biochem Eng J 48: 385–407. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2009.07.013
[2]	Yagüe P, Manteca A, Simon A, et al. (2010) New method for monitoring programmed cell death and differentiation in submerged Streptomyces cultures. Appl Environ Microb 76: 3401–3404. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00120-10
[3]	Berney M, Hammes F, Bosshard F, et al. (2007) Assessment and interpretation of bacterial viability by using the LIVE/DEAD BacLight Kit in combination with flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microb 73: 3283–3290. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02750-06
[4]	Stiefel P, Schmidt-Emrich S, Maniura-Weber K, et al. (2015) Critical aspects of using bacterial cell viability assays with the fluorophores SYTO9 and propidium iodide. BMC Microbiol 15: 36. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0376-x
[5]	Osés SM, Pascual-Maté A, Fuente D, et al. (2015) Comparison of methods to determine antibacterial activity of honeys against Staphylococcus aureus. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sc 78: 29–33.
[6]	Uddhav SB, Sivagurunathan MS (2016) Antibiotic susceptibility testing: A review on current practices. Int J Pharm 6: 11–17.
[7]	Nayef A (2016) Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibacterial agents for bacteria isolated from malva. MOJ Proteom Bioinf 3: 7‒9.
[8]	Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK (2016) Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J Pharm Anal 6: 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005
[9]	Dewanjee S, Gangopadhyay M, Bhattacharya N, et al. (2015) Bioautography and its scope in the field of natural product chemistry. J Pharm Anal 5: 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2014.06.002
[10]	Choma IM, Grzelak EM (2011) Bioautography detection in thin-layer chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1218: 2684–2691. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.069
[11]	Syal K, Mo M, Yu H, et al. (2017) Current and emerging techniques for antibiotic susceptibility tests. Theranostics 7: 1795–1805. doi: 10.7150/thno.19217
[12]	Feng J, Wang T, Zhang S, et al. (2014) An optimized SYBR Green I/PI assay for rapid viability assessment and antibiotic susceptibility testing for Borrelia burgdorferi. PLoS One 9: e111809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111809
[13]	Safety Report for EvaGreen® dye, A summary of mutagenicity and environmental safety test results from three independent laboratories, Biotium, 2013. Available from: https://biotium.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EvaGreen-safety-report.pdf.
[14]	Chiaraviglio L, Kirby JE (2014) Evaluation of impermeant, DNA-binding dye fluorescence as a real-time readout of eukaryotic cell toxicity in a high throughput screening format. Assay Drug Dev Techn 12: 219–228. doi: 10.1089/adt.2014.577
[15]	Silhavy TJ, Kahne D, Walker S (2010) The bacterial cell envelope. CSH Perspect Biol 2: a000414.
[16]	Rouzina I, Bloomfield VA (1999) Heat capacity effects on the melting of DNA. 1. General aspects. Biophys J 77: 3242–3251.
[17]	Yang W (2011) Nucleases: Diversity of structure, function and mechanism. Q Rev Biophys 44: 1–93. doi: 10.1017/S0033583510000181

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)