Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Simultaneous enumeration of yeast and bacterial cells in the context of industrial bioprocesses.
Martins, Carolina Teixeira; Jacobus, Ana Paula; Conceição, Renilson; Barbin, Douglas Fernandes; Bolini, Helena; Gombert, Andreas Karoly.
Affiliation
  • Martins CT; Universidade de São Paulo, Programa de Pós-Graduação Interunidades em Biotecnologia, Avenida Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2415 - Edifício ICB - III, Cidade Universitária, CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • Jacobus AP; Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 80, 13083-862, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Conceição R; Instituto de Pesquisa em Bioenergia, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho", Rua 10 2527, 13500-230, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil.
  • Barbin DF; Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 80, 13083-862, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Bolini H; Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 80, 13083-862, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
  • Gombert AK; Faculdade de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 80, 13083-862, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39251387
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 11 or 1001 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 11 and 1001 ratios), and a Coulter Counter (at 11 and 1001 ratios). We observed that for yeast cell counts in the mixture (11 and 1001 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 (11 ratio) produced no significantly different results (p > .05). In contrast, the Coulter Counter (11 ratio) and flow cytometry (1001 ratio) presented results statistically different (p < .05). Additionally, quantifying bacterial cells in a mixed suspension at a 1001 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.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Saccharomyces cerevisiae / Industrial Microbiology Language: En Journal: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol Journal subject: BIOTECNOLOGIA / MICROBIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Country of publication: Germany

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Saccharomyces cerevisiae / Industrial Microbiology Language: En Journal: J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol Journal subject: BIOTECNOLOGIA / MICROBIOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Brazil Country of publication: Germany