Rapid growth rate of Enterobacter sp. SM3 determined using several methods.
Activation phase
Colony-forming unit
Doubling time
Enterobacteria
Exponential growth
Growth rate
Gut microbiome
Lag phase
Optical absorbance
Plaque forming unit
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2024
10 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
26
09
2023
accepted:
25
09
2024
medline:
11
10
2024
pubmed:
11
10
2024
entrez:
10
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bacterial growth rate, commonly reported in terms of doubling time, is frequently determined by one of two techniques: either by measuring optical absorption of a growing culture or by taking samples at different times during their growth phase, diluting them, spreading them on agar plates, incubating them, and counting the colonies that form. Both techniques require measurements of multiple repeats, as well careful assessment of reproducibility and consistency. Existing literature using either technique gives a wide range of growth rate values for even the most extensively studied species of bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. This work aims to apply several methods to reliably determine the growth rate of a recently identified species of Enterobacteriaceae, called Enterobacter sp. SM3, and to compare that rate with that of a well-known wildtype E. coli strain KP437. We extend conventional optical density (OD) measurements to determine the growth rate of Enterobacter sp. SM3. To assess the reliability of this technique, we compare growth rates obtained by fitting the OD data to exponential growth, applying a relative density method, and measuring shifts in OD curves following set factors of dilution. The main source of error in applying the OD technique is due to the reliance on an exponential growth phase with a short span. With proper choice of parameter range, however, we show that these three methods yield consistent results. We also measured the SM3 division rate by counting colony-forming units (CFU) versus time, yielding results consistent with the OD measurements. In lysogeny broth at 37 The main conclusion of this report is that conventional optical density (OD) measurements and the colony-forming units (CFU) method can yield consistent values of bacterial growth rate. However, to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the measured growth rate of each bacterial strain, different methods ought to be applied in close comparison. The effort of checking for consistency among multiple techniques, as we have done in this study, is necessary to avoid reporting variable values of doubling time for particular species or strains of bacteria, as seen in the literature.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bacterial growth rate, commonly reported in terms of doubling time, is frequently determined by one of two techniques: either by measuring optical absorption of a growing culture or by taking samples at different times during their growth phase, diluting them, spreading them on agar plates, incubating them, and counting the colonies that form. Both techniques require measurements of multiple repeats, as well careful assessment of reproducibility and consistency. Existing literature using either technique gives a wide range of growth rate values for even the most extensively studied species of bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. This work aims to apply several methods to reliably determine the growth rate of a recently identified species of Enterobacteriaceae, called Enterobacter sp. SM3, and to compare that rate with that of a well-known wildtype E. coli strain KP437.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We extend conventional optical density (OD) measurements to determine the growth rate of Enterobacter sp. SM3. To assess the reliability of this technique, we compare growth rates obtained by fitting the OD data to exponential growth, applying a relative density method, and measuring shifts in OD curves following set factors of dilution. The main source of error in applying the OD technique is due to the reliance on an exponential growth phase with a short span. With proper choice of parameter range, however, we show that these three methods yield consistent results. We also measured the SM3 division rate by counting colony-forming units (CFU) versus time, yielding results consistent with the OD measurements. In lysogeny broth at 37
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusion of this report is that conventional optical density (OD) measurements and the colony-forming units (CFU) method can yield consistent values of bacterial growth rate. However, to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the measured growth rate of each bacterial strain, different methods ought to be applied in close comparison. The effort of checking for consistency among multiple techniques, as we have done in this study, is necessary to avoid reporting variable values of doubling time for particular species or strains of bacteria, as seen in the literature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39390418
doi: 10.1186/s12866-024-03547-3
pii: 10.1186/s12866-024-03547-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
403Subventions
Organisme : Nartional Science Foundation (US)
ID : NSF DMR 2207284
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dalgaard P, Ross T, Kamperman L, Neumeyer K, McMeekin TA. Estimation of bacterial growth rates from turbidimetric and viable count data. Int J Food Microbiol. 1994;23(3–4):391–404.
doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)90165-1
pubmed: 7873339
Harshey RM. Bacterial motility on a surface: many ways to a common goal. Ann Rev Microbiol. 2003;57(1):249–73.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.micro.57.030502.091014
Kearns DB. A field guide to bacterial swarming motility. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(9):634–44.
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2405
pubmed: 20694026
pmcid: 3135019
Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Kjelleberg S. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14(9):563–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94 .
doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94
pubmed: 27510863
Rolfe MD, Rice CJ, Lucchini S, Pin C, Thompson A, Cameron ADS, et al. Lag phase is a distinct growth phase that prepares Bacteria for exponential growth and involves transient metal Accumulation. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(3):686–701. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.06112-11 .
doi: 10.1128/JB.06112-11
pubmed: 22139505
pmcid: 3264077
Sezonov G, Joseleau-Petit D, D’Ari R. Escherichia coli physiology in luria-bertani broth. J Bacteriol. 2007;189(23):8746–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01368-07 .
doi: 10.1128/JB.01368-07
pubmed: 17905994
pmcid: 2168924
Maier RM, Pepper IL. Ch 3-Bacterial growth. In: Environmental Microbiology (3rd edition). Elsevier; 2015. p. 37–56.
Baranyi J, Roberts TA. A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food. Int J Food Microbiol. 1994;23(3–4):277–94.
doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)90157-0
pubmed: 7873331
Swinnen I, Bernaerts K, Dens EJ, Geeraerd AH, Van Impe J. Predictive modelling of the microbial lag phase: a review. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;94(2):137–59.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.01.006
pubmed: 15193801
Bertrand RL, Margolin W. Lag phase is a dynamic, organized, adaptive, and evolvable period that prepares bacteria for cell division. J Bacteriol. 2019;201(7):e00697-00618. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00697-18 .
doi: 10.1128/JB.00697-18
pubmed: 30642990
pmcid: 6416914
Beal J, Farny NG, Haddock-Angelli T, Selvarajah V, Baldwin GS, Buckley-Taylor R, et al. Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):512. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01127-5 .
doi: 10.1038/s42003-020-01127-5
pubmed: 32943734
pmcid: 7499192
Stevenson K, McVey AF, Clark IB, Swain PS, Pilizota T. General calibration of microbial growth in microplate readers. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):38828.
doi: 10.1038/srep38828
pubmed: 27958314
pmcid: 5153849
Mira P, Yeh P, Hall BG. Estimating microbial population data from optical density. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0276040.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276040
pubmed: 36228033
pmcid: 9562214
Hazan R, Que Y-A, Maura D, Rahme LG. A method for high throughput determination of viable bacteria cell counts in 96-well plates. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12(1):259. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-259 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-259
pubmed: 23148795
pmcid: 3534621
Lin H-L, Lin C-C, Lin Y-J, Lin H-C, Shih C-M, Chen C-R, et al. Revisiting with a relative-density calibration approach the determination of growth rates of microorganisms by use of optical density data from liquid cultures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76(5):1683–5.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.00824-09
pubmed: 20081003
pmcid: 2832404
Chesney AM. The latent period in the growth of bacteria. J Exp Med. 1916;24(4):387–418.
doi: 10.1084/jem.24.4.387
pubmed: 19868050
pmcid: 2125467
Penfold WJ. On the nature of bacterial lag. Epidemiol Infect. 1914;14(2):215–41.
Bhuyan S, Yadav M, Giri SJ, Begum S, Das S, Phukan A, et al. Microliter spotting and micro-colony observation: a rapid and simple approach for counting bacterial colony forming units. J Microbiol Methods. 2023;207:106707.
doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2023.106707
pubmed: 36931327
Sieuwerts S, de Bok FA, Mols E, de vos WM, Vlieg JE. A simple and fast method for determining colony forming units. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;47(4):275–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02417.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02417.x
pubmed: 18778376
Jett BD, Hatter KL, Huycke MM, Gilmore MS. Simplified agar plate method for quantifying viable bacteria. Biotechniques. 1997;23(4):648–50.
doi: 10.2144/97234bm22
pubmed: 9343684
Kurokawa M, Ying B-W. Precise, high-throughput analysis of bacterial growth. JoVE (Journal Visualized Experiments). 2017;127:e56197.
Putman M, Burton R, Nahm MH. Simplified method to automatically count bacterial colony forming unit. J Immunol Methods. 2005;302(1–2):99–102.
doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2005.05.003
pubmed: 16002082
Jepras R, Paul F, Pearson S, Wilkinson M. Rapid assessment of antibiotic effects on Escherichia coli by bis-(1, 3-dibutylbarbituric acid) trimethine oxonol and flow cytometry. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(9):2001–5.
doi: 10.1128/AAC.41.9.2001
pubmed: 9303401
pmcid: 164052
De A, Chen W, Li H, Wright JR, Lamendella R, Lukin DJ, et al. Bacterial swarmers enriched during intestinal stress ameliorate damage. Gastroenterology. 2021;161(1):211–24.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.017
pubmed: 33741315
Carding S, Verbeke K, Vipond DT, Corfe BM, Owen LJ. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in disease. Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015;26(1):26191. https://doi.org/10.3402/mehd.v26.26191 .
doi: 10.3402/mehd.v26.26191
pubmed: 25651997
Mukherjee S, Bassler BL. Bacterial quorum sensing in complex and dynamically changing environments. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17(6):371–82.
doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0186-5
pubmed: 30944413
pmcid: 6615036
Al-Akhras M-AH, Shorman MA, Masadeh MM, Aljarrah K, Ababneh Z. Modeling the effect of rose bengal on growth and decay patterns of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. vol. 305: IOP Publishing (Bristol, England); 2018:012004.
Wang P, Robert L, Pelletier J, Dang WL, Taddei F, Wright A, et al. Robust growth of Escherichia coli. Curr Biol. 2010;20(12):1099–103.
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.04.045
pubmed: 20537537
pmcid: 2902570
Hadas H, Einav M, Fishov I, Zaritsky A. Bacteriophage T4 development depends on the physiology of its host Escherichia coli. Microbiology. 1997;143(1):179–85.
doi: 10.1099/00221287-143-1-179
pubmed: 9025292
Krce L, Šprung M, Maravić A, Aviani I. A simple interaction-based E. Coli growth model. Phys Biol. 2019;16(6):066005.
doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/ab3d51
pubmed: 31434063
McBirney SE, Trinh K, Wong-Beringer A, Armani AM. Wavelength-normalized spectroscopic analysis of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa growth rates. Biomedical Opt Express. 2016;7(10):4034–42.
doi: 10.1364/BOE.7.004034
Williams I, Paul F, Lloyd D, Jepras R, Critchley I, Newman M, et al. Flow cytometry and other techniques show that Staphylococcus aureus undergoes significant physiological changes in the early stages of surface-attached culture. Microbiology. 1999;145(6):1325–33.
doi: 10.1099/13500872-145-6-1325
pubmed: 10411259
Salazar MJ, Machado H, Dillon NA, Tsunemoto H, Szubin R, Dahesh S, et al. Genetic determinants enabling medium-dependent adaptation to nafcillin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Msystems. 2020;5(2):e00828-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00828-19 .
doi: 10.1128/msystems.00828-19
pubmed: 32234776
pmcid: 7112963
Hurdle JG, O’neill AJ, Ingham E, Fishwick C, Chopra I. Analysis of mupirocin resistance and fitness in Staphylococcus aureus by molecular genetic and structural modeling techniques. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(11):4366–76.
doi: 10.1128/AAC.48.11.4366-4376.2004
pubmed: 15504866
pmcid: 525403
Yang L, Haagensen JA, Jelsbak L, Johansen HK, Sternberg C, Høiby N, et al. In situ growth rates and biofilm development of Pseudomonas aeruginosa populations in chronic lung infections. Am Soc Microbiol. 2008;190(8):2767–76.
Wagner VE, Bushnell D, Passador L, Brooks AI, Iglewski BH. Microarray analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing regulons: effects of growth phase and environment. J Bacteriol. 2003;185(7):2080–95.
doi: 10.1128/JB.185.7.2080-2095.2003
pubmed: 12644477
pmcid: 151498
Lee J, Attila C, Cirillo SL, Cirillo JD, Wood TK. Indole and 7-hydroxyindole diminish Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence. Microb Biotechnol. 2009;2(1):75–90.
doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7915.2008.00061.x
pubmed: 21261883
van Ditmarsch D, Xavier JB. High-resolution time series of Pseudomonas aeruginosa gene expression and rhamnolipid secretion through growth curve synchronization. BMC Microbiol. 2011;11:1–10.
Baranyi J. Simple is good as long as it is enough. Academic. 1997;14:189–92.
Buchanan R, Whiting R, Damert W. When is simple good enough: a comparison of the Gompertz, Baranyi, and three-phase linear models for fitting bacterial growth curves. Food Microbiol. 1997;14(4):313–26.
doi: 10.1006/fmic.1997.0125
Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, Van’t Riet K. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990;56(6):1875–81.
doi: 10.1128/aem.56.6.1875-1881.1990
pubmed: 16348228
pmcid: 184525
Peleg M, Corradini MG, Normand MD. The logistic (Verhulst) model for sigmoid microbial growth curves revisited. Food Res Int. 2007;40(7):808–18.
doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2007.01.012
Grijspeerdt K, Vanrolleghem P. Estimating the parameters of the Baranyi model for bacterial growth. Food Microbiol. 1999;16(6):593–605.
doi: 10.1006/fmic.1999.0285