ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2023
Rapid microbial viability assay using scanning electron microscopy: a proof-of-concept using Phosphotungstic acid staining.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tips and tricks for gut microbiota investigation using scanning electron microscopy (SEM): going from sample preparation to imaging and landscape analysis.Gut microbes · 2025Article
- Methanobrevibacter smithii strain U29 whole genome sequence delineates M. smithii intermediate cell variants.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- The return of a forgotten ally: tabletop scanning electron microscopy in the realm of bacteriology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing for Colistin: Extended Application of Novel Quantitative and Morphologic Assay Using Scanning Electron Microscopy.International journal of microbiology · 2024Article
- Early prediction of the bactericidal and bacteriostatic effect of imipenem and doxycycline using tabletop scanning electron microscopy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple stains have been historically utilized in electron microscopy to provide proper contrast and superior image quality enabling the discovery of ultrastructures. However, the use of these stains in microbiological viability assessment has been limited. Phosphotungstic acid (PTA) staining is a common negative stain used in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Here, we investigate the feasibility of a new SEM-PTA assay, aiming to determine both viable and dead microbes. The optimal sample preparation was established by staining bacteria with different PTA concentrations and incubation times. Once the assay conditions were set, we applied the protocol to various samples, evaluating bacterial viability under different conditions, and comparing SEM-PTA results to culture. The five minutes 10% PTA staining exhibited a strong distinction between viable micro-organisms perceived as hypo-dense, and dead micro-organisms displaying intense internal staining which was confirmed by high Tungsten (W) peak on the EDX spectra. SEM-PTA viability count after freezing, freeze-drying, or oxygen exposure, were concordant with culture. To our knowledge, this study is the first contribution towards PTA staining of live and dead bacteria. The SEM-PTA strategy demonstrated the feasibility of a rapid, cost-effective and efficient viability assay, presenting an open-view of the sample, and providing a potentially valuable tool for applications in microbiome investigations and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.