ArticleJournal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology2024
Simultaneous enumeration of yeast and bacterial cells in the context of industrial bioprocesses.
Article in Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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 1:1 or 100:1 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 1:1 and 100:1 ratios), and a Coulter Counter (at 1:1 and 100:1 ratios). We observed that for yeast cell counts in the mixture (1:1 and 100:1 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 (1:1 ratio) produced no significantly different results (p > .05). In contrast, the Coulter Counter (1:1 ratio) and flow cytometry (100:1 ratio) presented results statistically different (p < .05). Additionally, quantifying bacterial cells in a mixed suspension at a 100:1 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.
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.