The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Red but not dead? Membranes of stressed Saccharomyces cerevisiae are permeable to propidium iodide
Abstract
Summary: Flow cytometric monitoring of propidium iodide (PI) uptake is a well‐established and rapid method for monitoring cell death and is used on the basis that the intact membrane of viable cells excludes the propidium ion and that loss of this permeability barrier represents irreparable damage and thus cell death. These assumptions are typically based on analysis of live and killed cells. Here we have identified stress levels that lead to a loss of viability of a proportion of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells and under these conditions we show that there is a subpopulation of cells that can take up PI during and immediately following exposure to stress but that a short incubation allows repair of the membrane damage such that subsequent exposure to PI does not result in staining. Irrespective of the stress applied, approximately 7% of cells exhibited the ability to repair. These results indicate that the level of damage that the yeast cell membrane can sustain and yet retain the ability to repair is greater than previously recognized and care must therefore be taken in using the terms ‘PI‐positive’ and ‘dead’ synonymously. We discuss these findings in the context of the potential for such environmental stress‐induced, transient membrane permeability to have evolutionary implications via the facilitation of horizontal gene transfer.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Multispectral imaging flow cytometry allows characterization of single cells within a population by assessing a combination of morphology and immunofluorescence patterns, thereby providing statistically meaningful data [416].”
From Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1 (2021) · cites this paper as [416]
Citations
Cites
Microbial Cell Individuality and the Underlying Sources of Heterogeneity
Avery, S. V. (2006) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1460 · Cited by 521
Toxicity of anionic detergents determined by Saccharomyces cerevisiae microarray analysis
Sirisattha, S., Momose, Y., Kitagawa, E., & Iwahashi, H. (2004) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2003.08.027 · Cited by 130
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- 10.1002/cyto.a.20212 · DOI
- 10.1002/cyto.a.20331 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.01582-05 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1991.tb04662.x · DOI
- 10.1016/0302-4598(92)80016-A · DOI
- 10.1099/00221287-146-4-877 · DOI
- 10.1002/cyto.990110303 · DOI
- Davey H.M., 1996, Flow cytometry and cell sorting of heterogeneous microbial populations – the importance of single‐cell analyses, Microbiol Rev, 60, 641, 10.1128/mr.60.4.641-696.1996 · DOI
- Davey H.M., 2003, Using flow cytometry to quantify microbial heterogeneity, Curr Issues Mol Biol, 5, 9
- Davey H.M., 2004, Current Protocols in Cytometry (Supplement 29), 11.13.11
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(19980130)14:2<147::AID-YEA207>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bbamem.2010.01.015 · DOI
- 10.1128/EC.4.6.1102-1115.2005 · DOI
- 10.1007/b93997 · DOI
- 10.1016/0014-5793(87)80886-4 · DOI
- 10.1007/10_2007_073 · DOI
- Ito H., 1983, Transformation of intact yeast‐cells treated with alkali cations, J Bacteriol, 153, 163, 10.1128/jb.153.1.163-168.1983 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00018-003-2239-0 · DOI
- 10.1002/cyto.990170405 · DOI
- Jones R.P., 1987, Measures of yeast death and deactivation and their meaning: parts 1 and 2, Process Biochem, 22, 118
- 10.1177/33.1.2578146 · DOI
- 10.1128/AEM.62.4.1311-1316.1996 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-0-387-09794-7_9 · DOI
- 10.1128/AAC.44.4.827-834.2000 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1995.tb07925.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0580-9517(08)70149-1 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bbamem.2007.03.017 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition).
Klionsky, D. J., Abdelmohsen, K., Abe, A., Abedin, M. J., Abeliovich, H., Acevedo Arozena, A., Adachi, H., Adams, C. M., Adams, P. D., Adeli, K., et al. (2016) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356 · Cited by 5,894
Self-citationGuidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1
Klionsky, D. J., Abdel-Aziz, A. K., Abdelfatah, S., Abdellatif, M., Abdoli, A., Abel, S., Abeliovich, H., Abildgaard, M. H., Abudu, Y. P., Acevedo-Arozena, A., et al. (2021) · Autophagy · doi:10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280 · Cited by 2,897
Metadata
- Authors
- Davey, H. M., & Hexley, P.
- Venue
- Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-171
- ISSN
- 1462-2912
- 1462-2920
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review