The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flow Cytometric Assessment of Viability of Lactic Acid Bacteria
Open accessAbstract
The viability of lactic acid bacteria is crucial for their applications as dairy starters and as probiotics. We investigated the usefulness of flow cytometry (FCM) for viability assessment of lactic acid bacteria. The esterase substrate carboxyfluorescein diacetate (cFDA) and the dye exclusion DNA binding probes propidium iodide (PI) and TOTO-1 were tested for live/dead discrimination using a Lactococcus , a Streptococcus , three Lactobacillus , two Leuconostoc , an Enterococcus , and a Pediococcus species. Plate count experiments were performed to validate the results of the FCM assays. The results showed that cFDA was an accurate stain for live cells; in exponential-phase cultures almost all cells were labeled, while 70°C heat-killed cultures were left unstained. PI did not give clear live/dead discrimination for some of the species. TOTO-1, on the other hand, gave clear discrimination between live and dead cells. The combination of cFDA and TOTO-1 gave the best results. Well-separated subpopulations of live and dead cells could be detected with FCM. Cell sorting of the subpopulations and subsequent plating on agar medium provided direct evidence that cFDA labels the culturable subpopulation and that TOTO-1 labels the nonculturable subpopulation. Applied to cultures exposed to deconjugated bile salts or to acid, cFDA and TOTO-1 proved to be accurate indicators of culturability. Our experiments with lactic acid bacteria demonstrated that the combination of cFDA and TOTO-1 makes an excellent live/dead assay with versatile applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Marteau, P., Minekus, M., Havenaar, R., & Huis In’t Veld, J. H. J. (1997) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(97)76027-2 · Cited by 488
Cited by
Probiotics: an overview of beneficial effects
Ouwehand, A. C., Salminen, S., & Isolauri, E. (2002) · Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · doi:10.1023/a:1020620607611 · Cited by 1,013
de Almada, C. N., Almada, C. N., Martinez, R. C. R., & Sant'Ana, A. S. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.09.011 · Cited by 422
Alternative Drying Processes for the Industrial Preservation of Lactic Acid Starter Cultures
Santivarangkna, C., Kulozik, U., & Foerst, P. (2007) · Biotechnology Progress · doi:10.1021/bp060268f · Cited by 329
Paparella, A., Taccogna, L., Aguzzi, I., Chaves-López, C., Serio, A., Marsilio, F., & Suzzi, G. (2008) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.01.002 · Cited by 152
Wilkinson, M. G., & LaPointe, G. (2020) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18960 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Bunthof, C. J., Bloemen, K., Breeuwer, P., Rombouts, F. M., & Abee, T.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2326-2335
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2135146547
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flow Cytometric Assessment of Viability of Lactic Acid Bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.67.5.2326-2335.2001
- The paper
- Bunthof, C. J., Bloemen, K., Breeuwer, P., Rombouts, F. M., & Abee, T. (2001). Flow Cytometric Assessment of Viability of Lactic Acid Bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.67.5.2326-2335.2001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
