The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selective Removal of DNA from Dead Cells of Mixed Bacterial Communities by Use of Ethidium Monoazide
Open accessAbstract
The distinction between viable and dead bacterial cells poses a major challenge in microbial diagnostics. Due to the persistence of DNA in the environment after cells have lost viability, DNA-based quantification methods overestimate the number of viable cells in mixed populations or even lead to false-positive results in the absence of viable cells. On the other hand, RNA-based diagnostic methods, which circumvent this problem, are technically demanding and suffer from some drawbacks. A promising and easy-to-use alternative utilizing the DNA-intercalating dye ethidium monoazide bromide (EMA) was published recently. This chemical is known to penetrate only into “dead” cells with compromised cell membrane integrity. Subsequent photoinduced cross-linking was reported to inhibit PCR amplification of DNA from dead cells. We provide evidence here that in addition to inhibition of amplification, most of the DNA from dead cells is actually lost during the DNA extraction procedure, probably together with cell debris which goes into the pellet fraction. Exposure of bacteria to increasing stress and higher proportions of dead cells in defined populations led to increasing loss of genomic DNA. Experiments were performed using Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium as model pathogens and using real-time PCR for their quantification. Results showed that EMA treatment of mixed populations of these two species provides a valuable tool for selective removal of DNA of nonviable cells by using conventional extraction protocols. Furthermore, we provide evidence that prior to denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis, EMA treatment of a mature mixed-population drinking-water biofilm containing a substantial proportion of dead cells can result in community fingerprints dramatically different from those for an untreated biofilm. The interpretation of such fingerprints can have important implications in the field of microbial ecology.
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
Cited by
Pan, Y., & Breidt, F. (2007) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01198-07 · Cited by 269
Detection of pathogens in foods: the current state-of-the-art and future directions
Dwivedi, H. P., & Jaykus, L.-A. (2011) · Critical Reviews in Microbiology · doi:10.3109/1040841x.2010.506430 · Cited by 255
Precision-guided antimicrobial peptide as a targeted modulator of human microbial ecology
Guo, L., McLean, J. S., Yang, Y., Eckert, R., Kaplan, C. W., Kyme, P., Sheikh, O., Varnum, B., Lux, R., Shi, W., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1506207112 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Nocker, A., & Camper, A. K.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1997-2004
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W2162196657
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.61
- 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: Selective Removal of DNA from Dead Cells of Mixed Bacterial Communities by Use of Ethidium Monoazide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.72.3.1997-2004.2006
- The paper
- Nocker, A., & Camper, A. K. (2006). Selective Removal of DNA from Dead Cells of Mixed Bacterial Communities by Use of Ethidium Monoazide. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.72.3.1997-2004.2006
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.