Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Selective Removal of DNA from Dead Cells of Mixed Bacterial Communities by Use of Ethidium Monoazide

Open access
Nocker, Andreas, Camper, Anne K.·2006·Applied and Environmental Microbiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/aem.72.3.1997-2004.2006

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 335

Metadata

Authors
Nocker, A., & Camper, A. K.
Venue
Applied and Environmental 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.