The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sorting Out Bacterial Viability with Optical Tweezers
Open accessAbstract
We have developed a method, using laser, optical tweezers and direct microscopic analysis of reproductive potential and membrane integrity, to assess single-cell viability in a stationary-phase Escherichia coli population. It is demonstrated here that a reduction in cell integrity, determined by using the fluorescent nucleic acid stain propidium iodide, correlated well with a reduction in cell proliferating potential during the stationary-phase period studied. Moreover, the same cells that exhibited reduced integrity were found to be the ones that failed to divide upon nutrient addition. A small but significant number of the intact cells (496 of 7,466 [6.6%]) failed to replicate. In other words, we did not find evidence for the existence of a large population of intact but nonculturable cells during the stationary-phase period studied but it is clear that reproductive ability can be lost prior to the loss of membrane integrity. In addition, about 1% of the stationary-phase cells were able to divide only once upon nutrient addition, and in a few cases, only one of the two cells produced by division was able to divide a second time, indicating that localized cell deterioration, inherited by only one of the daughters, may occur. The usefulness of the optical trapping methodology in elucidating the mechanisms involved in stationary-phase-induced bacterial death and population heterogeneity is discussed.
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
The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains
Hayflick, L., & Moorhead, P. S. (1961) · Experimental Cell Research · doi:10.1016/0014-4827(61)90192-6 · Cited by 8,508
Cited by
Voskuil, M. I., Visconti, K. C., & Schoolnik, G. K. (2004) · Tuberculosis · doi:10.1016/j.tube.2004.02.003 · Cited by 448
Raman Microscopic Analysis of Single Microbial Cells
Huang, W. E., Griffiths, R. I., Thompson, I. P., Bailey, M. J., & Whiteley, A. S. (2004) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac049753k · Cited by 411
Nyström, T. (2004) · Annual Review of Microbiology · doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.58.030603.123818 · Cited by 391
Haack, S. K., Metge, D. W., Fogarty, L. R., Meyer, M. T., Barber, L. B., Harvey, R. W., LeBlanc, D. R., & Kolpin, D. W. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es3009776 · Cited by 54
Damage dynamics and the role of chance in the timing of E. coli cell death
Yang, Y., Karin, O., Mayo, A., Song, X., Chen, P., Santos, A. L., Lindner, A. B., & Alon, U. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37930-x · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Ericsson, M., Hanstorp, D., Hagberg, P., Enger, J., & Nyström, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Bacteriology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 182
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 5551-5555
- ISSN
- 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5530
- OpenAlex
- W2116910668
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.52
- 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: Sorting Out Bacterial Viability with Optical Tweezers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.182.19.5551-5555.2000
- The paper
- Ericsson, M., Hanstorp, D., Hagberg, P., Enger, J., & Nyström, T. (2000). Sorting Out Bacterial Viability with Optical Tweezers. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.182.19.5551-5555.2000
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.