counting microorganisms. methods turbidity measurements viable counts most probable number direct...

28
Counting Microorganisms

Upload: bathsheba-morton

Post on 31-Dec-2015

228 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Counting Microorganisms

Page 2: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Methods

• Turbidity measurements• Viable counts• Most probable number• Direct counts

Page 3: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Most probable Number: MPN

– Based on Probability Statistics– Presumptive test based on given characteristics– Broth Technique

Page 4: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Most Probable Number (MPN)

• Begin with Broth to detect desired characteristic• Inoculate different dilutions of sample to be

tested in each of three tubes

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6Dilution

3 Tubes/Dilution

1 ml of Each Dilution into Each Tube

After suitable incubation period, record POSITIVE TUBES (Have GROWTH and desired characteristics)

Page 5: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

MPN - Continued• Objective is to “DILUTE OUT” the organism to zero• Following the incubation, the number of tubes showing the desired

characteristics are recorded• Example of results for a suspension of 1g/10 ml of soil• Dilutions: -1 -2 -3 -4 • Positive tubes: 3 2 1 0

– Choose correct sequence: 321 and look up in table

– Multiply result by middle dilution factor» 150 X 102 = 1.5 X 104/mL» Since you have 1g in 10mL must multiply again by 10» 1.5 X 105/g

Pos. tubesMPN/g (mL)

0.10 0.01 0.001

3 2 1 150

Page 6: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Direct Counts

• The sample to be counted is applied onto a hemacytometer slide that holds a fixed volume in a counting chamber

• The number of cells is counted in several independent squares on the slide’s grid

• The number of cells in the given volume is then calculated

Page 7: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Determining the Direct Count

7

• Count the number of cells in three independent squares– 8, 8 and 5

• Determine the mean– (8 + 8 + 5)/3 =7– Therefore 7 cells/square

Page 8: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Determining the Direct Count (Cont’d)

8

• Calculate the volume of a square:= 0.1cm X 0.1cm X 0.01cm= 1 X 10-4cm3 or ml

• Divide the average number of cells by the the volume of a square– Therefore 7/ 1 X 10-4 ml = 7 X 104 cells/ml

1mm

1mmDepth: 0.1mm

Page 9: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Problem

• A 500μl sample is applied to a hemacytometer slide with the following dimensions: 0.1mm X 0.1mm X 0.02mm. Counts of 6, 4 and 2 cells were obtained from three independent squares. What was the number of cells per milliliter in the original sample if the counting chamber possesses 100 squares?

Page 10: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Microscopy

Differential Staining

Page 11: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Differential StainingGram Stain

Divides bacteria into two groupsGram Negative & Gram Positive

Page 12: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

• Stained Purple – Rods

• Genera Bacillus and Clostridium– Coccus

• Genera Streptococcus, Staphylococcus and Micrococcus

Page 13: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Gram Negative

• Stained Red– Rods:

• Genera Escherichia, Salmonella, Proteus, etc.

– Coccus: • Genera Neisseria, Moraxella and Acinetobacter

Page 14: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Rule of thumb

• If the genus is Bacillus or Clostridium= Gram (+) rod

• If the genus name ends in coccus or cocci (besides 3 exceptions, which are Gram (-))= coccus shape and Gram (+)

• If not part of the rules above, = Gram (-) rods

Page 15: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Cell Wall

15

Peptidoglycanwall

PlasmaMembrane

Lipopolysaccharidelayer

Absent

Gram + Vs Gram -

Page 16: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Method – Primary staining

1. Staining with crystal violet2. Addition of Gram’s iodine (Mordant)

+

Gram positive Gram negative

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plasma membrane - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wall:peptidoglycan LPS

Page 17: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Method – Differential step

3. Alcohol wash

Gram positive Gram negative

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plasma membrane - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wall: peptidoglycan LPS

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Wall is dehydrated – Stain + iodine complex is trapped

Wall is not dehydrated – Complex is not trapped

Page 18: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Method – Counter Stain

4. Staining with Safranin

Gram positive Gram negative

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plasma membrane - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wall:peptidoglycan LPS

+ + + + + + +

+

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

18

Page 19: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Summary

19

Fixation

Primary stainingCrystal violet

Counter stainingSafranin

WashDestaining

Page 20: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Acid Fast Staining

• Diagnostic staining of Mycobacterium– Pathogens associated with Tuberculosis and Leprosy– Cell wall has mycoic acid

• Waxy, very impermeable

Page 21: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Method

• Basis: – High level of compounds similar to waxes in their

cell walls, Mycoic acid, makes these bacteria resistant to traditional staining techniques

Page 22: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Method (Cont’d)

• Cell wall is permeabilized with heat• Staining with basic fuchsine

– Phenol based, soluble in mycoic layer– Cooling returns cell wall to its impermeable state

• Stain is trapped

• Wash with acid alcohol– Differential step

• Mycobacteria retain stain• Other bacteria lose the stain

Page 23: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Spore Stain

• Spores:– Differentiated bacterial cell– Resistant to heat, desiccation, ultraviolet, and

different chemical treatments• Thus very resistant to staining too!

– Typical of Gram positive rods • Genera Bacillus and Clostridium

– Unfavorable conditions induce sporogenesis• Differentiation of vegetative cell to endospore

– E.g. Anthrax

Page 24: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Malachite Green Staining

• Permeabilization of spores with heat

• Primary staining with malachite green

• Wash• Counter staining with

safranin

Vegetative cells(actively growing)

Spores(resistant

structures used for survival under

unfavourable conditions.)

Endospore(spore within

cell)

Sporangium(cell +

endospore)

Page 25: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Pathogens

Page 26: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

19th Century: Robert Koch

• Studies anthrax disease which kills cows• Grows in pure culture bacteria obtained from

the blood of diseased animals– Bacillus anthracis

• Observations:– Blood of diseased animals transmits the disease– The microorganisms is found only in diseased

animals– The microorganism grown in the lab transmits the

disease to healthy animals26

Page 27: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Robert Koch (Cont’d)

• Conclusion: Microorganisms are responsible of diseases– Pathogens

• These results lead Robert Koch to formulate guidelines to associate a microorganism to a disease– Koch’s postulates

27

Page 28: Counting Microorganisms. Methods Turbidity measurements Viable counts Most probable number Direct counts

Koch’s Postulates

• The microorganism must be present in each diseased case but absent from healthy individuals

• The microorganism must be isolated and grown in pure cultures

• The disease must develop when the isolated microorganism is inoculated in a healthy host

• The same microorganism must be isolated again from the diseased host

28