2010
DOI: 10.1002/bit.22929
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Antimicrobial testing for surface‐immobilized agents with a surface‐separated live–dead staining method

Abstract: Modification of a traditional live-dead staining technique based on fluorescence microscopy has yielded an improved method capable of differentiating surface-immobilized antimicrobial agents from those agents acting via solution diffusion processes. By utilizing an inoculation chamber comprised of 50 mm polystyrene spheres as spacers between test substrate and coverslip control surfaces, three distinct bacterial cell populations can be probed by fluorescence microscopy for antimicrobial activity: (1) cells adh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…86,87 Our group has devised a conceptually simple live-dead staining technique that can determine whether the antimicrobial agent kills cells at the surface or at a distance. 88 The method uses a direct inoculation method with spacers to separate an iAMA surface from a control coverslip surface. The method generates three populations of bacteria that can be compared: (1) those at the control surface, (2) those at the test iAMA surface, and (3) those freely floating in the solution.…”
Section: G Luminescent Signalingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…86,87 Our group has devised a conceptually simple live-dead staining technique that can determine whether the antimicrobial agent kills cells at the surface or at a distance. 88 The method uses a direct inoculation method with spacers to separate an iAMA surface from a control coverslip surface. The method generates three populations of bacteria that can be compared: (1) those at the control surface, (2) those at the test iAMA surface, and (3) those freely floating in the solution.…”
Section: G Luminescent Signalingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a confirmation of the innocuous nature of pDMAEMA predicted by HCA, it did not induce any histological damage on isolated rat colonic mucosae and caused on only mild damage to ileal tissue at even higher concentrations of the agent, with exposure for a more realistic 120 min compared to 72 h with cell lines. Therefore, the data supported the potential use of pDMAEMA as a gene delivery agent [35] and as an antibacterial surface coating [36], with some confidence in the likelihood of a safe outcome from a full preclinical toxicology package. HCA has also been used to study the mechanisms of cytotoxicity for two of the most common cationic polymeric carriers, PEI and poly-L-lysine (PLL) [37].…”
mentioning
confidence: 71%
“…To evaluate whether the eGFP/3 μM PI assay is suited for in situ monitoring of bacterial viability and growth on a bioactive model substrate, eGFP-expressing E. coli (AAEC191A pHis-GFP) were incubated on antimicrobial dimethyloctadecyl [3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ammonium chloride (DMOAC) coated glass surfaces [23,27] (Figure 3b). Homogeneous DMOAC coating with a dry adlayer thickness of 2.2 nm was confirmed by variable-angle spectroscopic ellipsometry.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bioactive surfaces were prepared according to published protocols [23]. Briefly, glass cover slides, that later resemble the bottom slide of the flow chamber, were exposed to air plasma for 15 seconds (Harrick Plasma, PDC-32G) followed by dipping into a 5% (v/v) aqueous DMOAC (Sigma-Aldrich) solution for 1 second, and drying at 105°C overnight.…”
Section: Viability Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation