Advertisement

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, 230:285 | Cite as

Rapid Quantification of Escherichia coli in Potable Water by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Performed in Liquid (liq-FISH) and a Microfluidic System

  • Nobuyasu YamaguchiEmail author
  • Satoko Goto
Article

Abstract

Specific and sensitive detection of fecal microbes in potable water is essential for ensuring the safety of water supplies. To this end, because conventional culture-based methods typically require at least 24 h to detect fecal bacteria, rapid and simple microbiological detection methods are considered necessary. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a useful culture-independent technique for selectively and rapidly detecting target bacteria using fluorescently labeled probes that hybridize with intracellular ribosomal RNA. However, typical FISH assays are relatively complicated to perform, making FISH unsuitable for routine tests. In this study, we developed an “in liquid-fluorescence in situ hybridization” assay (liq-FISH) to enumerate Escherichia coli cells, indicator of fecal contamination, rapidly. The assay performs the entire in situ hybridization procedure in liquid and requires only two simple steps—addition of fixative followed by the addition of fluorescent probe. Important processes in FISH, fixation and hybridization, were optimized, and then specificity of the optimized liq-FISH procedure was confirmed by E. coli and other eight gammaproteobacterial species. The findings showed that only E. coli cells fluoresced under a fluorescence microscope; however, filtration process is required to observe and count hybridized cells by fluorescence microscopy. For simple and semi-automated counting following liq-FISH, our developed microscope-based microfluidic counting system was applied. Hybridized cells were injected into a microfluidic device, which permitted the detection and enumeration of E. coli cells flowing through the microchannel (width: 100 μm, depth: 15 μm). The obtained results were compared with those obtained by conventional fluorescence microscopy, and results showed the similarity (r = 0.908). E. coli cells could be counted within 5 h (filtration for concentration of low numbers of E. coli cells (if necessary): 0.5 h, fixation of cells: 2 h, in situ hybridization: 2 h, counting: 0.5 h), and this method would be useful for rapidly quantifying E. coli cells in potable water.

Keywords

Potable water Microbiological monitoring Escherichia coli Fluorescence in situ hybridization Microfluidic device Lab-on-a-chip 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Prof. Tomoaki Ichijo and Prof. Masao Nasu for their assistance with project management.

Funding Information

This research was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI (Grant numbers JP26670062 and 18 K11688) and the River Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11270_2019_4342_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (746 kb)
ESM 1 (PPTX 746 kb)

References

  1. Amann, R. I., Ludwig, W., & Schleifer, K.-H. (1995). Phylogenetic identification of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiological Reviews, 59, 143–169.Google Scholar
  2. Blankenstein, G., & Larsen, U. D. (1998). Modular concept of a laboratory on a chip for chemical and biochemical analysis. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 13, 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridle, H., Miller, B., & Desmulliez, M. P. (2014). Application of microfluidics in waterborne pathogen monitoring: a review. Water Research, 55, 256–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole, J. R., Wang, Q., Fish, J. A., Chai, B., McGarrell, D. M., Sun, Y., Brown, C. T., Porras-Alfaro, A., Kuske, C. R., & Tiedje, J. M. (2014). Ribosomal database project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Research, 42, D633–D642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darcan, C., Ozkanca, R., Idil, O., & Flint, K. P. (2009). Viable but non-culturable state (VBNC) of Escherichia coli related to EnvZ under the effect of pH, starvation and osmotic stress in sea water. Polish Journal of Microbiology, 58, 307–317.Google Scholar
  6. Kenzaka, T., Yamaguchi, N., Prapagdee, B., Mikami, E., & Nasu, M. (2001). Bacterial community composition and activity in urban rivers in Thailand and Malaysia. Journal of Health Science, 47, 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klerks, M. M., van Bruggen, A. H. C., Zijlstra, C., & Donnikov, M. (2006). Comparison of methods of extracting Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis DNA from environmental substrates and quantification of organisms by using a general internal procedural control. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72, 3879–3886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu, W. T., & Zhu, L. (2005). Environmental microbiology-on-a-chip and its future impacts. Trends in Biotechnology, 23, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Notomi, T., Okayama, H., Masubuchi, H., Yonekawa, T., Watanabe, K., Amino, N., & Hase, T. (2000). Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Research, 28, E63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rusconi, R., Garren, M., & Stocker, R. (2014). Microfluidics expanding the frontiers of microbial ecology. Annual Review of Biophysics, 43, 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sakamoto, C., Yamaguchi, N., & Nasu, M. (2005). Rapid and simple quantification of bacterial cells by using a microfluidic device. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71, 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sakamoto, C., Yamaguchi, N., Yamada, M., Nagase, H., Seki, M., & Nasu, M. (2007). Rapid quantification of bacterial cells in potable water using a simplified microfluidic device. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 68, 643–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Singh, M., Pakshirajan, K., & Trivedi V. (2016). Photo-inactivation of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus hirae using methylene blue and sodium anthraquinone-2-sulphonate: effect of process parameters. 3 Biotech, 6, 176.Google Scholar
  14. Wallner, G., Amann, R., & Beisker, W. (1993). Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry, 14, 136–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. World Health Organization. (2003). Chapter 4: Faecal pollution and water quality. In World Health Organization (Ed.), Guidelines for safe recreational water environments. Volume 1: Coastal and fresh waters. (pp. 51–96). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/srwe1/en/
  16. Wu, F., & Dekker, C. (2016). Nanofabricated structures and microfluidic devices for bacteria: from techniques to biology. Chemical Society Reviews, 45, 268–280.Google Scholar
  17. Yamaguchi, N., Torii, Y., Uebayashi, Y., & Nasu, M. (2011). Rapid, semiautomated quantification of bacterial cells in freshwater by using a microfluidic device for on-chip staining and counting. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 77, 1536–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yamaguchi, N., Matsukawa, S., Shintome, Y., Ichijo, T., & Nasu, M. (2013). Microchip-based terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis for on-site analysis of bacterial communities in freshwater. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 36, 1305–1309.Google Scholar
  19. Yamaguchi, N., Tokunaga, Y., Goto, S., Fujii, Y., Banno, F., & Edagawa, A. (2017). Rapid on-site monitoring of Legionella pneumophila in cooling tower water using a portable microfluidic system. Scientific Reports, 7, 3092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Osaka Institute of Public HealthOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Pharmaceutical SciencesOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations