Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 237–243 | Cite as

On resuscitation from the dormant state of Micrococcus luteus

  • Galina V. Mukamolova
  • Nataliya D. Yanopolskaya
  • Douglas B. Kell
  • Arseny S. Kaprelyants
Article

Abstract

It has been found previously that a significant number of Micrococcus luteus cells starved in a prolonged stationary phase (up to 2 months) and then held on the bench at room temperature without agitation for periods of up to a further 2–7 months can be resuscitated in liquid media which contained (statistically) no initially-viable (colony-forming) cells but which were fortified with sterile supernatant from the late logarithmic phase of batch growth. Here it was found that such resuscitation can be done only within a defined time period after taking the first sample from such cultures, necessarily involving agitation of the cells. The duration of this period depends on the age of the starved culture: cells kept on the bench for 3 months possess a 2 month period of resuscitability while cells starved for 6 months can be resuscitated only within 10 days after the beginning of sampling. It is suggested that the input of oxygen to the starved cultures while they are agitated may exert a negative influence on the cells, since cultures stored in anaerobic conditions (under nitrogen) had a more prolonged ’survival' time. The cells which experienced between 10 and 60 days of starvation on the bench could be resuscitated, although the number of resuscitable cells depended strongly on the concentration of yeast extract in the resuscitation medium. This concentration for cells stored on the bench for more than 2 months was 0.05% while ’1-month-old‘ cells displayed a maximum resuscitability in the presence of 0.01% of yeast extract. Application of the fluorescent probe propidium iodide revealed the formation of cells with a damaged permeability barrier if resuscitation was performed by using concentrations of yeast extract of 0.1% and above. Thus the successful resuscitation of bacterial cultures under laboratory conditions may need rather strictly defined parameters if it is to be successfully performed for the majority of cells in a population.

dormancy resuscitation cryptobiosis anabiosis M. luteus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen Austin D, Austin B & Colwell RR (1984) Survival of Aeromonas salmonicida in river water. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 21: 143–146Google Scholar
  2. Barer MR (1997) Viable but nonculturable and dormant bacteria: time to resolve an oxymoron and a misnomer? J. Med. Microbiol. 46: 629–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barer MR, Gribbon LT, Harwood CR & Nwoguh CE (1993) The viable but nonculturable hypothesis and medical microbiology. Rev. Med. Microbiol. 4: 183–191Google Scholar
  4. Bovill RA & Mackey BM (1997) Resuscitation of & #x2018;nonculturable & #x2019; cells from aged cultures of Campylobacter jejuni. Microbiology 143: 1575–1581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Davey HM & Kell DB (1996) Flow cytometry and cell sorting of heterogeneous microbial populations: the importance of single cell analysis. Microbiol. Rev. 60: 641–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dhaese P (1996) Catalase an enzyme with growing industrial potential. Chimica OggiChemistry Today. 14: 19–21Google Scholar
  7. Harrison AP (1960) The response of Bacterium lactis aerogenes when held at growth temperatures in the absence of nutrient: an analysis of survival curves. Proc. Roy. Soc., B. 152: 418–428Google Scholar
  8. Humphreys MJ, Allman R & Lloyd D (1994) Determination of the viability of Trichomonas vaginalis using flow cytometry. Cytometry 15: 343–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jensen PR, Kauffman CA, & Fenical W (1996) High recovery of culturable bacteria from the surfaces of marine algae. Marine Biology 126: 1–7Google Scholar
  10. Kaprelyants AS & Kell DB (1992) Rapid assessment of bacterial viability and vitality using rhodamine 123 and flow cytometry. Appl. Bacteriol. 72: 410–422Google Scholar
  11. — (1993) Dormancy in stationaryphase cultures of Micrococcus luteus flow cytometric analysis of starvation and resuscitation. Appl. Environm. Microbiol. 59: 3187–3196Google Scholar
  12. — (1996) Do bacteria need to communicate with each other for growth? Trends in Microbiology 4: 237–242Google Scholar
  13. Kaprelyants AS, Gottschal JC & Kell DB (1993) Dormancy in nonsporulating bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 104: 271–286Google Scholar
  14. Kaprelyants AS, Mukamolova GV, Davey HM & Kell DB (1996) Quantitative-analysis of the physiological heterogeneity within starved cultures of Micrococcus luteus by flowcytometry and cell sorting. Appl. Environm. Microbiol. 62: 1311–1316Google Scholar
  15. Kaprelyants AS, Mukamolova GV & Kell DB (1994). Estimation of dormant Micrococcus luteus cells by penicillin lysis and by resuscitation in cellfree spent medium at high dilution. FEMS Microbiol. Let 115: 347–352Google Scholar
  16. Kell DB, Kaprelyants AS, Weichart DH, Harwood CR & Barer MR (1998) Viability and activity in readily culturable bacteria: a review and discussion of the practical issues. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, in the pressGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd D & Hayes AJ (1995) Vigour, vitality and viability ofmicroorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 133: 1–7Google Scholar
  18. MacDonell MT & Hood HM (1982) Isolation and characterization of ultramicrobacteria from a gulf coast estuary. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43: 566–571Google Scholar
  19. Mason CA, Hamer G & Bryers JD (1986) The death and lysis of microorganisms in environmental processes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 39: 373–401Google Scholar
  20. McVeigh HP, Munro, J & Embley TM (1996) Molecular evidence for the presence of novel actinomycete lineages in a temperate forest soil. J. Ind. Microbiol. 17: 197–204Google Scholar
  21. Meynell GG & Meynell E (1965) Theory and practice in experimental bacteriology. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan JA, Cranwell PA & Pickup R (1991) Survival of Aeromonas salmonicida in lake water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57: 1777–1782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mukamolova GV, Kormer SS, Yanopolskaya ND & Kaprelyants AS (1995) Properties of dormant cells in stationaryphase cultures of M. luteus during prolonged incubation. Microbiology (Russian) 64: 284–288Google Scholar
  24. Mukamolova GV, Yanopolskaya ND, Votyakova TV, Popov VI, Kaprelyants AS & Kell DB (1995) Biochemical changes accompanying the longterm starvation of Micrococcus luteus cells in spent growth medium. Arch. Microbiol. 163: 373–379Google Scholar
  25. Nilsson L, Oliver JD & Kjelleberg S (1991) Resuscitation of Vibrio vulnificus from the viable but nonculturable state. J Bacteriol. 173: 5054–5059PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrovsky DN (1995) Oxidative stress and organic cyclopyrophosphate in bacteria. Biochemistry (Russian) 60: 9–12Google Scholar
  27. Oliver JD (ed.) (1993) Formation of viable but not culturable cells. Plenum Press, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliver JD & Bockian R (1995). In vivo resuscitation, and virulence towards mice, of viable but nonculturable cells of Vibrio vulnificus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 2620–2623PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Postgate JR (1967) Viability measurements and the survival of microbes under minimum stress, In: Rose AH & Wilkinson JF (Eds) Advances in Microbial Physiology, vol. 1. (pp 1–21.) Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Postgate JR & Hunter JR (1963) The survival of starved bacteria. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 26: 295–306Google Scholar
  31. Rose AS, Ellis AE & Munro A (1990) Evidence against dormancy in the bacterial fish pathogen Aeromonas– salmonicida subsp salmonicida. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 68: 105–107Google Scholar
  32. Votyakova TV, Kaprelyants AS & Kell DB (1994). Influence of viable cells on the resuscitation of dormant cells in Micrococcus luteus cultures held in extended stationary phase. The population effect. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60: 3284–3291Google Scholar
  33. Wai SN, Moriya T, Kondo K, Misumi H & Amako K(1996) Resuscitation of Vibrio cholerae O1 strain tsi4 from a viable but nonculturable state by heat shock. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 136: 187–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wayne LG (1994) Dormancy of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and latency of disease. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. & Infec. Dis. 13: 908–914Google Scholar
  35. Wayne LG & Hayes LG(1996) An in vitro model for sequential study of shiftdown of Mycobacterium tuberculosis through 2 stages of nonreplicating persistence. Infect Immun 64: 2062–2069PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Weichart D & Kjelleberg S (1996) Stress resistance and recovery potential of culturable and viable but nonculturable cells of Vibrio vulnificus. Microbiology 142: 845–853PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Galina V. Mukamolova
    • 1
  • Nataliya D. Yanopolskaya
    • 1
  • Douglas B. Kell
    • 2
  • Arseny S. Kaprelyants
    • 1
  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesBakh Institute of BiochemistryMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Biological SciencesUniversity of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations