Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:19:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the reflectance and Crystal Violet assays for measurement of biofilm formation by Enterococcus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2005

S. L. Broschat ,
D. R. Call ,
E. A. Kuhn  and
F. J. Loge
S. L. Broschat
Affiliation:
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Center for Integrated Biotechnology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2752, USA
D. R. Call
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Center for Integrated Biotechnology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-7040, USA
E. A. Kuhn
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology, Center for Integrated Biotechnology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-7040, USA
F. J. Loge
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In previous work, we described a protocol for measuring biofilm formation on opaque and non-opaque surfaces using reflected light. In the present work, we used the reflectance assay to assess biofilm formation for 14 strains of Enterococcus and compared our results with those obtained using a Crystal Violet (CV) assay. In general, the results for the two assays were in agreement: both identified the same Enterococcus strain as the highest biofilm-forming strain and the same two strains as the lowest biofilm-forming strains. However, two Enterococcus strains identified as high biofilm formers by the CV assay were not identified as such by the reflectance assay. A single numerical value was obtained for each of the reflectance assay results that corresponded well with the confluence of a biofilm (and presumably its depth) using phase contrast microscopy.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Biofilms , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 177 - 181
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)