Research article

Application of EvaGreen for the assessment of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cell viability using flow cytometry

  • Received: 13 November 2018 Accepted: 20 January 2019 Published: 25 January 2019
  • Determination of eukaryotic cell viability using flow cytometry is widespread and based on the use of fluorescent dyes such as SYTO, DAPI, SYBR, PI, and SYTOX. For many years, traditional microbiological methods have been used to successfully analyze prokaryotic cells, but the application of flow cytometry should be considered because it provides an opportunity for quantitative assessment. A combination of SYTO 9 or SYBR green and PI has been used successfully. DNA-binding dyes such as SYTO 9, SYBR green, and EvaGreen are used in qPCR. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EvaGreen to determine the viability of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells using flow cytometry. RNA from Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was isolated using the MagNA Pure LC RNA Isolation Kit-High Performance (Roche, Germany) according to the kit instructions on MagNA Pure LC® 2.0 (Roche, Switzerland). Chicken DNA was isolated using the Sorb-GMO-B kit (Syntol CJSC, Russia) according to the kit instructions. RNA from E. coli ATCC 25922, chicken DNA, a positive control, and a negative control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 were stained with EvaGreen and analyzed on the Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany). Chicken DNA demonstrated both green and red fluorescence, while E. coli RNA displayed only red fluorescence. While the positive L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 control and chicken DNA demonstrated similar fluorescence properties, the negative control showed a localization similar to that observed with E. coli RNA. Degraded ssDNA and RNA stained with EvaGreen demonstrated red fluorescence. Although EvaGreen is a class III dye, we observed fluorescence of live L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the positive control stained with EvaGreen. The observed phenomenon was linked to the solution composition. It is necessary to repeat this analysis with various solution compositions as well as a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to determine the effects on cell envelope permeability of EvaGreen.

    Citation: Elena Kotenkova, Dagmara Bataeva, Mikhail Minaev, Elena Zaiko. Application of EvaGreen for the assessment of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cell viability using flow cytometry[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(1): 39-47. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.1.39

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yunfeng Xu, Attila Nagy, Gary R. Bauchan, Xiaodong Xia, Xiangwu Nou . Enhanced biofilm formation in dual-species culture of Listeria monocytogenes and Ralstonia insidiosa. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 774-783. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.774
    [2] Prateebha Ramroop, Hudaa Neetoo . Antilisterial activity of Cymbopogon citratus on crabsticks. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(1): 67-84. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.67
    [3] Thomas Bintsis . Foodborne pathogens. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 529-563. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.529
    [4] John Samelis, Athanasia Kakouri . Hurdle factors minimizing growth of Listeria monocytogenes while counteracting in situ antilisterial effects of a novel nisin A-producing Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris costarter in thermized cheese milks. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(1): 19-41. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.19
    [5] Dele Raheem . Outbreaks of listeriosis associated with deli meats and cheese: an overview. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 230-250. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.230
    [6] Agni Hadjilouka, Konstantinos Nikolidakis, Spiros Paramithiotis, Eleftherios H. Drosinos . Effect of co-culture with enterocinogenic E. faecium on L. monocytogenes key virulence gene expression. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(3): 359-371. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.359
    [7] Leckranee Simothy, Fawzi Mahomoodally, Hudaa Neetoo . A study on the potential of ants to act as vectors of foodborne pathogens. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(2): 319-333. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.2.319
    [8] Luciana C. Gomes, Filipe J. Mergulhão . Effect of heterologous protein expression on Escherichia coli biofilm formation and biocide susceptibility. AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2(4): 434-446. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2016.4.434
    [9] Ariel J. Santiago, Maria L. Burgos-Garay, Leila Kartforosh, Mustafa Mazher, Rodney M. Donlan . Bacteriophage treatment of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a multispecies biofilm: a potential biocontrol strategy for healthcare facilities. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 43-63. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020003
    [10] Joseph O. Falkinham . Mycobacterium avium complex: Adherence as a way of life. AIMS Microbiology, 2018, 4(3): 428-438. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.428
  • Determination of eukaryotic cell viability using flow cytometry is widespread and based on the use of fluorescent dyes such as SYTO, DAPI, SYBR, PI, and SYTOX. For many years, traditional microbiological methods have been used to successfully analyze prokaryotic cells, but the application of flow cytometry should be considered because it provides an opportunity for quantitative assessment. A combination of SYTO 9 or SYBR green and PI has been used successfully. DNA-binding dyes such as SYTO 9, SYBR green, and EvaGreen are used in qPCR. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EvaGreen to determine the viability of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells using flow cytometry. RNA from Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 was isolated using the MagNA Pure LC RNA Isolation Kit-High Performance (Roche, Germany) according to the kit instructions on MagNA Pure LC® 2.0 (Roche, Switzerland). Chicken DNA was isolated using the Sorb-GMO-B kit (Syntol CJSC, Russia) according to the kit instructions. RNA from E. coli ATCC 25922, chicken DNA, a positive control, and a negative control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 were stained with EvaGreen and analyzed on the Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany). Chicken DNA demonstrated both green and red fluorescence, while E. coli RNA displayed only red fluorescence. While the positive L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 control and chicken DNA demonstrated similar fluorescence properties, the negative control showed a localization similar to that observed with E. coli RNA. Degraded ssDNA and RNA stained with EvaGreen demonstrated red fluorescence. Although EvaGreen is a class III dye, we observed fluorescence of live L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the positive control stained with EvaGreen. The observed phenomenon was linked to the solution composition. It is necessary to repeat this analysis with various solution compositions as well as a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to determine the effects on cell envelope permeability of EvaGreen.


    Determination of cell viability is essential for in vitro studies. Approaches for the evaluation of live/dead cells such as flow cytometry and microscopy use fluorescent dyes, but flow cytometry generates numeric values immediately. A wide range of dyes are available, and their ability to stain depends on vital properties such as cell membrane integrity (e.g. PI, SYTOX, TOTO), cell membrane potential (e.g. Rh123, DiBAC4), membrane pump activity (e.g. CFDA, Rh123), and enzymatic activity (e.g. CFDA, Calcein-AM, ChemChrome). In addition, permanent DNA stains (e.g. SYTO, DAPI, SYBR) are also available [1]. Eukaryotic cells generally require the use of only one dye when assays are performed on a flow cytometer. Using side and forward scatter signals, an operator can determine the population of whole homogeneous cells with similar size and granularity. DNA-binding dyes such as SYTO and DAPI are commonly used to differentiate between live and dead cells, and PI is commonly used for the evaluation of cell membrane integrity. These dyes are usually applied separately, and other parameters are calculated by the operator or automatically (e.g. with commercial kits) because the count of the general cell population is already known.

    Determination of prokaryotic cell viability by flow cytometry is more difficult. If the cytometer detector is poor, it is impossible to count cells using side and forward scatter signals. Therefore, it is necessary to apply a combination of dyes with emissions of different wavelengths to count live and dead cells separately. Combining DNA-binding dyes with those used to evaluate cell membrane integrity is the most common method (e.g. the combination of SYTO 9 and PI). While SYTO 9, with a green emission, enters all cells and binds to their DNA, PI, which fluoresces red after binding to DNA, only enters cells with damaged membranes [2],[3]. Nevertheless, Stiefel et al., 2012 noted that in addition to background fluorescence and the cross-signaling of these dyes, SYTO 9 causes bleaching effects and has different binding affinities to live and dead cells [4]. Therefore, there is a need for studies on alternative dyes. Moreover, the quantitative assessment of prokaryotic viability is essential, especially for the confirmation of activity of novel antimicrobial substances. Traditional microbiological methods have long been used successfully for these purposes. However, disk and agar well diffusion methods, agar and broth dilution tests for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination, Etests and Time-kill tests [5][8], bioautography [9],[10], and qPCR [11] mainly provide descriptive information. Therefore, the development of an effective, alternative approach using flow cytometry for the evaluation of prokaryotic cell viability is a necessity. Some dyes used in PCR analysis have also been used for the assessment of bacterial viability. It has also been shown that a combination of SYBR green and PI was more successful than with SYTO 9 [12]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of EvaGreen in determining the cell viability of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 and Staphylococcus aureus АТСС 25923 using flow cytometry.

    Meat samples were ground with a Retsch GM200 blade homogenizer (Retsch, Germany). A total of 50 ± 1.0 mg was collected for DNA isolation. DNA was isolated using a Sorb-GMO-B kit (Syntol CJSC, Russia) according to the instructions. Samples were mixed with 800 µL of lysis buffer and 15 µL of proteinase K, incubated for 60 min at 60 °C, and centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 13000 rpm for 5 min. Supernatants were transferred to new tubes, and 500 µL of extraction solution was added. Then, mixtures were intensively mixed and centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 13000 rpm for 10 min. A total of 300 µL of supernatant was transferred to new tubes and mixed with 625 µL of precipitating solution and sorbent (24:1). Then, mixtures were intensively mixed for 10 min and centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 7000 rpm for 1 min. Precipitates were washed three times by the addition of 500 µL of wash solution, intensively mixed for 2 min, and centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 7000 rpm for 0.5 min. Precipitates were dried at 60 °C for 5 min; then, 200 µL of buffer was added, samples were mixed, incubated at 60 °C for 10 min, and centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 13000 rpm for 2 min. A total of 150 µL of supernatant was taken for further testing.

    The Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 strain was obtained from the State Research Center for Applied Biotechnology and Microbiology (Obolensk, Moscow region, Russia). RNA from E. coli ATCC 25922 was isolated using a MagNA Pure LC RNA Isolation Kit-High Performance (Roche, Germany) according to the instructions. Cells were lysed by incubation with a special buffer containing chaotropic salt, and proteinase K digestion destroyed the remaining proteins and nucleases. Then, magnetic glass particles (MGPs) were added to bind RNA, and DNA was degraded with DNase. Unbound substances were removed by several wash steps, and the purified RNA was eluted using elution buffer. Cells were centrifuged for 10 minutes at 1500 rpm on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany), resuspended in 200 µL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS), and transferred into a well of the sample cartridge. Sample cartridges were placed on the reagent/sample stage, and the “RNA HP Cells” protocol was started. The isolation was performed on a MagNA Pure LC® 2.0 (Roche, Switzerland).

    L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 and Staphylococcus aureus АТСС 25923 strains were obtained from the State Research Center for Applied Biotechnology and Microbiology (Obolensk, Moscow region, Russia). Cultures were grown on slanted Trypticase soy agar (TSA, Liofilchem) at 37 °C for 24 h. Cultures from the agar surface were removed with normal saline solution and adjusted to a concentration of 1 × 106 cells/mL according to the standard of McFarland turbidity. A total of 100 µL of the suspensions was transferred to Eppendorf tubes and mixed with 2 mL of Trypticase soy broth (TSB, Liofilchem) and incubated on a thermoshaker TS-100 (BioSan, Latvia) at 30 °C for 4 h. Suspensions were centrifuged on MiniSpin columns (Eppеndorf, Germany) at 5000 rpm for 5 min. Cell precipitates were washed three times with normal saline solution followed by centrifugation. Cell suspensions at an approximate concentration of 1 × 106 cells/mL were prepared in normal saline solution according to the McFarland turbidity standard. Suspensions with an approximate concentration of 1 × 106 cells/mL were used as positive controls. To obtain negative control-1 of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 and S. aureus АТСС 25923, the resulting suspensions were heated at 100 °C for 10 min. To obtain negative control-2 of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932, cell pellets were washed with 70% isopropyl alcohol and resuspended at an approximate concentration of 1 × 106 cells/mL.

    A total of 5 µL of DNA/RNA was mixed with 5 µL EvaGreen (Synthol, Russia), 380 µL of deionized water, and 10 µL of DMSO (Biolot, Russia); then, samples were incubated in the dark for 15 min and green and red fluorescence signals were measured on a Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany) up to 5000 events.

    (1) Protocol 1: A total of 20 µL of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells or S. aureus АТСС 25923 cells was mixed with 5 µL of EvaGreen (Synthol, Russia), 365 µL of deionized water, and 10 µL of DMSO (Biolot, Russia); then, samples were incubated in the dark for 15 min and green and red fluorescence signals were measured on a Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany) up to 5000 events. To prepare mixed samples, a 10-µL positive control (live cells) and a 10-µL negative control-1 (dead cells killed by heating) were used.

    (2) Protocol 2: A total of 20 µL of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells was mixed with 5 µL of EvaGreen (Synthol, Russia) and 375 µL of 0.9% NaCl solution (Panreac, Spain); then, the samples were incubated in the dark for 15 min and green and red fluorescence signals were measured on a Guava EasyCyte flow cytometer (Merck Millipore, Germany) up to 5000 events.

    Parameters of analysis are presented in Table 1. Low gain on the green channel was used for chicken DNA analysis due to the primary intense fluorescence when bound to EvaGreen. Low gain on the red channel was used for E. coli RNA measurement. Compensation coefficients were applied to obtain better separation between live and dead cells in L. monocytogenes samples.

    Table 1.  Parameters of analysis.
    Sample ID Gains
    Compensation
    FSC SSC GRN YEL RED GRN-%RED
    Chicken DNA 5.2 1.9 8.0 12.3 6.7 0.0
    Escherichia coli RNA 1.7 3.1 20.7 12.3 3.5 0.0
    Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 (positive control) 5.2 1.9 23.6 12.3 8.7 3.6
    Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 (negative control-1) 5.2 1.9 23.6 12.3 8.7 5.1
    Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 (negative control-2) 5.2 1.9 15.3 12.3 8.7 2.2

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Results of the flow cytometry analysis of DNA, RNA, and L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 according to protocol 1 are presented in Figure 1. Both green and red fluorescence were observed in chicken DNA stained with EvaGreen; corresponding counted events are located in the upper right square of the plot. RNA isolated from E. coli and stained with EvaGreen displayed only red fluorescence; all counted events are located in the lower right square of the plot. The positive control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 displayed a localization similar to chicken DNA; a large number of live cells are located in the upper right square of the plot. Negative controls (1 and 2) of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 showed a similar localization to E. coli RNA; a large number of dead cells are located in the lower right square of the plot. The positive control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 displayed a concentration of 2.26 × 106 live cells/mL, negative control 1 displayed a concentration of 2.35 × 106 dead cells/mL, and negative control 2 displayed a concentration of 2.77 × 106 dead cells/mL. To examine the discriminatory ability of EvaGreen, a mixed sample of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 was prepared according to protocol 1 using 10 µL of positive control and 10 µL of negative control. Both green and red fluorescence were observed in live cells, and corresponding counted events are located in the upper right square of the plot. Only red fluorescence was observed in dead cells, and all counted events are located in the lower right square of the plot. However, the separation was not distinct enough.

    Figure 1.  Flow cytometry analysis of DNA, RNA, and L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 according to protocol 1.

    According to the safety report for EvaGreen® dye [13] and Chiaraviglio & Kirby, 2014 [14], EvaGreen is a non-permeable, nontoxic (class III) dye and appears to be membrane-impermeable; this is evident from the absence of cell nuclear staining with HeLa cells over a 30 min incubation period. Nevertheless, we observed fluorescence of live L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the positive control stained with EvaGreen. Presumably, the observed phenomenon can be linked to the solution composition; a mixture of DMSO and deionized water was used in the protocol. When a 0.9% NaCl solution was used, no fluorescence was observed in the positive control of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 stained with EvaGreen (Figure 2).

    Figure 2.  Flow cytometry analysis of Listeria monocytogenes АТСС 13932 according to protocol 2.

    However, eukaryotic mammalian cells were used for the study of EvaGreen permeability in both reports. Prokaryotic cells have different cell wall structures depending on whether they are Gram-positive or Gram-negative [15]. The type of cell envelope could influence EvaGreen permeability; however, in our study, we only considered the staining of Gram-positive bacteria.

    We also examined S. aureus АТСС 25923 staining by EvaGreen (Figure 3). The positive control of S. aureus АТСС 25923 displayed a localization similar to L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932; a large number of live cells are located in the upper right square of the plot. Mixed samples of S. aureus were prepared according to protocol 1 using 10 µL of the positive control and 10 µL of the negative control. Live cells displayed both green and red fluorescence, and corresponding counted events are located in the upper right square of the plot. Dead cells displayed only red fluorescence, and all counted events are located in the lower right square of the plot. The separation was more distinct than in the case of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932.

    We also noticed red fluorescence of dead L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 cells in the negative control stained with EvaGreen that was similar to E. coli RNA bound to EvaGreen. Presumably, the heat treatment of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 destroyed cell integrity and led to the conversion of double-stranded DNA to single-stranded DNA [16]. RNA and ssDNA were located in the buffer solution where ssDNA could be degraded by nucleases [17]; therefore, both degraded ssDNA and RNA stained with EvaGreen could demonstrate red fluorescence.

    Figure 3.  Results of the flow cytometry analysis of Staphylococcus aureus АТСС 25923 according to protocol 1.

    It was observed that EvaGreen dye, which is commonly used in PCR analysis, stained live cells of L. monocytogenes АТСС 13932 and fluoresced in green and red spectra; the dye also stained dead cells and only demonstrated red fluorescence. However, the solvent composition and cell type influenced EvaGreen permeability. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat this analysis on a wide range of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In conclusion, EvaGreen dye has prospective applications in flow cytometry.


    Acknowledgments



    This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 17-76-10033).

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this paper.

    [1] Díaz M, Herrero M, García LA, et al. (2010) Application of flow cytometry to industrial microbial bioprocesses. Biochem Eng J 48: 385–407. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2009.07.013
    [2] Yagüe P, Manteca A, Simon A, et al. (2010) New method for monitoring programmed cell death and differentiation in submerged Streptomyces cultures. Appl Environ Microb 76: 3401–3404. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00120-10
    [3] Berney M, Hammes F, Bosshard F, et al. (2007) Assessment and interpretation of bacterial viability by using the LIVE/DEAD BacLight Kit in combination with flow cytometry. Appl Environ Microb 73: 3283–3290. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02750-06
    [4] Stiefel P, Schmidt-Emrich S, Maniura-Weber K, et al. (2015) Critical aspects of using bacterial cell viability assays with the fluorophores SYTO9 and propidium iodide. BMC Microbiol 15: 36. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0376-x
    [5] Osés SM, Pascual-Maté A, Fuente D, et al. (2015) Comparison of methods to determine antibacterial activity of honeys against Staphylococcus aureus. NJAS-Wagen J Life Sc 78: 29–33.
    [6] Uddhav SB, Sivagurunathan MS (2016) Antibiotic susceptibility testing: A review on current practices. Int J Pharm 6: 11–17.
    [7] Nayef A (2016) Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibacterial agents for bacteria isolated from malva. MOJ Proteom Bioinf 3: 7‒9.
    [8] Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK (2016) Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J Pharm Anal 6: 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005
    [9] Dewanjee S, Gangopadhyay M, Bhattacharya N, et al. (2015) Bioautography and its scope in the field of natural product chemistry. J Pharm Anal 5: 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2014.06.002
    [10] Choma IM, Grzelak EM (2011) Bioautography detection in thin-layer chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1218: 2684–2691. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.069
    [11] Syal K, Mo M, Yu H, et al. (2017) Current and emerging techniques for antibiotic susceptibility tests. Theranostics 7: 1795–1805. doi: 10.7150/thno.19217
    [12] Feng J, Wang T, Zhang S, et al. (2014) An optimized SYBR Green I/PI assay for rapid viability assessment and antibiotic susceptibility testing for Borrelia burgdorferi. PLoS One 9: e111809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111809
    [13] Safety Report for EvaGreen® dye, A summary of mutagenicity and environmental safety test results from three independent laboratories, Biotium, 2013. Available from: https://biotium.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EvaGreen-safety-report.pdf.
    [14] Chiaraviglio L, Kirby JE (2014) Evaluation of impermeant, DNA-binding dye fluorescence as a real-time readout of eukaryotic cell toxicity in a high throughput screening format. Assay Drug Dev Techn 12: 219–228. doi: 10.1089/adt.2014.577
    [15] Silhavy TJ, Kahne D, Walker S (2010) The bacterial cell envelope. CSH Perspect Biol 2: a000414.
    [16] Rouzina I, Bloomfield VA (1999) Heat capacity effects on the melting of DNA. 1. General aspects. Biophys J 77: 3242–3251.
    [17] Yang W (2011) Nucleases: Diversity of structure, function and mechanism. Q Rev Biophys 44: 1–93. doi: 10.1017/S0033583510000181
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Elena Zand, Antje Froehling, Christoph Schoenher, Marija Zunabovic-Pichler, Oliver Schlueter, Henry Jaeger, Potential of Flow Cytometric Approaches for Rapid Microbial Detection and Characterization in the Food Industry—A Review, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 3112, 10.3390/foods10123112
    2. Elena Zayko, Dagmara Bataeva, Yuliya Yushina, Anzhelika Makhova, Mariya Grudistova, Flow cytometry as a rapid test for detection of tetracycline resistance directly in bacterial cells in Micrococcus luteus, 2020, 14, 1337-0960, 954, 10.5219/1354
    3. Elena Alexandrovna Kotenkova, Ekaterina Polishchuk, Assessment of antimicrobial potential of substances isolated from some wastes of meat processing industry, 2019, 13, 1337-0960, 308, 10.5219/1079
    4. Barbara Ymaña, Javier Enciso-Benavides, Gemma Moncunill, Maria J. Pons, Cytokine Profile Response of Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Stimulated by Bartonella bacilliformis, 2024, 44, 1079-9907, 16, 10.1089/jir.2023.0107
    5. Yuqing Xu, Xin Chen, Shuaiqiang Fan, Ting Zhang, Bo Yang, Zhenqing Li, Shintaro Yamaguchi, Dawei Zhang, Effect of Molecular Weight of Fluorescent Dyes on DNA Separation by Capillary Electrophoresis, 2025, 1573-4994, 10.1007/s10895-025-04239-5
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(5585) PDF downloads(967) Cited by(5)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog