Michael Harrop
Well-known member
https://ag.purdue.edu/news/2025/04/purdue-researchers-show-common-bacterial-assay-is-unreliable.html?image
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c05593
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.analchem.4c05593
As food recalls become more prevalent, families are tossing more lettuce and deli meat into the trash. This food waste is a requirement to keep people safe. But what if there’s a chance the tests determining bacterial content are unreliable, leading to false positives—creating more food recalls and fear than necessary?
propidium monoazide assays (PMA)—the solution many labs have used to differentiate between living and dead cells—are currently inaccurate but could be improved upon for the future.
Abstract
Propidium monoazide (PMA) is a dye that distinguishes between live and dead cells in molecular assays like the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). It works by cross-linking to the DNA of cells that have compromised membranes or extracellular DNA upon photoactivation, making the DNA inaccessible for amplification.
Currently, PMA is used to detect viable pathogens and alleviate systemic bias in the microbiome analysis of samples using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. In these applications, treated samples consist of different amounts of dead bacteria and a range of bacterial strains, variables that can affect the performance of PMA and lead to inconsistent findings across various research studies.
To evaluate the effectiveness of PMA, we used a sensitive qPCR assay and post-treatment sample concentration to determine PMA cross-linkage and activity accurately under varying sample conditions. We report that PMA is unreliable for viability assays when the concentration and composition of the bacterial mixtures are unknown. PMA is suitable only for qualitatively assessing viability in samples containing a known number of dead microbes or extracellular DNA.
- Format correct?
- Yes