Live Bacterial Physiology Visualized with 5 nm Resolution Using Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy
Source abstract
Abstract
It is now possible to visualize at nanometer resolution the infection of a living biological cell with virus without compromising cell viability using scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM). To provide contrast while preserving viability, Escherichia coli and P1 bacteriophages were first positively stained with a very low concentration of uranyl acetate in minimal phosphate medium and then imaged with low-dose STEM in a microfluidic liquid flow cell. Under these conditions, it was established that the median lethal dose of electrons required to kill half the tested population was LD50 = 30 e(-)/nm(2), which coincides with the disruption of a wet biological membrane, according to prior reports. Consistent with the lateral resolution and high-contrast signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inferred from Monte Carlo simulations, images of the E. coli membrane, flagella, and the bacteriophages were acquired with 5 nm resolution, but the cumulative dose exceeded LD50. On the other hand, with a cumulative dose below LD50 (and lower SNR), it was still possible to visualize the infection of E. coli by P1, showing the insertion of viral DNA within 3 s, with 5 nm resolution.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques · Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Protochips, Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina 27560, United States
Funding
University of Notre Dame · National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering · Walther Cancer Foundation
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nmeth92210.1038/nmeth922 ↗
2. 10.1038/srep0633310.1038/srep06333 ↗
3. 10.1039/c3ra42185f10.1039/c3ra42185f ↗
4. Reimer L. · 2008
5. Carlson D. B. · 2012
6. 10.1016/j.virol.2011.06.00510.1016/j.virol.2011.06.005 ↗
7. 10.1017/S143192761300150510.1017/S1431927613001505 ↗
8. 10.1038/nnano.2011.16110.1038/nnano.2011.161 ↗
9. 10.1021/nl201166k10.1021/nl201166k ↗
10. 10.1126/science.121765410.1126/science.1217654 ↗
11. 10.1021/nl200285r10.1021/nl200285r ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.04.00110.1016/j.ultramic.2010.04.001 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.bpj.2011.03.04510.1016/j.bpj.2011.03.045 ↗
14. 10.1039/C1LC20647H10.1039/C1LC20647H ↗
15. 10.1016/S0006-3495(71)86208-210.1016/S0006-3495(71)86208-2 ↗
16. 10.1039/c3cc48479c10.1039/c3cc48479c ↗
17. 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.01.00910.1016/j.bpj.2012.01.009 ↗
18. 10.1093/jmicro/dfp05210.1093/jmicro/dfp052 ↗
19. 10.1139/m83-21710.1139/m83-217 ↗
20. 10.1074/jbc.M70030320010.1074/jbc.M700303200 ↗
21. 10.1126/science.110318510.1126/science.1103185 ↗
22. 10.1371/journal.pone.008986310.1371/journal.pone.0089863 ↗
23. Neidhardt F. C. · J. Bacteriol. · 1974 · 119 · 73610.1128/jb.119.3.736-747.1974 ↗
24. 10.1128/JB.182.10.2793-2801.200010.1128/JB.182.10.2793-2801.2000 ↗
25. 10.1128/JB.01501-0610.1128/JB.01501-06 ↗
26. 10.1126/science.184.4132.7710.1126/science.184.4132.77 ↗
27. 10.1101/cshperspect.a00041410.1101/cshperspect.a000414 ↗
28. 10.1016/S0006-3495(99)77117-110.1016/S0006-3495(99)77117-1 ↗
29. 10.1016/0076-6879(91)04004-810.1016/0076-6879(91)04004-8 ↗
30. Werner E. R. · J. Virol. · 1969 · 3 · 36310.1128/jvi.3.4.363-368.1969 ↗
31. 10.1099/00221287-23-3-55310.1099/00221287-23-3-553 ↗
32. 10.1038/nsmb97510.1038/nsmb975 ↗
33. 10.4161/bact.2828110.4161/bact.28281 ↗
34. 10.1017/S143192761200023210.1017/S1431927612000232 ↗
35. 10.1126/science.121765410.1126/science.1217654 ↗
36. 10.1038/nmeth.139510.1038/nmeth.1395 ↗
37. 10.1038/ncomms392610.1038/ncomms3926 ↗
38. Sandulache R. · J. Bacteriol. · 1984 · 160 · 29910.1128/jb.160.1.299-303.1984 ↗
39. 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06205.x10.1111/j.1365-2958.2008.06205.x ↗
40. 10.1093/nar/30.8.178210.1093/nar/30.8.1782 ↗
41. 10.1007/978-1-60327-565-1_1310.1007/978-1-60327-565-1_13 ↗