Rapid growth rate of Enterobacter sp. SM3 determined using several methods

Abstract

BackgroundBacterial growth rate, commonly reported in terms of doubling time, is frequently determined by one of two techniques: either by measuring optical absorption of a growing culture or by taking samples at different times during their growth phase, diluting them, spreading them on agar plates, incubating them, and counting the colonies that form. Both techniques require measurements of multiple repeats, as well careful assessment of reproducibility and consistency. Existing literature using either technique gives a wide range of growth rate values for even the most extensively studied species of bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. This work aims to apply several methods to reliably determine the growth rate of a recently identified species of Enterobacteriaceae, called Enterobacter sp. SM3, and to compare that rate with that of a well-known wildtype E. coli strain KP437.ResultsWe extend conventional optical density (OD) measurements to determine the growth rate of Enterobacter sp. SM3. To assess the reliability of this technique, we compare growth rates obtained by fitting the OD data to exponential growth, applying a relative density method, and measuring shifts in OD curves following set factors of dilution. The main source of error in applying the OD technique is due to the reliance on an exponential growth phase with a short span. With proper choice of parameter range, however, we show that these three methods yield consistent results. We also measured the SM3 division rate by counting colony-forming units (CFU) versus time, yielding results consistent with the OD measurements. In lysogeny broth at 37oC, SM3 divides every 21 ± 3 min, notably faster than the RP437 strain of E. coli, which divides every 29 ± 2 min.ConclusionThe main conclusion of this report is that conventional optical density (OD) measurements and the colony-forming units (CFU) method can yield consistent values of bacterial growth rate. However, to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the measured growth rate of each bacterial strain, different methods ought to be applied in close comparison. The effort of checking for consistency among multiple techniques, as we have done in this study, is necessary to avoid reporting variable values of doubling time for particular species or strains of bacteria, as seen in the literature.