Abstract
To assess interchangeability of estimates of bacterial abundance by different epifluorescence microscopy methods, total bacterial numbers (TBNs) determined by most widely accepted protocols were statistically compared. Bacteria in a set of distinctive samples were stained with acridine orange (AO), 4'-6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), and BacLight and enumerated by visual counting (VC) and supervised image analysis (IA). Model II regression and Bland-Altman analysis proved general agreements between IA and VC methods, although IA counts tended to be lower than VC counts by 7% on a logarithmic scale. Distributions of cells and latex beads on polycarbonate filters were best fitted to negative binomial models rather than to Poisson or log-normal models. The fitted models revealed higher precisions of TBNs by the IA method than those by the VC method. In pairwise comparisons of the staining methods, TBNs by AO and BacLight staining showed good agreement with each other, but DAPI staining had tendencies of underestimation. Although precisions of the three staining methods were comparable to one another (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.97 to 0.98), accuracy of the DAPI staining method was rebutted by disproportionateness of TBNs between pairs of samples that carried 2-fold different volumes of identical cell suspensions. It was concluded that the TBN values estimated by AO and BacLight staining are relatively accurate and interchangeable for quantitative interpretation and that IA provides better precision than does VC. As a prudent measure, it is suggested to avoid use of DAPI staining for comparative studies investigating accuracy of novel cell-counting methods.