# Among Live and Dead Bacteria, the Optimization of Sample Collection and Processing Remains Essential in Recovering Gut Microbiota Components

Sara Bellali, Jean-Christophe J.-C. Lagier, Didier Raoult, Jacques Bou Khalil

► To cite this version:

Sara Bellali, Jean-Christophe J.-C. Lagier, Didier Raoult, Jacques Bou Khalil. Among Live and Dead Bacteria, the Optimization of Sample Collection and Processing Remains Essential in Recovering Gut Microbiota Components. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2019, 10, 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01606. hal-02487702

HAL Id: hal-02487702

https://amu.hal.science/hal-02487702

Submitted on 26 Mar 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Among Live and Dead Bacteria, the Optimization of Sample Collection and Processing Remains Essential in Recovering Gut Microbiota Components

Sara Bellali¹, Jean-Christophe Lagier¹, Didier Raoult¹* and Jacques Bou Khalil²*

¹IRD, APHM, MEPHI, IHU Méditerranée Infection, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France, ²IHU Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France

The human gut microbiota plays an important role in human health. Accessing and culturing the gut microbes remains critical in microbiology. The culturomics approach, combined with sequencing strategies, provides new insights in the study of gut microbiota components. However, we are still far from having described all the microbes. Many factors are involved in recovering as much bacteria as possible. One of the most important factors is sample preparation and conservation. The aim of the present work was to evaluate three different types of stool sample conditioning by mainly studying the effect of atmospheric oxygen on bacterial viability and culturability. Quantitative analysis of fecal samples from eight different healthy individuals was carried out using a culture-independent method (flow cytometry) and a culture-dependent method (plating technique). We found that the cultured bacteria reached a 50% yield when the samples were exposed to oxygen for 120 min without any protectant medium, while the percentage of culturability increased to 67% in the presence of antioxidants. More importantly, when samples were exposed to oxygen for less than 2 min, combined with the work under the anaerobic chamber, no discordance was found between the two counting techniques and the culturability increased to 87%. Our study confirmed the importance of sample conditioning to preserve the bacterial viability in samples, especially for oxygen-sensitive intestinal bacteria.

**Keywords:** culturability, viability, sample processing, protectant medium, microbiota

## INTRODUCTION

The human microbiota in general and the gut microbiota in particular remain a clinical research subject of predilection; especially as it plays a key role in health and disease (Sekirov et al., 2010). Scientists are still trying to extensively explore and describe this microbiota, which is the subject of many debates (Eckburg et al., 2005).

Different approaches were used, all with a single objective: to target all microbes. However, all the tested approaches had advantages and drawbacks, leaving a large part of the microbiota unexplored (Lagier et al., 2012a,b; Rinke et al., 2013; Browne et al., 2016). Culturomics, which

## OPEN ACCESS

**Edited by:**
Lifeng Zhu,
Nanjing Normal University, China

**Reviewed by:**
Samuel C. Forster,
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (WT),
United Kingdom
Andrew Moeller,
Cornell University, United States

*Correspondence:
Didier Raoult
didier.raoult@gmail.com
Jacques Bou Khalil
boukhaliljacques@gmail.com

**Specialty section:**
This article was submitted to Microbial Symbioses, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology

Received: 21 February 2019

Accepted: 26 June 2019

Published: 10 July 2019

**Citation:**
Bellali S, Lagier J-C, Raoult D and Bou Khalil J (2019) Among Live and Dead Bacteria, the Optimization of Sample Collection and Processing Remains Essential in Recovering Gut Microbiota Components. *Front. Microbiol.* 10:1606. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01606
consists of multiple culture conditions combined with rapid identification of bacteria by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, has enabled, through a high isolation rate, the culture of hundreds of new microorganisms that are associated with humans, offering interesting new perspectives into host-bacteria relationships (Lagier et al., 2016, 2018; Bilen et al., 2018). Other recent microbial studies have improved their effectiveness to isolate new microorganisms using YCFA and MPYG (Forster et al., 2019; Zou et al., 2019).

In addition, metagenomics and new generation sequencing strategies capable of recovering DNA and RNA from any sample convinced scientists that they had discovered almost all the bacterial content of our gut microbiota (Almeida et al., 2019; Nayfach et al., 2019; Pasolli et al., 2019). However, many discrepancies have been found, and we are far from having described the whole gut microbiota (Lagier et al., 2016, 2018).

Regardless of these two major techniques (culturomics and metagenomics), the processing and preparation of samples remain key factors to be considered before culture and sequencing.

Therefore, sampling and storage conditions, together with the time delay between the collection of the stool sample and its transport to the laboratory, affect the viability and the diversity of intestinal bacteria in the fecal flora (Moore et al., 1978; Bunthof and Abee, 2002; Cardona et al., 2012; Gorzelak et al., 2015; Nishimoto et al., 2016), and thus impacts the recovery of these microorganisms. Bacterial viability and survival have been challenging for many microbiologists, since the main target remains the culturing of all accessible microorganisms.

Most bacteria that colonize the human gut are anaerobic; they are 100-1000 times more numerous than aerobic bacteria (Loesche, 1969; Finegold, 1995). Anaerobic bacteria vary according to their sensitivity to oxygen and are often unable to survive in its presence (Rolfe et al., 1978). A recent study accurately measured the evolution of the oxygen level in the intestine and showed that it remains below 1 mmHg (Albenberg et al., 2014).

Traditionally, the quantification of human intestinal bacteria is performed by the plate count technique, which is considered the “gold standard” of bacterial quantification but remains time-consuming. Recently, alternative culture-independent methods have been used to achieve the enumeration of bacteria, such as flow cytometry (Davey, 2011; Vital et al., 2012; Zahavy et al., 2012), quantitative real-time PCR (Jervøe-Storm et al., 2005; Rezasoltani et al., 2017), FISH (Franks et al., 1998; Harmsen et al., 2000), electron microscopy and Gram staining (Hugon et al., 2013). However, many discrepancies were found between these techniques (Staley and Konopka, 1985).

Here, we used two quantification techniques to evaluate many culture conditions and sample conservation media by implementing new strategies to improve bacterial viability and conservation. To this end, we have designed three experimental protocols to study the effect of atmospheric oxygen on the viability of intestinal bacteria. We have proposed methods capable of improving the culture process, such as optimized culture conditions, along with a protectant medium that allowed for an in-depth study of the human gut microbiota. We also

used a quantitative viability approach in which flow cytometry and serial plating helped in detecting bacterial viability and revealed important traits suggesting the end of the uncultured bacteria hypothesis.

# MATERIALS AND METHODS

## Stool Samples Collection

Fresh stools were obtained from eight healthy donors (five men and three women) from Marseille, France. More detailed information is summarized in **Supplementary Table 1**.

None of the donors received antibiotics in the 3 months prior to sampling and did not suffer from any gastrointestinal tract manifestation. Volunteer donors were informed, and written consent was obtained, and the project received the ethics committee's agreement under number 2016-011.

## Preparation of Stool Samples and Strategies to Target Fecal Microbial Cells
### The Routinely Used Laboratory Protocol

In this protocol, all manipulations (mixing, filtration, serial dilutions and plating) were realized under a sterile hood. Briefly, stools were collected in a sterile stool container; right after sampling, a GasPak generator (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, United States) was introduced into the container which was immediately closed, and kept in a plastic zippered pocket until it was reopened under a sterile hood and exposed to oxygen for 1 h and 30 min. 50 g of fecal matter was blenderized (BOSCH Ultracompact 400W) in 250 ml of normal saline solution (Fresenius Kabi, Sevres, France) for 5 min, followed by a filtration step using coffee strainers to remove big aggregates, such as undigested food or human cells. The slurry was centrifuged at 6000 × g for 15 min and re-suspended in a normal saline solution (Figure 1).

### The Optimized Protocol Using a Protectant Medium for a Better Preservation and Survival of Cultured Bacteria

We used a protectant medium containing antioxidants patented under number N°1H53316 CAS 25 FR. The composition is detailed in **Supplementary Table 2**. Our medium proved its efficiency to preserve the gut bacteria, especially anaerobic bacteria, even after freezing and/or a freeze-drying process. We tested the viability of many anaerobic bacteria after freeze-drying in the presence and absence of the protectant medium (data not shown). Stools were then treated under the same conditions as the old routine protocol, except that the slurry was re-suspended in the protectant medium (Figure 1).

### The Optimized Protocol Combining the Use of the Protectant Medium and Work Under an Anaerobic Chamber

Stools were collected in a sterile stool container containing 50 ml of the protectant medium. Stools were then treated under the same conditions as the old routine protocol, except that the container was opened in an anaerobic glove box (Don Whitley
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** | Schematic representation of the protocols used. The routine protocol (black arrows): the stool was exposed to oxygen for more than 1 h without any protectant medium. The optimized protocol (blue arrows): the stool was exposed to oxygen for more than 1 h and conserved in the protectant medium. The implemented optimized protocol (red arrows): the stool was exposed to oxygen less than 2 min, conserved in the protectant medium and all manipulations were performed inside the anaerobic chamber. The enumeration of bacterial cells was performed by Flow cytometry (FCM) and by the plate count method (CFU).</figcaption></figure>

Scientific Limited, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom) with a gas mixture consisting of CO₂, H₂, N₂ (15%; 5%; 80%). Finally, the slurry was re-suspended in the protectant medium (Figure 1).

Enumeration of Bacteria Using the
Culture-Dependent Method (CFU
Counts) and Culture-Independent
Method (Flow Cytometry Counts)

The enumeration of bacteria was performed using two methods; culture-dependent (CFU counts) and culture-independent (FCM). Serial dilutions from 10⁻¹ to 10⁻¹⁰ were realized for the counting or enumeration. Dilutions were realized under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, respectively, under a sterile hood, and under an anaerobic chamber.

Culture: Plate Counting Method (CFU)

Regarding the culture plate counting method, serial dilutions ranging from 10⁻¹ to 10⁻¹⁰ were performed on the stool samples suspended in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (Life Technologies, Paiseley, United Kingdom). After homogenization, 10 µl of each dilution was spread onto Columbia sheep blood agar plates (BioMérieux, Marcy-l'Étoile, France) and then incubated at 37°C under anaerobic conditions using the GasPak® system. It should be noted that we measured the oxygen level after putting on the Gaspak bag, which decreased

from 1.3 to 1.4% after a few min and remained stable after
12 h of incubation. The colonies that appeared on plates were
incubated for 48 h and counted. This process was carried
out in triplicate.

For the routine and optimized protocols, plating was achieved
100-110 min after sampling under a sterile hood, and for the
implemented optimized protocol, plating was performed in the
anaerobic chamber 30 min after sampling and preparation of the
sample. The rate of oxygen in the anaerobic chamber during the
preparation of the samples and plating was of 0.3% O₂.

Enumeration by Flow Cytometry

We followed the principle of serial dilution and chose the best dilution for the optimal event rate for absolute enumeration. The LIVE/DEAD BacLight kit (Invitrogen, Eugene, United States) was used as proposed by the manufacturer. Live cells (untreated) and dead cells (isopropanol-treated) of different bacterial suspensions were used to adjust the flow cytometer as well as to optimize the dye ratio if necessary. After optimizing the dye concentration and the cytometer parameters for the detection, 1 ml of a diluted fecal sample at a 10⁻³ dilution (which was the best concentration for optimal flow rate and events counts) was stained with 1 µl of SYTO9 and 1 µl of PI, followed by an incubation for 15-20 min in the dark at room temperature. Then, beads (CytoCount, Dako) were added for quantification. As for flow cytometry, we used an LSR Fortessa (Becton Dickinson).
Data acquisition was performed using log scales for instrument scatter parameters, forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC), respectively, associated with size and internal complexity of the event analyzed. Protocol threshold was adjusted on FSC parameter. Acquisition and analysis were performed using the “BD FACSDiva Software.” The number of collected events was fixed for all specimens. We used fluorescent beads, which are clearly distinguishable from fluorescent stained bacteria. The concentration of both live and dead bacteria was determined using the following equation:

$$ \frac{\text{Number of cells counted}}{\text{Number of CytoCountTM Beads Counted}} \times \text{CytoCountTM Concentration} \times \text{Dilution Factor} \quad (1) $$

All the experiments and the staining steps were carried out under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and in triplicate for each stool sample. For anaerobic conditions, all staining procedures were performed under anaerobic conditions, except for the acquisition process on the flow cytometer, which was carried out under aerobic conditions.

## Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney *t*-test to identify statistically significant differences between different protocols (Prism v5.0, GraphPad). Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported as means and standard deviations. A *P* < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

## RESULTS

### Results of the Quantification of Bacteria Using CFU Counts and Flow Cytometry Aerobic Conditions: The Routine and the Optimized Protocols

Some of the stool samples were processed twice. The 13 stool samples collected from eight donors were exposed to air for more than 1 h, with normal saline solution in the routine protocol and with the protectant medium in the optimized protocol. The total number of bacterial cells and the percentages of cultured bacteria determined by agar plating and FCM are shown in Table 1.

<table><caption>TABLE 1 | The routine and the optimized protocol.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Samples</th><th rowspan="2">Protocols</th><th colspan="4">Flow cytometry (10<sup>9</sup> cell/ml)</th><th colspan="3">Cultured bacteria (10<sup>9</sup> CFU/ml)</th></tr><tr><th>Total</th><th>Live</th><th>Dead</th><th>Injured</th><th>Total</th><th>Anaerobe</th><th>Aerobe</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">1</td><td>Routine</td><td>10.64</td><td>6.39</td><td>3.84</td><td>0.41</td><td>3.53</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>11.15</td><td>7.08</td><td>3.76</td><td>0.31</td><td>6.53</td><td>6.00</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2</td><td>Routine</td><td>6.30</td><td>3.90</td><td>1.80</td><td>0.60</td><td>2.70</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>9.64</td><td>6.59</td><td>2.41</td><td>0.64</td><td>5.70</td><td>5.00</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3</td><td>Routine</td><td>10.38</td><td>6.92</td><td>2.73</td><td>0.73</td><td>2.10</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>12.11</td><td>7.80</td><td>2.98</td><td>1.33</td><td>4.12</td><td>4.10</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">4</td><td>Routine</td><td>11.08</td><td>5.91</td><td>3.66</td><td>1.51</td><td>3.67</td><td>3.60</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>12.71</td><td>7.25</td><td>3.89</td><td>1.57</td><td>6.04</td><td>6.00</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">5</td><td>Routine</td><td>5.63</td><td>3.88</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.55</td><td>1.90</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>9.27</td><td>6.80</td><td>1.60</td><td>0.87</td><td>3.26</td><td>2.46</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">6</td><td>Routine</td><td>12.72</td><td>6.29</td><td>3.82</td><td>2.61</td><td>2.16</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>12.16</td><td>6.86</td><td>3.34</td><td>1.96</td><td>3.20</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">7</td><td>Routine</td><td>8.66</td><td>6.05</td><td>1.91</td><td>0.70</td><td>2.22</td><td>2.20</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>11.15</td><td>6.43</td><td>2.40</td><td>2.32</td><td>2.97</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">8</td><td>Routine</td><td>4.58</td><td>3.42</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.17</td><td>1.10</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>5.52</td><td>4.82</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.22</td><td>2.40</td><td>2.30</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">9</td><td>Routine</td><td>6.51</td><td>1.62</td><td>4.34</td><td>0.55</td><td>1.02</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>8.27</td><td>2.40</td><td>5.15</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.83</td><td>1.76</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">10</td><td>Routine</td><td>7.46</td><td>4.03</td><td>3.13</td><td>0.30</td><td>2.41</td><td>2.40</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>8.82</td><td>4.99</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.35</td><td>4.44</td><td>4.38</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">11</td><td>Routine</td><td>11.15</td><td>4.44</td><td>5.63</td><td>1.08</td><td>3.01</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>11.57</td><td>5.26</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.64</td><td>4.03</td><td>3.50</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">12</td><td>Routine</td><td>8.03</td><td>3.63</td><td>3.37</td><td>1.03</td><td>2.42</td><td>2.22</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>10.31</td><td>4.62</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.03</td><td>3.56</td><td>3.33</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">13</td><td>Routine</td><td>6.33</td><td>3.37</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.12</td><td>2.20</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>6.70</td><td>3.80</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.93</td><td>2.44</td><td>2.00</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Mean</td><td>Routine</td><td>8.42(±2.54)</td><td>4.60(±1.56)</td><td>2.94(±1.35)</td><td>0.87(±0.64)</td><td>2.34(±0.78)</td><td>2.08(±0.79)</td><td>0.25(±0.28)</td></tr><tr><td>Optimized</td><td>9.95(±2.19)</td><td>5.74(±1.57)</td><td>3.14(±1.34)</td><td>1.07(±0.65)</td><td>3.88(±1.46)</td><td>3.59(±1.42)</td><td>0.29(±0.27)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Total cell counts and total cultured anaerobes and aerobes from 13 samples performed by FCM and by CFU counts.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** | Total cell counts by Flow cytometry (FCM) (dead, live and injured bacteria) and Colony forming unit (CFU) counts (aerobes and anaerobes bacteria) in the three protocols. The percentage of culturability was counted from total cells in fecal samples and from live cells counted by FCM. Significant differences between protocols were highlighted using the Mann-Whitney's test.</figcaption></figure>

The FCM results showed a total cell count that ranged from $4.58 \times 10^9$ to $1.27 \times 10^{10}$ cells/ml for the 13 samples treated only with normal saline solution in the routine protocol, while it was between $5.52 \times 10^9$ and $1.27 \times 10^{10}$ cells/ml for samples treated with a protectant medium in the optimized protocol (Table 1). The mean percentage for each population is presented in Figure 2. In the routine protocol, only 55.52% (±13.78%) of the cells were live, 34.58% (±13.07%) were dead and around 9.90% (±5.15%) were injured. However, in the optimized protocol, 58.51% (±14.28%) were live, 31.21% (±13.58%) were dead and 10.28% (±5.24%) were injured.

The percentages of culturability were calculated from total living bacteria counted by FCM.

In the routine protocol, only 28.24% (±6.89%) were culturable from 55.52% (±13.78%) viable bacteria. In the optimized protocol, 39.55% (±13.28%) were culturable from 58.51% (±14.28%) viable bacteria (Figure 2). Thus, the majority of cultured bacteria was anaerobic, and they were 100 times more numerous than aerobic bacteria (Figure 2).

The mean percentage of cultured cells counted using the CFU technique and the viable cells counted by FCM are heterogeneous for the 13 samples of the two protocols. In the routine protocol, counts were at $4.6 \times 10^9$ cell/ml (FCM) versus a total of $2.34 \times 10^9$ CFU/ml. Among the $2.34 \times 10^9$ CFU/ml count, $2.09 \times 10^9$ CFU/ml was anaerobic and $2.6 \times 10^8$ CFU/ml was aerobic. However, in the optimized protocol, we obtained $5.74 \times 10^9$ cell/ml (FCM) versus a total

of $3.88 \times 10^9$ CFU/ml; $3.59 \times 10^9$ CFU/ml was anaerobic and $2.91 \times 10^8$ CFU/ml was aerobic.

The cultured bacteria counted by the CFU method were half as numerous as those counted by the FCM method. The rate was much lower for samples dissolved in a normal saline solution in the routine protocol compared to those of the optimized protocol in the presence of the protectant medium. The count was statistically significant for both protocols; the routine protocol had a *P* of 0.005 (Figure 3A) and the optimized protocol had a *P* of 0.006 (Figure 3B).

## Anaerobic Manipulations: The Implemented Optimized Protocol

Five stool samples were tested using the implemented optimized protocol, all manipulations were realized under anaerobic conditions and exposure to oxygen did not exceed 2 min. The total number of cells and cultured bacteria tested according to the optimized protocol used is shown in Table 2.

Total cell count ranged between $9.62 \times 10^9$ and $1.19 \times 10^{10}$ for the five samples used, and the mean percentages of bacterial cell counts of live, injured and dead bacteria were respectively 61.69% (±3.98%), 25.70% (±3.14%), and 12.61% (±4.28%) (Figure 2). Regarding the CFU method, the mean percentages of cultured bacteria in the implemented optimized protocol were 54.00% (±4.84%) from 61.69% (±3.98%) live bacteria (Figure 2).

Under anaerobic conditions, the mean percentage of live cells counted by FCM did not differ significantly from the cultured cell count (CFU; *P* = 0.222; Figure 3C). It was $6.58 \times 10^9$ cell/ml
A

routine protocol

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

C

implemented optimized protocol

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

B

optimized protocol

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**FIGURE 3** | (A) Routine protocol, (B) optimized protocol versus (C) implemented optimized protocol. The graphs represent Mann-Whitney's test performed to assess the significance of the number of viable colonies measured by the CFU method and FCM.

<table><caption>TABLE 2 | The implemented optimized protocol.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Samples</th><th rowspan="2">Protocols</th><th colspan="4">Flow cytometry (10<sup>9</sup> cell/ml)</th><th colspan="3">Cultured bacteria (10<sup>9</sup> CFU/ml)</th></tr><tr><th>Total</th><th>Live</th><th>Dead</th><th>Injured</th><th>Total</th><th>Anaerobe</th><th>Aerobe</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Optimized</td><td>11.94</td><td>7.65</td><td>3.02</td><td>1.27</td><td>6.89</td><td>6.87</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Optimized</td><td>9.77</td><td>6.06</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.71</td><td>5.06</td><td>5.00</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Optimized</td><td>11.52</td><td>6.87</td><td>2.87</td><td>1.79</td><td>6.30</td><td>6.20</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Optimized</td><td>9.62</td><td>6.40</td><td>2.12</td><td>1.10</td><td>5.72</td><td>5.35</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Optimized</td><td>10.56</td><td>5.94</td><td>2.70</td><td>1.92</td><td>4.87</td><td>4.50</td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>Optimized</td><td>10.68(±1.03)</td><td>6.58(±0.69)</td><td>2.74(±0.37)</td><td>1.35(±0.49)</td><td>5.76(±0.84)</td><td>5.58(±0.94)</td><td>0.18(±0.17)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Total cell counts and total number of cultured anaerobes and aerobes from five samples performed by FCM and by CFU counts.

(FCM) versus a total of 5.76 × 10⁹ CFU/ml; 5.58 × 10⁹ CFU/ml was anaerobic and 1.82 × 10⁸ CFU/ml was aerobic (Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the conservation of bacteria in fresh fecal material. Two methods were used and optimized to compare the bacterial viability and culturability under three different conservation conditions.

We observed that anaerobes outnumbered aerobes by 1–2 logs, thus the total bacterial cell count varied between fecal samples (Tables 1, 2), regardless of the counting method (FCM or CFU) or the processing conditions. These differences can be

due to many factors and are donor-dependent (nutrition, diet, lifestyle...etc.) (Clemente et al., 2012; Conlon and Bird, 2014).

Our results showed that the most represented population in the fresh fecal samples was the live microbial population, regardless of the sample conditioning. We found 55.52% in the routine protocol, 58.51% in the optimized protocol and 61.69% in the implemented optimized protocol, while dead cells were 34.58, 31.21, and 25.70%, respectively. The implemented optimized protocol gave us the highest percentage of viability (~62%) and the lowest fraction of dead bacteria (~26%). The study by Apajalahti et al. (2003) showed approximately the same results, except that they only detected dead bacteria (IP-staining) and found a mean of 28% for the dead microbial population ranging from 17 to 34%. In addition, our implemented optimized
protocol showed a higher percentage of viable cells (~62%), compared to the study reported by Ben-Amor et al. (2005), where 49% were live, 32% were dead and 19% were injured, which is higher than our results under the same anaerobic conditions (25.69% dead and 12.60% injured).

Regarding culturability, samples without any protectant medium that were exposed to oxygen for 90 min allowed us to culture 50.86% of total living cells (routine protocol), while the percentage of culturability increased to 67.59% in the presence of our protectant medium (the optimized protocol) containing antioxidants (N°1H53316 CAS 25 FR). Interestingly, the culturability increased to 87.53% when sampling, collection and sample preparation were performed in an oxygen-free atmosphere (the implemented optimized protocol). We gained viability and culturability for all samples in our implemented optimized protocol. This protocol conserved the samples and the bacterial community for a better yield and isolation rates.

In the literature, the percentage of cultivability of gut bacteria varies from one study to another (10–93%). These differences can be explained by the use of different counting techniques, culture conditions and media used (Macfarlane and Gibson, 1994; Langendijk et al., 1995; Wilson and Blitchington, 1996). Moore's study showed that only 63.75% of microscopic counts were cultivated when the delay between sampling and sending the samples to the laboratory was 2 h (Moore and Holdeman, 1974b). They suggested that the difference was probably related to the exposure of specimens to oxygen without any protection before processing. In another study, they demonstrated that a mean of 93% of viable cells counted by microscopy could be cultivated when appropriate techniques were employed, such as using special media and anaerobic conditions (Moore and Holdeman, 1974a).

In our study, we showed that the delay between sample collection and sample processing was very important and should be as short as possible (<2 min). Several studies reported a low percentage of culturability when the delay between sampling and processing was more than 1 h without any protection. Different rates of culturability were found depending on the delay. For instance, scientists cultured in different studies 37% of bacteria from total microscopic counts (Langendijk et al., 1995), while 15% (Langendijk et al., 1995), 14% (Welling et al., 1997), 54% (Matsuki et al., 2002), and 30% (Franks et al., 1998) were cultured from the total cells counted by DAPI staining. The study conducted by Leonardo and colleagues showed that the highest counts of cultured anaerobic bacteria were obtained when the time between sample collection and sample processing in the anaerobic chamber was less than 15 min and decreased by 1–3 logs after 2 h (Mata et al., 1969). Another study by Brusa et al. (1989) reports the exposure of 10 strict anaerobic bacteria to oxygen for variable durations: after 4–5 min, the percentage of viable bacterial cells was 50%, dropping to 0.1% after 40 min and no cell survived after 2 h.

A possible reason that a greater proportion of the bacterial community was not cultured when the fresh sample was exposed

to O₂ might be the fact that oxygen-sensitive cells were in the viable but non-culturable state, or either injured or dead. Loesche (1969) determined two classes of anaerobic species regarding their tolerance to oxygen; “moderate anaerobes” were capable of growing at 2–8% oxygen levels and were exposed to room atmosphere for 90 min, and “strict anaerobes” were unable to grow in an atmosphere containing more than 0.5% of oxygen.

## CONCLUSION

Our current work has confirmed the importance of sample conditioning and processing to obtain the best culture conditions and isolation rates. We proposed a great conditioning medium capable of preserving the bacterial viability in the samples. Our work contributes to the culturomics field by reducing the exposure to oxygen between sample collection and sample processing.

A complementary metagenomic study is ongoing to compare the metagenomic data of the 3 FACS fractions of live, dead and injured bacteria in human feces to the data of the bacteria cultured in the same samples using different culturomics approaches. This will help clarifying whether the majority of uncultured bacteria were dead or live. It may also help in defining what is uncultured, due to their need for optimal culture conditions.

By using two methods of quantification under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, our results highlight the need to optimize collection procedures and storage conditions. This objective can be achieved using rigorous and controlled anaerobic methods, especially during the sampling and throughout the culturomics process. The comprehension of this concept is essential for the development of optimal techniques for isolating new and fastidious anaerobic bacteria and studying the role of these microorganisms in human health.

## DATA AVAILABILITY

All datasets generated or analyzed for this study are included in the manuscript and/or the **Supplementary Material**.

## ETHICS STATEMENT

This study was reviewed and approved by the IHU Méditerranée Infection ethics committee (Approval Number: 2016-011). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

SB performed the experiments and wrote the manuscript. J-CL reviewed the drafts of the manuscript. SB and JBK performed the flow cytometry analysis. JBK drafted the flow cytometry section. JBK and DR were responsible for the data interpretation and critically revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the
revised version of the manuscript, and read and approved the
final version of the manuscript.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the French State's support, managed by the "Agence Nationale pour la Recherche" including the "Programme d'Investissement d'avenir" under the reference Méditerranée Infection 10-IAHU-03. This work was also supported by the Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and the European funding FEDER PRIMI.

REFERENCES

Albenberg, L., Esipova, T. V., Judge, C. P., Bittinger, K., Chen, J., Laughlin, A., et al. (2014). Correlation between intraluminal oxygen gradient and radial partitioning of intestinal microbiota. *Gastroenterology* 147, 1055-1063. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.020

Almeida, A., Mitchell, A. L., Boland, M., Forster, S. C., Gloor, G. B., Tarkowska, A., et al. (2019). A new genomic blueprint of the human gut microbiota. *Nature* 568, 499-504. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0965-1

Apajalahti, J. H. A., Kettunen, A., Nurminen, P. H., Jatila, H., and Holben, W. E. (2003). Selective plating underestimates abundance and shows differential recovery of bifidobacterial species from human feces. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 69, 5731-5735. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.9.5731-5735.2003

Ben-Amor, K., Heilig, H., Smidt, H., Vaughan, E. E., Abee, T., and de Vos, W. M. (2005). Genetic diversity of viable, injured, and dead fecal bacteria assessed by fluorescence-activated cell sorting and 16S rRNA gene analysis. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 71, 4679-4689. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.8.4679-4689.2005

Bilen, M., Dufour, J.-C., Lagier, J.-C., Cadoret, F., Daoud, Z., Dubourg, G., et al. (2018). The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species. *Microbiome* 6:94. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0485-5

Browne, H. P., Forster, S. C., Anonye, B. O., Kumar, N., Neville, B. A., Stares, M. D., et al. (2016). Culturing of 'unculturable' human microbiota reveals novel taxa and extensive sporulation. *Nature* 533, 543-546. doi: 10.1038/nature17645

Brusa, T., Canzi, E., Pacini, N., Zanchi, R., and Ferrari, A. (1989). Oxygen tolerance of anaerobic bacteria isolated from human feces. *Curr. Microbiol.* 19, 39-43. doi: 10.1007/BF01568901

Bunthof, C. J., and Abee, T. (2002). Development of a flow cytometric method to analyze subpopulations of bacteria in probiotic products and dairy starters. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 68, 2934-2942. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.6.2934-2942. 2002

Cardona, S., Eck, A., Cassellas, M., Gallart, M., Alastrue, C., Dore, J., et al. (2012). Storage conditions of intestinal microbiota matter in metagenomic analysis. *BMC Microbiol.* 12:158. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-158

Clemente, J. C., Ursell, L. K., Parfrey, L. W., and Knight, R. (2012). The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. *Cell* 148, 1258-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.035

Conlon, M. A., and Bird, A. R. (2014). The impact of diet and lifestyle on gut microbiota and human health. *Nutrients* 7, 17-44. doi: 10.3390/nu7010017

Davey, H. M. (2011). Life, death, and in-between: meanings and methods in microbiology. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 77, 5571-5576. doi: 10.1128/AEM. 00744-11

Eckburg, P. B., Bik, E. M., Bernstein, C. N., Purdom, E., Dethlefsen, L., Sargent, M., et al. (2005). Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. *Science* 308, 1635-1638. doi: 10.1126/science.1110591

Finegold, S. M. (1995). Anaerobic infections in humans: an overview. *Anaerobe* 1, 3-9. doi: 10.1016/S1075-9964(95)80304-8

Forster, S. C., Kumar, N., Anonye, B. O., Almeida, A., Viciani, E., Stares, M. D., et al. (2019). A human gut bacterial genome and culture collection for improved metagenomic analyses. *Nat. Biotechnol.* 37, 186-192. doi: 10.1038/s41587-018-0009-7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the "Fondation Méditerranée Infection" who financed this work. We also thank Magdalen Lardière for reviewing the English.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01606/full#supplementary-material

Franks, A. H., Harmsen, H. J., Raangs, G. C., Jansen, G. J., Schut, F., and Welling, G. W. (1998). Variations of bacterial populations in human feces measured by fluorescent in situ hybridization with group-specific 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 64, 3336-3345.

Gorzelak, M. A., Gill, S. K., Tasnim, N., Ahmadi-Vand, Z., Jay, M., and Gibson, D. L. (2015). Methods for improving human gut microbiome data by reducing variability through sample processing and storage of stool. *PLoS One* 10:e0134802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139529

Harmsen, H., Gibson, G., Elfferich, P., Raangs, G., Wildeboer-Veloo, A., Argaiz, A., et al. (2000). Comparison of viable cell counts and fluorescence in situ hybridization using specific rRNA-based probes for the quantification of human fecal bacteria. *FEMS Microbiol. Lett.* 183, 125-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb08945.x

Hugon, P., Lagier, J.-C., Robert, C., Lepolard, C., Papazian, L., Musso, D., et al. (2013). Molecular studies neglect apparently gram-negative populations in the human gut microbiota. *J. Clin. Microbiol.* 51, 3286-3293. doi: 10.1128/JCM. 00473-13

Jervoe-Storm, P., Koltzscher, M., Falk, W., Dörfler, A., and Jepsen, S. (2005). Comparison of culture and real-time PCR for detection and quantification of five putative periodontopathogenic bacteria in subgingival plaque samples. *J. Clin. Periodontol.* 32, 778-783. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005. 00740.x

Lagier, J. C., Armougom, F., Million, M., Hugon, P., Pagnier, I., Robert, C., et al. (2012a). Microbial culturomics: paradigm shift in the human gut microbiome study. *Clin. Microbiol. Infect.* 18, 1185-1193. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12023

Lagier, J.-C., Million, M., Hugon, P., Armougom, F., and Raoult, D. (2012b). Human gut microbiota: repertoire and variations. *Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.* 2:136. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00136

Lagier, J.-C., Dubourg, G., Million, M., Cadoret, F., Bilen, M., Fenollar, F., et al. (2018). Culturing the human microbiota and culturomics. *Nat. Rev. Microbiol.* 1, 540-550. doi: 10.1038/s41579-018-0041-0

Lagier, J.-C., Khelaifia, S., Alou, M. T., Ndongo, S., Dione, N., Hugon, P., et al. (2016). Culture of previously uncultured members of the human gut microbiota by culturomics. *Nat. Microbiol.* 1:16203. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol. 2016.203

Langendijk, P. S., Schut, F., Jansen, G. J., Raangs, G. C., Kamphuis, G. R., Wilkinson, M. H., et al. (1995). Quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization of *Bifidobacterium* spp. with genus-specific 16S rRNA-targeted probes and its application in fecal samples. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 61, 3069-3075.

Loesche, W. J. (1969). Oxygen sensitivity of various anaerobic bacteria. *Appl. Microbiol.* 18, 723-727.

Macfarlane, G., and Gibson, G. R. (1994). "Metabolic activities of the normal colonic flora," in *Human Health*, ed. S. A. W. Gibson (London: Springer), 17-52. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-3443-5_2

Mata, L. J., Carrillo, C., and Villatoro, E. (1969). Fecal microflora in health persons in a preindustrial region. *Appl. Microbiol.* 17, 596-602.

Matsuki, T., Watanabe, K., Fujimoto, J., Miyamoto, Y., Takada, T., Matsumoto, K., et al. (2002). Development of 16S rRNA-gene-targeted group-specific primers for the detection and identification of predominant bacteria in human feces. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 68, 5445-5451. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.11.5445-5451. 2002
Moore, W., Cato, E., and Holdeman, L. (1978). Some current concepts in intestinal bacteriology. *Am. J. Clin. Nutr.* 31, S33-S42. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/31.10.S33

Moore, W. E., and Holdeman, L. V. (1974a). Human fecal flora: the normal flora of 20 Japanese-Hawaiians. *Appl. Microbiol.* 27, 961-979.

Moore, W. E., and Holdeman, L. V. (1974b). Special problems associated with the isolation and identification of intestinal bacteria in fecal flora studies. *Am. J. Clin. Nutr.* 27, 1450-1455. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/27.12.1450

Nayfach, S., Shi, Z. J., Seshadri, R., Pollard, K. S., and Kyrpides, N. C. (2019). New insights from uncultivated genomes of the global human gut microbiome. *Nature* 568, 505-510. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1058-x

Nishimoto, Y., Mizutani, S., Nakajima, T., Hosoda, F., Watanabe, H., Saito, Y., et al. (2016). High stability of faecal microbiome composition in guanidine thiocyanate solution at room temperature and robustness during colonoscopy. *Gut* 65, 1574-1575. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311937

Pasolli, E., Asnicar, F., Manara, S., Zolfo, M., Karcher, N., Armanini, F., et al. (2019). Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. *Cell* 176, 649.e20-662.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.001

Rezasoltani, S., Dabiri, H., Aghdaei, H. A., Sepahi, A. A., Modarressi, M. H., and Mojaradd, E. N. (2017). An improved real-time qPCR technique for quantification of intestinal bacteria in human fecal samples. *S. Asian J. Exp. Biol.* 7, 201-209.

Rinke, C., Schwientek, P., Schzyrba, A., Ivanova, N. N., Anderson, I. J., Cheng, J.-F., et al. (2013). Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. *Nature* 499, 431-437. doi: 10.1038/nature12352

Rolfe, R. D., Hentges, D. J., Campbell, B. J., and Barrett, J. T. (1978). Factors related to the oxygen tolerance of anaerobic bacteria. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 36, 306-313.

Sekirov, I., Russell, S. L., Antunes, L. C. M., and Finlay, B. B. (2010). Gut microbiota in health and disease. *Physiol. Rev.* 90, 859-904. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00045.2009

Staley, J. T., and Konopka, A. (1985). Measurement of in situ activities of nonphotosynthetic microorganisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. *Annu. Rev. Microbiol.* 39, 321-346. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.39.100185.001541

Vital, M., Dignum, M., Magic-Knezev, A., Ross, P., Rietveld, L., and Hammes, F. (2012). Flow cytometry and adenosine tri-phosphate analysis: alternative possibilities to evaluate major bacteriological changes in drinking water treatment and distribution systems. *Water Res.* 46, 4665-4676. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.06.010

Welling, G. W., Elfferich, P., Raangs, G. C., Wildeboer-Veloo, A. C., Jansen, G. J., and Degener, J. E. (1997). 16S ribosomal RNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for monitoring of intestinal tract bacteria. *Scand. J. Gastroenterol. Suppl.* 222, 17-19. doi: 10.1080/00365521.1997.11720711

Wilson, K. H., and Blitchington, R. B. (1996). Human colonic biota studied by ribosomal DNA sequence analysis. *Appl. Environ. Microbiol.* 62, 2273-2278.

Zahavy, E., Ber, R., Gur, D., Abramovich, H., Freeman, E., Maoz, S., et al. (2012). "Application of nanoparticles for the detection and sorting of pathogenic bacteria by flow-cytometry," in *Nano-Biotechnology for Biomedical and Diagnostic Research*, eds E. Zahavy, A. Ordentlich, S. Yitzhaki, and A. Shafferman (Dordrecht: Springer), 23-36. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2555-3_3

Zou, Y., Xue, W., Luo, G., Deng, Z., Qin, P., Guo, R., et al. (2019). 1,520 reference genomes from cultivated human gut bacteria enable functional microbiome analyses. *Nat. Biotechnol.* 37, 179-185. doi: 10.1038/s41587-018-0008-8

**Conflict of Interest Statement:** The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2019 Bellali, Lagier, Raoult and Bou Khalil. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.