Mostly dead and all dead: response to ‘what do we mean by viability in terms of “viable but non‐culturable cells”’

Abstract

ResponseWe appreciate the feedback of Mu et al. (2021); however, we take issue with their claim that we 'assumed that if cells lost their ability to grow or form visible colonies on media, they were not viable, i.e. dead.' In fact we pointed out in our opinion piece (Song and Wood, 2021a) that our conclusion that VBNCs are dead is based not on a single criterion but, instead, is based on four viability criteria from our research with E. coli K-12 and

Microbially induced corrosion issues in the underground buried crude oil and natural gas bearing pipelines: A review

“…[67] In Bacteria culture, the bacterial species are grown in a specific environment, by providing essential nutrients and favorable temperature conditions. [67,68] Another method for bacterial identification is the molecular biology method, where the identification of bacteria is done with the help of DNA and RNA, which are also commonly known as Genetic tools. [12,69] Moreover, by using this method it is possible to understand whether the bacteria are influenced by the biocides or are resistant to biocides.…”

Editorial: Emerging Frontiers in the Formation of Viable but Non-culturable Microorganisms and Biofilms During Food Processing

“…Viable but non-culturable vs. persister cells" (Song and Wood, 2021c); secondly another correspondence entitled "What do we mean by viability in terms of "viable but non-culturable" cells?" by Mu et al (2021), with a later response from the original authors entitled "Mostly dead and all dead: response to "what do we mean by viability in terms of 'viable but non-culturable cells" (Song and Wood, 2021a). Definitely, VBNC cells are not dead.…”