Loading…
Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?
There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious sh...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC oral health 2014-01, Vol.14 (1), p.2-2, Article 2 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3 |
container_end_page | 2 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 2 |
container_title | BMC oral health |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Netuschil, Lutz Auschill, Thorsten M Sculean, Anton Arweiler, Nicole B |
description | There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data.
Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported.
- The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/1472-6831-14-2 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3898065</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A539598335</galeid><sourcerecordid>A539598335</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kstv1DAQhyMEoqVw5YgsceGS1q_4cQGtVrykSlzgbDnOeNdVYhc72Yr_Hi9blhaKfLA185vP82qalwSfE6LEBeGStkIx0hLe0kfN6dHw-M77pHlWyhXGRCrOnzYnlHOCVYdPm5t1in4pIUWUdpDRGHZwMYAdUJltiCFuCvIpo3kLaIAZ3PxL6tEuzHZEU3A5pbyxMZSpoFBduZr7kHwYp9K2N9vgtgcWCgWVpYb1I7x73jzxdizw4vY-a759eP91_am9_PLx83p12fadFHM7SImBCsdEDx5o39HeEwdESaIJaKakGjpKHSeDxdQzLj3DA9aaiJ5j0bOz5u2Be730EwwO4lwTNNc5TDb_MMkGc98Tw9Zs0s4wpRUWXQWsDoBa038A9z0uTWbfeLNvfH0ZWhlvbpPI6fsCZTZTKA7G0UZISzFEaK5lRzWv0td_Sa_SkmNtUUVp3DFBiPyj2tgRTIg-1a_dHmpWHdOdVoztUz9_QFXPAHVuKUKdETwYUIdaSgZ_LJNgs1-3fwt7dbe7R_nv_WI_Aec30LA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1490536117</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Netuschil, Lutz ; Auschill, Thorsten M ; Sculean, Anton ; Arweiler, Nicole B</creator><creatorcontrib>Netuschil, Lutz ; Auschill, Thorsten M ; Sculean, Anton ; Arweiler, Nicole B</creatorcontrib><description>There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data.
Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported.
- The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6831</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6831</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24410850</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Bacterial Load ; Bacteriological Techniques ; Biofilms - growth & development ; Coloring Agents ; Debate ; Dental Plaque - microbiology ; Dental schools ; Ethidium - pharmacology ; Fluoresceins ; Fluorescence ; Fluorescent Dyes ; Humans ; Microbial Viability ; Mutagens - pharmacology ; Studies ; Terminology as Topic</subject><ispartof>BMC oral health, 2014-01, Vol.14 (1), p.2-2, Article 2</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>2014 Netuschil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Netuschil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 Netuschil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898065/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1490536117?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25732,27903,27904,36991,36992,44569,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24410850$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Netuschil, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auschill, Thorsten M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sculean, Anton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arweiler, Nicole B</creatorcontrib><title>Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?</title><title>BMC oral health</title><addtitle>BMC Oral Health</addtitle><description>There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data.
Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported.
- The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.</description><subject>Bacterial Load</subject><subject>Bacteriological Techniques</subject><subject>Biofilms - growth & development</subject><subject>Coloring Agents</subject><subject>Debate</subject><subject>Dental Plaque - microbiology</subject><subject>Dental schools</subject><subject>Ethidium - pharmacology</subject><subject>Fluoresceins</subject><subject>Fluorescence</subject><subject>Fluorescent Dyes</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Microbial Viability</subject><subject>Mutagens - pharmacology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Terminology as Topic</subject><issn>1472-6831</issn><issn>1472-6831</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kstv1DAQhyMEoqVw5YgsceGS1q_4cQGtVrykSlzgbDnOeNdVYhc72Yr_Hi9blhaKfLA185vP82qalwSfE6LEBeGStkIx0hLe0kfN6dHw-M77pHlWyhXGRCrOnzYnlHOCVYdPm5t1in4pIUWUdpDRGHZwMYAdUJltiCFuCvIpo3kLaIAZ3PxL6tEuzHZEU3A5pbyxMZSpoFBduZr7kHwYp9K2N9vgtgcWCgWVpYb1I7x73jzxdizw4vY-a759eP91_am9_PLx83p12fadFHM7SImBCsdEDx5o39HeEwdESaIJaKakGjpKHSeDxdQzLj3DA9aaiJ5j0bOz5u2Be730EwwO4lwTNNc5TDb_MMkGc98Tw9Zs0s4wpRUWXQWsDoBa038A9z0uTWbfeLNvfH0ZWhlvbpPI6fsCZTZTKA7G0UZISzFEaK5lRzWv0td_Sa_SkmNtUUVp3DFBiPyj2tgRTIg-1a_dHmpWHdOdVoztUz9_QFXPAHVuKUKdETwYUIdaSgZ_LJNgs1-3fwt7dbe7R_nv_WI_Aec30LA</recordid><startdate>20140111</startdate><enddate>20140111</enddate><creator>Netuschil, Lutz</creator><creator>Auschill, Thorsten M</creator><creator>Sculean, Anton</creator><creator>Arweiler, Nicole B</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140111</creationdate><title>Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?</title><author>Netuschil, Lutz ; Auschill, Thorsten M ; Sculean, Anton ; Arweiler, Nicole B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Bacterial Load</topic><topic>Bacteriological Techniques</topic><topic>Biofilms - growth & development</topic><topic>Coloring Agents</topic><topic>Debate</topic><topic>Dental Plaque - microbiology</topic><topic>Dental schools</topic><topic>Ethidium - pharmacology</topic><topic>Fluoresceins</topic><topic>Fluorescence</topic><topic>Fluorescent Dyes</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Microbial Viability</topic><topic>Mutagens - pharmacology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Terminology as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Netuschil, Lutz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auschill, Thorsten M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sculean, Anton</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arweiler, Nicole B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC oral health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Netuschil, Lutz</au><au>Auschill, Thorsten M</au><au>Sculean, Anton</au><au>Arweiler, Nicole B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?</atitle><jtitle>BMC oral health</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Oral Health</addtitle><date>2014-01-11</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>2</spage><epage>2</epage><pages>2-2</pages><artnum>2</artnum><issn>1472-6831</issn><eissn>1472-6831</eissn><abstract>There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data.
Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported.
- The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>24410850</pmid><doi>10.1186/1472-6831-14-2</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1472-6831 |
ispartof | BMC oral health, 2014-01, Vol.14 (1), p.2-2, Article 2 |
issn | 1472-6831 1472-6831 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3898065 |
source | Publicly Available Content Database; PubMed Central |
subjects | Bacterial Load Bacteriological Techniques Biofilms - growth & development Coloring Agents Debate Dental Plaque - microbiology Dental schools Ethidium - pharmacology Fluoresceins Fluorescence Fluorescent Dyes Humans Microbial Viability Mutagens - pharmacology Studies Terminology as Topic |
title | Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T16%3A54%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Confusion%20over%20live/dead%20stainings%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20vital%20microorganisms%20in%20oral%20biofilms--which%20stain%20is%20suitable?&rft.jtitle=BMC%20oral%20health&rft.au=Netuschil,%20Lutz&rft.date=2014-01-11&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=2&rft.epage=2&rft.pages=2-2&rft.artnum=2&rft.issn=1472-6831&rft.eissn=1472-6831&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1472-6831-14-2&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA539598335%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-d770e26c36befe2b52bf1ce187191e93878d522c41da02f347f30d09916b406b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1490536117&rft_id=info:pmid/24410850&rft_galeid=A539598335&rfr_iscdi=true |