Culturing Microorganisms in the Laboratory

Point a microscope at a drop of pond water. You will see hundreds of different cells swimming past. Try to grow those same cells on a petri dish. Fewer than one in a hundred will form a colony. This gap between what microscopes reveal and what plates recover is one of the oldest puzzles in microbiology. It still shapes how the discipline is practiced today. Culturing is the technology that turns an invisible, mixed, chaotic microbial world into something manageable. It lets a scientist isolate, name, weigh, sequence, and manipulate one species at a time. The ability to grow a single microbial species in isolation — a pure culture — is the foundation on which essentially all of classical microbiology rests. Koch's Postulates cannot be tested without this. Antibiotics cannot be screened without it either. Metabolic pathways cannot be assigned to a single organism without first separating that organism from its natural community. That community includes competitors, predators, and cross-feeding partners. The tools for doing this — selective and differential media, streak plating, serial dilution, enrichment culture — were largely invented in the 1870s–1880s. With modern refinements, they remain the daily workhorses of clinical, industrial, and environmental microbiology. Yet culturing has a humbling limitation. Environmental surveys using Ribosomal RNA and Molecular Phylogeny show something striking. The vast majority of microbial diversity on Earth has never been grown in a lab. Microbiologists call this the great plate count anomaly. Understanding why some organisms refuse to grow on standard media matters greatly. So does understanding what techniques are closing that gap. Both are as important as understanding how classical culturing works in the first place. This article covers the logic and mechanics of laboratory cultivation. It explains how media are built to feed, select for, or reveal specific organisms. It explains how single cells are physically isolated from mixtures. It explains how population sizes are measured once a pure culture exists. And it explains why, despite two centuries of refinement, most of the microbial world still resists domestication on a plate.

Key takeaways
  • A pure culture contains descendants of a single cell; isolating one requires physically separating cells before they multiply, usually by streak plating or serial dilution.
  • Media are classified by composition (defined vs. complex), purpose (selective vs. differential vs. enrichment), and physical state (liquid, solid via agar, semisolid).
  • Agar, not gelatin, became the standard solidifying agent because it resists microbial digestion and stays solid across the temperatures bacteria grow at.
  • Enumeration methods — viable plate counts, direct microscopic counts, turbidity, most probable number — measure different things (living cells vs. total cells) and give different numbers from the same sample.
  • The "great plate count anomaly" describes a routine 10- to 10,000-fold gap between microscope counts and colony counts from the same environmental sample.
  • Modern approaches (dilution-to-extinction, co-culture, diffusion chambers, metagenomics) are recovering previously "unculturable" lineages by mimicking natural conditions rather than force-feeding rich broth.
The core insight

Culturing works by supplying, in a controlled and reproducible form, exactly the physical and chemical conditions a target organism needs to grow while excluding or suppressing everything it does not need — and most environmental microbes fail to grow simply because no one has yet guessed those conditions correctly.

The core idea

A culture medium is an artificial nutrient environment, either liquid (broth) or solidified with a gelling agent (agar plate or slant), formulated to support microbial growth outside the organism's natural habitat. Media are described along three independent axes. By chemical composition, a medium is either defined (synthetic) — every ingredient and its exact concentration known, e.g., glucose, ammonium salts, phosphate buffer, trace metals — or complex (undefined) — built from digests of yeast, meat, or soybeans (peptone, tryptone, yeast extract) whose exact chemical makeup varies batch to batch. By selectivity, a medium can be general-purpose (supports many species), selective (contains an agent that inhibits unwanted organisms while permitting the target to grow, such as bile salts suppressing Gram-positive bacteria), or differential (does not inhibit growth but makes some colonies visually distinguishable from others, typically via a pH indicator or a fermentable sugar). By purpose, an enrichment culture uses a liquid medium and specific incubation conditions — a particular carbon source, temperature, pH, oxygen tension, light regime — to shift the competitive balance of a mixed natural sample toward a rare organism, increasing its relative abundance before it is ever plated. A pure culture (also called an axenic culture) contains a single microbial species, ideally all descended from one progenitor cell — a clone. This single-cell origin matters enormously: it means every cell in the population shares essentially the same genotype (barring new mutations), so physiological, biochemical, and genetic experiments performed on the culture describe one organism, not an ensemble average of several. The entire discipline of physiological microbiology — determining an organism's optimal temperature, its fermentation products, its antibiotic susceptibility — depends on this single-species starting condition being achieved and verified. The tension running through this whole subject is that "grows well in pure culture on standard media" is not a universal property of bacteria — it is a property of the small subset of bacteria whose natural nutritional and physical requirements happen to be easy to reproduce artificially. Fast-growing copiotrophs like Escherichia coli, adapted to nutrient-rich mammalian guts, thrive on rich broth. Slow-growing oligotrophs adapted to nutrient-poor lakes, deep subsurface rock, or symbiotic partnerships may starve, or be outcompeted by faster neighbors, the moment they are given rich medium — the opposite of what intuition suggests.

Mechanism

Building a medium. Every medium must supply a carbon and energy source, a nitrogen source, essential minerals (phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, magnesium, trace metals), and, for many organisms, specific vitamins or growth factors the cell cannot synthesize itself. A defined medium for E. coli might be as simple as glucose, ammonium chloride, dipotassium phosphate, magnesium sulfate, and water — five or six ingredients supporting full growth because E. coli can biosynthesize everything else it needs. A complex medium like nutrient broth (peptone + beef extract) or Luria-Bertani broth (tryptone + yeast extract + NaCl) supplies amino acids, vitamins, and nucleotide precursors already broken down, supporting the growth of fastidious organisms that cannot make these compounds themselves, at the cost of not knowing precisely what the cells are consuming.

Solidifying the medium. Robert Koch's laboratory, in the 1880s, needed a way to grow bacteria as physically isolated colonies rather than as a uniform turbid broth. Gelatin was tried first but had two fatal flaws: many bacteria secrete gelatinases that liquefy it, and it melts at approximately 25°C, well below the 37°C optimal for most pathogens. The solution came from Fannie Eilshemsz Hesse, wife of Koch's assistant Walther Hesse, who suggested agar-agar, a polysaccharide extracted from red algae that she used to set jams. Agar melts near 100°C but does not resolidify until it cools to about 40°C, and almost no bacteria can metabolize it. This wide hysteresis lets a microbiologist pour molten agar at ~45°C (cool enough not to kill cells mixed into it) and have it remain solid at incubation temperatures up to 100°C above its resolidification point.

Isolating single cells — the streak plate. The streak-plate method, developed by Koch, physically dilutes a mixed sample across the surface of an agar plate using a flame-sterilized inoculating loop. A small sample is streaked in one section, the loop is re-sterilized, and a new stroke picks up a smaller inoculum from the edge of the previous streak and drags it into a fresh, unstreaked area — typically across three or four sequential sectors. Each successive streak further dilutes the cell density, so that by the final sector, individual cells land far enough apart that each grows into its own visually distinct colony, a macroscopic clone founded by one cell. Picking a well-isolated colony and restreaking it confirms purity.

Isolating single cells — the spread plate and pour plate. A spread plate delivers a measured, serially diluted volume of liquid culture onto the surface of solid agar, spreading it with a sterile glass or plastic rod so surviving cells are statistically distributed far apart. A pour plate mixes a diluted sample directly into molten (cooled) agar before it solidifies, so colonies form both on the surface and embedded within the gel. Both methods pair naturally with serial dilution — sequential 1:10 transfers of sample into sterile diluent — which is necessary because environmental and clinical samples usually contain far too many cells per milliliter to separate into distinct colonies without first thinning them out mathematically.

Enrichment and selection working together. Enrichment culture exploits Aerobic vs Anaerobic Respiration and Fermentation and specific nutrient chemistry to bias a mixed community before isolation is even attempted. To recover a bacterium that degrades an obscure herbicide, a microbiologist inoculates soil into a minimal liquid medium where that herbicide is the only carbon source; only organisms with the right catabolic enzymes can grow, and repeated transfer into fresh identical medium progressively dilutes out everyone else. Winogradsky's and Beijerinck's late-19th-century enrichment cultures for nitrifying bacteria, sulfur bacteria, and nitrogen fixers established this logic and remain the template for isolating novel metabolic specialists today.

Figure
From mixed sample to pure colony: the streak-plate dilution logic
Streak-Plate Method: Progressive Dilution of Cells ●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●● Sector 1: dense inoculum ● ● ● ● ● Sector 2: diluted ● ● Sector 3: sparse Sector 4: isolated cells Re-sterilize loop Re-sterilize loop Re-sterilize loop Result after incubation Sectors 1–2: confluent growth (colonies merge, cannot isolate) Sector 4: well-separated single colonies — each descended from ONE founder cell

Enumeration once a culture exists. Different questions demand different counting methods, and they do not measure the same thing:

MethodWhat it measuresKey feature
Viable (plate) countLiving, culturable cells (CFU/mL)Only counts cells that can form a colony under the conditions given
Direct microscopic count (e.g., Petroff-Hausser chamber)Total cells, living + deadFast, no incubation, cannot distinguish viability
Turbidity (spectrophotometric OD)Biomass proxyRapid, indirect, requires calibration against a known count
Most probable number (MPN)Statistical estimate of viable cells from growth/no-growth in dilution seriesUsed when colonies cannot form (e.g., some anaerobes, some liquid-only assays)

The viable plate count relies on the assumption that each colony arises from a single viable cell or a single cell cluster — hence the unit colony-forming unit (CFU) rather than "cell," acknowledging that clumps or chains can inflate or bias raw counts. A sample is serially diluted (say, ten tenfold dilutions), a fixed volume of several dilutions is spread-plated, and after incubation the dilution yielding between roughly 30 and 300 colonies per plate — the statistically reliable range, avoiding both undercounting from overcrowding and the noise of very low counts — is used to back-calculate the original concentration: CFU/mL = (colonies counted) ÷ (volume plated × dilution factor) For example, 214 colonies on a plate from the 10⁻⁶ dilution, with 0.1 mL plated, gives 214 ÷ (0.1 × 10⁻⁶) = 2.14 × 10⁹ CFU/mL in the original sample.

Figure
Serial dilution and the countable-colony window
Serial Dilution → Plate Count Original sample 10⁻¹ 10⁻² 10⁻³ 10⁻⁴ 10⁻⁵ 10⁻⁶ plate: TNTC plate: TNTC plate: 1780 214 colonies ✓ countable range plate: 18 plate: 2 Countable window: 30–300 colonies/plate

The evidence

Koch's proof that pure culture on solid media reveals causation (1876–1884). Before Koch, bacteria were studied almost exclusively in liquid broth, where mixed populations could not be separated and where it was nearly impossible to prove that a specific microbe, rather than some contaminant, caused a specific disease. Working first with Bacillus anthracis, the anthrax bacillus, Koch grew the organism through multiple serial transfers in a defined liquid medium (aqueous humor from ox eyes), demonstrating that the bacillus alone, without any host tissue, could still form spores and retain virulence — evidence that the microbe itself, not some vague host-derived "miasma," was the causative agent. He then extended this logic using solid media (initially cut potato slices, then gelatin, then Fannie Hesse's agar) to physically separate single bacterial cells into isolated colonies, proving each colony was clonal by re-inoculating it and reproducing identical morphology, staining behavior, and pathogenicity every time. This directly enabled the Henle-Koch postulates: the organism must be found in all cases of the disease, must be isolated in pure culture, must reproduce the disease when introduced into a healthy host, and must be re-isolated from that host, unchanged. Applying this framework to Mycobacterium tuberculosis in 1882 and Vibrio cholerae in 1883–84, Koch conclusively identified the causative agents of tuberculosis and cholera — landmark results that could not have been obtained from turbid mixed broths, only from the isolated, verifiable clones that solid-medium plating made possible.

Winogradsky and Beijerinck: enrichment culture reveals metabolic diversity invisible to Koch's methods (1880s–1900s). Sergei Winogradsky, studying sulfur bacteria and later nitrifying bacteria, and Martinus Beijerinck, studying nitrogen-fixing and sulfate-reducing bacteria, showed that supplying a single specific substrate as the sole energy or nitrogen source in liquid enrichment culture could select rare specialists out of complex soil or water communities that standard rich media never revealed. Winogradsky's demonstration that Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter could grow with no organic carbon at all, oxidizing ammonia or nitrite as their sole energy source in the dark, established chemolithotrophy as a real mode of metabolism and could only be shown by matching the medium precisely to the organism's actual physiology — a direct forerunner of the modern insight that "unculturable" often just means "medium doesn't match physiology."

Staley and Konopka (1985): quantifying the great plate count anomaly. James Staley and Allan Konopka directly compared, for freshwater lake samples, the total cell count obtained by epifluorescence direct microscopy against the viable count obtained by standard plating on nutrient agar. They found that plate counts recovered only about 0.001% to 1% of the cells visible microscopically — meaning that for every culturable cell counted on a plate, somewhere between roughly 100 and 100,000 morphologically similar cells in the same water sample never formed a colony at all. This was not a new observation in isolated form (microbiologists had long noted plate counts run low), but Staley and Konopka's systematic, quantitative comparison across environments gave the phenomenon its name — the great plate count anomaly — and made it a central, quantifiable research problem rather than an anecdotal caveat. Subsequent work using 16S rRNA gene sequencing directly from environmental DNA, without any culturing step, confirmed that the uncultured majority represents not just quiescent members of already-known species but entire phyla and candidate divisions with no cultured representative at all, some later cultivated only decades afterward using radically modified approaches (diffusion chambers, co-culture with helper strains, extremely dilute media, months-long incubations).

Worked examples

Example 1 — Choosing and reading a selective-differential medium in a clinical lab. A stool sample from a patient with suspected bacterial gastroenteritis is plated onto MacConkey agar, a medium that is both selective (bile salts and crystal violet suppress most Gram-positive organisms, favoring Gram-negative enteric bacteria) and differential (it contains lactose and a pH indicator, neutral red, that turns colonies pink-red if the organism ferments lactose and produces acid, while non-fermenters stay pale/colorless). After 18 hours at 37°C, the plate shows a mix of large pink mucoid colonies and smaller pale colorless colonies. The pink colonies are presumptively lactose-fermenting commensals such as E. coli, common gut flora and not automatically pathogenic. The pale, non-fermenting colonies are the ones flagged for further workup, because major enteric pathogens like Salmonella and Shigella characteristically do not ferment lactose. The microbiologist picks a pale colony, restreaks it to confirm purity, and proceeds to biochemical and serological identification — the differential color reaction did not identify the pathogen outright, but it triaged which of dozens of colonies deserved further, more expensive testing. This illustrates why selective/differential media are the backbone of diagnostic bacteriology: they convert an intractable mixed sample into a short, prioritized list of candidates in a single overnight step.

Example 2 — Calculating culturability from a lake water sample (the plate count anomaly in numbers). A limnologist collects 1 mL of lake water and performs two counts in parallel. Under an epifluorescence microscope using a nucleic acid stain and a calibrated counting grid, she counts an average of 42 fluorescent cells per grid square, where each grid square corresponds to a sample volume of 2 × 10⁻⁷ mL. Total direct count = 42 ÷ (2 × 10⁻⁷ mL) = 2.1 × 10⁸ cells/mL. She also serially dilutes the same water tenfold six times and spread-plates 0.1 mL from the 10⁻³ dilution onto nutrient agar; after 5 days of incubation at 20°C, 61 colonies appear. Viable count = 61 ÷ (0.1 mL × 10⁻³) = 6.1 × 10⁵ CFU/mL. The ratio of viable count to total direct count is 6.1 × 10⁵ ÷ 2.1 × 10⁸ ≈ 0.0029, or about 0.29% culturability — meaning fewer than 3 in every 1,000 cells visible under the microscope produced a colony on this particular medium under these particular conditions. This does not mean 99.7% of the cells were dead; independent viability stains (e.g., distinguishing intact from compromised membranes) on similar samples typically still show the majority of cells metabolically active. The gap instead reflects a mismatch between the artificial medium/incubation conditions offered and the real physiological requirements — oligotrophic growth rates, unusual nutrient needs, syntrophic dependence on neighboring species, or simple intolerance of the oxygen tension and nutrient concentration of standard nutrient agar.

Common misconceptions & traps

MisconceptionWhy it's wrong
"A colony is always a single cell"A colony is a clone descended from one cell (or one small clump/chain) — CFU explicitly acknowledges this ambiguity
"Unculturable organisms are dead or non-existent"Molecular surveys show they are abundant and often metabolically active; they simply have not been offered conditions they can grow under
"Complex media are 'better' than defined media"Complex media support more species but obscure exactly what nutrients are being used; defined media are essential for precise physiological or genetic experiments
"A selective medium always identifies the pathogen"Selective media only enrich or suppress broad groups; differential reactions narrow candidates but definitive identification needs further biochemical/molecular tests
"Turbidity, direct counts, and viable counts should agree"They measure different quantities (biomass, total cells, living+culturable cells) and routinely diverge by orders of magnitude
"More nutrients always means faster, better growth"Oligotrophic organisms adapted to dilute natural environments can be inhibited or killed by rich media — a phenomenon sometimes called "substrate-accelerated death"

The scientist behind it

Robert Koch trained as a physician in rural Prussia and did much of his foundational bacteriology work as a district medical officer in Wollstein, using a homemade laboratory and his own improvised microscopy and photography techniques before ever holding a formal research post. He is remembered chiefly for identifying the causative agents of anthrax, tuberculosis, and cholera, but his more durable legacy for the discipline as a whole was methodological: the introduction of solid culture media for isolating pure clones, the systematic use of aniline dyes and photomicrography to document bacterial morphology, and the postulates that gave "proving causation" a testable, repeatable structure. He shared the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis work and trained or influenced a generation of microbiologists, including several who went on to identify the causative agents of diphtheria, tetanus, and typhoid using the exact isolation techniques he had pioneered.

Origins · 1 minRobert Koch and how this was discovered
RK
Robert Koch
1843–1910 · German bacteriologist, Wollstein and Berlin, developer of pure culture technique and the postulates linking microbes to disease

History
- 1876 — Koch demonstrates that Bacillus anthracis alone, grown through serial pure culture, causes anthrax
- 1881 — Koch's laboratory introduces gelatin, then agar (on Fannie Hesse's suggestion), as a solid medium for isolating single colonies
- 1882 — Koch isolates and identifies Mycobacterium tuberculosis as the cause of tuberculosis
- 1884 — Koch formalizes the postulates linking a specific microbe to a specific disease, using Vibrio cholerae as a further test case
- 1985 — Staley and Konopka quantify the "great plate count anomaly" comparing direct microscopic counts to viable plate counts in lake water

Where this matters today

Clinical microbiology laboratories still run selective and differential media as first-line diagnostic tools — blood agar to detect hemolysis patterns, MacConkey and eosin-methylene blue agar to sort Gram-negative enterics, mannitol salt agar to select for and flag Staphylococcus aureus — because a same-day colony morphology and color reaction remains cheaper and faster than sequencing for routine identification, even as Antibiotics and Their Mechanisms of Action and rapid molecular diagnostics increasingly supplement it. Food and water safety testing relies on standardized viable counts and selective media (e.g., media selective for coliforms and for E. coli specifically) to certify products against regulatory limits, with the countable-colony-window logic embedded directly into official testing protocols. Industrial biotechnology depends on pure, well-characterized cultures — a single verified strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, E. coli, or Corynebacterium glutamicum — to reliably manufacture insulin, biofuels, amino acids, and antibiotics at scale, since a contaminated or mixed culture in a bioreactor can derail an entire production batch. Conservation and environmental microbiology increasingly pursue the previously unculturable majority directly, using diffusion-chamber devices that let cells grow in situ surrounded by natural sediment or soil while separated from it by a membrane, or dilution-to-extinction culturing in oligotrophic media that mimic ocean or soil nutrient scarcity rather than force-feeding rich broth — techniques that have successfully cultivated organisms from phyla with no prior cultured representative, closing a small but growing fraction of the plate count anomaly and connecting genomic surveys back to living, testable organisms.

Ask the tutor: Why might an organism that grows perfectly well in its natural environment die or fail to grow at all when given a "rich," nutrient-dense laboratory medium?

Why can't we just use one universal growth medium for all bacteria?

Bacteria have radically different metabolic strategies shaped by radically different natural habitats — from nutrient-saturated mammalian intestines to near-starvation deep-sea sediments, from strict anaerobes poisoned by oxygen to acidophiles requiring pH 2. A single medium formulated to be rich enough for a fastidious pathogen will often be too concentrated, too oxygenated, or chemically wrong for an oligotroph, which may be outcompeted, osmotically stressed, or even killed by excess nutrients (a phenomenon informally called substrate-accelerated death). Conversely, a dilute medium mimicking an oligotroph's natural habitat will starve a copiotroph adapted to rich conditions. Because there is no universal set of concentrations, pH, temperature, and oxygen tension that satisfies every physiology simultaneously, microbiologists instead build many specialized media, each targeted at a defined set of organisms, and treat "which organisms grow on this medium" as a a diagnostic clue in itself.

What exactly counts as a "pure culture," and how do microbiologists verify one has been achieved?

A pure culture, strictly, contains only the descendants of a single progenitor cell, meaning every individual shares the same genotype apart from newly arisen mutations. Achieving this requires physically isolating a single cell before it multiplies — via streak plating, spread plating, or serial dilution to extinction — so that the colony or turbid culture that grows afterward traces back to that one founder. Purity is verified indirectly rather than by watching a single cell divide: microbiologists check that colonies are morphologically uniform, that Gram staining and microscopy show a single consistent cell shape and arrangement, and increasingly that a single 16S rRNA gene sequence type is recovered from the isolate. Repeated restreaking of a single well-isolated colony, checking that every subsequent colony looks identical, is the classical confirmation step still used in teaching and clinical labs today.

If most environmental bacteria won't grow on standard media, how do scientists study them at all?

Since the late 1990s, culture-independent methods have become the primary way to study environmental microbial diversity: extracting total DNA directly from soil, water, or gut samples and sequencing marker genes like 16S rRNA, or sequencing all the DNA present (metagenomics), reveals which organisms are present and even what metabolic genes they carry, without ever growing them. This approach identified entire bacterial and archaeal phyla known only from DNA sequence for years before any member was cultured. Complementary cultivation innovations — diffusion chambers that let cells grow surrounded by their natural environment across a selectively permeable membrane, extremely dilute "dilution-to-extinction" media that mimic oligotrophic conditions, and co-culturing with "helper" microbes that supply missing nutrients — have since successfully brought some of these previously sequence-only organisms into pure culture, closing part of the gap between what genomics reveals and what culturing can confirm.

What is the difference between a selective medium and a differential medium, and can a medium be both?

A selective medium contains an ingredient that actively inhibits the growth of unwanted organisms while allowing the target group to grow — for example, high salt concentration in mannitol salt agar suppresses most bacteria other than salt-tolerant staphylococci. A differential medium does not inhibit anyone's growth but instead includes a reagent, usually a fermentable sugar plus a pH indicator or a specific substrate plus a color-generating reaction, so that different organisms produce visibly different colony appearances even though all of them grow. Many widely used clinical media are deliberately both at once: MacConkey agar is selective (bile salts and crystal violet block most Gram-positive bacteria) and differential (lactose fermentation turns colonies pink via a pH indicator), letting a single plate simultaneously narrow down which broad group of organisms is present and visually sort them by a metabolic trait.

Why does a viable plate count sometimes give a lower number than expected even when we know the organism is alive and present?

Plate counts can undercount viable cells for several real reasons beyond simple death. Cells may enter a "viable but non-culturable" (VBNC) state, a physiological dormancy triggered by stress, cold, or starvation, in which they remain metabolically active and capable of causing infection or resuming growth under the right cue, but fail to divide on standard media under standard incubation times. Cells growing in clumps, chains, or biofilms produce one colony from what was actually many living cells, undercounting true cell number relative to CFU. Anaerobes plated under aerobic conditions, or organisms requiring specific growth factors absent from the chosen medium, will simply not form colonies at all even though they were alive and abundant in the original sample. This is precisely why plate counts must always be interpreted as "culturable under these specific conditions," not as an absolute measure of everything alive in a sample.

How does enrichment culture differ from simply using a selective medium?

Selective media act at the moment of plating: an inhibitory agent in solid or liquid medium blocks unwanted organisms from growing at all during a single incubation step, and the result is read directly as colonies or turbidity. Enrichment culture is typically a liquid-phase strategy applied before any plating occurs, using a very specific and often minimal set of conditions — a single unusual carbon source, a particular temperature, light regime, or oxygen tension — that does not necessarily prevent unwanted organisms from growing at all, but grows the target organism disproportionately faster relative to its competitors over one or more sequential transfers into fresh identical medium. After several transfers, the target organism can become the dominant member of what was originally a rare population, at which point it becomes practical to isolate it into pure culture using standard streak- or spread-plating techniques. In practice the two approaches are often combined: enrichment first raises relative abundance, then a selective or differential plate performs the final isolation and identification step.

Before this

Where this leads