1887

Abstract

Summary

Three traditional assays were used to determine the minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) and minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for (group A streptococci) in two phases of growth and the time taken to kill the organisms. Three other methods were used for the determination of penicillin tolerance: a cell-lysis assay. the β-lactamase disk method and the replication method. Twenty strains, comprising penicillin-tolerant clinical isolates and two laboratory mutants, were used to evaluate the six tests. Results indicated that two groups of can be distinguished—four highly tolerant and three moderately tolerant strains. The moderately tolerant strains were not recognised when rapidly growing instead of stationary cultures were used for the MBC and MIC determinations. The MBC/MIC ratio for tolerant strains was > 100. Tolerance percentage ranged from 0.30 to 1.07 and 0.29 to 3.96 for cultures in the mid-logarithmic and stationary phases of growth, respectively. The cell-lysis assay, the β-lactamase disk method and the replication method may be used to screen for tolerance. Detection of high or moderate tolerance by determining the MBC/MIC ratio for mid-logarithmic or stationary cultures is recommended.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-38-3-197
1993-03-01
2022-01-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/38/3/medmicro-38-3-197.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-38-3-197&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Dagan R, Feme M. Association of penicillin-tolerant strepto cocci with epidemics of streptococcal pharyngitis in closed communities. Eur J Clin Microbial Infeci Dis 1989; 8:629–631
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Grahn E, Holm SE, Roos K. Penicillin tolerance in betastreptococci isolated from patients with tonsillitis. Scand J Infect Dis 1987; 19:421–426
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Sherris JC. Problems in in vitro determination of antibiotic tolerance in clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 30:633–637
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Woolfrey BF, Lally RT, Gresser-Burns M. Penicillin tolerance in group A streptococci. J Infect Dis 1988; 158:487–488
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Mayhall CG, Apollo E. Effect of storage and changes in bacterial growth phase and antibiotic concentrations on antimicrobial tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. Anti-microb Agents Chemother 1980; 18:784–788
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Tuomanen E. Phenotypic tolerance: the search for beta-lactam antibiotics that kill nongrowing bacteria. Rev Infect Dis 1986; 8: Suppl 3S279–S291
    [Google Scholar]
  7. James PA. Comparison of four methods for the determination of MIC and MBC of penicillin for viridans streptococci and the implications for penicillin tolerance. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 25:209–216
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Sabath LD, Wheeler N, Laverdiere M, Blazevic D, Wilkinson BJ. A new type of penicillin resistance of Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet 1977; 1:443–447
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goessens WHF, Fontijne P, Van Raffe M, Michel MF. Tolerance percentage as a criterion for the detection of tolerant Staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1984; 25:575–578
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Michel MF, Van Leeuwen WB. Degree and stability of tolerance to penicillin in Streptococcus pyogenes. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989; 8:225–232
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Meylan PR, Francioli P, Glauser MP. Discrepancies between MBC and actual killing of viridans group streptococci by cell-wall active antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29:418–423
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Taylor PC, Schoenknecht FD, Sherris JC, Linner EC. Deter mination of minimum bactericidal concentrations of oxacillin for Staphylococcus aureus: influence and significance of technical factors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1983; 23:142–150
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Woolfrey BF, Lally RT, Ederer MN. Influence of technical factor variations during inoculum preparation on the agar dilution plate-count method for quantitation of Staphylococcus aureus oxacillin persisters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 30:792–793
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakshmi TM, Kim KS. A mutant of group A streptococcus resistant to high levels of kanamycin exhibits characteristics of penicillin tolerance in vitro. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1988; 55:93–98
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Krasinski K, Hanna B, LaRussa P, Desiderio D. Penicillin tolerant group A streptococci. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1986; 4:291–297
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dankert J, Holloway Y, Joldersma W, Hess J. Screening for penicillin tolerance in viridans streptococci by a simple disk method. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 16:744–746
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Slater GJ, Greenwood D. Detection of penicillin tolerance in streptococci. J Clin Pathol 1983; 36:1353–1356
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim KS, Anthony BF. Use of penicillin-gradient and replicate plates for the demonstration of tolerance to penicillin in streptococci. J Infect Dis 1983; 148:488–491
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sabath LD, Mokhbat JE. What is the clinical significance of tolerance to β-lactam antibiotics?. In: Remington JS, Schwarz MN. (eds) Current clinical topics in infectious diseases New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1983358–377
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stratton CW. The role of the microbiology laboratory in the treatment of infective endocarditis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1987; 20:Suppl A41–49
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Goessens WHF, Fontijne P, Michel MF. Factors influencing detection of tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1982; 22:364–368
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gilbert P, Collier PHJ, Brown MRW. Influence of growth rate on susceptibility to antimicrobial agents: biofilms, cell cycle, dormancy, and stringent response. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:1865–1868
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Greenwood D. Phenotypic resistance to antimicrobial agents. J Antimicrob Chemother 1985; 15:653–658
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Woolfrey BF, Lally RT, Ederer MN. Evaluation of oxacillin tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus by a novel method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28:381–388
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Said I, Fletcher H, Volpe A, Daneo-Moore L. Penicillin tolerance in Streptococcusfaecium ATCC 9790. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31:1150–1152
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Moreillon PH, Markiewicz Z, Nachman S. et al. Two bacteri cidal targets for penicillin in pneumococci: autolysis-dependent and autolysis-independent killing mechanisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34:33–39
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Eagle H, Musselman AD. The rate of bactericidal action of penicillin in vitro as a function of its concentration and its paradoxically reduced activity at high concentrations against certain organisms. J Exp Med 1948; 88:99–131
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Shah PM. Paradoxical effect of antibiotics. I. The “Eagle effect”. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982; 10:259–260
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-38-3-197
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-38-3-197
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error