Advertisement

Automated Detection of Bacterial Growth for Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing

  • S. Bascomb

Abstract

Many pathogens show highly variable in vitro antibiotic susceptibility test patterns. Availability of susceptibility results on organisms isolated from the patient is most important in assisting the clinician in selection of therapeutic agents. Unfortunately, most susceptibility testing procedures require considerable time for completion. Therefore, the choice of antimicrobial drug depends on disease symptoms, and the anticipated susceptibility pattern of organisms likely to cause such symptoms. Additionally, local susceptibility patterns are monitored to avoid prescribing drugs to which the population is resistant and to detect emergence of new resistant patterns or newly resistant strains.

Keywords

Antibiotic Susceptibility Bacterial Mass Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex Susceptibility Test Result Muller Hinton Broth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barry AL (1989) Standardization of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In: Schoenknecht FD, Tenover FC (eds) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinic Lan Med 9: 203–219Google Scholar
  2. Bascomb S (1987) Enzyme tests in bacterial identification. Methods Microbio 119:105–160Google Scholar
  3. Berkman RM, Wyatt PJ, Phillips DT (1970) Rapid detection of penicillin sensitivity in Staphylococcus aureus. Nature (London) 228: 458–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colvin HJ, Sherris JC (1977) Electrical impedance measurements in the reading and monitoring of broth dilution susceptibility tests. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 12: 61–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eriquez LA, Hodinka NE(1983) Development of a test system for rapid differentiation of Neisseria and Haemophilusspp. J Clin Microbiol 18:1032–1039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gill VJ, Witebsky FG, MacLowry JD (1989) Multicategory interpretive reporting of susceptibility testing with selected antimicrobial concentrations; ten years of laboratory and clinical experience. In: Schoenknecht FD, Tenover FC (eds) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinic Lab Med 9: 221–238Google Scholar
  7. Hojer H, Nilsson L, Ansehn S, Thore A (1976) In-vitro effect of doxycyline on levels of adenosine triphosphate in bacterial cultures: possible clinical applications. Scan J Infect Dis (Suppl) 9: 58–61Google Scholar
  8. Kanazawa Y, Kuramata T (1966) Resazurin disc method for rapid determination of drug sensitivities of microorganisms. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 19: 229–233Google Scholar
  9. Kiehlbauch J, Kendle JM, Carlson LG, Schoenknecht FD, Plorde JJ (1989) Automated antibiotic susceptibility testing: comparative evaluation of four commercial systems and present state. In: Schoenknecht FD, Tenover FC (eds) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinical Lab Med 9: 319–340Google Scholar
  10. Kroemer G, Bruckler J, Blobel H (1977) Use of microtiter-system for the determination of the antibiotic susceptibility of staphylococci with tetrazolium salts. Zentralbl Bakteriol Hyg I Abt Orig A 239: 42–45Google Scholar
  11. Laszlo A, Gill P, Handzel V, Hodgkin MM, Helbecque DM (1983) Conventional and radiometric drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. J Clin Microbiol 18: 1335–1339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Matteo MR et al. (1980) Abstr Annu Meet Am Soc Microbiol c201, p308Google Scholar
  13. May PS, Winter JW, Fried GH, Antopol W (1960) Effect of tetrazolium salts on selected bacterial species. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 105; 364–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Shahidi A, Choey I (1980) Effect of contamination levels on antimicrobial susceptibilities tested by Autobac I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 17: 389–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Staneck JL, Glenn S, DiPersio JR, Leist PA (1989) Wide variability in Pseudomonas aeruginosa aminoglycoside results among seven susceptibility testing procedures. J Clin Microbiol 27: 2277–2285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tenover FC (1989) DNA Probes for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In: Schoenknecht FD, Tenover FC (eds) Antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clinic Lab Med 9: 341–347Google Scholar
  17. Tomioka H, Yamada Y, Saito H, Jidoi J (1989) Susceptibilities of Mycobacterium leprae and M.avium complex to the H2O2-Fe-mediated halogenation system supplemented with antimicrobial agents. Int J Leprosy 57: 628–632Google Scholar
  18. Urban T, Jarstrand C (1979) Nitroblue tetrazolium ( NBT) reduction by bacteria. Acta Path Microbiol Scand Sect B 87: 227–233Google Scholar
  19. Wheat PF, Spencer RC, Hastings JGM (1989) A novel Luminometer for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility tests on gram-positive cocci by ATP bioluminescence. J Med Microbiol 29; 277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Bascomb
    • 1
  1. 1.Baxter Microscan DivisionWest SacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations