Intra- and interlaboratory performances of two commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for bifidobacteria and nonenterococcal lactic acid bacteria.
In a small-scale harmonization study involving nine laboratories in eight European countries, the intra- and interlaboratory performances of two commercially available systems, i.e., the VetMIC microplate system and Etest, for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of nonenterococcal lactic acid bacteria (NELAB) and bifidobacteria were analyzed. In addition, one laboratory also performed standard broth microdilution as a reference method. MICs of tetracycline, erythromycin, ampicillin, gentamicin, clindamycin, and streptomycin for the type strains of 25 species of NELAB and bifidobacteria and MICs of vancomycin for a selection of relevant taxa were determined. The previously described lactic acid bacterium susceptibility test medium (LSM) and related mixed-medium formulations, all including Iso-Sensitest broth as a basic component, were used as test media. The overall agreement of median MIC ranges +/- 1 log(2) dilution determined by the VetMIC and Etest methods with the median MICs determined by the reference method was very good for tetracycline, ampicillin, and streptomycin (92.3 to 100%) but low for erythromycin (19.5 to 30.7%) and clindamycin (50.0 to 80.8%). There was a consensus among the participating laboratories that VetMIC was preferred over Etest because of its lower cost, better growth support, and more uniform criteria for MIC end point reading. With the range for acceptable intralaboratory reproducibility being defined as the median MIC +/- 1 log(2) dilution, VetMIC results (with 69.2% of all data sets in the acceptable range) were shown to display greater reproducibility than Etest results (with 58.8% of all data sets in the acceptable range). Also at the interlaboratory level, the proportion of MIC values obtained with VetMIC that belonged to the complete agreement category (60.0%) was higher than the proportion of such values obtained with Etest (47.0%), which indicates a higher degree of interlaboratory reproducibility for the former method. Apart from some agent-specific effects, the majority of VetMIC and Etest replicate data sets were situated within a 1- to 2-log(2) dilution range, suggesting that the two methods can be considered to be equivalent for recognizing resistance phenotypes. This multicenter study has further validated the standard use of LSM and related mixed-medium formulations with commercially available systems and formed the basis for the ongoing development of the ISO 10932/IDF 223 standard for susceptibility testing of NELAB and bifidobacteria.
Huys
Geert
G
Laboratory of Microbiology, Ghent University, K.L. Ledeganckstraat 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. Geert.huys@UGent.be
D'Haene
Klaas
K
Cnockaert
Margo
M
Tosi
Lorenzo
L
Danielsen
Morten
M
Flórez
Ana Belén
AB
Mättö
Jaana
J
Axelsson
Lars
L
Korhonen
Jenni
J
Mayrhofer
Sigrid
S
Egervärn
Maria
M
Giacomini
Mauro
M
Vandamme
Peter
P
D001644:Bifidobacterium / Q000187:drug effects*; D013293:Enterococcus faecalis / Q000187:drug effects; D005060:Europe; D005516:Food Microbiology; D007753:Laboratories; D007778:Lactobacillus / Q000187:drug effects*; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D048249:Streptococcus thermophilus / Q000187:drug effects
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 May;59(5):900-12
17369278
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Jan;39(1):241-50
11136778
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Jun;74(12):3745-8
18441109
Syst Appl Microbiol. 2006 Mar;29(2):145-55
16464696
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Jul;58(1):85-94
16698847
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006 Jul;28(1):42-8
16757151
J Med Microbiol. 2006 Dec;55(Pt 12):1693-1699
17108273
J Food Prot. 2007 Jan;70(1):119-24
17265870
Dis Aquat Organ. 2005 May 20;64(3):211-22
15997819
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2002;34(6):402-6
12028419
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Jan;51(1):394-6
17060527
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2007 Jul;92(1):21-8
17151954
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8982-6
16332905
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Aug;52(2):145-8
12837738
J Food Prot. 2007 Feb;70(2):412-8
17340877
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Dec;56 Suppl 4:S2-S15
12556941
Microb Drug Resist. 2003 Winter;9(4):381-8
15000745
J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008;14(1-3):6-15
17957105
Microb Drug Resist. 2006 Winter;12(4):252-6
17227210
Int J Food Microbiol. 2003 Jan 26;82(1):1-11
12505455
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Feb;73(3):730-9
17122388
Dis Aquat Organ. 2005 Sep 23;66(3):197-204
16261934
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006 Apr;50(4):1550-1
16569881
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 Oct;40(10):2413-5
8891154
J Appl Microbiol. 2007 Dec;103(6):2496-503
18045434
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2006 Jun;27(6):482-90
16697559
J Biotechnol. 2000 Dec 28;84(3):197-215
11164262
J Dairy Res. 2007 Aug;74(3):262-8
17466116
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1999 Jul-Nov;76(1-4):115-37
10532375
Food Microbiol. 2007 Sep;24(6):559-70
17418306