Skip to main content
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1982 Mar;21(3):412–415. doi: 10.1128/aac.21.3.412

Examination of Pseudomonas aeruginosa-gentamicin discrepancies encountered in an Autobac I-disk diffusion comparison.

J B Mayo, T E Kiehn, B Wong, E M Bernard, D Armstrong
PMCID: PMC181906  PMID: 6808909

Abstract

Seven Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains found to be susceptible to gentamicin by the Autobac I system and resistant by the Bauer-Kirby disk diffusion method were tested for the presence of mixed populations of cells. Double zones of inhibition randomly appeared on gentamicin disk diffusion plates, and susceptible and resistant subpopulations were isolated from these plates. Growth kinetic studies of separated strains and mixed subpopulations indicated that the susceptible organisms grew rapidly and were read as susceptible at 5 h with the Autobac I system. Resistant organisms entered a sustained lag phase and did not achieve sufficient turbidity to be read as resistant with the Autobac I system before 6 h. Thus, a false reading of susceptible could be obtained with the Autobac I system, depending on the ratio of susceptible organisms to resistant organisms selected for testing. A mixed susceptible and resistant population could be recognized by extending the incubation time of the Autobac I cuvette or by using other susceptibility methods to test isolates with light-scattering indexes of less than 1.0.

Full text

PDF
412

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cleary T. J., Maurer D. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus susceptibility testing by an automated system, Autobac I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 May;13(5):837–841. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.5.837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ericsson H. M., Sherris J. C. Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B Microbiol Immunol. 1971;217(Suppl):1+–1+. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Funnell G. R., Guinness M. D. Australian evaluation of Autobac I with suggested interpretive and technical modifications. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1979 Sep;16(3):255–261. doi: 10.1128/aac.16.3.255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harris P. C., Sealey L. B. Two-hospital study of Staphylococcus aureus susceptibility to penicillin and ampicillin by Autobac I. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1980 Dec;18(6):922–925. doi: 10.1128/aac.18.6.922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Stubbs K. G., Wicher K. Laboratory evaluation of an automated antimicrobial susceptibility system. Am J Clin Pathol. 1977 Dec;68(6):769–777. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/68.6.769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Thornsberry C., Gavan T. L., Sherris J. C., Balows A., Matsen J. M., Sabath L. D., Schoenknecht F., Thrupp L. D., Washington J. A., 2nd Laboratory evaluation of a rapid, automatic susceptibility testing system: report of a collaborative study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Apr;7(4):466–480. doi: 10.1128/aac.7.4.466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES