Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy logoLink to Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
. 1980 May;17(5):856–860. doi: 10.1128/aac.17.5.856

Activity of Ten Cephalosporins on Biomass of Methicillin-Susceptible and -Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

E Yourassowsky 1, M P Van Der Linden 1, M J Lismont 1, F Crokaert 1
PMCID: PMC283887  PMID: 6901595

Abstract

The growth curves automatically recorded and printed during the action of 10 cephalosporins on methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus showed the following. (i) The biomass of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus exposed to the cephalosporins increased before lysis occurred (inoculum, 106 colony-forming units per ml). Lysis was more rapid with cephalothin and cephaloridine, whose minimal inhibitory concentrations were lowest. (ii) The same biomass increase followed by lysis occurred with methicillin-resistant S. aureus, and the speed of lysis was not different from those of cephalothin (without any regrowth), cefoxitin (with regrowth of a few strains), and cephaloridine (regrowth of all strains), with methicillin-susceptible strains. A 2-log increase of inoculum (108 colony-forming units per ml) did not modify significantly the speed of lysis with cephalothin, cephaloridine, and cefoxitin, but regrowth sometimes occurred. The early transitory lysis caused by cephaloridine, cephalothin, cefamandole, and cefoxitin was not suppressed by preincubation with 32 μg of methicillin per ml, but regrowth occurred more frequently. No lysis could be observed with cefazolin, cefotaxime, cephalexin, cephradine, cefuroxime, and cefaclor unless high concentrations were achieved. (iii) From a practical point of view, the early response of the growth curve (4 h) could not determine in every case whether a strain of S. aureus was resistant or susceptible to cephalosporin. A further study of the growth curve (18 of 24 h) was necessary for this purpose. Results obtained after a few hours with automated systems should be interpreted with great caution.

Full text

PDF
856

Selected References

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

  1. Acar J. F., Courvalin P., Chabbert Y. A. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcemia: bacteriological failure of treatment with cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda) 1970;10:280–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrett F. F., McGehee R. F., Jr, Finland M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at Boston City Hospital. Bacteriologic and epidemiologic observations. N Engl J Med. 1968 Aug 29;279(9):441–448. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196808292790901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer A. W., Kirby W. M., Sherris J. C., Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966 Apr;45(4):493–496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chabbert Y. A., Baudens J. G., Acar J. F., Gerbaud G. R. La résistance naturelle des staphylocoques à la méthicillin et l'oxacilline. Rev Fr Etud Clin Biol. 1965 May;10(5):495–506. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Farrar W. E., Jr, Gramling P. K. Antistaphylococcal activity and beta-lactamase resistance of newer cephalosporins. J Infect Dis. 1976 Jun;133(6):691–695. doi: 10.1093/infdis/133.6.691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fong I. W., Engelking E. R., Kirby W. M. Relative inactivation by Staphylococcus aureus of eight cephalosporin antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976 Jun;9(6):939–944. doi: 10.1128/aac.9.6.939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hewitt J. H., Parker M. T. Sensitivity of penicillinase-forming strains of Staphylococcus aureus and of their penicillinase-negative variants to cephaloridine, cephalothin, methicillin, and benzylpenicillin. J Clin Pathol. 1968 Jan;21(1):75–84. doi: 10.1136/jcp.21.1.75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Klimek J. J., Marsik F. J., Bartlett R. C., Weir B., Shea P., Quintiliani R. Clinical, epidemiologic and bacteriologic observations of an outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a large community hospital. Am J Med. 1976 Sep;61(3):340–345. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(76)90370-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Laverdiere M., Welter D., Sabath L. D. Use of a heavy inoculum in the in vitro evaluation of the anti-staphylococcal activity of 19 cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1978 Apr;13(4):669–675. doi: 10.1128/aac.13.4.669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. O'Callaghan C. H., Morris A., Kirby S. M., Shingler A. H. Novel method for detection of beta-lactamases by using a chromogenic cephalosporin substrate. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1972 Apr;1(4):283–288. doi: 10.1128/aac.1.4.283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Regamey C., Libke R. D., Engelking E. R., Clarke J. T., Kirby M. M. Inactivation of cefazolin, cephaloridine, and cephalothin by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. J Infect Dis. 1975 Mar;131(3):291–294. doi: 10.1093/infdis/131.3.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. SUTHERLAND R., ROLINSON G. N. CHARACTERISTICS OF METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCI. J Bacteriol. 1964 Apr;87:887–899. doi: 10.1128/jb.87.4.887-899.1964. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Sabath L. D., Garner C., Wilcox C., Finland M. Effect of inoculum and of beta-lactamase on the anti-staphylococcal activity of thirteen penicillins and cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1975 Sep;8(3):344–349. doi: 10.1128/aac.8.3.344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Seligman S. J., Hewitt W. L. Resistance to penicillins and cephalosporins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (Bethesda) 1965;5:387–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES