Skip to main content
Applied Microbiology logoLink to Applied Microbiology
. 1971 Apr;21(4):732–738. doi: 10.1128/am.21.4.732-738.1971

Determination of Drug Resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Cultures

V Montalbine 1, F M Collins 1
PMCID: PMC377265  PMID: 4102575

Abstract

A total of 3,303 strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis were tested for sensitivity to streptomycin (SM), isoniazid (INH), and p-aminosalicylic acid (PAS) by the Steenken modified minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) test. A simultaneous double blind comparison was carried out on 277 selected strains by the Steenken MIC test and the Canetti proportion method. Agreement between the results for the two tests was 82% for SM, 95% for INH, and 89% for PAS. A small number of strains appeared to be sensitive when tested by one method but resistant by the other. MIC determinations were carried out on 83 strains by using Steenken-Smith, Lowenstein-Jensen, and Middlebrook 7H10 media containing a more extended range of concentrations of the test drugs. The MIC values for both SM and dihydrostreptomycin increased on Steenken-Smith medium compared with the other two. INH did not show any medium effect, whereas PAS showed increased MIC values in 7H10 agar. The significance of the comparisons of the MIC values on the various media is discussed in terms of possible changes in the drug sensitivity testing methods used at present in this laboratory.

Full text

PDF
732

Selected References

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

  1. CANETTI G., RIST N., GROSSET J. PRIMARY DRUG RESISTANCE IN TUBERCULOSIS. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1964 Nov;90:792–799. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1964.90.5.792. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Canetti G., Fox W., Khomenko A., Mahler H. T., Menon N. K., Mitchison D. A., Rist N., Smelev N. A. Advances in techniques of testing mycobacterial drug sensitivity, and the use of sensitivity tests in tuberculosis control programmes. Bull World Health Organ. 1969;41(1):21–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Canetti G. Present aspects of bacterial resistance in tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1965 Nov;92(5):687–703. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1965.92.5.687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Collins F. M., Mackaness G. B., Montalbine V., Smith M. M. A comparison of the Steenken minimal inhibitory concentration and the Canetti proportion methods for determining levels of drug resistance in cultures of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1968 Aug;98(2):189–200. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1968.98.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HOBBY G. L., JOHNSON P. M., LENERT T. F., CRAWFORD GALIARDI L., GREETHAM L., IVASKA T., LAPIN A., MAIER J., O'MALLEY P., TREMBLEY C. A CONTINUING STUDY OF PRIMARY DRUG RESISTANCE IN TUBERCULOSIS IN A VETERAN POPULATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. I. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1964 Mar;89:337–349. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1964.89.3.337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. MARKS J. BACTERIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF DRUG-RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS IN ITS FIRST TWO YEARS. Mon Bull Minist Health Public Health Lab Serv. 1965 Jan;24:2–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Applied Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES