TABLE 2.
Comparison of INH susceptibility test results obtained by the different methods used in this study
| No. of strains | Susceptibility of strains by indicated methoda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportional methodb | PCR-RFLP
|
DNA sequencingc | Multiplex PCR | ||
| MspI | SatI | ||||
| 130 | R | AGC > ACC | R | AGC > ACC | AGC > ACC |
| 12 | R | S | R | AGC > AAC | S |
| 5 | R | S | R | AGC > ACA | S |
| 70 | R | S | S | inhAC−15T | inhAC−15T |
| 4 | R | AGC > ACC | R | AGC > ACC + inhAC−15T | AGC > ACC + inhAC−15T |
| 76 | R | S | S | S | S |
| 50 | S | S | S | S | S |
a
R, resistant; S, susceptible. When indicated, mutations were detected by the various methods.
b
Performed on Lowenstein-Jensen medium.
c
DNA sequencing of the katG gene and the promoter of the mabA-inhA operon.