Literature DB >> 25218155

Predicting bacterial resistance using the time inside the mutant selection window: possibilities and limitations.

Alexander A Firsov1, Yury A Portnoy2, Elena N Strukova2, Darya S Shlykova2, Stephen H Zinner3.   

Abstract

The time inside the mutant selection window (TMSW) has been shown to be less predictive of selection of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria than the ratio of the area under the concentration-time curve to minimum inhibitory concentration (AUC/MIC). To explore the different predictive powers of TMSW and AUC/MIC, enrichment of ciprofloxacin-resistant mutants of four Escherichia coli strains was studied in an in vitro dynamic model at widely ranging TMSW values. Each organism was exposed to twice-daily ciprofloxacin for 3 days. Peak antibiotic concentrations were simulated to be close to the MIC, between the MIC and the mutant prevention concentration (MPC), and above the MPC, with TMSW varying from 0% to 100% of the dosing interval. Amplification of resistant mutants was monitored by plating on medium with 8× MIC of the antibiotic. For each organism, TMSW plots of the area under the bacterial mutant concentration-time curve (AUBCM) exhibited a hysteresis loop: at a given TMSW that corresponds to the points on the ascending portion of the bell-shaped AUBCM-AUC/MIC curve [when the time above the MPC (T>MPC) was zero], the AUBCM was greater than at the same TMSW related to the descending portion (T>MPC>0). A sigmoid function fits these separate data sets well for combined data with the four organisms (r(2)=0.81 and 0.92, respectively), in contrast to fitting the whole data pool while ignoring the AUC/MIC-resistance relationship (r(2)=0.61). These data allow the appropriate use of TMSW as a predictor of bacterial resistance.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fluoroquinolones; In vitro model; Resistant mutant enrichment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25218155     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2014.06.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Antimicrob Agents        ISSN: 0924-8579            Impact factor:   5.283


  4 in total

1.  In Vitro Resistance Selection in Shigella flexneri by Azithromycin, Ceftriaxone, Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, and Moxifloxacin.

Authors:  George P Allen; Kayla A Harris
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  In vitro resistance studies with bacteria that exhibit low mutation frequencies: prediction of "antimutant" linezolid concentrations using a mixed inoculum containing both susceptible and resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Alexander A Firsov; Maria V Golikova; Elena N Strukova; Yury A Portnoy; Andrey V Romanov; Mikhail V Edelstein; Stephen H Zinner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Searching for the Optimal Predictor of Ciprofloxacin Resistance in Klebsiella pneumoniae by Using In Vitro Dynamic Models.

Authors:  Elena N Strukova; Yury A Portnoy; Andrey V Romanov; Mikhail V Edelstein; Stephen H Zinner; Alexander A Firsov
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Mutant prevention and minimum inhibitory concentration drug values for enrofloxacin, ceftiofur, florfenicol, tilmicosin and tulathromycin tested against swine pathogens Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, Pasteurella multocida and Streptococcus suis.

Authors:  Joseph M Blondeau; Shantelle D Fitch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.