| Literature DB >> 29403965 |
Mounyr Balouiri1, Moulay Sadiki1, Saad Koraichi Ibnsouda1.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in researching and developing new antimicrobial agents from various sources to combat microbial resistance. Therefore, a greater attention has been paid to antimicrobial activity screening and evaluating methods. Several bioassays such as disk-diffusion, well diffusion and broth or agar dilution are well known and commonly used, but others such as flow cytofluorometric and bioluminescent methods are not widely used because they require specified equipment and further evaluation for reproducibility and standardization, even if they can provide rapid results of the antimicrobial agent's effects and a better understanding of their impact on the viability and cell damage inflicted to the tested microorganism. In this review article, an exhaustive list of in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods and detailed information on their advantages and limitations are reported.Entities:
Keywords: Agar diffusion method; Antimicrobial gradient method; Thin-layer chromatography (TLC)–bioautography; Time-kill test
Year: 2015 PMID: 29403965 PMCID: PMC5762448 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Anal ISSN: 2214-0883
Fig. 1Agar diffusion methods: (A) disk-diffusion method of microbial extract using C. albicans as test microorganism, (B) agar well diffusion method of essential oil using Aspergillus niger as test microorganism, and (C) agar plug diffusion method of Bacillus sp. against C. albicans.
Culture media, microbial inoculum size and incubation conditions for antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods as recommended by CLSI.
| Methods | Microorganism | Growth medium | Final inoculum size | Incubation temperature (°C) | Incubation time (h) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disk-diffusion method | Bacteria | MHA | (0.5 McFarland) (1–2)×108 CFU/mL | 35±2 | 16–18 | M02-A |
| Yeast | MHA+GMB | (0.5 McFarland) (1–5)×106 CFU/mL | 35±2 | 20–24 | M44-A | |
| Molds | Non-supplemented MHA | (0.4–5)×106 CFU/mL | – | – | M51-A | |
| Broth microdilution | Bacteria | MHB | 5×105 ×CFU/mL | 35±2 | 20 | M07-A |
| Yeast | RPMI 1640 | (0.5–2.5)×103 CFU/mL | 35 | 24–48 | M27-A | |
| Molds | RPMI 1640 | (0.4–5)×104 CFU/mL | 35 | 48 for most fungi | M38-A | |
| Broth macrodilution | Bacteria | MHB | 5×105 CFU/mL | 35±2 | 20 | M07-A |
| Yeast | RPMI 1640 | (0.5–2.5)×103 CFU/mL | 35 | 46–50 | M27-A | |
| Molds | RPMI 1640 | (0.4–5)×104 CFU/mL | 35 | 48 for most fungi | M38-A | |
| Agar dilution | Bacteria | MHA | 104 CFU/spot | 35±2 | 16–20 | M07-A |
| Time-kill test | Bacteria | MHB | 5×105 CFU/mL | 35±2 | 0, 4, 18, and 24 | M26-A |
MHA: Mueller Hinton Agar. MHB: Mueller Hinton Broth.
GMB: the medium was supplemented with 2% glucose and 0.5 mg/mL methylene blue.
RPMI 1640: Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (with glutamine, without bicarbonate, and with phenol red as a pH indicator) was 1640, buffered to pH 7.0 with MOPS (morpholine propane sulfonic acid) at 0.165 M.
Fig. 2Broth microdilution method of plant extract against B. subtilis using resazurin as growth indicator.
Fig. 30.5 McFarland microbial inoculum preparation by the direct colony suspension as recommended by CLSI guidelines.
Fig. 4Broth microdilution for antibacterial testing as recommended by CLSI protocol.