JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Delaney, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Onderdonk, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Delaney, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Onderdonk, A. B.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 03 1997, 558-562, Vol 35, No. 3
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of the AnaeroPack system for growth of clinically significant anaerobes

ML Delaney and AB Onderdonk
Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. mldelaney@bics.bwh.harvard.edu

The AnaeroPack (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America, Inc., New York, N.Y.) system was compared with the GasPak (Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Cockeysville, Md.) system and a conventional anaerobe chamber to evaluate the ability of the AnaeroPack system to support the growth of clinically significant anaerobes. The AnaeroPack system requires no catalyst or water, produces no hydrogen, and is oxygen absorbing and carbon dioxide generating. It is simple to use and reduces preparation time to a minimum. One hundred forty clinical isolates obtained from various anatomic sites and 10 American Type Culture Collection type strains were evaluated. Isolates were plated on various media, and bacterial growth was examined after 24, 48, 72, and 168 h of incubation. Criteria for evaluation and comparison of systems included rate and quality of growth, colonial morphology, hemolytic reactions, and pigment production. Results indicate that the AnaeroPack system is highly effective in creating an anaerobic atmosphere. The AnaeroPack system never failed to reduce the methylene blue indicator, while the GasPak system failed 15% of the time. The rate or quality of growth achieved by the AnaeroPack system compared with that of established anaerobic culturing techniques was similar and significantly better for several genera including the Bacteroides fragilis group, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Peptostreptococcus. The AnaeroPack system appears to be an excellent alternative to established methods for generating an environment for anaerobic incubation.


This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.