JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Orhan, G.
Right arrow Articles by Balci, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Orhan, G.
Right arrow Articles by Balci, I.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2005, p. 140-143, Vol. 43, No. 1
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.140-143.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Synergy Tests by E Test and Checkerboard Methods of Antimicrobial Combinations against Brucella melitensis

Gani Orhan, Aysen Bayram,* Yasemin Zer, and Iclal Balci

Gaziantep University Medical Faculty, Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Gaziantep, Turkey

Received 20 June 2004/ Returned for modification 12 July 2004/ Accepted 25 August 2004

Two different synergy testing methods, the checkerboard and the E test methods, were used to compare the in vitro efficacies of various antimicrobial combinations against 16 Brucella melitensis strains isolated from blood cultures. The rate of agreement of the E test and checkerboard methods was found to be 55%. The most concordant results were found for the streptomycin-doxycycline combination in 12 (75%) tests, in which four strains showed synergistic activity by E test and antagonistic activity by the checkerboard method and in which one strain showed antagonistic activity by both methods. Even though each of these methods uses different conditions and endpoints, the results of both methods frequently agreed.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Gaziantep University Medical Faculty, Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Universite Bulvari, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey. Phone: 90 342 3606060. Fax: 90 342 3601617. E-mail: aysenbayram{at}hotmail.com.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2005, p. 140-143, Vol. 43, No. 1
0095-1137/05/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.140-143.2005
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



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 © 2005 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.