Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Epidemiology

Molecular Epidemiology of Ampicillin-Resistant Non-β-Lactamase-Producing Haemophilus influenzae

Louise Gazagne, Catherine Delmas, Edouard Bingen, Henri Dabernat
Louise Gazagne
Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Purpan, Toulouse,and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Delmas
Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Purpan, Toulouse,and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edouard Bingen
Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire R. Debré, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henri Dabernat
Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Purpan, Toulouse,and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.12.3629-3635.1998
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Resistance to ampicillin without β-lactamase production is not a frequent occurrence among Haemophilus influenzaestrains. This kind of resistance is encountered in unencapsulated strains isolated from bronchial secretions and ear, nose, and throat specimens and is exceptional in H. influenzae type b. We studied 29 of these strains from various areas in France and 2 reference strains. Strains were compared by using ribotyping, arbitarily primed PCR with two primers, and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Each technique enabled the identification of 20 to 23 different patterns among the 31 strains. The combination of the different patterns for the strains obtained by the different techniques provided 27 distinct profiles. According to these results, it seems that the clonal propagation of these resistant strains does not occur.

The resistance to antimicrobial agents in Haemophilus influenzae has evolved significantly during the last 20 years. This resistance is essentially to β-lactam antibiotics as a result of β-lactamase production. The β-lactamase involved is frequently of the TEM type and is more rarely of the ROB type (9, 31, 33). About 50% of the strains isolated from patients with meningitis in France produce β-lactamase (8, 9).

In H. influenzae strains, resistance to β-lactam antibiotic can also result from the alteration of the antibiotic target: penicillin-binding protein (5, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 28, 32). This resistance mode is less frequent. It generally occurs among nonencapsulated strains from nonsystemic specimens (3, 9, 19, 20, 29, 35, 36).

Ampicillin-resistant non-β-lactamase-producing strains (AMPr β−) are more difficult to detect because of their low incidence rate. The usual disk diffusion method with a 10- or 25-μg amoxicillin disk does not permit the detection of this mode of resistance. Detection of this kind of resistance (diameter of inhibition, <20 mm, corresponding to an MIC of ≥2 mg/liter) is obtained with a 2-μg ampicillin disk. In France these disks are rarely used because this infrequent mode of resistance is often disregarded. Epidemiological studies with these types of strains are rare (23). We have studied clinical AMPr β− H. influenzae isolates using molecular biology tools. This allowed us to compare these strains and look for a possible clonal diffusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bacterial strains.In France, H. influenzaestrains are sent to the National Center on H. influenzae for different reasons: generally for active surveillance for microbiology laboratories, sometimes for a problem with identification, or when this bacterium is isolated from cerebrospinal fluid. Between 1987 and 1994 about 3,000 strains were sent to the National Center, and 29 of these strains were AMPr β−. They came from different French metropolitan areas. They have been isolated from various clinical specimens: purulent bronchial secretions; specimens from patients with otitis media, sinusitis, and conjunctivitis; and rhinopharyngeal specimens. The strains have been identified by typical Gram staining appearance, the shapes of the colonies, and their requirements for X factor and V factor. The characteristics of these strains are presented in Table1. Biotyping was determined by the method of Kilian (15a). Capsular serotyping was performed by slide agglutination with specific antisera (antisera a to f; Difco); all strains were nontypeable. By an agar dilution method withHaemophilus Test Medium (Unipath), the MICs of ampicillin, cefaclor, and cefotaxime were determined. If isolates did not produce β-lactamase according to the results of a chromogenic cephalosporin test (Nitrocefin; Cefinase; Biomerieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France), if the 2-μg ampicillin disk diffusion test (Becton Dickinson) gave a zone of inhibition of <20 mm, and if the MIC of ampicillin was ≥2 mg/liter, strains were considered AMPr β−. We simultaneously studied two quality control strains: the ampicillin-susceptible strain H. influenzae ATCC 49766 and the tetracycline-resistant and AMPr β− strain H. influenzae ATCC 49247.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of AMPr β− H. influenzae: patterns obtained by different molecular biology techniquesa

During a period of 2 years, four strains, strains 4, 22, 23, and 31, were isolated from the same child with cystic fibrosis. Two pairs of strains were isolated from two children either at the same time (strains 28 and 29) or at the beginning and the end of an antibiotic treatment (strains 26 and 27).

Methods. (i) Ribotyping (RT).Genomic DNA was extracted by the method of Picard-Pasquier et al. (28a). We used the restriction endonuclease EcoRI (Boehringer Mannheim). After electrophoresis, we transferred the DNA to a nylon membrane (HYBOND-N; Amersham) by the Southern blotting method. Hybridization was performed with an Escherichia coliDNA probe complementary to 16S-23S RNA, and the probe was labelled with digoxigenin. Hybridization signals were detected with the DIG DNA Labelling and Detection Kit (Boehringer Mannheim).

Ribotypes were considered identical only if all bands in their patterns were of the same number and size.

(ii) AP-PCR.Genomic DNA was extracted by the method of Picard-Pasquier et al. (28a). We amplified the DNA with two oligonucleotide primers, 217δ2 (5′→3′ gCC CCC Agg ggC ACA gT; Genset) and RapIV (5′→3′ TCA CgA TgC A; Genset). Amplification was carried out with a Perkin-Elmer DNA Thermal Cycler (Perkin-Elmer Cetus, Norwalk, Conn.). Randomly amplified products were separated by electrophoresis and were visualized with ethidium bromide.

The patterns generated by arbitarily primed PCR (AP-PCR) were considered identical on the basis of similar numbers and the matching positions of all bands. With this in mind, specific patterns were established on the basis of a single band difference.

(iii) Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE).After the colonies were grown, washed, and centrifuged, agarose plugs were made from a 1-1 mixture of 2% low-melting-point agarose and the cell suspension. The plugs were lysed with proteinase K (Boehringer Mannheim) overnight and were then washed with Tris-EDTA buffer. After three washes the agarose plugs were incubated with the restriction enzyme SmaI (Gibco BRL). The resulting DNA fragments were subjected to field inversion gel electrophoresis, and then the bands were visualized with ethidium bromide.

Strains with one band shift were considered to represent unique strains.

Software.The results were analyzed with Taxotron software (P. A. D. Grimont, Institut Pasteur, 1994). The patterns were obtained after transfer of the data into Mac Draw Pro.

RESULTS

Ampicillin MICs were ≥2 mg/liter for all strains. The cefotaxime MICs were between 0.015 and 0.25 mg/ml, and the cefaclor MICs were between 1 and 32 mg/ml.

All H. influenzae strains were typeable by RT, PFGE, and AP-PCR. The DNA profiles of the same strain generated by each of the three molecular techniques were found to be stable and reproducible on two or more separate occasions.

RT.The RT patterns obtained with EcoRI had 10 to 13 bands ranging between 1 and 15 kb (Fig.1). The output repeatedly contained two bands of between 1 and 2 kb.

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Patterns for AMPr β− H. influenzae strains obtained by RT. The dendrogram and RT patterns of EcoRI-restricted H. influenzae DNA were analyzed with Taxotron software. Strains 1 to 31 are described in Table1. S, strains; D, areas.

Among the 29 strains of H. influenzae, digestion withEcoRI, gave 23 RT patterns.

AP-PCR.AP-PCR with two different primers, 217δ2 and RapIV (Fig. 2 and3, respectively), gave 21 and 23 independent patterns, respectively. Both primers yielded 2 to 11 amplified products ranging in size from 0.2 to 2 kb.

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Patterns for AMPr β− H. influenzae strains obtained by AP-PCR with primer 217δ2. The dendrogram and AP-PCR profiles obtained with primer 217δ2 ofH. influenzae were analyzed with Taxotron software. Strains 1 to 31 are described in Table 1. The Molecular Weight III marker was from Boehringer Mannheim. S, strains; D, areas.

Fig. 3.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Patterns for AMPr β− H. influenzae strains obtained by AP-PCR with primer RapIV. The dendrogram and AP-PCR profiles obtained with primer RapIV ofH. influenzae were analyzed with Taxotron software. Strains 1 to 31 are described in Table 1. The Molecular Weight III marker was from Boehringer Mannheim. S, strains; D, areas.

The 21 different patterns obtained with primer 217δ2 (Fig. 2) are very heterogeneous; nevertheless, several groups could be identified.

The 23 patterns obtained with RapIV (Fig. 3) were extremely varied. Among the 31 strains, 12 were weakly linked.

PFGE.PFGE with SmaI restriction endonuclease digestion generated 20 unique DNA fragment patterns (Fig.4).

Fig. 4.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Patterns for AMPr β− H. influenzae strains obtained by PFGE. The dendrogram and PFGE profiles of SmaI-digested DNA of H. influenzae were analyzed with Taxotron software. Strains 1 to 31 are described in Table 1. The bacteriophage lambda Ladder PFG Marker was obtained from Biolabs. S, strains; D, areas.

The patterns were easy to interpret, with 5 to 10 bands in each one.

Using these different techniques, we spotted several groups of strains, as described Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Different strain groups obtained by four molecular biology techniquesa

Overall analysis.We assigned a letter to each different profile obtained by each technique. We obtained a code of four letters. We assigned a Roman numeral to each different code. When strains had the same Roman numeral, they had the same profile as determined by the four techniques. Twenty-seven different profiles were identified. One group consists of four strains (strains 1, 7, 24, and 25), and another group consists of two strains (strains 26 and 27). All the other strains had a unique code.

DISCUSSION

H. influenzae AMPr β− strains are not frequently encountered. According to the accepted limit of the MIC, their incidence varies. The frequencies of occurrence of resistant strains are <1 to 2.5% (MICs, ≥2 mg/liter) in Canada and the United States (1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 34), 5 to 7% (MICs, ≥1 mg/liter) in the United Kingdom (29-31), <1 to 7% (MICs, ≥1 or ≥2 mg/liter) in Australia (3, 6), 13% (MICs, ≥1 mg/liter) in Greece (14), 1% (MICs, ≥2 mg/liter) in France (7), and 0.3% (MICs, ≥4 mg/liter) in an international study (15). This variability in the incidence of AMPr β− strains illustrates the difficulties encountered in highlighting this kind of resistance. A 20-μg ampicillin disk cannot detect AMPrβ− H. influenzae strains. An inhibition zone diameter of <20 mm obtained with a 2-μg ampicillin disk would indicate the need to measure the ampicillin MIC.

Although the MICs of other β-lactam antibiotics were increased (2, 13, 22), the clinical consequences of these types of strains did not seem to be very important. Three infections with AMPr β− H. influenzae were described. Two cases, a case of endocarditis (18) and a case of septicemia (27), were due to a serotype b strain; one case (a case of meningitis) was caused by a nonserotypeable strain (22).

Studies of the epidemiology of nontypeable strains prove the important heterogenieity of these strains (4, 12, 16, 26). This heterogenieity is the same as that in AMPr β−H. influenzae strains, and Mendelman et al. (23) have deduced that this resistance originated long ago. Our results agree with their conclusions. The four techniques that we used gave 27 different profiles for 31 strains.

In our study, using these different techniques we spotted several groups of strains. The most important was made up of strains 1 (ATCC 49247), 7, 15, 24, 25, and ±19. These strains came from various areas, and their resistance to antibiotics was heterogeneous. Five strains were biotype III, and one was biotype IV. Their only similarity was their biotype, and biotype III is very common among nontypeable H. influenzae strains.

The second group was consisted of two strains that exhibited the same biotype. Strain 11 was paired with strain 2 (ATCC 49766) by all methods except AP-PCR with primer RapIV; by this technique strain 11 was identical to strain 14, but their antibiotic susceptibilities, origins, and biotypes were different. It seems that the different patterns obtained did not permit us to make a deduction about the resistance of strain 11 (ATCC 49766 is ampicillin susceptible).

The third group consisted of strains 26, 27, and ±14. Strains 26 and 27 were isolated from the rhinopharynx of a 9-month-old child at the beginning and at the end of antibiotic treatment and were absolutely identical. Strain 14 had the same biotype as strains 26 and 27 but it was isolated in a different geographic area and had an antibiotic susceptibility profile different from those of strains 26 and 27.

The fourth group consisted of a couple of identical strains (strains 28 and 29) simultaneously isolated from the eye and the rhinopharynx, respectively, of a 2-year-old child. The strains were identical by all techniques except AP-PCR with primer RapIV (one band difference). We cannot explain this result.

The fifth group consisted of strains that came from the same hospital (strains 4, 5, ±22, ±23, and ±31). All five strains had the same antibiotic susceptibility profiles and biotypes and were isolated from two patients with cystic fibrosis. Four of the strains (strains 4, 22, 23, and 31) came from an 18-year-old patient and were isolated over a period of 2 years. By our methods, these four strains had similar profiles, permitting us to presume a persistent infection with the same AMPr β− H. influenzae strain. Nevertheless, this strain varied a little during this period. The other strain, strain 5, came from a 5-year-old child with cystic fibrosis and was linked to the four previous strains according to its profile. A horizontal transmission of this strain seems possible.

The results obtained by the molecular biology techniques that we used were reproducible, and all techniques gave the same number of patterns. However, our impression is that AP-PCR and PFGE (this technique showed that the four strains from the same cystic fibrosis patient were identical) are more adaptable than RT to epidemiological studies of H. influenzae. Indeed, RT is more fastidious and time-consuming than AP-PCR and PFGE.

By four molecular techniques, we highlighted 27 different profiles among the 31 strains tested. The important number of patterns obtained by these methods, unlike the numbers of patterns obtained for multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae strains (25), allowed us to eliminate the hypothesis of the clonal propagation of AMPr β− H. influenzaestrains in this study.

Few studies on the virulence of AMPr β− H. influenzae strains have been published. It seemed important to clarify the place of this type of H. influenzae in pathology and to suggest a consensus addressing the possible problem of failure of treatment. Moreover, a longer epidemiological study to specify their origins and their diffusion modes should be considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank P. Berche for kindly providing some of the strains for this study and G. Chabanon for allowing us to use his technical facilities. We gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance of J. L. Dournes, R. Pelissier, N. Brahimi, and M. Seguy, and we extend our thanks to all the biologists who sent their strains to the National Center on H. influenzae. We also thank the pharmaceutical companies SmithKline Beecham, Roche, and Roussel Diamant for personal support to L.G.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 14 April 1998.
    • Returned for modification 1 July 1998.
    • Accepted 7 September 1998.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Barry A. L.,
    2. Fuchs P. C.,
    3. Jorgensen J. H.,
    4. Tenover F. C.,
    5. Allen S. D.,
    6. Hardy D. J.,
    7. McLaughlin J. C.
    Susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to piperacillin-tazobactam combinations: interpretive criteria and quality control limits for standardized tests.J. Clin. Microbiol.311993751753
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Barry A. L.,
    2. Fuchs P. C.,
    3. Pfaller M. A.
    Susceptibilities of β-lactamase-producing and -nonproducing ampicillin-resistant strains of Haemophilus influenzae to ceftibuten, cefaclor, cefuroxime, cefixime, cefotaxime, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.3719931418
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bell S. M.,
    2. Plowman D.
    Mechanisms of ampicillin resistance in Haemophilus influenzae from respiratory tract.Lanceti1980279280
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bruce K. D.,
    2. Jordens J. Z.
    Characterization of noncapsulate Haemophilus influenzae by whole-cell polypeptide profiles, restriction endonuclease analysis, and rRNA gene restriction patterns.J. Clin. Microbiol.291991291296
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Clairoux N.,
    2. Picard M.,
    3. Brochu A.,
    4. Rousseau N.,
    5. Gourde P.,
    6. Beauchamp D.,
    7. Parr T. R.,
    8. Bergeron M. G.,
    9. Malouin F.
    Molecular basis of the non-β-lactamase-mediated resistance to β-lactam antibiotics in strains of Haemophilus influenzae isolated in Canada.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.36199215041513
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Collignon P. J.,
    2. Bell J. M.,
    3. Macinness S. J.,
    4. Gilbert G. L.,
    5. Toohey M.,
    6. The Australian Group for Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR)
    A national collaborative study of resistance to antimicrobial agents in Haemophilus influenzae in Australian hospitals.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.301992153163
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dabernat H.
    Centre National de Référence pour Haemophilus influenzae: rapport d’activitiés, année 1990.Bull. Epidemiol. Hebd.331991140141
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dabernat H.,
    2. Delmas C.
    Activité du Centre National de Référence pour Haemophilus influenzae, bilan 1994–1995. Les débuts de l’après vaccination.Med. Mal. Infect.261996698703
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dabernat H.,
    2. Seguy M.,
    3. Delmas C.
    Situation en 1993 de la résistance aux antibiotiques chez Haemophilus influenzae en France (bilan du Centre National de Référence pour H. influenzae).Med. Mal. Infect.24199412441247
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Doern G. V.,
    2. Jones R. N.
    Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Haemophilus influenzae, Branhamella catarrhalis, and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.32198817471753
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Doern G. V.,
    2. Jorgensen J. H.,
    3. Thornsberry C.,
    4. Preston D. A.,
    5. Tubert T.,
    6. Redding J. S.,
    7. Maher L. A.
    National collaborative study of the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among clinical isolates of Haemophilus influenzae.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.321988180185
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fusté M. C.,
    2. Pineda M. A.,
    3. Palomar J.,
    4. Vias M.,
    5. Lorén J. G.
    Clonality of multidrug-resistant nontypeable strains of Haemophilus influenzae.J. Clin. Microbiol.34199627602765
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gutmann L.,
    2. Williamson R.,
    3. Collatz E.,
    4. Acar J. F.
    Mechanisms of beta-lactam resistance in Haemophilus influenzae.Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.71988610615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Heelan J. S.,
    2. Chesney D.,
    3. Guadano G.
    Investigation of ampicillin-intermediate strains of Haemophilus influenzae using the disk procedure and current National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards guidelines.J. Clin. Microbiol.30199216741677
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kayser F. H.,
    2. Morenzoni G.,
    3. Santanam P.
    The second European collaborative study on the frequency of antimicrobial resistance in Haemophilus influenzae.Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.91990810817
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 15a.↵
    1. Kilian M. A.
    A taxonomic study of the genus Haemophilus with the proposal of a new species.J. Gen. Microbiol.931976962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 16.↵
    1. Loos B. G.,
    2. Bernstein J. M.,
    3. Dryja D. M.,
    4. Murphy T. F.,
    5. Dickinson D. P.
    Determination of the epidemiology and transmission of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae in children with otitis media by comparison of total genomic DNA restriction fingerprints.Infect. Immun.57198927512757
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 17.↵
    1. Malouin F.,
    2. Bryan L. E.
    Modification of penicillin-binding proteins as mechanisms of β-lactam resistance.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.30198615
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. 18.↵
    1. Markowitz S. M.
    Isolation of an ampicillin-resistant, non-β-lactamase-producing strain of Haemophilus influenzae.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.1719808083
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 19.↵
    Mendelman, P. M. 1992. Targets of the β-lactam antibiotics, penicillin-binding-proteins, in ampicillin-resistant non-β-lactamase-producingHaemophilus influenzae. J. Infect. Dis.165(Suppl. 1):S107–S109.
  21. 20.↵
    1. Mendelman P. M.,
    2. Chaffin D. O.,
    3. Clausen C.,
    4. Stull T. L.,
    5. Needham C.,
    6. Williams J. D.,
    7. Smith A. L.
    Failure to detect ampicillin-resistant, non-β-lactamase-producing Haemophilus influenzae by standard disk susceptibility testing.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.301986274280
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 21.↵
    1. Mendelman P. M.,
    2. Chaffin D. O.,
    3. Kalaitzoglou G.
    Penicillin-binding proteins and ampicillin resistance in Haemophilus influenzae.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.251990525534
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 22.↵
    1. Mendelman P. M.,
    2. Chaffin D. O.,
    3. Krilov L. R.,
    4. Kalaitzoglou G.,
    5. Serfass D. A.,
    6. Önay O.,
    7. Wiley E. A.,
    8. Overtuf G. D.,
    9. Rubin L. G.
    Cefuroxime treatment failure of nontypable Haemophilus influenzae meningitis associated with alteration of penicillin-binding proteins.J. Infect. Dis.162199011181123
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 23.↵
    1. Mendelman P. M.,
    2. Chaffin D. O.,
    3. Musser J. M.,
    4. De Groot R.,
    5. Serfass D. A.,
    6. Selander R. K.
    Genetic and phenotypic diversity among ampicillin-resistant, non-β-lactamase-producing, nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae isolates.Infect. Immun.55198725852589
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 24.↵
    1. Mendelman P. M.,
    2. Chaffin D. O.,
    3. Stull T. L.,
    4. Rubens C. E.,
    5. Mack K. D.,
    6. Smith A. L.
    Characterization of non-β-lactamase-mediated ampicillin resistance in Haemophilus influenzae.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.261984235244
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 25.↵
    1. Munoz R.,
    2. Coffey T. J.,
    3. Daniels M.,
    4. Dowson C. G.,
    5. Laible G.,
    6. Casal J.,
    7. Hakenbeck R.,
    8. Jacobs M.,
    9. Musser J. M.,
    10. Spratt B. G.,
    11. Tomasz A.
    Intercontinental spread of a multiresistant clone of serotype 23F Streptococcus pneumoniae.J. Infect. Dis.1641991302306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 26.↵
    1. Murphy T. F.,
    2. Dudas K. C.,
    3. Mylotte J. M.,
    4. Apicella M. A.
    A subtyping system for nontypable Haemophilus influenzae based on outer-membrane proteins.J. Infect. Dis.1471983838846
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 27.↵
    1. Offit P. A.,
    2. Campos J. M.,
    3. Plotkin S. A.
    Ampicillin-resistant, β-lactamase-negative Haemophilus influenzae type b.Pediatrics691982230232
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 28.↵
    1. Parr T. R.,
    2. Bryan L. E.
    Mechanism of resistance of an ampicillin-resistant, β-lactamase-negative clinical isolate of Haemophilus influenzae type b to β-lactam antibiotics.Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.251984747753
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 28a.↵
    1. Picard-Pasquier N.,
    2. Ouagued M.,
    3. Picard B.,
    4. Goulet P.,
    5. Krishnamoorthy R.
    A simple, sensitive method of analyzing bacterial ribosomal DNA polymorphism.Electrophoresis101989186189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 29.↵
    1. Powell M.,
    2. Fah Y. S.,
    3. Seymour A.,
    4. Yuan M.,
    5. Williams J. D.
    Antimicrobial resistance in Haemophilus influenzae from England and Scotland in 1991.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.291990547554
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 30.↵
    1. Powell M.,
    2. Livermore D. M.
    Selection and transformation of non-β-lactamase-mediated insusceptibility to β-lactams in Haemophilus influenzae: lack of cross-resistance between carbapenems and other agents.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.261990741747
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 31.↵
    1. Reid A. J.,
    2. Simpson I. N.,
    3. Harder P. H.,
    4. Aymes S. G. B.
    Ampicillin resistance in Haemophilus influenzae: identification of resistance mechanisms.J. Antimicrob. Chemother.201987645656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 32.↵
    1. Serfass D. A.,
    2. Mendelman P. M.,
    3. Chaffin D. O.,
    4. Needham C. A.
    Ampicillin resistance and penicillin-binding proteins of Haemophilus influenzae.J. Gen. Microbiol.132198628552861
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 33.↵
    1. Thomas W. J.,
    2. Mc Reynolds J. W.,
    3. Mock C. R.,
    4. Bailey D. W.
    Ampicillin-resistant Haemophilus influenzae meningitis.Lanceti1974313
    OpenUrl
  36. 34.↵
    1. Tremblay L. D.,
    2. L’Ecuyer J.,
    3. Provencher P.,
    4. Bergeron M. G.
    Susceptibility of Haemophilus influenzae to antimicrobial agents used in Canada.Can. Med. Assoc. J.1431990895901
    OpenUrlAbstract
  37. 35.↵
    Williams, J. D., and F. Moosdeen. 1986. Antibiotic resistance in Haemophilus influenzae: epidemiology, mechanisms, and therapeutic possibilities. Rev. Infect. Dis. 8(Suppl. 5):S555–S561.
  38. 36.↵
    1. Woolfrey B. F.,
    2. Lally R. T.,
    3. Ederer M. N.
    Evaluation of Haemophilus type b systemic isolates for β-lactamase and non-β-lactamase mediated ampicillin resistance and for susceptibility to other antimicrobial agents.Am. J. Clin. Pathol.881987361365
    OpenUrlPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Molecular Epidemiology of Ampicillin-Resistant Non-β-Lactamase-Producing Haemophilus influenzae
Louise Gazagne, Catherine Delmas, Edouard Bingen, Henri Dabernat
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 1998, 36 (12) 3629-3635; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.12.3629-3635.1998

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Molecular Epidemiology of Ampicillin-Resistant Non-β-Lactamase-Producing Haemophilus influenzae
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Molecular Epidemiology of Ampicillin-Resistant Non-β-Lactamase-Producing Haemophilus influenzae
Louise Gazagne, Catherine Delmas, Edouard Bingen, Henri Dabernat
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 1998, 36 (12) 3629-3635; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.12.3629-3635.1998
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Ampicillin Resistance
Haemophilus influenzae

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X