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
Bacteriology

Evaluation of BBL CHROMagar VanRE for Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in Rectal Swab Specimens

Paul D. Stamper, Stephanie Shulder, Pearl Bekalo, Deepika Manandhar, Tracy L. Ross, Sharon Speser, Julie Kingery, Karen C. Carroll
Paul D. Stamper
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie Shulder
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pearl Bekalo
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deepika Manandhar
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tracy L. Ross
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon Speser
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie Kingery
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen C. Carroll
Division of Medical Microbiology, Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kcarrol7@jhmi.edu
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01522-10
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

A study was performed on 517 surveillance rectal swabs to evaluate a selective and differential chromogenic medium, the BBL CHROMagar VanRE (CVRE), which enables recovery and identification of VanA- and VanB-containing Enterococcus faecium (ENFM) and Enterococcus faecalis (ENFS) isolates. Compared to BBL Enterococcosel agar, a bile-esculin-azide-vancomycin (BEAV) agar, the initial overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CVRE for the detection of vancomycin-resistant ENFM and ENFS were 99.1% and 94.8% and 84.2% and 99.7%, respectively. Among our patient population, more vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were recovered with CVRE than BEAV.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are major causes of nosocomial infections in health care facilities, and those patients infected with VRE have worse outcomes while hospitalized (8). Rapid, reliable identification of these antibiotic-resistant organisms is crucial for patient management and infection control measures (9, 12).

Culture from rectal swabs or stool specimens onto bile-esculin-azide agar with vancomycin (BEAV) is the VRE screening method used in many clinical laboratories. Confirmation of VRE using this medium requires 48 to 72 h. Chromogenic agars to detect VRE demonstrate promise (1-7, 10). BBL CHROMagar VanRE (CVRE; BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD) is a selective and differential chromogenic agar under development for the detection of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VRENFM) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis (VRENFS). CVRE contains 8 μg/ml of vancomycin and uses chromogenic substrates to phenotypically differentiate VRENFM as mauve colonies and VRENFS as green colonies. Other bacteria are inhibited or typically grow as a color other than mauve or green. Our study compared the clinical performance of CVRE with that of BEAV for primary isolation and detection of VRE from surveillance rectal swabs.

Patient samples.

This industry-sponsored clinical trial was approved by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. At the Johns Hopkins Hospital, VRE surveillance cultures are obtained weekly from patients in all intensive care units (ICUs) and from other high-risk groups, such as oncology, transplant, and HIV patients. Multiple specimens per patient were permitted in the study if previous cultures were negative. Two positive specimens were admissible, provided the specimens were collected >5 days apart.

Surveillance rectal swabs were first inoculated onto BEAV followed by inoculation onto CVRE. Both plates were aseptically streaked for isolation and incubated at 37°C for 24 to 48 h.

BEAV.

BEAV plates with 6 μg/ml of vancomycin were incubated aerobically. No-growth cultures or those not consistent with VRE by 48 h had no further workup. Presumptive colonies for VRE (black colonies with a Gram stain of positive cocci) were isolated to 5% sheep blood agar (SBA) and incubated for an additional 18 to 24 h. l-Pyrrolidonyl-β-naphthylamide enzyme (PYR)-positive colonies were identified with the BD Phoenix automated microbiology system (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD). Vancomycin susceptibility testing was performed by using broth microdilution panels that were manufactured and quality tested by the sponsor. VRENFS ATCC 51299 and E. faecalis ATCC 29212 were used as controls on each day of susceptibility testing. Vancomycin-susceptible cultures (MIC, <8 μg/ml) and/or isolates that were not identified as E. faecium or E. faecalis were determined to be negative for VRE. Cultures containing E. faecium and/or E. faecalis with a vancomycin MIC of ≥8 μg/ml were considered positive for VRE.

CVRE.

Positive controls, VRENFM ATCC 700221 (mauve) and VRENFS ATCC 51299 (green), and negative controls, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 (no growth) and E. faecalis ATCC 29212 (no growth), were used on each day of testing. The plates were placed in a vented box to maintain a 5% CO2 atmosphere while being protected from light. Cultures exhibiting no growth by 48 h or colonies not consistent with VRE (not mauve or green colonies) had no further workup. Mauve colonies (E. faecium) or green colonies (E. faecalis) that were Gram-positive cocci and catalase negative were considered positive for VRE at either 24 or 48 h.

Data analysis.

Using Stata 9.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX), we initially compared the performance of CVRE to that of BEAV (reference method). Catalase-negative, Gram-positive cocci that grew as mauve or green isolates from the CVRE agar were compared to the identification of the enterococci recovered from the BEAV agar. A second performance analysis was done which included recovery of any VRE from CVRE and BEAV.

Discrepant analysis.

VRE isolated only from BEAV or CVRE-positive isolates that had no corresponding colony on BEAV were considered discrepant isolates. Identification and susceptibility testing were performed.

Findings.

Over a 13-week-period, 517 rectal samples from 410 patients were screened for VRE. A total of 143 CVRE cultures presented with mauve and/or green colonies (Table 1). Seventeen of those cultures contained both colony types. The overall agreement before discrepant analysis between CVRE and BEAV was 95.7% for recovery of VRENFM and VRENFS.

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

Initial recovery of E. faecium (mauve) and E. faecalis (green) from CVRE cultures compared to identification from BEAV cultures at 48 ha

Mauve colonies were recovered from 114 specimens, and all were catalase-negative, Gram-positive cocci. Of these 114 specimens, 97 VRENFM isolates were recovered on the BEAV plate; 1 VRENFM isolate was only detected on the BEAV plate and was not detected on the corresponding CVRE plate (Table 1). A total of 402 cultures were concordantly negative for VRENFM. Of the 17 mauve colonies on CVRE with no corresponding VRENFM on the BEAV plate, all were identified by the BD Phoenix as E. faecium. After susceptibility testing by broth microdilution, 16 were confirmed as vancomycin-resistant (MIC, ≥8 μg/ml) and were resolved as true positives (Table 2). One mauve isolate failed to grow in the broth microdilution trays. This isolate was therefore considered a vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium isolate (false positive). Green colonies were isolated from 35 specimens, but VRENFS was recovered from only 17 corresponding BEAV cultures (Table 1). All VRENFS isolates recovered from BEAV (n = 17) were recovered on CVRE. Initially, there were 482 matched samples from which no VRENFS isolates were recovered. Eighteen CVRE plates grew green isolates, but the corresponding BEAV plates were negative for VRENFS. VRENFS was confirmed on 4 of these 18 cultures with green colonies; of these 4, 3 plates had both mauve and green colonies (which resulted in VRENFM and VRENFS), and 1 showed only green colonies (which resulted in VRENFS). Of the remaining 14 CVRE/BEAV discrepant results, 11 green colonies were vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis, 2 of the green colonies were identified as susceptible Enterococcus raffinosus, and one was vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus gallinarum (VRENGA) (MIC, 8 μg/ml). Nine VRENGA isolates were obtained from the BEAV plates. On the corresponding CVRE plates, seven had no growth and two had colonies that were not mauve or green. One isolate from the BEAV, Enterococcus avium, presented as the result “other color” on CVRE and failed to grow for susceptibility testing. An additional 11 isolates on the CVRE were green colonies (catalase positive) that were identified as coagulase negative Staphylococcus sp. On the BEAV plates, 14 breakthrough bile-esculin-positive (black) Gram-positive rods were noted.

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

Recovery of E. faecium and E. faecalis from CVRE medium 48 h after discrepant analysis of isolates from CVRE and BEAVa

After workup of the mauve and green isolates on the CVRE, the performance characteristics of the agar improved (Table 2). A total of 134 true-positive VRE isolates were recovered from the CVRE plates, for an overall sensitivity of detection of any VRE of 99.2%. The change in performance characteristics stratified by species improved significantly only for VREFM (specificity increased to 99.8%; P ≤ 0.05) (Table 2).

Conclusions.

Several formulations of commercially prepared chromogenic agar for detection of VRE in surveillance specimens can be found in the published literature. These are ChromID VRE agar (cIDVRE; bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) (1-4, 6, 7), Chromogenic VRE agar (AES VRE agar; AES Laboratoire, Bruz Cedex, France) (1), CHROMagar VRE (CHR-VRE; CHROMagar, Paris, France) (10), and BBL CHROMagar VanRE (CVRE; BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD) (5). Ours is the second publication on the use of BBL CHROMagar VanRE with surveillance cultures, but it is the first regarding the performance of CVRE with rectal swabs.

Of the four published studies comparable to our evaluation, two tested stool specimens alone (5, 7), one study tested rectal swabs alone (2), and Grabsch et al. (4) tested both specimen types. The sensitivity of the BEAV from three studies in which BEAV sensitivity could be determined ranged from 88.2 to 93.9% (2, 4, 7).

Our evaluation is most comparable to that of Kallstrom et al. (5), who compared CVRE to BEAV with 8 μg/ml of vancomycin. The increased concentration of vancomycin in the BEAV agar used in their study did not impact primary isolation of VRE from BEAV. There was no difference in the recovery of VRENFM, other than in the study by Kallstrom et al. (5), who reported one green VRENFM colony. We experienced a larger proportion (40% for n = 14 versus 23% for n = 5; P = 0.251) of false-positive green colonies on the CVRE, with the majority of our isolates being either E. gallinarum or vancomycin-susceptible E. faecalis. The data from Kallstrom et al. (5) support our conclusion that the medium performs well for mauve colonies, but green colonies should be identified to the species level and have vancomycin susceptibility determined. Although there was a trend of more false-positive results with rectal swabs with the CVRE in our laboratory, as opposed to the stool specimens used by Kallstrom et al. (5), there was no statistical difference at 48 h in the recovery and detection of VRENFM (P = 1.000) or VRENFS (P = 0.251).

All studies reported similar rates of recovery of both VRENFM and VRENFS from chromogenic agars to those from BEAV (1, 2, 4-7, 10). CVRE appeared to perform better than the other chromogenic agars compared to BEAV, but a direct comparison is needed to provide the most accurate comparison. In our study, unless plates had clearly defined isolated black colonies on BEAV or clearly defined isolated mauve and/or green colonies at 24 h, plates were held until the second day before workup reliably proceeded. Approximately 70% of the positives on CVRE were discernible at 24 h. Disadvantages with BEAV include the fact that a black colony is not specific for VRE, nor can BEAV differentiate among species of enterococci. Two additional days are required to subculture a black colony for biochemical and susceptibility testing, whereas subculture is only necessary for green colonies on CVRE.

Currently cIDVRE (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France) is the only FDA-cleared chromogenic agar for use in clinical laboratories. Chromogenic media are expected to list at a higher cost per plate than bile-esculin-azide agars with vancomycin. cIDVRE will list for approximately $3.00 (U.S. dollars) per plate, and the CVRE assay (BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), currently not available, will be comparable in price to the BBL CHROMagar MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) assay at $6.70 per plate. BBL Enterococcosel agar (BEAV with 6 μg/ml of vancomycin) costs $2.30 per plate. However, the cost to identify an isolate from BEAV is not limited to isolation from the plate. Additional tests are required (Gram stain, catalase, and PYR) to identify an isolate as Enterococcus sp. Determination of vancomycin susceptibility is also required, which greatly adds time and expense to the BEAV culture. Thus, the cost for the chromogenic agars compared to BEAV is offset by the ability to detect and isolate VRE (mauve and/or green colonies) more rapidly and easily with minimal supplemental testing.

A limitation of this study was that the sample size for VRENFS was small (n = 21), but the prevalence of VRENFS in this study is consistent with past work conducted at our institution (11). Similarly, we did not pursue genotypic testing for the mechanisms of vancomycin resistance as this was beyond the scope of this study. In the past, our population has presented with a low prevalence of vanB-mediated resistance (11).

In summary, the BBL CHROMagar VanRE (CVRE) performed well, and the chromogenic agar formulation was easy to use. We recovered an additional 20 VRE isolates (16 VRENFM and 4 VRENFS) that otherwise would have been missed by the BEAV agar. In our population, mauve colonies consistently tested as E. faecium (100%) and were usually vancomycin resistant (99.1%); therefore, we are comfortable reporting all mauve, catalase-negative, Gram-positive cocci as VRENFM. Although all VRENFS isolates were detected on the CVRE medium, 40% (14/35) of the green, catalase-negative, Gram-positive isolates in our population were not identified as VRENFS. Based on our data, green colonies from the CVRE should be identified and susceptibility tests should be performed. Use of chromogenic agar in VRE surveillance should facilitate infection control practices by identifying VRE carriers more easily, sooner, and without a substantial increase in laboratory costs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was sponsored by BD Diagnostics (Sparks, MD).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 28 July 2010.
    • Accepted 16 August 2010.
  • Copyright © 2010 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Asir, K., K. Wilkinson, J. D. Perry, R. H. Reed, and F. K. Gould. 2009. Evaluation of chromogenic media for the isolation of vancomycin-resistant enterococci from stool samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 48 : 230-233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Cuzon, G., T. Naas, N. Fortineau, and P. Nordmann. 2008. Novel chromogenic medium for detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 2442-2444.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.
    Delmas, J., F. Robin, C. Schweitzer, O. Lesens, and R. Bonnet. 2007. Evaluation of a new chromogenic medium, ChromID VRE, for detection of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool samples and rectal swabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45 : 2731-2733.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Grabsch, E. A., S. Ghaly-Derias, W. Gao, and B. P. Howden. 2008. Comparative study of selective chromogenic (chromID VRE) and bile esculin agars for isolation and identification of vanB-containing vancomycin-resistant enterococci from feces and rectal swabs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 46 : 4034-4036.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Kallstrom, G., C. D. Doern, and W. M. Dunne. 2010. Evaluation of a chromogenic agar under development to screen for VRE colonization. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48 : 999-1001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Kuch, A., E. Stefaniuk, T. Ozorowski, and W. Hryniewicz. 2009. New selective and differential chromogenic agar medium, chromID VRE, for screening vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species. J. Microbiol. Methods 77 : 124-126.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Ledeboer, N. A., R. J. Tibbetts, and W. M. Dunne. 2007. A new chromogenic agar medium, chromID VRE, to screen for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 59 : 477-479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Maragakis, L. L., E. N. Perencevich, and S. E. Cosgrove. 2008. Clinical and economic burden of antimicrobial resistance. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 6 : 751-763.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Muto, C. A., J. A. Jernigan, B. E. Ostrowsky, H. M. Richet, W. R. Jarvis, J. M. Boyce, and B. M. Farr. 2003. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 24 : 362-386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    Peltroche-Llacsahuanga, H., J. Top., J. Weber-Heynemann, R. Lütticken, and G. Haase. 2009. Comparison of two chromogenic media for selective isolation of vancomycin-resistant enterococci from stool specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47 : 4113-4116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    Stamper, P. D., M. Cai, C. Lema, K. Eskey, and K. C. Carroll. 2007. Comparison of the BD GeneOhm VanR assay to culture for identification of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in rectal and stool specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45 : 3360-3365.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Talbot, T. R. 2007. Two studies feed the debate on active surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci carriage: to screen or not to screen? J. Infect. Dis. 195 : 314-317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Evaluation of BBL CHROMagar VanRE for Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in Rectal Swab Specimens
Paul D. Stamper, Stephanie Shulder, Pearl Bekalo, Deepika Manandhar, Tracy L. Ross, Sharon Speser, Julie Kingery, Karen C. Carroll
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Oct 2010, 48 (11) 4294-4297; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01522-10

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.
Evaluation of BBL CHROMagar VanRE for Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in Rectal Swab Specimens
(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
Evaluation of BBL CHROMagar VanRE for Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in Rectal Swab Specimens
Paul D. Stamper, Stephanie Shulder, Pearl Bekalo, Deepika Manandhar, Tracy L. Ross, Sharon Speser, Julie Kingery, Karen C. Carroll
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Oct 2010, 48 (11) 4294-4297; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01522-10
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Patient samples.
    • BEAV.
    • CVRE.
    • Data analysis.
    • Discrepant analysis.
    • Findings.
    • Conclusions.
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
culture media
Enterococcus faecalis
Enterococcus faecium
Rectum
vancomycin
vancomycin resistance

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