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

Impact of Variations in Test Method Parameters on In Vitro Activity of Surotomycin against Clostridium difficile and Surotomycin Quality Control Limits for Broth Microdilution and Agar Dilution Susceptibility Testing

Maria M. Traczewski, Jennifer Deane, Daniel Sahm, Steven D. Brown, Laurent Chesnel
C.-A. D. Burnham, Editor
Maria M. Traczewski
aClinical Microbiology Institute, Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Deane
bEurofins Medinet, Chantilly, Virginia, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Sahm
bEurofins Medinet, Chantilly, Virginia, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven D. Brown
aClinical Microbiology Institute, Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laurent Chesnel
cMerck and Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C.-A. D. Burnham
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02881-15
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Test parameter variations were evaluated for their effects on surotomycin MICs. Calcium concentration was the only variable that influenced MICs; therefore, 50 μg/ml (standard for lipopeptide testing) is recommended. Quality control ranges for Clostridium difficile (0.12 to 1 μg/ml) and Eggerthella lenta (broth, 1 to 4 μg/ml; agar, 1 to 8 μg/ml) were approved by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute based on these data.

TEXT

In recent years, the incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) have increased (1–4). Despite the availability of antibiotic therapies, CDAD-related morbidity and mortality rates have remained high (5–8). In a recent study, the clinical response rates were 81.1% for vancomycin and 72.7% for metronidazole, with both drugs being associated with high rates of recurrence (∼20 to 45%) (9–11). The more recently approved fidaxomicin demonstrated comparable clinical responses and reduced rates of recurrence (∼13 to 15%), as compared with vancomycin (12, 13).

Surotomycin (CB-183,315) is an orally administered, minimally absorbed, selective, bactericidal cyclic lipopeptide being developed for treatment of patients with CDAD (14). It previously demonstrated selective potent bactericidal activity against various C. difficile strains and other Gram-positive bacteria in vitro, with minimal impact on the Gram-negative organisms of the intestinal microbiota in vitro and in CDAD patients (15–20). In a phase 2 trial, surotomycin was more sparing of gut microbes (primarily Bacteroides and Prevotella species) than vancomycin, with evidence for reduction in the risk of recurrence (20).

These studies were designed to evaluate the effects of changes in key test parameters, including pH, inoculum, calcium concentration ([Ca2+]), broth/agar lot, and incubation time, on the in vitro activity of surotomycin against three C. difficile strains (ATCC 700057 and the clinical isolates SID 7907612 and SID 2946830) and to generate MIC ranges for quality control (QC) organisms (C. difficile ATCC 700057, Eggerthella lenta ATCC 43055, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213). Broth microdilution and agar dilution were reported previously to be comparable and reproducible methods for testing surotomycin against C. difficile (21). Therefore, the test parameter and QC studies were performed using both methods, based on the data presented here.

Variations in key test parameters were tested in duplicate against C. difficile ATCC 700057 and two clinical isolates. Brucella agar, as recommended by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) for MIC determinations, has various concentrations of divalent cations (22). The in vitro activity of surotomycin is dependent on the [Ca2+] of the test medium, which needs to be adjusted to a final value of 50 μg/ml, based on previous observations with the similarly structured lipopeptide daptomycin (23). Inoculum size (5 × 103 to 5 × 105 CFU/ml), pH (pH 6 to 8), [Ca2+] (0 to 150 μg/ml), and incubation time (24 to 72 h) were varied relative to standard conditions, which were defined as incubation time of 48 h, [Ca2+] of 50 μg/ml, inoculum size of 5 × 104 CFU/ml, pH of 7.2 to 7.4, and serum level of 0% (Table 1). An ion-selective electrode method was used to assess the concentrations of both total and ionized Ca2+ in the media. Each isolate was tested using standard anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution methods, according to CLSI guidelines. The effects of test parameter variations on surotomycin MICs were assessed using tigecycline as a control for broth microdilution, vancomycin as a control for agar dilution (versus C. difficile), and clindamycin for both agar dilution (versus C. difficile and E. lenta) and broth microdilution (versus E. lenta) (24).

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

Surotomycin MICs with various test parameters, as demonstrated by anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution

A CLSI M23-A3 tier 2 QC study (25) was performed in eight laboratories (see Acknowledgments). The methods described in CLSI document M11-A7 were used (22). Each laboratory tested 10 replicates of each QC strain on three lots of each medium, with the broth microdilution and agar dilution methods. Colony counts were performed at all test sites and were within the parameters of the CLSI guidelines for broth microdilution and agar dilution tests for anaerobic MICs (22, 24). All study strains were incubated under anaerobic conditions. Medium lot preparation information can be found in the supplemental material. For the QC study, tier 2 MIC ranges were selected based on CLSI M23-A3 guidelines (25) and confirmed by the alternate RangeFinder method described in the guideline (26) (see the supplemental material).

Based on surotomycin MICs obtained for each of the three C. difficile isolates, the only parameter that affected surotomycin activity was [Ca2+] (Table 1). The largest shift in surotomycin MICs was an increase from 0.12 to 4 μg/ml (32-fold MIC shift) for C. difficile ATCC 700057 as the [Ca2+] was decreased from 150 to 0 μg/ml. During broth microdilution, no organism growth occurred at pH 6, and it was not possible to determine MICs at 10% serum concentrations, due to substantial background turbidity. Parameter variations did not appear to notably affect the MICs of the control drugs (clindamycin, tigecycline, and vancomycin). At the time of testing, there were no resistant isolates available; therefore, the performance for detection of resistance was not addressed.

Surotomycin MICs were all within 1 doubling dilution of each other for all three isolates tested in each of the three broth medium lots (Table 2). For all strains, minimal lot-to-lot variations were noted for surotomycin MICs, as determined by agar dilution; for the two clinical isolates, however, surotomycin MICs were 1 to 2 doubling dilutions lower in medium lot 1 when tested by agar dilution. The MICs of control drugs were not affected by different medium lots.

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

Medium lot comparisons of surotomycin MICs for anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution

For the QC organism C. difficile ATCC 700057, all test results were within the range of 0.12 to 1 μg/ml (Table 3). For E. lenta ATCC 43055, ranges of 1 to 4 μg/ml (98.1% within range) and 2 to 8 μg/ml (96.7% within range) were approved for microdilution and agar dilution, respectively (Table 4). A range of 0.25 to 1 μg/ml (99.6% within range) was approved for broth microdilution for S. aureus ATCC 29213 incubated anaerobically (Table 5). For agar dilution, a range of 0.5 to 2 μg/ml (100% within range) was approved for S. aureus ATCC 29213 incubated anaerobically, with the exclusion of laboratory 2 as a statistical outlier (Table 5). All surotomycin QC ranges determined by methods proposed by the CLSI were identical to ranges determined by the RangeFinder method (Table 6) (26). CLSI-approved surotomycin QC ranges plus the percentages of tests within range for testing under anaerobic conditions using supplemented Brucella broth or agar are also summarized in Table 6.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 3

Number of strains with surotomycin-specified QC ranges for anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution for C. difficile ATCC 700057a

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 4

Number of strains with surotomycin-specified QC ranges for anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution for E. lenta ATCC 43055a

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 5

Number of strains with surotomycin-specified QC ranges for anaerobic broth microdilution and agar dilution for S. aureus ATCC 29213a

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

MIC ranges determined using confirmatory RangeFinder method and CLSI-approved surotomycin MIC QC ranges

No lot-to-lot variations in Brucella base medium were observed with any of the broth or agar media, and the tests were highly reproducible among the eight laboratories involved. The QC ranges for the control agents with C. difficile ATCC 700057 and E. lenta ATCC 43055 listed in Table 6 were presented to the CLSI Subcommittee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing in January 2012 and were approved, based on the data presented here. These ranges were published in document M100-S24 in January 2014 (24). S. aureus ATCC 29213 anaerobic ranges were approved as supplemental QC ranges and are not listed in document M100-S24.

In summary, the in vitro activity of surotomycin against C. difficile was not affected by altered pH, inoculum size, incubation time, or medium lot variations. The only parameter that appeared to change the in vitro activity of surotomycin notably with the three C. difficile strains studied was [Ca2+]. This result suggests that accurate [Ca2+] determination is crucial for reliable surotomycin susceptibility testing and that a Ca2+ concentration of 50 μg/ml is necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The quality control study was performed by the Clinical Microbiology Institute and funded by Merck and Co., Inc. (Kenilworth, NJ). Medical writing assistance was provided by Dan Rigotti and Cara L. Hunsberger of StemScientific (Lyndhurst, NJ), an Ashfield Company, part of UDG Healthcare plc. This assistance was funded by Merck and Co., Inc.

M.M.T. and S.D.B. are employees of the Clinical Microbiology Institute. L.C. is an employee and stock holder of Merck and Co., Inc. J.D. and D.S. were employees at Eurofins Medinet at the time that the study was performed.

We thank Laura Koeth and Jeanna DiFranco-Fisher from Laboratory Specialists, Inc., for their assistance in quantifying and adjusting calcium levels in the media (broth and agar) used for this study.

We thank the individual laboratories that participated in this study, i.e., Alden Research Center (Culver City, CA), Clinical Microbiology Institute (Wilsonville, OR), Laboratory Specialists, Inc. (Westlake, OH), Loyola University (Maywood, IL), TREK Diagnostic Systems (Cleveland, OH), Tufts-New England Medical Center (Boston, MA), University of Alberta Hospital (Alberta, Canada), and University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester, NY).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 27 October 2015.
    • Returned for modification 20 November 2015.
    • Accepted 6 December 2015.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 16 December 2015.
  • Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02881-15.

  • Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Freeman J,
    2. Bauer MP,
    3. Baines SD,
    4. Corver J,
    5. Fawley WN,
    6. Goorhuis B,
    7. Kuijper EJ,
    8. Wilcox MH
    . 2010. The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 23:529–549. doi:10.1128/CMR.00082-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lessa FC,
    2. Gould CV,
    3. McDonald LC
    . 2012. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis 55(Suppl 2):S65–S70. doi:10.1093/cid/cis319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bassetti M,
    2. Villa G,
    3. Pecori D,
    4. Arzese A,
    5. Wilcox M
    . 2012. Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 10:1405–1423. doi:10.1586/eri.12.135.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Jones AM,
    2. Kuijper EJ,
    3. Wilcox MH
    . 2013. Clostridium difficile: a European perspective. J Infect 66:115–128. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2012.10.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Eggertson L
    . 2005. C. difficile may have killed 2000 in Quebec: study. CMAJ 173:1020–1021. doi:10.1503/cmaj.051226.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Zilberberg MD,
    2. Shorr AF,
    3. Kollef MH
    . 2008. Increase in adult Clostridium difficile-related hospitalizations and case-fatality rate, United States, 2000–2005. Emerg Infect Dis 14:929–931. doi:10.3201/eid1406.071447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Redelings MD,
    2. Sorvillo F,
    3. Mascola L
    . 2007. Increase in Clostridium difficile-related mortality rates, United States, 1999–2004. Emerg Infect Dis 13:1417–1419. doi:10.3201/eid1309.061116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    1. Mitchell BG,
    2. Gardner A
    . 2012. Mortality and Clostridium difficile infection: a review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 1:20. doi:10.1186/2047-2994-1-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Johnson S,
    2. Louie TJ,
    3. Gerding DN,
    4. Cornely OA,
    5. Chasan-Taber S,
    6. Fitts D,
    7. Gelone SP,
    8. Broom C,
    9. Davidson DM
    . 2014. Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis 59:345–354. doi:10.1093/cid/ciu313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pépin J,
    2. Valiquette L,
    3. Gagnon S,
    4. Routhier S,
    5. Brazeau I
    . 2007. Outcomes of Clostridium difficile-associated disease treated with metronidazole or vancomycin before and after the emergence of NAP1/027. Am J Gastroenterol 102:2781–2788. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01539.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Musher DM,
    2. Aslam S,
    3. Logan N,
    4. Nallacheru S,
    5. Bhaila I,
    6. Borchert F,
    7. Hamill RJ
    . 2005. Relatively poor outcome after treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis with metronidazole. Clin Infect Dis 40:1586–1590. doi:10.1086/430311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Louie TJ,
    2. Miller MA,
    3. Mullane KM,
    4. Weiss K,
    5. Lentnek A,
    6. Golan Y,
    7. Gorbach S,
    8. Sears P,
    9. Shue YK
    . 2011. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 364:422–431. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0910812.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cornely OA,
    2. Crook DW,
    3. Esposito R,
    4. Poirier A,
    5. Somero MS,
    6. Weiss K,
    7. Sears P,
    8. Gorbach S
    . 2012. Fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for infection with Clostridium difficile in Europe, Canada, and the USA: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 12:281–289. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70374-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mascio CT,
    2. Mortin LI,
    3. Howland KT,
    4. Van Praagh AD,
    5. Zhang S,
    6. Arya A,
    7. Chuong CL,
    8. Kang C,
    9. Li T,
    10. Silverman JA
    . 2012. In vitro and in vivo characterization of CB-183,315, a novel lipopeptide antibiotic for treatment of Clostridium difficile. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:5023–5030. doi:10.1128/AAC.00057-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Citron DM,
    2. Tyrrell KL,
    3. Merriam CV,
    4. Goldstein EJ
    . 2012. In vitro activities of CB-183,315, vancomycin, and metronidazole against 556 strains of Clostridium difficile, 445 other intestinal anaerobes, and 56 Enterobacteriaceae species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:1613–1615. doi:10.1128/AAC.05655-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Snydman DR,
    2. Jacobus NV,
    3. McDermott LA
    . 2012. Activity of a novel cyclic lipopeptide, CB-183,315, against resistant Clostridium difficile and other Gram-positive aerobic and anaerobic intestinal pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:3448–3452. doi:10.1128/AAC.06257-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mascio CT,
    2. Chesnel L,
    3. Thorne G,
    4. Silverman JA
    . 2014. Surotomycin demonstrates low in vitro frequency of resistance and rapid bactericidal activity in Clostridium difficile, Enterococcus faecalis, and Enterococcus faecium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3976–3982. doi:10.1128/AAC.00124-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Bouillaut L,
    2. McBride S,
    3. Sorg JA,
    4. Scmidt D,
    5. Suarez J,
    6. Chesnel L,
    7. Sonenshein AL
    . 2014. Abstr 54th Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother, abstr C-164.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Alam MZ,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Mascio C,
    4. Chesnel L,
    5. Hurdle JG
    . 2014. Abstr 54th Intersci Conf Antimicrob Agents Chemother, abstr C-170.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cannon K,
    2. Byrne B,
    3. Happe J,
    4. Louie T
    . 2012. Abstr 22nd Eur Congr Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, abstr 2250.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Citron DM,
    2. Goldstein EJC
    . 2011. Reproducibility of broth microdilution and comparison to agar dilution for testing CB-183,315 against clinical isolates of Clostridium difficile. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 70:554–556. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2011.04.012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2007. Methods for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria; approved standard—7th ed. CLSI document M11-A7. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Barry AL,
    2. Fuchs PC,
    3. Brown SD
    . 2001. In vitro activities of daptomycin against 2,789 clinical isolates from 11 North American medical centers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45:1919–1922. doi:10.1128/AAC.45.6.1919-1922.2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2014. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; 24th informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S24. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  25. 25.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Development of in vitro susceptibility testing criteria and quality control parameters; approved guideline—3rd ed. CLSI document M23-A3. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Turnidge J,
    2. Bordash G
    . 2007. Statistical methods for establishing quality control ranges for antibacterial agents in Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute susceptibility testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:2483–2488. doi:10.1128/AAC.01457-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Impact of Variations in Test Method Parameters on In Vitro Activity of Surotomycin against Clostridium difficile and Surotomycin Quality Control Limits for Broth Microdilution and Agar Dilution Susceptibility Testing
Maria M. Traczewski, Jennifer Deane, Daniel Sahm, Steven D. Brown, Laurent Chesnel
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 2016, 54 (3) 749-753; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02881-15

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.
Impact of Variations in Test Method Parameters on In Vitro Activity of Surotomycin against Clostridium difficile and Surotomycin Quality Control Limits for Broth Microdilution and Agar Dilution Susceptibility Testing
(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
Impact of Variations in Test Method Parameters on In Vitro Activity of Surotomycin against Clostridium difficile and Surotomycin Quality Control Limits for Broth Microdilution and Agar Dilution Susceptibility Testing
Maria M. Traczewski, Jennifer Deane, Daniel Sahm, Steven D. Brown, Laurent Chesnel
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Feb 2016, 54 (3) 749-753; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02881-15
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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