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

Comparison of Different Phenotypic Approaches To Screen and Detect mecC-Harboring Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

André Kriegeskorte, Evgeny A. Idelevich, Andreas Schlattmann, Franziska Layer, Birgit Strommenger, Olivier Denis, Gavin K. Paterson, Mark A. Holmes, Guido Werner, Karsten Becker
Paul Bourbeau, Editor
André Kriegeskorte
aInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evgeny A. Idelevich
aInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Schlattmann
aInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Franziska Layer
bRobert-Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Birgit Strommenger
bRobert-Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivier Denis
cLaboratoire de Microbiologie, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gavin K. Paterson
dRoyal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark A. Holmes
eDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guido Werner
fRobert-Koch-Institute, Wernigerode Branch, Wernigerode, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karsten Becker
aInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Karsten Becker
Paul Bourbeau
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00826-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Similar to mecA, mecC confers resistance against beta-lactams, leading to the phenotype of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). However, mecC-harboring MRSA strains pose special difficulties in their detection. The aim of this study was to assess and compare different phenotypic systems for screening, identification, and susceptibility testing of mecC-positive MRSA isolates. A well-characterized collection of mecC-positive S. aureus isolates (n = 111) was used for evaluation. Routinely used approaches were studied to determine their suitability to correctly identify mecC-harboring MRSA, including three (semi)automated antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) systems and five selective chromogenic agar plates. Additionally, a cefoxitin disk diffusion test and an oxacillin broth microdilution assay were examined. All mecC-harboring MRSA isolates were able to grow on all chromogenic MRSA screening plates tested. Detection of these isolates in AST systems based on cefoxitin and/or oxacillin testing yielded overall positive agreements with the mecC genotype of 97.3% (MicroScan WalkAway; Siemens), 91.9% (Vitek 2; bioMérieux), and 64.9% (Phoenix, BD). The phenotypic resistance pattern most frequently observed by AST devices was “cefoxitin resistance/oxacillin susceptibility,” ranging from 54.1% (Phoenix) and 83.8% (Vitek 2) to 92.8% (WalkAway). The cefoxitin disk diffusion and oxacillin broth microdilution assays categorized 100% and 61.3% of isolates to be MRSA, respectively. The chromogenic media tested confirmed their suitability to reliably screen for mecC-harboring MRSA. The AST systems showed false-negative results with varying numbers, misidentifying mecC-harboring MRSA as methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. This study underlines cefoxitin's status as the superior surrogate mecC-positive MRSA marker.

INTRODUCTION

The still worrying occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in many parts of the world poses a major challenge to health care systems by increasing the burden of disease. Rapid and effective MRSA identification and susceptibility testing are paramount to prevent further dissemination and to adapt antimicrobial treatment. In 2011, a novel PBP 2a-encoding mecA homologue designated mecC (originally mecALGA251) was reported with homologies on the nucleotide and protein levels of only 70% and 63%, respectively (1, 2). Later mecC was confirmed as the genetic determinant that confers methicillin resistance in S. aureus for those isolates (3). Farm and wildlife animals have been revealed as reservoirs for mecC-harboring MRSA (4, 5), and the zoonotic potential of these livestock-associated MRSA has been shown (6–8).

The limited homology of mecC to mecA and their respective proteins led to major diagnostic challenges in identification and susceptibility testing of mecC-harboring MRSA (9). In addition to obvious but easily resolved difficulties in targeting the divergent mecC nucleotide sequence by DNA-based diagnostic tests (10, 11), phenotypic approaches exhibited considerable difficulties due to comparatively low oxacillin MICs (1, 7, 8), which may be caused by differences in the mecA and mecC promoters (3). Moreover, low homology between the encoded PBP 2a proteins is the reason for the failure of existing PBP 2a agglutination tests to detect mecC-positive isolates (5, 7, 8).

In this study, we compared several routinely applied diagnostic approaches in their capability to identify mecC-harboring MRSA strains from a comprehensive, heterogeneous, and representative collection. In detail, we compared (i) three (semi)automated susceptibility testing (AST) systems, (ii) five selective chromogenic agar plates (MRSA screening plates), (iii) a cefoxitin disk diffusion test, and (iv) oxacillin broth microdilution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A large set of mecC-harboring MRSA isolates (n = 111) from human and animal specimens isolated in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Belgium were included in the study. All isolates were confirmed as mecC positive by PCR (12) and characterized by spa typing (t843, n = 51; t6292, n = 13; t1736, n = 6; t1535, n = 4; t3391, n = 3; t978, t9165, t742, t6902, t6521, t6220, t5930, t1773, and t11706, n = 2 each; t9910, t9738, t9280, t9123, t8842, t7914, t7603, t7189, t6300, t524, t13233, t1207, t11702, t11290, t11120, and not typeable, n = 1 each). Isolates were of human (n = 80), unknown (n = 24), bovine/bulk milk (n = 4), sheep (n = 2), and environmental (n = 1) origins. No copy isolates were included.

The following selective chromogenic agar plates were inoculated with a single colony from overnight blood agar plate cultures: (i) Oxoid Brilliance MRSA 2, (ii) bioMérieux chromID MRSA, (iii) BD BBL CHROMagar MRSA II, (iv) Bio-Rad MRSA Select, and (v) MAST Diagnostica CHROMagar MRSA. To simulate potentially low inocula of clinical specimens, nine isolates with different spa types (t843, t978, t1207, t1535, t1736, t391, t5930, t6292, and t6902) were each adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard turbidity, and serial dilutions with the final dilution factor of 105 were prepared. Subsequently, 100 μl of the final dilutions was used to inoculate all chromogenic media (except MRSA Select from Bio-Rad due to supply constraints) and blood agar plates for growth control in triplicate. S. aureus strains USA300 and ATCC 29213 were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Growth was evaluated after 24 h and 48 h. Automated systems were inoculated from the same plates as chromogenic media. Automated systems for susceptibility testing were used according to the manufacturers' recommendations: i.e., BD Phoenix (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany) was executed with test panel PMIC-72, Vitek 2 (bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) with test panel AST P580, and MicroScan WalkAway 96 Plus (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Eschborn, Germany) with test panel Pos MIC 28.

Cefoxitin disk diffusion assays (cefoxitin discs, 30 μg; bestbion dx, Cologne, Germany) were performed according to EUCAST and using S. aureus ATCC 29213 as control. The EUCAST guidelines (version 7.0, valid from 1 January 2017 [inhibition zone of <22 mm, resistant]) and CLSI criteria (M100-S27, 27th ed., January 2017 [inhibition zone of ≤21 mm, resistant]) were followed in the interpretation of the results.

Oxacillin (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany) susceptibility was determined by broth microdilution, using a final inoculum of approximately 5 × 105 CFU/ml and S. aureus ATCC 29213 as quality control. MICs were interpreted according to EUCAST guidelines (version 7.0, valid from 1 January 2017 [MIC of >2 μg/ml]) and CLSI criteria (M100-S27, 27th ed., January 2017 [MIC of ≥4 μg/ml]).

RESULTS

Applicability of AST systems to detect mecC-positive isolates.Analyzing resistance toward cefoxitin and oxacillin by AST systems, different susceptibility patterns were observed. For all systems, the most frequently detected pattern was the combination of the categorization “cefoxitin-resistant, but oxacillin-susceptible,” ranging from 54.1% (Phoenix) and 83.8% (Vitek 2) to 92.8% (WalkAway) of all tested isolates (Table 1). In the WalkAway system, three isolates (2.7%) were categorized as cefoxitin and oxacillin susceptible, whereas in the Vitek 2 and the Phoenix system, 9 isolates (8.1%) and 39 isolates (35.1%), respectively, were categorized as susceptible to both. One isolate was categorized as cefoxitin susceptible and oxacillin resistant by the Phoenix system.

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

Susceptibility pattern testing of cefoxitin and oxacillin for mecC-positive S. aureus isolates

The MIC90 values for oxacillin were >2 μg/ml (Phoenix), 2 μg/ml (MicroScan), and 2 μg/ml (Vitek 2). The MIC90 values for cefoxitin were >8 μg/ml (Phoenix) and >4 μg/ml (WalkAway); Vitek 2 detected 91.9% of isolates as resistant to cefoxitin without reporting a MIC value. Less than 10% of isolates were tested resistant to both cefoxitin and oxacillin (Phoenix, 9.9%; MicroScan, 4.5%; Vitek 2, 8.1%).

Applicability of chromogenic MRSA screening plates for detection of mecC-positive isolates.The vast majority of isolates showed typical growth on all tested cefoxitin-containing chromogenic MRSA screening plates. Reduced growth (i.e., smaller colonies, but with characteristic MRSA-indicating color) was observed for a small fraction of isolates (Table 2). Oxoid Brilliance MRSA 2 plates showed a mixed phenotypic appearance with blue (presumptive for MRSA) and white colonies for all isolates.

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

Growth on selective chromogenic agar media

Additionally, a subset of nine isolates and positive control strain S. aureus USA300, tested in triplicate, showed growth on screening plates from four manufacturers using an inoculum of 100 μl from a 10−5 dilution of a 0.5 McFarland standard suspension (approximately 100 CFU/plate). MRSA Select agar plates (Bio-Rad) were not tested in this additional experiment due to supply unavailability. Negative control S. aureus ATCC 29213 exhibited no growth on chromogenic agar plates.

Applicability of cefoxitin disk diffusion and oxacillin broth microdilution test for detection of mecC-positive isolates.The cefoxitin disk diffusion test detected mecC-encoded methicillin resistance in 111/111 isolates (i.e., 100%). The oxacillin broth microdilution resulted in a categorization of 43 susceptible (38.7%) and 68 resistant (61.3%) isolates.

DISCUSSION

The occurrence of mecC-harboring MRSA has been described in humans, companion animals, and livestock in several European countries (13). While the overall prevalence of these isolates seems to be low, it has been suspected that mecC prevalence might be underestimated because of its misidentification as methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) due to its borderline resistant phenotype. Additionally, negative results in MRSA PCR and agglutination assays if only the mecA gene (i.e., the gene encoding PBP 2a) is targeted, hamper mecC-harboring MRSA detection efforts. Furthermore, it has been shown that the prevalence of mecC-positive S. aureus isolates increased at least in Denmark and that mecC-positive MRSA isolates are also capable of causing infections in humans (4). A reliable detection of these isolates is important to ensure both an adequate treatment of mecC-harboring MRSA infections and the use of the same prevention measures as already established for mecA-harboring MRSA. This study revealed that all chromogenic media and the cefoxitin disk diffusion test were able to categorize all mecC-positive MRSA strains properly. Additionally, we were able to show for a subset of strains that inocula as low as approximately 100 CFU per plate result in growth on chromogenic media, indicating that a recovery from clinical swab samples with low MRSA loads can likely be achieved. However, these findings are limited because they could mimic the usual clinical specimen as encountered in the laboratory only partially. To various degrees, all three AST systems displayed limitations in the ability to detect mecC MRSA. While the detection rate of WalkAway (97.3%) was also high, Vitek 2 (91.9%) and particularly the Phoenix system (64.9%) showed considerably lower rates. A study by Cartwright et al. showed a detection rate of 88.7% (n = 62 mecC-positive MRSA isolates) for the cefoxitin-resistant/oxacillin-susceptible pattern using the Vitek 2 (14); similarly, this AST device detected this pattern in 83.8% of the tested isolates in our study. The oxacillin broth microdilution performed poorly, showing a detection rate of only 61.3%. This is in accordance with previous studies (15).

In conclusion, automated systems may fail to detect mecC-encoded methicillin resistance, while all chromogenic screening media displayed colonies presumptive for MRSA growth. In comparison to oxacillin, cefoxitin was confirmed as superior surrogate marker to detect mecC-harboring MRSA isolates. Discrepancies between positive screening results based on the use of chromogenic media and categorization as methicillin susceptible by AST systems should be verified by molecular assays or disk diffusion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to B. Grünastel and F. Erdmann for expert technical assistance.

This work was supported in part by grants BMBF 03ZZ0802H and 03ZZ0805B from the German Ministry for Education and Research to K.B. and was performed under the auspices of the Paul Ehrlich Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie, Section “Basics” and its working groups “Susceptibility testing and resistance” (G.W.) and “Staphylococcal infections” (K.B.).

The Phoenix (BD) and MicroScan WalkAway (Siemens) instruments were provided free of charge during the study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 23 May 2017.
    • Returned for modification 7 July 2017.
    • Accepted 18 September 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 4 October 2017.
  • For a commentary on this article, see https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01549-17.

  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. García-Álvarez L,
    2. Holden MT,
    3. Lindsay G,
    4. Webb CR,
    5. Brown DF,
    6. Curran MD,
    7. Walpole E,
    8. Brooks K,
    9. Pickard DJ,
    10. Teale C,
    11. Parkhill J,
    12. Bentley SD,
    13. Edwards GF,
    14. Girvan EK,
    15. Kearns AM,
    16. Pichon B,
    17. Hill RL,
    18. Larsen AR,
    19. Skov LR,
    20. Peacock SJ,
    21. Maskell DJ,
    22. Holmes MA
    . 2011. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with a novel mecA homologue in human and bovine populations in the UK and Denmark: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis 11:595–603. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70126-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Shore AC,
    2. Deasy EC,
    3. Slickers P,
    4. Brennan G,
    5. O'Connell B,
    6. Monecke S,
    7. Ehricht R,
    8. Coleman DC
    . 2011. Detection of staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec type XI carrying highly divergent mecA, mecI, mecR1, blaZ, and ccr genes in human clinical clonal complex 130 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:3765–3773. doi:10.1128/AAC.00187-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ballhausen B,
    2. Kriegeskorte A,
    3. Schleimer N,
    4. Peters G,
    5. Becker K
    . 2014. The mecA homolog mecC confers resistance against beta-lactams in Staphylococcus aureus irrespective of the genetic strain background. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3791–3798. doi:10.1128/AAC.02731-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Petersen A,
    2. Stegger M,
    3. Heltberg O,
    4. Christensen J,
    5. Zeuthen A,
    6. Knudsen LK,
    7. Urth T,
    8. Sorum M,
    9. Schouls L,
    10. Larsen J,
    11. Skov R,
    12. Larsen AR
    . 2013. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carrying the novel mecC gene in Denmark corroborates a zoonotic reservoir with transmission to humans. Clin Microbiol Infect 19:E16–E22. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12036.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Paterson GK,
    2. Morgan FJ,
    3. Harrison EM,
    4. Peacock SJ,
    5. Parkhill J,
    6. Zadoks RN,
    7. Holmes MA
    . 2014. Prevalence and properties of mecC methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in bovine bulk tank milk in Great Britain. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:598–602. doi:10.1093/jac/dkt417.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kerschner H,
    2. Harrison EM,
    3. Hartl R,
    4. Holmes MA,
    5. Apfalter P
    . 2015. First report of mecC MRSA in human samples from Austria: molecular characteristics and clinical data. New Microbes New Infect 3:4–9. doi:10.1016/j.nmni.2014.11.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Cuny C,
    2. Layer F,
    3. Strommenger B,
    4. Witte W
    . 2011. Rare occurrence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC130 with a novel mecA homologue in humans in Germany. PLoS One 6:e24360. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kriegeskorte A,
    2. Ballhausen B,
    3. Idelevich EA,
    4. Köck R,
    5. Friedrich AW,
    6. Karch H,
    7. Peters G,
    8. Becker K
    . 2012. Human MRSA isolates with novel genetic homolog, Germany. Emerg Infect Dis 18:1016–1018. doi:10.3201/eid1806.110910.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Becker K,
    2. Ballhausen B,
    3. Köck R,
    4. Kriegeskorte A
    . 2014. Methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus isolates: the “mec alphabet” with specific consideration of mecC, a mec homolog associated with zoonotic S. aureus lineages. Int J Med Microbiol 304:794–804. doi:10.1016/j.ijmm.2014.06.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Becker K,
    2. Larsen AR,
    3. Skov RL,
    4. Paterson GK,
    5. Holmes MA,
    6. Sabat AJ,
    7. Friedrich AW,
    8. Köck R,
    9. Peters G,
    10. Kriegeskorte A
    . 2013. Evaluation of a modular multiplex-PCR methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detection assay adapted for mecC detection. J Clin Microbiol 51:1917–1919. doi:10.1128/JCM.00075-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Becker K,
    2. Denis O,
    3. Roisin S,
    4. Mellmann A,
    5. Idelevich EA,
    6. Knaack D,
    7. van Alen S,
    8. Kriegeskorte A,
    9. Köck R,
    10. Schaumburg F,
    11. Peters G,
    12. Ballhausen B
    . 2016. Detection of mecA- and mecC-positive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates by the new Xpert MRSA Gen 3 PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol 54:180–184. doi:10.1128/JCM.02081-15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cuny C,
    2. Wieler LH,
    3. Witte E
    . 2015. Livestock-associated MRSA: the impact on humans. Antibiotics (Basel) 4:521–543. doi:10.3390/antibiotics4040521.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Paterson GK,
    2. Harrison EM,
    3. Holmes MA
    . 2014. The emergence of mecC methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Trends Microbiol 22:42–47. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2013.11.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Cartwright EJP,
    2. Paterson GK,
    3. Raven KE,
    4. Harrison EM,
    5. Gouliouris T,
    6. Kearns A,
    7. Pichon B,
    8. Edwards G,
    9. Skov RL,
    10. Larsen AR,
    11. Holmes MA,
    12. Parkhill J,
    13. Peacock SJ,
    14. Török ME
    . 2013. Use of Vitek 2 antimicrobial susceptibility profile to identify mecC in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 51:2732–2734. doi:10.1128/JCM.00847-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Skov R,
    2. Larsen AR,
    3. Kearns A,
    4. Holmes M,
    5. Teale C,
    6. Edwards G,
    7. Hill R
    . 2014. Phenotypic detection of mecC-MRSA: cefoxitin is more reliable than oxacillin. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:133–135. doi:10.1093/jac/dkt341.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of Different Phenotypic Approaches To Screen and Detect mecC-Harboring Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
André Kriegeskorte, Evgeny A. Idelevich, Andreas Schlattmann, Franziska Layer, Birgit Strommenger, Olivier Denis, Gavin K. Paterson, Mark A. Holmes, Guido Werner, Karsten Becker
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2017, 56 (1) e00826-17; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00826-17

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.
Comparison of Different Phenotypic Approaches To Screen and Detect mecC-Harboring Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(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
Comparison of Different Phenotypic Approaches To Screen and Detect mecC-Harboring Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
André Kriegeskorte, Evgeny A. Idelevich, Andreas Schlattmann, Franziska Layer, Birgit Strommenger, Olivier Denis, Gavin K. Paterson, Mark A. Holmes, Guido Werner, Karsten Becker
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Dec 2017, 56 (1) e00826-17; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00826-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

MRSA
Staphylococcus aureus
broth microdilution
cefoxitin
chromogenic media
disk diffusion
mecC
methicillin resistance
oxacillin
susceptibility testing

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