Characteristics of clinical Acinetobacter spp. strains
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
12503407
DOI
10.1007/bf02818801
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Acinetobacter classification drug effects metabolism physiology MeSH
- Anti-Bacterial Agents pharmacology MeSH
- Bacterial Adhesion * MeSH
- Drug Resistance, Bacterial MeSH
- Blood Bactericidal Activity * MeSH
- Histamine metabolism MeSH
- Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions MeSH
- Acinetobacter Infections microbiology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Lipase metabolism MeSH
- Microbial Sensitivity Tests MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Anti-Bacterial Agents MeSH
- Histamine MeSH
- Lipase MeSH
Resistance to 13 antimicrobial agents, resistance to the bactericidal activity of human serum, hydrophobic properties, lipolytic activity and production of histamine were determined in a total of 50 clinical Acinetobacter spp. strains (A. baumannii, A. lwoffii, A. calcoaceticus, A. haemolyticus). None of the tested isolates showed resistance to meropenem and none of A. lwoffii, A. calcoaceticus and A. haemolyticus strains were resistant to amikacin. Forty-six strains (92%) manifested resistance to ampicillin, 90% to cefuroxime, 68% to ciprofloxacin, 58% to piperacillin, gentamicin and cotrimaxazole, 50% to cefotaxime, 44% to amikacin, 42% to ceftazidime, 38% to piperacillin/tazobactam, 24% to netilmicin and 16% to ampicillin/sulbactam. In particular, A. baumannii and A. calcoaceticus strains showed considerable antibiotic resistance. Thirty-one isolates (62%) showed serum resistance; intermediate sensitivity was found in 19 isolates (38%). The majority of the strains (72%) demonstrated a strongly hydrophobic character; 16% of isolates exhibited moderate hydrophobic properties. All strains showed lipolytic activity; production of histamine was detected in 14 of 43 strains examined.
See more in PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1993 Apr;37(4):750-3 PubMed
APMIS. 1993 Nov;101(11):815-25 PubMed
Mol Microbiol. 1995 Jan;15(1):87-95 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Aug;66(8):3262-8 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 May 15;32 Suppl 2:S104-13 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 1999 Mar;48(3):287-296 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1988 Aug;7(4):505-10 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Mar;37(3):758-61 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1988 May;26(5):979-84 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Feb;38(2):526-9 PubMed
Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Sep;31(3):690-7 PubMed
Chemotherapy. 1999 Sep-Oct;45(5):349-59 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1979;24(2):143-52 PubMed
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998 Feb;17(2):73-7 PubMed
J Med Microbiol. 1988 Sep;27(1):11-5 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2001 Apr;7(4):218-26 PubMed
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Jun;37(6):2109-10 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1994;39(4):337-41 PubMed
Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1968;72(2):263-76 PubMed
APMIS. 1996 Sep;104(9):659-65 PubMed
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996 Apr;9(2):148-65 PubMed
Microbiol Immunol. 1986;30(7):645-57 PubMed
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002 Apr;49(4):651-9 PubMed
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997 Aug;28(4):183-6 PubMed
Acta Paediatr. 1999 Jul;88(7):772-5 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 Aug;44(2):447-52 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1999;44(3):267-70 PubMed
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998 Sep;64(9):3499-502 PubMed
