Characteristics of clinical Acinetobacter spp. strains
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
12503407
DOI
10.1007/bf02818801
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- Acinetobacter klasifikace účinky léků metabolismus fyziologie MeSH
- antibakteriální látky farmakologie MeSH
- bakteriální adheze * MeSH
- bakteriální léková rezistence MeSH
- baktericidní aktivita krve * MeSH
- histamin metabolismus MeSH
- hydrofobní a hydrofilní interakce MeSH
- infekce bakteriemi rodu Acinetobacter mikrobiologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lipasa metabolismus MeSH
- mikrobiální testy citlivosti MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Názvy látek
- antibakteriální látky MeSH
- histamin MeSH
- lipasa 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.
Zobrazit více v 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
