Lactobacilli play a crucial role as probiotics and as starter cultures in the production of fermented foods. Although lactobacilli are a technologically useful and beneficial group of bacteria, a few members of them have been rarely correlated with bacterial infections. Correspondingly, clinicians are interested in the antimicrobial susceptibility of lactobacilli. In addition, antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is also relevant for commercially applied lactobacilli as bacterial strains harboring transferable antibiotic resistance genes should not be used in fermented and probiotic foods. Therefore, two methods were developed by different organizations, which were compared within this study. For this purpose, 22 Lactobacillus-type strains were tested for their antimicrobial susceptibility to 16 antibiotics following the procedures of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the International Organization of Standardization (ISO)/International Dairy Federation (IDF). Crucial discrepancies between both procedures were detected mainly due to the different AST media. Hence, half of the strains tested did not consistently grow in the CLSI medium, whereas all showed evaluable growth in the ISO/IDF medium. However, some antibiotics were influenced by the latter medium. In particular, low levels of essential agreement between both methods were obtained with seven antibiotics. Accordingly, different interpretative criteria are needed for both procedures to distinguish resistant from susceptible strains.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaqueroF. 1990. European standards for antibiotic susceptibility testing: towards a theoretical consensus. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 9:492–495.
2.
BarryA.L., RellerL.B., MillerG.H., WashingtonJ.A., SchoenknectF.D., PetersonL.R., HareR.S., and KnappC.. 1992. Revision of standards for adjusting the cation content of Mueller-Hinton broth for testing susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to aminoglycosides. J. Clin. Microbiol., 30:585–589.
3.
Beena DivyaJ., Kulangara VarshaK., Madhavan NampoothiriK., IsmailB., and PandeyA.2012. Probiotic fermented foods for health benefit. Eng. Life Sci., 12:377–390.
4.
BulajicS., and MijacevicZ.2011. Antimicrobial susceptibility of lactic acid bacteria isolated from sombor cheese. Acta Vet. Beograd., 61:247–258.
5.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). 2006. Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disc susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria; approved guideline. M45-A, 1st ed., CLSI, Wayne, PA.
6.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). 2010. Methods for antimicrobial dilution and disc susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria; approved guideline. M45-A2, 2nd ed., CLSI, Wayne, PA.
7.
CortesP.R., PiñasG.E., Albarracin OrioA.G., and EcheniqueJ.R.. 2008. Subinhibitory concentrations of penicillin increase the mutation rate to optochin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 62:973–977.
8.
DepardieuF., PodglajenI., LeclercqR., CollatzE., and CourvalinP.2007. Modes and modulations of antibiotic resistance gene expression. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 20:79–114.
9.
European Commission (EC). 2003. Opinion of the scientific committee on animal nutrition on the criteria for assessing the safety of micro-organisms resistant to antibiotics of human clinical and veterinary importance. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scan/out108_en.pdf, accessed August, 29, 2013(Online.)
10.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on the introduction of a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach for assessment of selected microorganisms referred to EFSA. EFSA J., 587:1–16.
11.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2012. Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance. EFSA J., 10:2740
12.
FerraroM.J.2001. Should we reevaluate antibiotic breakpoints?. Clin. Infect. Dis., 33:S227–S229.
13.
FradianiP.A., PetruccaA., AscenzioniF., Di NucciG., TeggiA., BilanciniS., and CiprianiP.. 2010. Endocarditis caused by Lactobacillus jensenii in an immunocompetent patient. J. Med. Microbiol., 59:607–609.
14.
FukaoM., TomitaH., YakabeT., NomuraT., IkeY., and YajimaN.2009. Assessment of antibiotic resistance in probiotic strain Lactobacillus brevis KB290. J. Food Prot., 72:1923–1929.
15.
GeB., JiangP., HanF., SalehN.K., DhimanN., FedorkoD.P., NelsonN.A., and MengJ.. 2007. Identification and antimicrobial susceptibility of lactic acid bacteria from retail fermented foods. J. Food Prot., 70:2606–2612.
16.
GiraffaG. 2012. Selection and design of lactic acid bacteria probiotic cultures. Eng. Life Sci., 12:391–398.
17.
GoldsteinE.J., SutterV.L., KwokY.Y., LewisR.P., and FinegoldS.M.. 1981. Effect of carbon dioxide on in vitro susceptibility of anaerobic bacteria to erythromycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 20:705–708.
18.
Hamilton-MillerJ.M., and ShahS.. 1998. Vancomycin susceptibility as an aid to the identification of lactobacilli. Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 26:153–154.
19.
HuysG., D'HaeneK., CnockaertM., TosiL., DanielsenM., FlórezA.B., MättöJ., AxelssonL., KorhonenJ., MayrhoferS., EgervärnM., GiacominiM., and VandammeP.. 2010. Intra- and interlaboratory performances of two commercial antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods for bifidobacteria and nonenterococcal lactic acid bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 54:2567–2574.
20.
HuysG., D'HaeneK., and SwingsJ.2002. Influence of the culture medium on antibiotic susceptibility testing of food-associated lactic acid bacteria with the agar overlay disc diffusion method. Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 34:402–406.
21.
International Organization of Standardization/International Dairy Federation (ISO 10932/IDF 223). 2010. Milk and milk products. Determination of the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antibiotics applicable to bifidobacteria and non-enterococcal lactic acid bacteria (LAB), 1st ed., ISO and IDF, Geneva, Switzerland.
22.
JorgensenJ.H., and HindlerJ.F.. 2007. New consensus guidelines from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of infrequently isolated or fastidious bacteria. Clin. Infect. Dis., 44:280–286.
23.
JorgensenJ.H., TurndigeJ.D., and WashingtonJ.A.. 1999. Antibacterial susceptibility tests: dilution and disk diffusion methods. In MurrayP.R., BaronE.J., PfallerM.A., TenoverF.C., and YolkenR.H. (eds.), Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 7th ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1526–1543.
24.
KlareI., KonstabelC., Müller-BertlingS., ReissbrodtR., HuysG., VancanneytM., SwingsJ., GoossensH., and WitteW.2005. Evaluation of new broth media for microdilution antibiotic susceptibility testing of lactobacilli, pediococci, lactococci, and bifidobacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 71:8982–8986.
25.
OlssonliljequistB., and NordC.E.1994. Methods for susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria. Clin. Infect. Dis., 18:S293–S296.
26.
PhillipsI. 1998. The subtleties of antibiotic resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 42:5–12.
27.
TalwalkarA., and KailasapathyK.2004. The role of oxygen in the viability of probiotic bacteria with reference to L. acidophilus and Bifidobacterium spp. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol., 5:1–8.
28.
VankerckhovenV., HuysG., VancanneytM., VaelC., KlareI., RomondM.-B., EntenzaJ.M., MoreillonP., WindR.D., KnolJ., WiertzE., PotB., VaughanE.E., KahlmeterG., and GoossensH.. 2008. Biosafety assessment of probiotics used for human consumption: recommendations from the EU-PROSAFE project. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 19:102–114.
29.
WexlerH.M.1991. Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria: myth, magic, or method?. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 4:470–484.
30.
WexlerH.M.1993. Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria—the state of the art. Clin. Infect. Dis., 16:S328–S333.
