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 AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • 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
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
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 AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

Comparison of CO2 Generation (BACTEC) and Viable-Count Methods To Determine the Postantibiotic Effect of Antimycobacterial Agents against Mycobacterium avium Complex

George G. Zhanel, Marilyn H. Saunders, Joyce N. Wolfe, Daryl J. Hoban, James A. Karlowsky, Amin M. Kabani
George G. Zhanel
Department of Medical Microbiology and
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, and
Departments of Clinical Microbiologyand
Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marilyn H. Saunders
Department of Medical Microbiology and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joyce N. Wolfe
Departments of Clinical Microbiologyand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daryl J. Hoban
Department of Medical Microbiology and
Departments of Clinical Microbiologyand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James A. Karlowsky
Department of Medical Microbiology and
Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, and
Departments of Clinical Microbiologyand
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amin M. Kabani
Department of Medical Microbiology and
Departments of Clinical Microbiologyand
Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.1.184
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The postantibiotic effects (PAEs) of antimycobacterial agents determined with a BACTEC TB-460 instrument (CO2 production) and by a traditional viable-count method against Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The longest PAEs following a 2-h exposure to 2× the MIC were induced by amikacin (10.3 h), rifampin (9.7 h), and rifabutin (9.5 h), while the shortest PAEs resulted from clofazimine (1.7 h) and ethambutol (1.1 h) exposure. CO2 generation is a valid and efficient means of determining in vitro PAEs against MAC.

The postantibiotic effect (PAE) is a pharmacodynamic parameter that refers to the persistent suppression of bacterial growth following short exposure to and subsequent complete extracellular removal of an antibiotic (2, 17). Knowledge of this effect can optimize antibiotic dosage regimen design; however, little pharmacodynamic research has been performed with theMycobacterium avium complex (MAC) primarily due to its long generation time and the time required to visualize colonies on solid media (3, 4, 11, 16). The aim of this study was to develop a faster radiometric method based upon CO2 production to determine PAEs by using clinically relevant antibiotics against MAC.

(This work was presented in part at the 37th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 28 September to 1 October 1997.)

Organisms and antibiotics.Cultures of a reference strain of MAC, strain NJ9141, and two clinical isolates, isolates 65319 and 81433, were used. Amikacin (Bristol-Myers Squibb, St. Laurent, Quebec, Canada), azithromycin (Pfizer Canada, Kirkland, Ontario, Canada), clarithromycin (Abbott, Chicago, Ill.), clofazimine (Ciba Geigy, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), ethambutol (Sigma, St. Louis, Mo.), rifabutin (Pharmacia, Columbus, Ohio), rifampin (Marion Merrell Dow, Laval, Quebec, Canada), and sparfloxacin (Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, Pa.) were tested against MAC. All antimicrobial agents were prepared according to the guidelines of the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (12).

MIC determinations.BACTEC 12B (Middlebrook 7H12) broth (10) contains 14C-palmitic acid as a sole source of carbon. Substrate consumption releases 14CO2into the headspace above the medium in the sealed vial. The BACTEC TB-460 instrument detects the amount of radioactivity and records it as a growth index (GI) on a scale of from 0 to 999, simultaneously replacing the evacuated gas with 5 to 10% CO2 in air (9, 15).

By the method of Heifets and coworkers (8), a BACTEC 7H12 vial (4 ml) was inoculated with a 2- to 4-day-old broth culture of MAC adjusted to an optical density equivalent to that of a no. 1 McFarland standard (3 × 108 CFU/ml) and was incubated at 37°C. When the GI of this 7H12 seed vial reached 999 on a daily reading, 0.1 ml was diluted 1:100 in dilution fluid (0.1 ml of polysorbate [fatty acid-free] Tween 80, 1 g of bovine serum albumin factor V, 500 ml of deionized water [pH 6.8]). BACTEC 7H12 vials were inoculated with 0.1 ml of the appropriate drug concentrations and 0.1 ml of the diluted culture, giving an inoculum of between 104 and 105 CFU/ml. Identically processed drug-free growth controls were also maintained. In addition, 0.1 ml of the diluted culture (104 and 105CFU/ml) was further diluted 1:100 to create a 1:100 growth control which was inoculated (0.1 ml) into another BACTEC 7H12 vial. The vials were evacuated by the BACTEC instrument, incubated at 37°C in the dark, and read every 24 h.

The radiometric MIC is the lowest antibiotic concentration inhibiting more than 99% of the bacterial population during 8 days of incubation (5, 8). More specifically, the MIC is the drug concentration in which the final GI reading is less than 50 and the daily GI increases are lower than those for the 1:100 growth control. The MIC test finished when the GI for the 1:100 growth control was greater than 20 for 3 consecutive days within 8 days of incubation. The GI for the undiluted growth control must have reached 999 between days 4 and 8 to ensure that the correct inoculum was used. MIC determinations were repeated two to three times on separate occasions for each drug and each strain. A good correlation between GI readings and the numbers of CFU/per milliliter during active growth has been shown previously (5-7).

PAE determinations.A BACTEC 7H12 seed vial (GI, 999) was prepared as described above for the MIC determinations. Growth control vials and test vials containing 0.1 ml of the drug at the appropriate concentration were inoculated with 0.1 ml from the seed vial (final inoculum, between 106 and 107 CFU/ml). After 2 h of incubation, 0.1-ml aliquots from each vial were diluted 1:100 in dilution fluid to remove the drug. The dilution fluid was then used to inoculate prewarmed vials with 0.1-ml aliquots. Diluted drug controls containing 1:100 dilutions of antimicrobial agent and MAC were monitored to ensure that the PAEs were not due to residual antibiotic levels. Each vial was evaluated by determining plate counts and GI. Aliquots of 0.1 ml were plated immediately after inoculation (0 h) and then after each GI reading. GI readings were taken daily for the first 48 h and then every 12 h until the GI reached 999. Initial colony counts were also verified by plating the dilution fluid. Except at 0 h, both the growth control and test vials were injected with 0.1 ml from a fresh 12B vial to maintain volume. PAE determinations were performed three to five times on different days for each drug and each strain following a 2-h exposure at 2× the MIC. Experiments were also performed three to five times on different days with each strain following a 2-h exposure at 20× the MIC by using clarithromycin, clofazimine, rifabutin, rifampin, and sparfloxacin. The GIs of the vials were read until the GI reached 999 except for the vials containing rifampin and strain 81433, which were sampled for 14 days without evidence of regrowth.

Antibiotic concentrations at 2× the MIC either are achievable in serum, as with amikacin and rifampin, or are attainable in macrophages and tissues (1, 13, 14). The concentrations of macrolides, clofazimine, ethambutol, rifabutin, rifampin, and sparfloxacin in tissue or in cells are known to be severalfold higher than the levels attainable in serum (1, 13). However, it duly noted that in tests of PAEs performed with 20× the MIC, the concentrations used in vitro may exceed in vivo concentrations in tissue or in cells in some cases. MAC was exposed to a macrolide (clarithromycin), clofazimine, rifabutin, rifampin, and sparfloxacin at these high concentrations to evaluate the radiometric method with longer PAEs.

PAE calculations.PAE by viable counts was calculated by using the formula PAE = T − C, where T andC are the times required for the numbers of CFU per milliliter for the test and control cultures, respectively, to increase 1 log10 above the counts observed immediately after drug removal (2, 17). The PAE obtained by using GI was defined and calculated as the difference in times for the test and control cultures to increase 2 log10, which corresponds to an increase in GI of 100, during the 12-h sampling times. Factorial analyses of variance followed by the post-hoc Scheffe test were conducted with the data.

Results.Differences in MICs for the MAC strains of greater than one twofold dilution occurred with azithromycin, clofazimine, rifampin, and sparfloxacin (Table 1). The PAEs determined by the two methods, viable counting and CO2generation (BACTEC) as assessed by determining the GI, after 2-h exposures to antibiotics at 2× the MIC are reported in Table2. The PAEs determined by the two methods were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The results of tests with rifampin against strain 81433 were so inconsistent that these data are not included in Table 2. Figure1 depicts a representative determination of the PAE of rifabutin against strain NJ9141 following a 2-h exposure to rifabutin at 2× the MIC. To compare the durations of PAEs induced by the different antibiotics tested, PAEs were calculated by combining data for all three strains and both methods. The PAEs (mean ± standard deviation) of the antibiotics at 2× the MIC against MAC obtained by combining data for all three strains and both methods were as follows: amikacin, 10.3 ± 1.3 h; azithromycin, 4.6 ± 0.9 h; clarithromycin, 6.8 ± 0.7 h; clofazimine, 1.7 ± 0.9 h; ethambutol, 1.1 ± 0.5 h; rifabutin, 9.5 ± 0.6 h; rifampin, 9.7 ± 0.8 h; and sparfloxacin, 4.9 ± 0.9 h. Differences between antibiotics were observed (P < 0.001) with amikacin (mean, 10.3 h), rifampin (mean, 9.7 h), and rifabutin (mean, 9.5 h), resulting in significantly longer PAEs than those for clofazimine (mean, 1.7 h) and ethambutol (mean, 1.1 h). Differences between strains were tested for by combining PAEs determined by both methods. Among all strains, ethambutol and clofazimine resulted in the shortest PAEs, while rifabutin and rifampin resulted in the longest PAEs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Radiometrically determined MICs of antibiotics for three strains of MACa

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

PAEs of antibiotics against MAC strains following 2-h exposures at 2× the MIC

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Determination of rifabutin PAE against MAC strain NJ9141 following a 2-h exposure to rifabutin at 2× the MIC. ▪, viable count, growth control; ⧫, viable count, rifabutin; •, GI, control; ▴, GI, rifabutin. For viable-count curves, arrows indicate the difference in times for control and exposed cultures to increase 1 log10 CFU/ml above the initial counts. For GI curves, arrows indicate the difference in times for GI, for the growth control and exposed cultures to increase 2 log10 above zero.

The PAEs determined by the two methods after 2-h exposures to antibiotics at 20× the MIC are presented in Table3. The PAEs determined by the two methods were not significantly different (P > 0.05). The PAEs (mean ± standard deviation) of the antibiotics at 20× the MIC against MAC obtained by combining data for all three strains and both methods were as follows: clarithromycin, 18.9 ± 4.6 h; clofazimine, 9.0 ± 3.2 h; rifabutin, 31.2 ± 4.9 h; rifampin, 36.7 ± 3.8 h; and sparfloxacin, 20.6 ± 3.8 h. Significant differences were observed between the PAEs produced for all three strains (P < 0.001). Clofazimine resulted in the shortest PAEs among all strains, while rifampin and rifabutin caused the longest PAEs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

PAEs of antibiotics against MAC following 2-h exposures at 20× the MIC

Discussion.Statistical analysis of our PAE results demonstrated no significant difference between the viable-count method and the CO2 generation method (BACTEC) as assessed by determining the GI. The GI definition of PAE as the difference in times for control and test GIs to increase 2 log10 was developed because lower GI values were less reliable. In addition, GI values above 400 may be meaningless because the next reading, 12 h later, often reaches the maximum of 999. A GI of 100 (or 2 log10) is a value on the straight portion of the MAC growth curve, with meaningful values occurring both above and below that value, allowing for calculation of the PAE according to the GI. The actual colony count at a GI of 100 is between 105 and 106 CFU/ml.

On the basis of our PAE data, it appears that antimycobacterial agents may be divided into three principal groups given the length of the PAE produced following a 2-h exposure at 2× the MIC. Rifampin, rifabutin, and amikacin all produced PAEs of approximately 10 h under these conditions. Azithromycin, clarithromycin, and sparfloxacin conferred intermediate-length PAEs (approximately 4 to 7 h), while clofazimine and ethambutol produced PAEs of 1 to 2 h. Previous work by Tsui and coworkers (16) has also suggested that amikacin induces longer PAEs than ofloxacin against Mycobacterium fortuitum. The longer PAEs induced by exposure to clarithromycin, clofazimine, rifabutin, rifampin, and sparfloxacin, which were performed with 20× the MIC, indicate that the PAEs of these antibiotics against MAC are concentration dependent. Interestingly, the PAEs performed with 2× and 20× the MICs for 2-h exposures generally resulted in a minimal reduction of the initial colony counts. The differences noted between strains may be due to various affinities between antibiotics and their cellular binding sites.

We have demonstrated that a radiometric method of determining PAEs for MAC is reliable and is also less time-consuming and labor intensive than the viable-count method. Knowledge of PAE may be helpful in guiding dosage regimens for mycobacterial infections, including MAC infections. MAC is an important pathogen associated with disseminated infection in AIDS patients, as well as with localized pulmonary disease (6). Tailoring the dosage regimen by using PAE data may help to optimize the efficacy and decrease the toxicity of treatments for MAC infections.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported in part by the PMAC-Health Research Foundation and the Medical Research Council of Canada. James Karlowsky holds a MRC/PMAC-HRF fellowship. George Zhanel holds a Merck Frosst Chair in Pharmaceutical Microbiology.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 31 July 1997.
    • Returned for modification 27 August 1997.
    • Accepted 27 October 1997.
  • Copyright © 1998 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Alford R. H.,
    2. Wallace R. J.
    Antimycobacterial agents Mandell, Douglas and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases 4th ed. Mandell G. L., Bennett J. E., Dolin R. 1995 389 400 Churchill Livingstone New York, N.Y
  2. 2.↵
    1. Craig W. A.,
    2. Gudmundsson S.
    Postantibiotic effect Antibiotics in laboratory medicine 4th ed. Lorian V. 1996 296 329 The Williams & Wilkins Co. Baltimore, Md
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dickinson J. M.,
    2. Mitchison D. A.
    In vitro studies on the choice of drugs for intermittent chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Tubercle 47 1966 370 380
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Dickinson J. M.,
    2. Mitchison D. A.
    Observations in vitro on the suitability of pyrazinamide for intermittent chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Tubercle 51 1970 389 396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Heifets L. B.
    Dilemmas and realities in drug susceptibility testing of M. avium-intracellulare and other slowly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria Drug susceptibility in the chemotherapy of mycobacterial infections. Heifets L. B. 1991 123 146 CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Fla
  6. 6.↵
    1. Heifets L. B.,
    2. Iseman M. D.,
    3. Lindholm-Levy P. J.
    Ethambutol MICs and MBCs for Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 30 1986 927 932
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Heifets L. B.,
    2. Iseman M. D.,
    3. Lindholm-Levy P. J.,
    4. Kanes W.
    Determination of ansamycin MICs for Mycobacterium avium complex in liquid medium by radiometric and conventional methods. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 28 1985 570 575
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Heifets L. B.,
    2. Lindholm-Levy P. J.,
    3. Libonati J.,
    4. Hooper N.,
    5. Laszlo A.,
    6. Cynamon M.,
    7. Siddiqi S.
    Radiometric broth macrodilution method for determination of minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) with Mycobacterium avium complex isolates (proposed guidelines) 1993 1 24 National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine Denver, Col
  9. 9.↵
    1. Inderlied C. B.
    Antimycobacterial agents: in vitro susceptibility testing, spectra of activity, mechanisms of action and resistance, and assays for activity in biological fluids Antibiotics in laboratory medicine 4th ed. Lorian V. 1996 127 175 The Williams & Wilkins Co. Baltimore, Md
  10. 10.↵
    1. Middlebrook G.,
    2. Reggiardo G. Z.,
    3. Tigertt W. D.
    Automatable radiometric detection of growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in selective media. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 15 1977 1067 1069
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Mitchison D. A.,
    2. Dickinson J. M.
    Laboratory aspects of intermittent drug therapy. Postgrad. Med. J. 47 1971 737 741
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically. M7-A4 4th ed. 1997 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Villanova, Pa
  13. 13.↵
    1. Peloquin C. A.
    Antituberculous drugs: pharmacokinetics Drug susceptibility in the chemotherapy of mycobacterial infections. Heifets L. B. 1991 59 88 CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Fla
  14. 14.↵
    1. Sanford J. P.,
    2. Gilbert D. N.,
    3. Sande M. A.
    The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy 26th ed. 1996 Antimicrobial Therapy Inc. Dallas, Tex
  15. 15.↵
    1. Siddiqi S. H.
    Radiometric (BACTEC) tests for slowly growing mycobacteria Clinical microbiology procedures handbook Isenberg H. D. 1 1994 1 25 American Society for Microbiology Washington, D.C
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Tsui S. Y. T.,
    2. Yew W. W.,
    3. Li M. S. K.,
    4. Chan C. Y.,
    5. Cheng A. F. B.
    Postantibiotic effects of amikacin and ofloxacin on Mycobacterium fortuitum. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 37 1993 1001 1003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Zhanel G. G.,
    2. Hoban D. J.,
    3. Harding G. K. M.
    The postantibiotic effect: a review of in vitro and in vivo data. DICP Ann. Pharmacother. 25 1991 153 163
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Comparison of CO2 Generation (BACTEC) and Viable-Count Methods To Determine the Postantibiotic Effect of Antimycobacterial Agents against Mycobacterium avium Complex
George G. Zhanel, Marilyn H. Saunders, Joyce N. Wolfe, Daryl J. Hoban, James A. Karlowsky, Amin M. Kabani
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 1998, 42 (1) 184-187; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.1.184

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 Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 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 CO2 Generation (BACTEC) and Viable-Count Methods To Determine the Postantibiotic Effect of Antimycobacterial Agents against Mycobacterium avium Complex
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparison of CO2 Generation (BACTEC) and Viable-Count Methods To Determine the Postantibiotic Effect of Antimycobacterial Agents against Mycobacterium avium Complex
George G. Zhanel, Marilyn H. Saunders, Joyce N. Wolfe, Daryl J. Hoban, James A. Karlowsky, Amin M. Kabani
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 1998, 42 (1) 184-187; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.42.1.184
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antitubercular agents
Carbon Dioxide
Mycobacterium avium complex

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@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: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596