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
Experimental Therapeutics

Activity of Glycopeptides against Staphylococcus aureus Infection in a Rabbit Endocarditis Model: MICs Do Not Predict In Vivo Efficacy

Nathalie Asseray, Cedric Jacqueline, Virginie Le Mabecque, Eric Batard, Denis Bugnon, Gilles Potel, Jocelyne Caillon
Nathalie Asseray
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cedric Jacqueline
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Virginie Le Mabecque
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Batard
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Denis Bugnon
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gilles Potel
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jocelyne Caillon
Laboratoire Antibiologie, UPRES EA 3826, Nantes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jcaillon@chu-nantes.fr
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.2.857-859.2005
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The in vivo efficacy of vancomycin and teicoplanin against five Staphylococcus aureus strains with different susceptibilities to them and methicillin was studied. Rabbits were allocated at random to groups for endocarditis induction with one of these five strains and then treated for 2 days with vancomycin or teicoplanin. Each treated group was compared with a control group infected with the same strain. Vancomycin and teicoplanin showed similar activities. Low MICs did not predict better in vivo results.

Glycopeptides constitute the drugs of reference for treating infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains, particularly severe septicemia or endocarditis (18). Two factors limit the clinical usefulness of glycopeptides. First, S. aureus strains with reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides have emerged. The first vancomycin-resistant strain was identified in Japan (11), and since then vancomycin resistance has been documented in Europe (3, 6, 20). Second, treatment failures despite in vitro susceptibility have been reported, most notably for patients with endocarditis and other severe infections (7, 19). Furthermore, new agents have been introduced recently for the treatment of staphylococcal infections. These facts warrant a reappraisal of the role for glycopeptides in the first-line treatment of severe S. aureus infections.

The objective of the study reported here was to evaluate the in vivo efficacy of glycopeptides in animals with severe staphylococcal infections due to strains with various patterns of susceptibility to methicillin and glycopeptides.

We studied five S. aureus strains, of which two strains were susceptible to both methicillin and glycopeptides (methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA] strains MSSA 1 and MSSA 2), two strains were resistant to methicillin but susceptible to glycopeptides (MRSA 3 and MRSA 4), and one strain was resistant to methicillin and exhibited heterogeneous reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides (glycopeptide-intermediate S. aureus [GISA] strain GISA 5). The four glycopeptide-susceptible strains were isolated from blood cultures, and the GISA strain was isolated from sputum of a cystic fibrosis patient. The mecA gene was detected by PCR in strains MRSA 3, MRSA 4, and GISA 5. MICs of vancomycin (Dakota pharm, Le Plessis-Robinson, France) and teicoplanin (Aventis, Paris, France) were determined by using the broth and agar dilution methods, with inoculum sizes ranging from 106 to 109 CFU/ml to look for a potential inoculum effect. Bactericidal activity was assessed based on the determination of minimal bactericidal concentrations (MBCs) by microdilution method and on the killing kinetics with an inoculum of 107 CFU/ml and 0, 1, 4, 8, and 20 mg of vancomycin or teicoplanin/liter; bacteria were counted after 0, 6, 24, and 48 h.

The rabbit aortic valve endocarditis model was used for the in vivo studies (16). Endocarditis of the aortic valve and left ventricle was induced by introduction of a polyethylene catheter followed 24 h later by an intravenous injection of 108 CFU of S. aureus. For each S. aureus strain, there were three groups, namely, vancomycin, teicoplanin, and control, for a total of 15 groups of animals. On day 3, the controls were killed, and the animals in the two other groups were started on a 48-h course of vancomycin or teicoplanin. Vancomycin was given as a continuous infusion in a dose of 100 mg/kg of body weight/day so that the steady-state serum level was equivalent to the usual target in humans (at least 20 mg/liter). Teicoplanin was given as an intravenous infusion in a dose of 18 mg/kg/day in order to produce steady-state serum levels similar to that of vancomycin. Because teicoplanin has a long half-life, a bolus of 3 mg/kg was given before the continuous infusion. Serum assays of vancomycin and teicoplanin were performed during treatment with an immunoenzymetric method. The treated animals were killed on day 5.

The aortic vegetations were harvested, weighed, and used for quantitative cultures on agar for 24 h at 37°C. Bacterial counts were expressed as log10 CFU per gram of vegetation.

Statistics

The primary evaluation criterion was the bacterial count in vegetation cultures (log10 CFU per gram of vegetation). The mean ± standard deviation count was determined for each group of animals. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used first to evaluate counts for each S. aureus strain. When ANOVA showed a significant difference, Scheffe's test was used for pairwise comparisons. All statistical tests were run on Statview (Abacus Concepts, Berkeley, Calif.).

Vancomycin and teicoplanin had MICs and MBCs (Table 1) ranging from 0.25 to 1 mg/liter for MSSA 1, MSSA 2, MRSA 3, and MRSA 4, indicating good in vitro susceptibility of these four strains to glycopeptides (NCCLS recommendations). No inoculum effect was found. For GISA 5, the MICs of vancomycin and teicoplanin were 4 and 8 mg/liter, respectively, confirming the reduced susceptibility of this strain to glycopeptides. Killing curves showed that vancomycin exhibited similar activities against all four glycopeptide-susceptible strains, whatever the concentrations used, contrasting with a marked decrease in bactericidal activity against the GISA 5 strain (Fig. 1A). With teicoplanin at the same concentrations, bactericidal activity against the two MRSA strains was decreased compared to that against the two MSSA strains, and an even greater decrease was noted with the GISA 5 strain (Fig. 1B).

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

Kill curves of vancomycin (A) and teicoplanin (B) at 20 mg/liter. ◊, MSSA 1; □, MSSA 2; ▴, MRSA 3; •, MRSA 4; and ▪, GISA 5.

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

MICs and MBCs of the five studied strains

The in vivo study (Table 2) showed that the two glycopeptides were active against only two of the five strains, namely, MSSA 1 and MRSA 3. With MSSA 2, a small but significant difference was noted compared to the control group. With MRSA 4 and GISA 5, no significant differences were found with the control group. For none of these five strains was a significant difference in activity noted between vancomycin and teicoplanin. Levels of both glycopeptides in serum reached 20 mg/liter after 4 h and 30 mg/liter after 24 h.

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

In vivo results after 48-h treatment of the five studied strains

The variability in glycopeptide activity noted in the rabbit endocarditis model is probably relevant to published reports of failed glycopeptide therapy in humans with staphylococcal infections. In these patients (7, 19), the absence of a therapeutic effect was not correlated with MIC elevation. Other agents or combinations of agents have been introduced recently for the treatment of staphylococcal infections, including those due to MRSA strains. Studies of the same rabbit model have shown early and reproducible activity of these new agents against several S. aureus strains, some of which were MRSA strains (1, 12).

The two glycopeptides used in our study were similar to each other regarding activity against the five S. aureus strains tested. Steady-state serum teicoplanin levels were far greater than 10 times the MIC for susceptible strains. This condition would be expected to ensure optimal efficacy, according to relevant data in the literature (2, 10, 14). The poor diffusion of teicoplanin within vegetations (4) and the high rate of protein binding (2) do not seem to have noticeably affected the level of activity against S. aureus in comparison with vancomycin.

Our in vivo data show that a low MIC does not always predict a better response to glycopeptides over the first 2 days of treatment. Early in vivo effects do not seem to be influenced by in vitro parameters.

Tolerance, defined as a loss of bactericidal activity (7, 13, 21), has been reported. We found no evidence of tolerance, as the in vitro bactericidal effect of vancomycin on the glycopeptide-susceptible strains was unimpaired. In contrast, the high MIC for the GISA 5 strain, classified as having intermediate susceptibility to glycopeptides, was strongly correlated with the loss of bactericidal activity in vitro and in vivo. This finding is in agreement with a study comparing two isogenic S. aureus strains with different glycopeptide susceptibility patterns in an endocarditis model (15).

Although the treatment period was brief (48 h) and the antibiotics had slow killing kinetics, we found noticeable differences in activity across strains that were not predicted by the in vitro data. The source of these differences must therefore be sought elsewhere than in the intrinsic in vitro activity of the antibiotics. Host-related factors can influence in vivo activity. Studies have investigated the bactericidal effects of endogenous peptides produced by neutrophils or platelets that seem to act by causing lysis of the bacterial wall (23, 24). Their activity may be influenced by exposure to some antibiotics, most notably those with effects on the bacterial wall, such as penicillins and vancomycin (22). Conceivably, an interaction between these peptides and the glycopeptides located within endocarditis vegetations may explain these findings.

Decreased susceptibility of S. aureus strains to vancomycin may be related to a change in the bacterial target. Studies have documented thickening of the bacterial cell wall that traps the vancomycin molecules (5, 8, 9, 17). However, these findings were obtained in vitro. To date, there are no in vivo data on cell wall thickness and structure of bacteria located within sites of infection.

In conclusion, for patients with severe infections requiring immediately effective antibiotic treatment, the possibility that glycopeptides may have limited activity should be borne in mind when selecting antistaphylococcal agents. Given the variability in the in vivo activities of glycopeptides, even against strains with in vitro susceptibility, the place for new antistaphylococcal agents, or new combinations of antistaphylococcal agents, with proven early and consistent efficacy needs to be determined.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 16 June 2004.
    • Returned for modification 25 July 2004.
    • Accepted 27 September 2004.
  • Copyright © 2005 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Batard, E., C. Jacqueline, D. Boutoille, A. Hamel, H. B. Drugeon, N. Asseray, R. Leclercq, J. Caillon, G. Potel, and D. Bugnon. 2002. Combination of quinupristin-dalfopristin and gentamicin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: experimental rabbit endocarditis study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.46:2174-2178.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Chambers, H., and S. Kennedy. 1990. Effects of dosage, peak and trough concentrations in serum, protein binding, and bactericidal rate on efficacy of teicoplanin in a rabbit model of endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.34:510-514.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Chesneau, O., A. Morvan, and N. E. Solh. 2000. Retrospective screening for heterogeneous vancomycin resistance in diverse Staphylococcus aureus clones disseminated in French hospitals. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.45:887-890.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Cremieux, A. C., B. Maziere, J. M. Vallois, M. Ottoviani, A. Azancoi, H. Raffoui, A. Bouvet, J. J. Pocidalo, and C. Carbon. 1989. Evaluation of antibiotic diffusion into cardiac vegetations by quantitative autoradiography. J. Infect. Dis.159:938-944.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Cui, L., H. Murakami, K. Kuwahara-Arai, H. Hanaki, and K. Hiramatsu. 2000. Contribution of a thickened cell wall and its glutamine nonamidated component to the vancomycin resistance expressed by Staphylococcus aureus Mu50. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.44:2276-2285.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Geisel, R., F. J. Schmitz, A. C. Fluit, and H. Labischinski. 2001. Emergence, mechanism and clinical implications of reduced glycopeptide susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.20:685-697.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Gopal, V., A. Bisno, and J. Silverblatt. 1976. Failure of treatment in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. In vivo and in vitro observations. JAMA236:1604-1606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Hanaki, H., K. Kuwahara-Arai, S. Boyle-Vavra, R. Daum, H. Labischinski, and K. Hiramatsu. 1998. Activated cell wall synthesis is associated with vancomycin resistance in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strains Mu3 and Mu50. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.42:199-209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Hanaki, H., H. Labischinski, Y. Inaba, N. Kondo, H. Murakami, and K. Hiramatsu. 1998. Increase in glutamine-non-amidated muropeptides in the peptidoglycan of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain Mu50. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.42:315-320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Harding, I., A. McGowan, L. White, E. Darley, and V. Reed. 2000. Teicoplanin therapy for Staphylococcus aureus septicemiae: relationship between pre-dose serum concentration and outcome. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.45:835-841.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Hiramatsu, K., et al. 1997. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus clinical strain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.40:135-136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    Jacqueline, C., J. Caillon, V. Le Mabecque, A. F. Miegeville, D. Bugnon, and G. Potel. 2003. Linezolid combined with imipenem: in vivo synergy in a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus rabbit endocarditis model. Program Abstr. 43rd Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstract no. B-1093.
  13. 13.↵
    May, J., K. Shannon, A. King, and G. French. 1998. Glycopeptide tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.42:189-197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    McGrath, B. J., S. L. Kang, G. W. Kaatz, and M. J. Rybak. 1994. Bactericidal activities of teicoplanin, vancomycin, and gentamicin alone and in combination against Staphylococcus aureus in an in vitro pharmacodynamic model of endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.38:2034-2040.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Pavie, J., A. Lefort, M. C. Ploy, L. Massias, F. Chau, L. Garry, F. Denis, and B. Fantin. 2003. Influence of reduced susceptibility to glycopeptides on activities of vancomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus aureus in experimental endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.47:2018-2021.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Perlman, B., and L. Freedman. 1971. Experimental endocarditis II. Staphylococcal infection of the aortic valve following placement of a polyethylene catheter in the left side of the heart. Yale J. Biol. Med.44:206-213.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Reipert, A., K. Ehlert, T. Kast, and G. Bierbaum. 2003. Morphological and genetic differences in two isogenic Staphylococcus aureus strains with decreased susceptibilities to vancomycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.47:568-576.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Rodriguez, A., M. Vicente, and T. Olay. 1987. Single and combination antibiotic therapy for experimental endocarditis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.31:1444-1445.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Small, P., and F. Chambers. 1990. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.34:1227-1231.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Vedel, G., M. Leruez, F. Lemann, E. Hraoui, and D. Ratovohery. 1990. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci with decreased sensitivity to glycopeptides as assessed by determination of MICs. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.9:820-822.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Voorn, G. P., J. Kuyvenhoven, W. H. F. Goessens, W. C. Schmal-Bauer, P. H. M. Broeders, J. Thompson, and M. F. Michel. 1994. Role of tolerance in treatment and prophylaxis of experimental Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis with vancomycin, teicoplanin, and daptomycin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.38:487-493.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Xiong, Y., M. Yeaman, and A. Bayer. 1999. In vitro antibacterial activities of platelet microbicidal protein and neutrophil defensin against Staphylococcus aureus are influenced by antibiotics differing in mechanism of action. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.43:1111-1117.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Yeaman, M. R. 1997. The role of platelets in antimicrobial host defense. Clin. Infect. Dis.25:951-970.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    Yeaman, M. R., A. S. Bayer, S. P. Koo, W. Foss, and P. M. Sullam. 1998. Platelet microbicidal proteins and neutrophil defensin disrupt the Staphylococcus aureus cytoplasmic membrane by distinct mechanisms of action. J. Clin. Investig.101:178-187.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Activity of Glycopeptides against Staphylococcus aureus Infection in a Rabbit Endocarditis Model: MICs Do Not Predict In Vivo Efficacy
Nathalie Asseray, Cedric Jacqueline, Virginie Le Mabecque, Eric Batard, Denis Bugnon, Gilles Potel, Jocelyne Caillon
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2005, 49 (2) 857-859; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.2.857-859.2005

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.
Activity of Glycopeptides against Staphylococcus aureus Infection in a Rabbit Endocarditis Model: MICs Do Not Predict In Vivo Efficacy
(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
Activity of Glycopeptides against Staphylococcus aureus Infection in a Rabbit Endocarditis Model: MICs Do Not Predict In Vivo Efficacy
Nathalie Asseray, Cedric Jacqueline, Virginie Le Mabecque, Eric Batard, Denis Bugnon, Gilles Potel, Jocelyne Caillon
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2005, 49 (2) 857-859; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.49.2.857-859.2005
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Statistics
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Endocarditis, Bacterial
glycopeptides
staphylococcal infections

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