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

In Vitro Activity of Ertapenem versus Ceftriaxone against Neisseria gonorrhoeae Isolates with Highly Diverse Ceftriaxone MIC Values and Effects of Ceftriaxone Resistance Determinants: Ertapenem for Treatment of Gonorrhea?

Magnus Unemo, Daniel Golparian, Athena Limnios, David Whiley, Makoto Ohnishi, Monica M. Lahra, John W. Tapsall
Magnus Unemo
aWHO Collaborating Centre for Gonorrhoea and Other STIs, National Reference Laboratory for Pathogenic Neisseria, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Microbiology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Golparian
aWHO Collaborating Centre for Gonorrhoea and Other STIs, National Reference Laboratory for Pathogenic Neisseria, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Microbiology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Athena Limnios
bWHO Collaborating Centre for STD, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Whiley
cQueensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, Children's Health Service District, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Makoto Ohnishi
dNational Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monica M. Lahra
bWHO Collaborating Centre for STD, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John W. Tapsall
bWHO Collaborating Centre for STD, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00326-12
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Clinical resistance to the currently recommended extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs), the last remaining treatment options for gonorrhea, is being reported. Gonorrhea may become untreatable, and new treatment options are crucial. We investigated the in vitro activity of ertapenem, relative to ceftriaxone, against N. gonorrhoeae isolates and the effects of ESC resistance determinants on ertapenem. MICs were determined using agar dilution technique or Etest for international reference strains (n = 17) and clinical N. gonorrhoeae isolates (n = 257), which included the two extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains H041 and F89 and additional isolates with high ESC MICs, clinical ESC resistance, and other types of clinical high-level and multidrug resistance (MDR). Genetic resistance determinants for ESCs (penA, mtrR, and penB) were sequenced. In general, the MICs of ertapenem (MIC50 = 0.032 μg/ml; MIC90 = 0.064 μg/ml) paralleled those of ceftriaxone (MIC50 = 0.032 μg/ml; MIC90 = 0.125 μg/ml). The ESC resistance determinants mainly increased the ertapenem MIC and ceftriaxone MIC at similar levels. However, the MIC ranges for ertapenem (0.002 to 0.125 μg/ml) and ceftriaxone (<0.002 to 4 μg/ml) differed, and the four (1.5%) ceftriaxone-resistant isolates (MIC = 0.5 to 4 μg/ml) had ertapenem MICs of 0.016 to 0.064 μg/ml. Accordingly, ertapenem had in vitro advantages over ceftriaxone for isolates with ceftriaxone resistance. These in vitro results suggest that ertapenem might be an effective treatment option for gonorrhea, particularly for the currently identified ESC-resistant cases and possibly in a dual antimicrobial therapy regimen. However, further knowledge regarding the genetic determinants (and their evolution) conferring resistance to both antimicrobials, and clear correlates between genetic and phenotypic laboratory parameters and clinical treatment outcomes, is essential.

INTRODUCTION

Gonorrhea (etiological agent, Neisseria gonorrhoeae) remains a major public health concern. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 88 million gonorrhea cases among adults globally, which placed this infection as the second most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infection (59). Resistance of N. gonorrhoeae to previously recommended first-line antimicrobials for treatment of gonorrhea is prevalent worldwide. During the last decade, the susceptibility to the extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) cefixime (oral) and ceftriaxone (parenteral), the current first-line antimicrobials in most countries, has decreased rapidly globally (3, 6, 8, 12, 16, 21, 22, 24, 29, 31, 39, 41, 52, 57, 58). Clinical failures with cefixime have also been verified in Japan since 2003 (14, 60) and, more recently, in European countries such as Austria (50), Norway (51), and the United Kingdom (18). Accordingly, ceftriaxone is essentially the last remaining treatment option and, worryingly, there have also been a few cases of confirmed failure treating pharyngeal gonorrhea with ceftriaxone in Australia (44) and in Sweden (48). These cases, however, likely also reflect that pharyngeal gonorrhea is harder to treat than urogenital gonorrhea (3, 5, 31, 41, 58). Recently, and of grave concern, the two first extensively drug-resistant (XDR [41]) gonococcal strains, H041 (32, 33) and F89 (49), which have been confirmed to have high-level resistance to ceftriaxone, were described. If these strains spread locally, nationally, or globally, gonorrhea may become untreatable in certain circumstances and in the affected settings (32, 41, 49, 52). Consequently, for effective future treatment of gonorrhea, it is imperative to promptly develop new treatment strategies and, in particular, new treatment options.

Disquietingly, there are few promising new antimicrobials or other bactericidal compounds for treatment of gonorrhea in sight (6, 24, 31, 32, 41, 49, 58). In this context, the present study investigated the in vitro activity of ertapenem, a parenteral 1-β-methyl-carbapenem, against N. gonorrhoeae. Ertapenem shares activity with other carbapenems such as imipenem and meropenem against most bacterial species; however, it is less active against nonfermentative Gram-negative bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It has been shown to be safe, well tolerated (few adverse effects), and effective, also in comparison with ceftriaxone, against urinary tract infections (2, 7, 13, 20, 27, 46). However, in regard to N. gonorrhoeae, ertapenem has been evaluated only in vitro and was compared to ceftriaxone solely in a sample of gonococci with low ceftriaxone MICs (maximum of 0.032 μg/ml) (26). Accordingly, N. gonorrhoeae isolates for which ceftriaxone has high MIC values have not yet been tested for ertapenem resistance.

Similar resistance mechanisms have been shown to affect the MICs of many β-lactam antimicrobials, such as penicillins, narrow-spectrum cephalosporins, and ESCs. The main mechanism in N. gonorrhoeae for decreased susceptibility and resistance to ESCs is alteration of the penA gene encoding the lethal target, penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBP2). Thus, acquisition of a penA mosaic allele or single amino acid alterations of A501 or possibly G545 and P551 in PBP2 result in a lower affinity for ESCs (1, 16, 18, 19, 23, 25, 32, 38, 43, 45, 48–51, 55, 56, 62). Mutations in the promoter and/or coding sequence of mtrR result in the overexpression of the MtrC-MtrD-MtrE efflux pump (mtrR resistance determinant), which further increases the MICs of ESCs (16, 17, 23, 25, 32, 37, 48–51, 54, 61, 62), and porB1b mutations that alter amino acid G101 and A102 in the PorB1b porin (the penB resistance determinant) result in additionally increased MICs of ESCs (16, 23, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 48–51, 62). At least one nontransformable resistance determinant remains unknown (16, 25, 32, 45, 62). The effects of ESC resistance determinants on the β-lactam antimicrobial ertapenem are unknown.

In the present study, the in vitro activity of the carbapenem ertapenem was compared to the activity of ceftriaxone against N. gonorrhoeae, and the effects of ESC resistance determinants on ertapenem were investigated. The examined N. gonorrhoeae isolates and international reference strains included the only two confirmed XDR strains, H041 (32, 33) and F89 (49), and additional isolates with substantially increased ESC MICs, clinical ESC resistance, and other types of clinical high-level and multidrug resistance (MDR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates.A total of 126 N. gonorrhoeae clinical isolates referred to the WHO Collaborating Centre (CC) for STD, Sydney, Australia, 131 N. gonorrhoeae clinical isolates referred to the WHO CC for Gonorrhoea and other STIs, Örebro, Sweden, and 17 N. gonorrhoeae international reference strains were examined. Some of these clinical gonococcal isolates have been included in previous studies (16, 25, 55), examining their susceptibility to ceftriaxone and their penA gene allele. The clinical isolates were obtained from 2002 to 2011 and were selected to represent geographically (mainly global representativeness), phenotypically, and genetically diverse isolates. Thus, the collection included the XDR H041 strain from Japan (32, 33) and the XDR F89 strain from France (49) with clinical high-level resistance to all ESCs, many additional isolates with substantially increased MICs of ESCs, isolates displaying clinical ESC resistance and associated with treatment failure (n = 4 [48, 50, 51]), and isolates with other types of clinical high-level resistance and/or MDR. The international reference strains included the WHO A-E, WHO I, WHO J, MS-11, and FA1090 gonococcal strains, as well as the recently described WHO 2008 N. gonorrhoeae reference strains (n = 8) (47). These WHO 2008 reference strains were also used for standardization of the MIC testing in the two WHO CCs (based on giving highly comparable results) as well as forming part of the quality control in all MIC testing. The species of all gonococcal isolates and reference strains were initially verified with a sugar utilization test and/or Phadebact GC Monoclonal Test (Bactus AB, Sweden), and then the isolates were stored at −70°C as previously described (53). Prior to the MIC testing, the isolates were cultured on modified Thayer-Martin culture media without any included antimicrobials.

MIC determination.MIC determinations (in micrograms per milliliter) using the agar dilution technique for ertapenem and ceftriaxone (126 clinical isolates examined in Sydney, Australia) were performed as previously described (40, 42) and with the Etest method for ertapenem and ceftriaxone (131 clinical isolates and 17 international reference strains examined in Örebro, Sweden) according to the manufacturer's instructions (AB bioMérieux, Solna, Sweden) and as previously described (4). The MIC testing for each isolate was performed in parallel for both antimicrobials. β-Lactamase activity was detected using nitrocefin discs.

For ceftriaxone, interpretative criteria from the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI [11]) were used. No interpretative criteria have been stated by CLSI (11) or any other organization for ertapenem.

Genetic characterization.Molecular epidemiological characterization of all clinical isolates and reference strains by means of N. gonorrhoeae multiantigen sequence typing (NG-MAST) was performed as described previously (28, 53). PCR amplification and sequencing of known gonococcal ESC resistance determinants, i.e., penA, mtrR, and porB1b, were done as described elsewhere (25, 47, 55).

RESULTS

In vitro activity of ertapenem, compared to ceftriaxone, against Neisseria gonorrhoeae clinical isolates (n = 257) and international reference strains (n = 17).In general, the MICs of ertapenem (MIC50, 0.032 μg/ml; MIC90, 0.064 μg/ml) and ceftriaxone (MIC50, 0.032 μg/ml; MIC90, 0.125 μg/ml) were similar. For the β-lactamase-producing isolates (n = 23), the MICs of ertapenem (MIC50, 0.016 μg/ml; MIC90, 0.032 μg/ml) and ceftriaxone (MIC50, 0.032 μg/ml; MIC90, 0.064 μg/ml) were also similar. However, the ranges of MIC values for ertapenem (0.002 to 0.125 μg/ml) and ceftriaxone (<0.002 to 4 μg/ml) substantially differed (Fig. 1).

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

MIC (micrograms per milliliter) distribution of ertapenem and ceftriaxone for clinical Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates (n = 257) and N. gonorrhoeae international reference strains (n = 17).

Four (1.5%) isolates were resistant to ceftriaxone (MIC, 0.5 to 4 μg/ml) according to the interpretative criteria stated by the CLSI (11), but these isolates showed MICs from 0.016 μg/ml to 0.064 μg/ml only for ertapenem. For the XDR N. gonorrhoeae strains H041 (32, 33) and F89 (49), both of which are highly resistant to cefixime (MIC = 4 to 8 μg/ml) and ceftriaxone (MIC = 2 to 4 μg/ml), the ertapenem MICs were significantly lower (0.064 μg/ml and 0.016 μg/ml, respectively). Furthermore, for the strains causing cefixime treatment failures in Norway (n = 2; MIC, 0.125 μg/ml and 0.25 to 0.5 μg/ml for ceftriaxone and cefixime, respectively [51]) and in Austria (n = 1; MIC, 0.5 μg/ml and 1.0 μg/ml for ceftriaxone and cefixime, respectively [50]) and a ceftriaxone treatment failure strain from a case of pharyngeal gonorrhea in Sweden (n = 1; MIC, 0.125 to 0.25 μg/ml and 0.5 μg/ml for ceftriaxone and cefixime, respectively [48]), the corresponding MIC values for ertapenem were lower, ranging between 0.064 and 0.125 μg/ml.

Effects of ESC resistance determinants on ertapenem in Neisseria gonorrhoeae clinical isolates (n = 257) and international reference strains (n = 17).Similar mechanisms affect the MICs of many β-lactam antimicrobials; however, the effects of ESC resistance determinants, such as specific penA, mtrR, or penB alterations, on ertapenem resistance are unknown. Of the 274 N. gonorrhoeae isolates, 101 (36.9%), 71 (25.9%), 242 (88.3%), and 249 (90.9%) had a penA mosaic allele, an alteration of A501 in PBP2, an mtrR resistance determinant, and a penB resistance determinant, respectively (Table 1). The presence of, in particular, a penA mosaic allele was associated with increased MICs of ertapenem; e.g., 25 (35.7%), 48 (50.5%), and 21 (91.3%) of all the isolates with an ertapenem MIC of 0.032 μg/ml, 0.064 μg/ml, and 0.125 μg/ml, respectively, contained a penA mosaic allele. For comparison, only seven (8.1%) of the isolates with an ertapenem MIC < 0.032 μg/ml contained a penA mosaic allele (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Furthermore, the isolates containing a penA mosaic allele and, additionally, the mtrR and penB resistance determinants had the highest ertapenem MICs. Nevertheless, the specific penA mosaic alleles resulting in ceftriaxone resistance in four isolates (ceftriaxone MIC, 0.5 to 4 μg/ml) caused a significantly lower MIC of ertapenem, ranging from 0.016 to 0.064 (Table 1). In comparison with the penA mosaic alleles, the alteration of A501 in PBP2 appeared less associated with increased MICs of ertapenem (Table 1 and Fig. 2). In fact, isolates containing both the mtrR resistance determinant and penB resistance determinant, combined with a penA wild-type allele, displayed MICs of ertapenem as high as those seen with the isolates additionally containing an alteration of A501 in PBP2 (Table 1).

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

MICs of ertapenem and ceftriaxone, and presence of determinants of resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporins, for N. gonorrhoeae clinical isolates (n = 257) and international reference strains (n = 17)

Fig 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2

Ceftriaxone and ertapenem MICs, and their relation to penA mosaic alleles and alteration of amino acid A501 in PBP2, in all N. gonorrhoeae clinical isolates (n = 253) and international reference strains (n = 17) susceptible to ceftriaxone (MIC ≤ 0.25 μg/ml [11]).

Molecular epidemiological characterization of examined Neisseria gonorrhoeae clinical isolates (n = 257) and international reference strains (n = 17).In total, the examined N. gonorrhoeae isolates were assigned to 133 different NG-MAST sequence types. ST225 (17 isolates), which is an internationally transmitted clone associated with resistance to ciprofloxacin and a slightly increased MIC of ceftriaxone, and ST1407 (n = 33), comprising a globally spread clone that accounts for a substantial proportion of the isolates showing intermediate susceptibility and resistance to ESCs and MDR internationally (16, 18, 43, 49–51), were the most prevalent sequence types. Among the sequence types represented by more than five isolates (n = 8), ST1407 (n = 33; MIC50, 0.064 μg/ml), ST5 (n = 8; MIC50, 0.064 μg/ml), ST326 (n = 7; MIC50, 0.125 μg/ml), and ST925 (n = 6; MIC50, 0.125 μg/ml) appeared to be associated with increased MICs of ertapenem. Each of these sequence type clones contained the mtrR determinant and penB determinant, and all sequence types, with exception of ST5, contained also a penA mosaic allele.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study investigating the in vitro activity of the carbapenem ertapenem relative to ceftriaxone against ESC-susceptible and ESC-resistant N. gonorrhoeae isolates, as well as outlining the effects of ESC resistance determinants on ertapenem. Gonococcal strains from a collection representing geographically and genetically diverse isolates were examined. The collection included the only two confirmed XDR strains, H041 (32, 33) and F89 (49), and additional isolates with substantially increased ESC MICs, ESC resistance associated with ESC treatment failure, and other types of clinical MDR. Ertapenem had no apparent in vitro advantage over ceftriaxone for N. gonorrhoeae isolates with lower ceftriaxone MICs. This is also in full concordance with a previous study by Livermore et al. (26), where ceftriaxone retained superior in vitro activity, compared to ertapenem, against gonococcal isolates with lower ceftriaxone MICs. Nevertheless, for all isolates with resistance to ceftriaxone (MIC, 0.5 to 4 μg/ml), the corresponding MICs of ertapenem were low (0.016 to 0.064 μg/ml). Ertapenem was also highly active against isolates with high-level clinical resistance and MDR to all types of other antimicrobials (data not shown). Accordingly, ertapenem may be an effective treatment option for gonorrhea and, in particular, for the currently identified ESC-resistant cases and possibly in dual antimicrobial therapy for treatment of gonorrhea.

Ertapenem is rapidly bactericidal and, like other β-lactam antimicrobials, derives its activity from binding to specific PBPs and subsequent blocking of cell wall synthesis that result in time-dependent killing. Resistance to ertapenem in bacteria is usually mediated by upregulation of efflux pumps, porin deficiency, production of metallo-β-lactamases/carbapenemases, or PBP changes resulting in decreased affinity for the drug. Ertapenem activity may also be affected by some classical extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBL) and hyperproduced AmpC β-lactamases, but the organisms mainly remain clinically susceptible. Nevertheless, resistance can arise when these enzymes are presented with extreme impermeability (7, 13, 27). In the present study, for N. gonorrhoeae isolates with increased MICs of ceftriaxone (but not full resistance), the penA mosaic alleles encoding mosaic PBP2s with less affinity for ESCs appeared to increase the MIC of ertapenem to a level similar to that of ceftriaxone. For these penA mosaic isolates, the MIC of ertapenem appeared to further increase also when, in addition, the mtrR and penB resistance determinants resulting in increased efflux and decreased intake of the antimicrobials, respectively, were present. However, for N. gonorrhoeae isolates with high MIC values (clinical ceftriaxone resistance), the MICs of ertapenem remained relatively low despite the presence of a penA mosaic allele combined with the mtrR and penB resistance determinants. Thus, the specific penA mosaic alleles that evidently result in clinical resistance to ceftriaxone resulted in low ertapenem MIC values, ranging from 0.016 μg/ml to 0.064 μg/ml. Nevertheless, novel penA mosaic alleles are continuously evolving, and, depending on their sequences, these may substantially affect also the MIC of ertapenem. Therefore, further knowledge regarding the genetic resistance determinants, in particular, the effects of different penA mosaic alleles and other penA alterations, and the implications of the emergence and evolution of these for both ceftriaxone and ertapenem are of paramount importance. Finally, the future possibility of acquisition of a carbapenemase or a TEM-1 β-lactamase that evolves into an ESBL, which degrades ertapenem, in N. gonorrhoeae cannot be excluded, especially when the blaTEM-1 gene appears to be evolving (30).

For future treatment of gonorrhea, the development of new treatment regimens and/or options is essential. Use of an increased dose of ceftriaxone has already been implemented (9, 14, 41). However, this approach provides only a short-term solution. Dual antimicrobial combination treatment has also recently been introduced in the United States (58) and the United Kingdom (5) for uncomplicated anogenital gonorrhea cases. Unfortunately, due to cost issues, combination therapy is challenging in settings of lesser resources and, from a global public health perspective, the need for an effective antimicrobial for single-drug treatment of gonorrhea appears fundamental. However, for future treatment of gonorrhea, there are few promising novel alternatives in sight (6, 24, 31, 32, 41, 49, 58). Nevertheless, gentamicin has been used as a first-line treatment in Malawi, Africa, for nearly 2 decades without any reported emergence of in vitro resistance, and in vitro susceptibility in the European Union appears high (10). Furthermore, a new fluoroketolide, solithromycin (CEM-101), has also been shown to have high in vitro activity against gonococci (15, 36). Finally, the present report shows that ertapenem may also be an effective option for treatment of gonorrhea, in particular, for currently identified ESC-resistant cases and possibly in a dual antimicrobial combination therapy regimen. However, all these potential future treatment regimens require up-to-date and comprehensive in vitro and in vivo evaluations, including appropriately designed, randomized, and controlled treatment studies (evaluating parameters such as efficacy, safety, toxicity, and cost) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics data for genital and extragenital (especially pharyngeal) gonorrhea. Furthermore, additional knowledge regarding present and future (in vitro-selected and in vivo-emergent) genetic resistance determinants for these antimicrobials, and clear correlates between genetic and phenotypic laboratory parameters and clinical treatment outcomes, would be very valuable.

In conclusion, clinical resistance to ceftriaxone in N. gonorrhoeae has been reported and the widespread concern that gonorrhea may become untreatable in certain circumstances is valid. A major global focus, imperative for public health, is to promptly identify new antimicrobials (or other compounds) for the effective treatment of gonorrhea. The present in vitro study showed that ertapenem may be an effective treatment option for gonorrhea and, particularly, for the currently identified ESC-resistant cases and possibly as part of a dual antimicrobial therapy regimen. Additional appropriately designed in vitro and surveillance studies and, in particular, in vivo clinical efficacy trials for all potentially new therapeutic options for gonorrhea are urgently needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work was supported by grants from the Örebro County Council Research Committee and the Foundation for Medical Research at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden. The WHO Collaborating Centre for STD, Sydney, Australia, is supported by the Department of Health and Ageing, Commonwealth of Australia.

Most sadly, one of the coauthors and initiators of the present study (John Tapsall), who had been a great mentor to many in the N. gonorrhoeae field, passed away in December 2010.

The work was performed at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Gonorrhoea and Other STIs, Örebro, Sweden; WHO Collaborating Centre for STD, Sydney, Australia; and Queensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases Laboratory, Brisbane, Australia.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 9 February 2012.
    • Returned for modification 5 March 2012.
    • Accepted 23 April 2012.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 30 April 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ameyama S,
    2. et al
    . 2002. Mosaic-like structure of penicillin-binding protein 2 gene (penA) in clinical isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae with reduced susceptibility to cefixime. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:3744–3749.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Arguedas A,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Safety and tolerability of ertapenem versus ceftriaxone in a double-blind study performed in children with complicated urinary tract infection, community-acquired pneumonia or skin and soft-tissue infection. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 33:163–167.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Barry PM,
    2. Klausner JD
    . 2009. The use of cephalosporins for gonorrhea: the impending problem of resistance. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 10:555–577.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Berglund T,
    2. Unemo M,
    3. Olcén P,
    4. Giesecke J,
    5. Fredlund H
    . 2002. One year of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates in Sweden: the prevalence study of antibiotic susceptibility shows relation to the geographic area of exposure. Int. J. STD AIDS 13:109–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bignell C,
    2. Fitzgerald M
    , Guideline Development Group. 2011. UK national guideline for the management of gonorrhoea in adults, 2011. Int. J. STD AIDS 22:541–547.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bolan GA,
    2. Sparling PF,
    3. Wasserheit JN
    . 2012. The emerging threat of untreatable gonococcal infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 366:485–487.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Burkhardt O,
    2. Derendorf H,
    3. Welte T
    . 2007. Ertapenem: the new carbapenem 5 years after first FDA licensing for clinical practice. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 8:237–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2011. Cephalosporin susceptibility among Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates—United States, 2000–2010. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 60:873–877.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Chisholm SA,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Cephalosporin MIC creep among gonococci: time for a pharmacodynamic rethink? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65:2141–2148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chisholm SA,
    2. et al
    . 2011. An evaluation of gentamicin susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates in Europe. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 66:592–595.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2011. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, 21st informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S21. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cole MJ,
    2. et al
    . 2011. The European gonococcal antimicrobial surveillance programme, 2009. Euro. Surveill. 16:pii=19995. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19995.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Congeni BL
    . 2010. Ertapenem. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 11:669–672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Deguchi T,
    2. et al
    . 2003. Treatment of uncomplicated gonococcal urethritis by double-dosing of 200 mg cefixime at a 6-h interval. J. Infect. Chemother. 9:35–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Golparian D,
    2. Fernandes P,
    3. Ohnishi M,
    4. Jensen JS,
    5. Unemo M
    . 2012. In vitro activity of the new fluoroketolide solithromycin (CEM-101) against a large collection of clinical Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates and international reference strains, including those with various high-level antimicrobial resistance—potential treatment option for gonorrhea? Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:2739–2742.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Golparian D,
    2. Hellmark B,
    3. Fredlund H,
    4. Unemo M
    . 2010. Emergence, spread and characteristics of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates with in vitro decreased susceptibility and resistance to extended-spectrum cephalosporins in Sweden. Sex. Transm. Infect. 86:454–460.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hagman KE,
    2. et al
    . 1995. Resistance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to antimicrobial hydrophobic agents is modulated by the mtrRCDE efflux system. Microbiology 141:611–622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ison CA,
    2. Hussey J,
    3. Sankar KN,
    4. Evans J,
    5. Alexander S
    . 2011. Gonorrhoea treatment failures to cefixime and azithromycin in England, 2010. Euro. Surveill. 16:pii=19833. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19833.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ito M,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Emergence and spread of Neisseria gonorrhoeae clinical isolates harboring mosaic-like structure of penicillin-binding protein 2 in central Japan. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49:137–143.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Jimenez-Cruz F,
    2. et al
    . 2002. A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study comparing ertapenem and ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for complicated urinary tract infections in adults. Urology 60:16–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kirkcaldy RD,
    2. Ballard RC,
    3. Dowell D
    . 2011. Gonococcal resistance: are cephalosporins next? Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 13:196–204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kubanova A,
    2. et al
    . 2010. The Russian gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility programme (RU-GASP)—national resistance prevalence in 2007 and 2008, and trends during 2005–2008. Euro. Surveill. 15:pii=19533. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19533.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lee SG,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Various penA mutations together with mtrR, porB and ponA mutations in Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates with reduced susceptibility to cefixime or ceftriaxone. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65:669–675.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Lewis DA
    . 2010. The gonococcus fights back: is this time a knock out? Sex. Transm. Infect. 86:415–421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lindberg R,
    2. Fredlund H,
    3. Nicholas R,
    4. Unemo M
    . 2007. Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates with reduced susceptibility to cefixime and ceftriaxone: association with genetic polymorphisms in penA, mtrR, porB1b, and ponA. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:2117–2122.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Livermore DM,
    2. et al
    . 2004. Activity of ertapenem against Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 54:280–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Livermore DM,
    2. Sefton AM,
    3. Scott GM
    . 2003. Properties and potential of ertapenem. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52:331–344.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Martin IM,
    2. Ison CA,
    3. Aanensen DM,
    4. Fenton KA,
    5. Spratt BG
    . 2004. Rapid sequence-based identification of gonococcal transmission clusters in a large metropolitan area. J. Infect. Dis. 189:1497–1505.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Martin I,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Trends in antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolated in Canada: 2000–2009. Sex. Transm. Dis. 38:892–898.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Nakayama SI,
    2. et al
    . 2012. Molecular analyses of TEM genes and their corresponding penicillinase-producing Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates in Bangkok, Thailand. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:916–920.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Newman LM,
    2. Moran JS,
    3. Workowski KA
    . 2007. Update on the management of gonorrhea in adults in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 44(Suppl. 3):S84–S101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Ohnishi M,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Is Neisseria gonorrhoeae initiating a future era of untreatable gonorrhea? Detailed characterization of the first strain with high-level resistance to ceftriaxone. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:3538–3545.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ohnishi M,
    2. et al
    . 2011. Ceftriaxone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Japan. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17:148–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Olesky M,
    2. Hobbs M,
    3. Nicholas RA
    . 2002. Identification and analysis of amino acid mutations in porin IB that mediate intermediate-level resistance to penicillin and tetracycline in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:2811–2820.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Olesky M,
    2. Zhao S,
    3. Rosenberg RL,
    4. Nicholas RA
    . 2006. Porin-mediated antibiotic resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: ion, solute, and antibiotic permeation through PIB proteins with penB mutations. J. Bacteriol. 188:2300–2308.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Putnam SD,
    2. Castanheira M,
    3. Moet GJ,
    4. Farrell DJ,
    5. Jones RN
    . 2010. CEM-101, a novel fluoroketolide: antimicrobial activity against a diverse collection of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 66:393–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Shafer WM,
    2. Folster JP
    . 2006. Towards an understanding of chromosomally mediated penicillin resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: evidence for a porin-efflux pump collaboration. J. Bacteriol. 188:2297–2299.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Takahata S,
    2. Senju N,
    3. Osaki Y,
    4. Yoshida T,
    5. Ida T
    . 2006. Amino acid substitutions in mosaic penicillin-binding protein 2 associated with reduced susceptibility to cefixime in clinical isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:3638–3645.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Tapsall JW
    . 12 April 2012, accession date. Antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae WHO/CDS/CSR/DRS/2001.3, 2001. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.who.int/entity/drugresistance/Antimicrobial_resistance_in_Neisseria_gonorrhoeae.pdf.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Tapsall JW
    . 2004. Antimicrobial testing and applications in the pathogenic Neisseria, p 175–188. In Merlino J (ed), Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: methods and practices with an Australian perspective. Australian Society for Microbiology, Sydney, Australia.
  41. 41.↵
    1. Tapsall JW,
    2. Ndowa F,
    3. Lewis DA,
    4. Unemo M
    . 2009. Meeting the public health challenge of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 7:821–834.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Tapsall JW,
    2. Phillips EA
    . 1995. The sensitivity of 173 Sydney isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to cefpodoxime and other antibiotics used to treat gonorrhoea. Pathology 27:64–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    1. Tapsall JW,
    2. Ray S,
    3. Limnios A
    . 2010. Characteristics and population dynamics of mosaic penA allele-containing Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates collected in Sydney, Australia, in 2007–2008. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54:554–556.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Tapsall J,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Two cases of failed ceftriaxone treatment in pharyngeal gonorrhoea verified by molecular microbiological methods. J. Med. Microbiol. 58(Pt. 5):683–687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    1. Tomberg J,
    2. Unemo M,
    3. Davies C,
    4. Nicholas RA
    . 2010. Molecular and structural analysis of mosaic variants of penicillin-binding protein 2 conferring decreased susceptibility to expanded-spectrum cephalosporins in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: role of epistatic mutations. Biochemistry 49:8062–8070.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Tomera KM,
    2. et al
    . 2002. Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46:2895–2900.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. Fasth O,
    3. Fredlund H,
    4. Limnios A,
    5. Tapsall JW
    . 2009. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of the 2008 WHO Neisseria gonorrhoeae reference strain panel intended for global quality assurance and quality control of gonococcal antimicrobial resistance surveillance for public health purposes. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 63:1142–1151.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. Golparian D,
    3. Hestner A
    . 2011. Ceftriaxone treatment failure of pharyngeal gonorrhoea verified by international recommendations, Sweden, July 2010. Euro. Surveill. 16:pii=19792. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19792.
  49. 49.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. et al
    . 2012. High-level cefixime- and ceftriaxone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae in Europe (France): novel penA mosaic allele in a successful international clone causes treatment failure. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 56:1273–1280.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. Golparian D,
    3. Stary A,
    4. Eigentler A
    . 2011. First Neisseria gonorrhoeae strain with resistance to cefixime causing gonorrhoea treatment failure in Austria, 2011. Euro. Surveill. 16:pii=19998. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19998.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. Golparian D,
    3. Syversen G,
    4. Vestrheim DF,
    5. Moi H
    . 2010. Two cases of verified clinical failures using internationally recommended first-line cefixime for gonorrhoea treatment, Norway, 2010. Euro. Surveill. 15:pii=19721. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19721.
  52. 52.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. Shafer WM
    . 2011. Antibiotic resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae: origin, evolution, and lessons learned for the future. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1230:E19–E28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    1. Unemo M,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Molecular characterization of Neisseria gonorrhoeae identifies transmission and resistance of one ciprofloxacin-resistant strain. APMIS 115:231–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. 54.↵
    1. Veal WL,
    2. Nicholas RA,
    3. Shafer WM
    . 2002. Overexpression of the MtrC-MtrD-MtrE efflux pump due to an mtrR mutation is required for chromosomally mediated penicillin resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J. Bacteriol. 184:5619–5624.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Whiley DM,
    2. Limnios A,
    3. Ray S,
    4. Sloots TP,
    5. Tapsall JW
    . 2007. Diversity of penA alterations and subtypes in Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains from Sydney, Australia, that are less susceptible to ceftriaxone. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 51:3111–3116.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Whiley DM,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Reduced susceptibility to ceftriaxone in Neisseria gonorrhoeae is associated with mutations G542S, P551S and P551L in the gonococcal penicillin-binding protein 2. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 65:1615–1618.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.↵
    WHO Western Pacific and South East Asian Gonococcal Antimicrobial Surveillance Programmes. 2011. Surveillance of antibiotic resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the WHO Western Pacific and South East Asian Regions, 2009. Commun. Dis. Intell. 35:2–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Workowski KA,
    2. Berman S
    ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 59(RR-12):1–110.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Prevalence and incidence of selected sexually transmitted infections: Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, syphilis and Trichomonas vaginalis. Methods used by WHO to generate 2005 estimates. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. ISBN:978 92 4 150245 0.
  60. 60.↵
    1. Yokoi S,
    2. et al
    . 2007. Threat to cefixime treatment of gonorrhea. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13:1275–1277.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    1. Zarantonelli L,
    2. Borthagaray G,
    3. Lee EH,
    4. Shafer WM
    . 1999. Decreased azithromycin susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae due to mtrR mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:2468–2472.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Zhao S,
    2. et al
    . 2009. Genetics of chromosomally mediated intermediate resistance to ceftriaxone and cefixime in Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 53:3744–3751.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activity of Ertapenem versus Ceftriaxone against Neisseria gonorrhoeae Isolates with Highly Diverse Ceftriaxone MIC Values and Effects of Ceftriaxone Resistance Determinants: Ertapenem for Treatment of Gonorrhea?
Magnus Unemo, Daniel Golparian, Athena Limnios, David Whiley, Makoto Ohnishi, Monica M. Lahra, John W. Tapsall
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2012, 56 (7) 3603-3609; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00326-12

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.
In Vitro Activity of Ertapenem versus Ceftriaxone against Neisseria gonorrhoeae Isolates with Highly Diverse Ceftriaxone MIC Values and Effects of Ceftriaxone Resistance Determinants: Ertapenem for Treatment of Gonorrhea?
(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
In Vitro Activity of Ertapenem versus Ceftriaxone against Neisseria gonorrhoeae Isolates with Highly Diverse Ceftriaxone MIC Values and Effects of Ceftriaxone Resistance Determinants: Ertapenem for Treatment of Gonorrhea?
Magnus Unemo, Daniel Golparian, Athena Limnios, David Whiley, Makoto Ohnishi, Monica M. Lahra, John W. Tapsall
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2012, 56 (7) 3603-3609; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00326-12
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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