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 Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates with the EUCAST Methodology, a New Method for ECOFF Determination

J. Meletiadis, I. Curfs-Breuker, J. F. Meis, J. W. Mouton
J. Meletiadis
aClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Attikon University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
bDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
I. Curfs-Breuker
cDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. F. Meis
cDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
dCenter of Expertise in Mycology, Radboudumc, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J. F. Meis
J. W. Mouton
bDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J. W. Mouton
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02372-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The in vitro susceptibilities of 1,099 molecularly identified clinical Candida isolates against 8 antifungal drugs were determined using the EUCAST microdilution method. A new simple, objective, and mathematically solid method for determining epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) was developed by derivatizing the MIC distribution and determining the derivatized ECOFF (dECOFF) as the highest MIC with the maximum second derivative. The dECOFFs were similar (95% agreement within 1 dilution) to the EUCAST ECOFFs. Overall, low non-wild-type/resistance rates were found. The highest rates were found for azoles with C. parapsilosis (2.7 to 9.8%), C. albicans (7%), and C. glabrata (1.7 to 2.3%) and for echinocandins with C. krusei (3.3%), C. albicans (1%), and C. tropicalis (1.7%).

TEXT

Although epidemiological cutoff values (ECOFFs) are not clinical breakpoints, they are useful and necessary for defining wild-type populations and detecting strains with MIC values outside the wild-type distribution that may reflect strains with reduced susceptibility (1, 2). However, for some antifungal drugs and Candida species, no ECOFFs hinder the detection of non-wild-type isolates. Determination of an ECOFF may be quite challenging, since it requires complex statistical analysis (3), and so far, no clear consensus on the best method has been reached. The CLSI is using a statistical approach whereby the log-normal distribution is iteratively fitted to different MIC subsets until the best fit is found (2). However, a perfect fit may not be attained, particularly for small MIC data sets or for nonsymmetric distributions or distributions with heavy tails. Truncated data cannot by analyzed because the normal distribution cannot be easily defined (3). Furthermore, the percentage of isolates that should be encompassed within the wild-type distribution is arbitrarily chosen to be between 95 and 99%, and it is strongly affected by the percentage of resistant isolates. Finally, different MIC subpopulations cannot be easily identified. For multimodal MIC distributions, a statistical approach was used to describe the MIC subpopulations of Aspergillus fumigatus and azoles (4). EUCAST utilized both a nonstatistical approach, namely, the “eyeball method,” whereby ECOFFs are determined by visual inspection of the MIC distribution as the MIC at the beginning of the left tail, as well as the statistical approach mentioned above. Although with visual inspection one does not assume a specific shape of MIC distribution, it is subjective and difficult for nonsymmetrical distributions and MIC distributions with a high kurtosis.

Few large studies have used the EUCAST method to define wild-type (WT) distributions of antifungals and Candida spp. We therefore determined the susceptibilities of more than 1,000 molecularly identified clinical Candida sp. isolates to 8 antifungal drugs using the EUCAST methodology. Furthermore, a simple mathematical approach was developed for analyzing MIC distribution and for determining ECOFFs in an objective fashion.

We used 1,099 Candida strains collected from 871 patients recruited into clinical trials of invasive and esophageal candidiasis between 2002 and 2004 with no prior echinocandin exposure. Since WT distributions and ECOFFs are species specific, all strains were reidentified in our laboratory using molecular techniques, including amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) technique, where appropriate (5). In total, 584 strains (53.1%) were identified as C. albicans, 180 (16.4%) as C. tropicalis, 122 (11.1%) as C. parapsilosis, 86 (7.8%) as C. glabrata, and 30 (2.7%) as C. krusei, as previously described (6). The remaining 97 (8.8%) isolates belong to other Candida spp. (i.e., C. guilliermondii, 20; C. orthopsilosis, 15; C. lusitaniae, 11; C. dubliniensis, 8; C. rugosa, 7; C. kefyr, 7; C. pelliculosa, 6; C. fabiani, 5; C. lipolytica, 3; C. metapsilosis, 3; C. utilis, 2; C. fermentati, 2; C. intermedia, 2; C. inconspicua, 1; C. pararugosa, 1; C. famata, 1; C. palmioleophila, 1; C. xestobii, 1; and C. viswanathii, 1) (6). No C. dubliniensis and no C. glabrata cryptic species were found, whereas within the C. parapsilosis complex (n = 140), 87.2% (n = 122) were C. parapsilosissensu stricto, 10.7% (n = 15) were C. orthopsilosis, and 2.1% (n = 3) were C. metapsilosis. Microdilution testing was performed using the EUCAST E.DEF 7.3 method (7). The MIC distribution was constructed, and the MIC50 and MIC90 were calculated for each drug and species as the MICs that inhibit 50% and 90% of isolates, respectively. The percentage of resistant isolates was calculated using the EUCAST clinical breakpoints, when available, or ECOFFs when clinical breakpoints were not available (Table 1) (see http://www.eucast.org/clinical_breakpoints/ ).

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

EUCAST clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values

In search of a new, more objective, and mathematically solid ECOFF determination method other than the eyeball method, we extracted MIC distributions for amphotericin B, fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, anidulafungin, and micafungin from the EUCAST website (see http://mic.eucast.org/Eucast2/ ), and the dECOFF was determined for each MIC distribution by calculating the numerical second derivative at each MIC of the distribution (GraphPad Prism 4.0, San Diego, CA). The second derivative describes the change in steepness of the MIC distribution at each MIC. It becomes zero at inflection points where the curve changes from concave to convex, or vice versa (1 standard deviation [SD] away from the mean of a normal distribution), minimum at the point with the greatest concavity (center of a unimodal distribution), and maximum at points with the greatest convexity (~1.73 SDs away from the mean of a normal distribution). The area within the maximum second derivatives around the mean contains most of the data and can be used to define the wild-type population, whereas MIC subpopulations can also be determined between other maxima of second derivatives (Fig. 1). The absolute (0 2-fold-dilution difference) and essential (1 2-fold-dilution difference) agreements between EUCAST ECOFFs determined with the eyeball method (eyeball ECOFFs) and dECOFFs were then calculated for all drug-species combinations.

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

Examples of the derivatization method used with two previously published distributions of voriconazole. (Left) MIC distributions. ECOFFs were determined using the eyeball method. (Right) Second derivatives as functions of the MIC. ECOFFs were determined using the derivatization method. Inflection points, maximum second derivatives, and hypothetical MIC subpopulations are indicated.

Based on the EUCAST breakpoints and ECOFFs (Table 1), the highest non-wild-type and resistance rates were found for C. parapsilosis against fluconazole (9.8%), voriconazole (5.8%), posaconazole (2.7%), and itraconazole (0.8%) (Table 2). The corresponding rate of C. albicans resistance to voriconazole was 7%, and it was 1% for the other azoles. Similarly, azole resistance rates for C. tropicalis were low (0.6 to 1.2%). For C. glabrata, 1.2 to 2.3% were resistant to all azoles, whereas for C. krusei, no isolates resistant to any azoles except fluconazole were found. For echinocandins, 3.3% of C. krusei and 1.1% of C. tropicalis isolates were resistant to anidulafungin, and 0.7% of C. albicans and 1.7% of C. tropicalis isolates were resistant to micafungin. Amphotericin B resistance was found only in C. tropicalis isolates (1.1%).

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

MIC distribution for each drug and Candida species in this study

The principle of dECOFF determination is shown in Fig. 1. The ECOFFs determined by the eyeball and derivatization methods are presented in Table 1 for all drug-species pairs. Of 35 comparisons (5 species, 7 drugs), the dECOFF was the same in 16 (46%), 1 dilution different in 17 (49%) (8 were higher, 9 were lower), and 2 dilutions lower in 2 (5%) (voriconazole with C. albicans and C. parapsilosis) compared to EUCAST ECOFFs. For C. albicans and C. parapsilosis and for all azoles, the dECOFFs were lower than the EUCAST ECOFFs. In the present study, we developed a simple objective nonparametric approach for ECOFF determination which combines the flexibility of the EUCAST approach and the robustness of other statistical approaches. The method is based on derivatization of an MIC frequency distribution and calculation of second derivatives. This describes mathematically the change in curvature of the MIC distribution. The ECOFF is then determined as the second maximum of the second derivatives of the MIC distribution, which corresponds to the MIC with the largest convexity at the right tail of the unimodal distribution. This approach can be applied to any shape of unimodal or multimodal MIC distribution, even in truncated data sets, since the exact shape (i.e., precise parameter estimates) of the Gaussian distribution is not needed. For multimodal distributions, more than two maxima of the second derivatives are present, corresponding to hypersusceptible or resistant subpopulations (Fig. 1). A cutoff for the percentage of isolates that should be encompassed in the wild-type distribution is not needed, thus avoiding a major issue of controversy in the CLSI approach (3). It is also expected to be less sensitive for individual MIC distributions independent of median/modal MICs, SDs, and MIC frequencies, as long as the overall curvature is not changed.

Comparable ECOFFs, with some notable exceptions, were found with the eyeball method. Despite similar MIC distributions for micafungin and anidulafungin for C. parapsilosis, different eyeball ECOFFs were determined (2 versus 4 mg/liter, respectively), whereas dECOFFs were the same (4 mg/liter). Similarly, for C. albicans, current EUCAST ECOFFs of micafungin and anidulafungin correspond to the modal MICs (0.016 and 0.031 mg/liter, respectively), whereas the dECOFFs lie 1 dilution higher. Amphotericin B dECOFFs were consistently 1 dilution higher than the eyeball ECOFFs, probably because of heavy clustering of MICs within 2 to 4 dilutions, resulting in an MIC distribution with no tails. On the contrary, voriconazole and itraconazole dECOFFs were usually 1 dilution lower than eyeball ECOFFs because of long-tailed MIC distributions. These two types of MIC distributions with low and high kurtosis pose a real challenge to the eyeball method, since the real ECOFF is between 2 dilutions (in case of amphotericin B) and several dilutions (in case of azoles). The derivatization method may provide a statistical objective alternative tool to the eyeball method for ECOFF determination, particularly for those MIC distributions. It would be interesting to perform this method with larger and different MIC distributions for both bacterial and fungal species in a multicenter study that includes isolates with known resistance mechanisms.

In the present collection, resistance/non-wild-type rates were low for amphotericin B (<1%) and echinocandins (<3%), whereas for azoles, the highest rates were found for C. parapsilosis with fluconazole (10%) and voriconazole (6%) and for C. albicans with voriconazole (7%). These rates are comparable with those from previously published epidemiological studies, but with notable differences (8–12). Higher rates of resistance for C. tropicalis to voriconazole (25 to 67%) and of different Candida species to posaconazole (18 to 80%) were previously reported using smaller collections of bloodstream isolates (n <60) and a lower breakpoint of 0.06 mg/liter for posaconazole compared with that in the present study (8, 9, 11). Ten to 20% rates of resistance to echinocandins were reported for C. albicans (n = 97), C. parapsilosis (n = 55), and C. glabrata (n = 32) (9). These discrepancies emphasize the impact of the origin, the number of isolates tested, the collection period, and the breakpoint used on reported resistance rates in each study. Therefore, the new approach described here may help to determine in a simple, objective, and mathematically based manner local and global ECOFFs for detecting non-wild-type isolates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was partly sponsored by Astellas Pharma Europe, Inc.

We declare no conflicts of interest.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 4 November 2016.
    • Returned for modification 10 December 2016.
    • Accepted 17 January 2017.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 23 January 2017.
  • Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved .

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mouton JW,
    2. Brown DF,
    3. Apfalter P,
    4. Canton R,
    5. Giske CG,
    6. Ivanova M,
    7. Macgowan AP,
    8. Rodloff A,
    9. Soussy CJ,
    10. Steinbakk M,
    11. Kahlmeter G
    . 2012. The role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics in setting clinical MIC breakpoints: the EUCAST approach. Clin Microbiol Infect18:E37–E45. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03752.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Espinel-Ingroff A,
    2. Turnidge J
    . 2016. The role of epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs/ECOFFs) in antifungal susceptibility testing and interpretation for uncommon yeasts and moulds. Rev Iberoam Micol33:63–75. doi:10.1016/j.riam.2016.04.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Turnidge J,
    2. Kahlmeter G,
    3. Kronvall G
    . 2006. Statistical characterisation of bacterial wild-type MIC value distributions and the determination of epidemiological cut-off values. Clin Microbiol Infect12:418–425. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2006.01377.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Meletiadis J,
    2. Mavridou E,
    3. Melchers WJ,
    4. Mouton JW,
    5. Verweij PE
    . 2012. Epidemiological cutoff values for azoles and Aspergillus fumigatus based on a novel mathematical approach incorporating cyp51A sequence analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother56:2524–2529. doi:10.1128/AAC.05959-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Prakash A,
    2. Sharma C,
    3. Singh A,
    4. Kumar Singh P,
    5. Kumar A,
    6. Hagen F,
    7. Govender NP,
    8. Colombo AL,
    9. Meis JF,
    10. Chowdhary A
    . 2016. Evidence of genotypic diversity among Candida auris isolates by multilocus sequence typing, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry and amplified fragment length polymorphism. Clin Microbiol Infect22:277.e1–277.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.10.022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Meletiadis J,
    2. Geertsen E,
    3. Curfs-Breuker I,
    4. Meis JF,
    5. Mouton JW
    . 2016. Intra- and interlaboratory agreement in assessing the in vitro activity of micafungin against common and rare Candida species with the EUCAST, CLSI, and Etest methods. Antimicrob Agents Chemother60:6173–6178. doi:10.1128/AAC.01027-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Guinea J,
    3. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    4. Meletiadis J,
    5. Mouton JW,
    6. Lagrou K,
    7. Howard SJ
    ; Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). 2015. EUCAST definitive document E.DEF 7.3. Method for the determination of broth dilution minimum inhibitory concentrations of antifungal agents for yeasts. http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/AFST/Files/EUCAST_E_Def_7_3_1_Yeast_testing__definitive.pdf.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Guinea J,
    2. Zaragoza O,
    3. Escribano P,
    4. Martin-Mazuelos E,
    5. Peman J,
    6. Sanchez-Reus F,
    7. Cuenca-Estrella M
    . 2014. Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility of yeast isolates causing fungemia collected in a population-based study in Spain in 2010 and 2011. Antimicrob Agents Chemother58:1529–1537. doi:10.1128/AAC.02155-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Faria-Ramos I,
    2. Neves-Maia J,
    3. Ricardo E,
    4. Santos-Antunes J,
    5. Silva AT,
    6. Costa-de-Oliveira S,
    7. Canton E,
    8. Rodrigues AG,
    9. Pina-Vaz C
    . 2014. Species distribution and in vitro antifungal susceptibility profiles of yeast isolates from invasive infections during a Portuguese multicenter survey. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis33:2241–2247. doi:10.1007/s10096-014-2194-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Minea B,
    2. Nastasa V,
    3. Moraru RF,
    4. Kolecka A,
    5. Flonta MM,
    6. Marincu I,
    7. Man A,
    8. Toma F,
    9. Lupse M,
    10. Doroftei B,
    11. Marangoci N,
    12. Pinteala M,
    13. Boekhout T,
    14. Mares M
    . 2014. Species distribution and susceptibility profile to fluconazole, voriconazole and MXP-4509 of 551 clinical yeast isolates from a Romanian multi-centre study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis34:367–383. doi:10.1007/s10096-014-2240-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Orasch C,
    2. Marchetti O,
    3. Garbino J,
    4. Schrenzel J,
    5. Zimmerli S,
    6. Muhlethaler K,
    7. Pfyffer G,
    8. Ruef C,
    9. Fehr J,
    10. Zbinden R,
    11. Calandra T,
    12. Bille J
    . 2014. Candida species distribution and antifungal susceptibility testing according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and new vs. old Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute clinical breakpoints: a 6-year prospective candidaemia survey from the fungal infection network of Switzerland. Clin Microbiol Infect20:698–705. doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rambach G,
    2. Oberhauser H,
    3. Speth C,
    4. Lass-Flörl C
    . 2011. Susceptibility of Candida species and various moulds to antimycotic drugs: use of epidemiological cutoff values according to EUCAST and CLSI in an 8-year survey. Med Mycol49:856–863. doi:10.3109/13693786.2011.583943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates with the EUCAST Methodology, a New Method for ECOFF Determination
J. Meletiadis, I. Curfs-Breuker, J. F. Meis, J. W. Mouton
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2017, 61 (4) e02372-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02372-16

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 Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates with the EUCAST Methodology, a New Method for ECOFF Determination
(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 Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Candida Isolates with the EUCAST Methodology, a New Method for ECOFF Determination
J. Meletiadis, I. Curfs-Breuker, J. F. Meis, J. W. Mouton
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Mar 2017, 61 (4) e02372-16; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02372-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antifungal agents
Candida
microbial sensitivity tests
Candida
EUCAST
antifungal susceptibility testing
epidemiological cutoff value

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