4.3 Article

Colorimetric microdilution assay: Validation of a standard method for determination of MIC, IC50%, and IC90% of antimicrobial compounds

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 50-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2019.05.003

关键词

Validation; Microdilution assay; 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride; Microorganisms quantification

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The emergence of multiresistant bacteria directly impacts on the search for new compounds with antimicrobial activity, and it is important the improvement of new techniques are able to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial compounds. The microdilution technique is widely used for saving culture media, reagents and compounds to be tested. However, the literature does not describe a colorimetric method capable of correlating absorbance with concentration of viable microorganisms (CFU-1). Therefore, the novelty of this work was the standardization and validation of a colorimetric and quantitative method capable of determining the MIC of several compounds with antimicrobial activity and the conversion of absorbance values to CFU mL(-1). The conditions carried out for the method were: the use of 0.125% (w/v) 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) solution added after 22 h of incubation at 35 degrees C, followed by 2 more hours of incubation and subsequent reading in a spectrophotometer. The tested microorganisms were: Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538), Escherichia soli (ATCC 8739), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 9027) and Candida albicans (ATCC 10231). The method was validated and showed linearity (R-2 > 0.95), precision (RSD < 26%), accuracy (75% to 122%) and robustness (p > 0.05). The validated parameters ensured the harmonization of methodology to determine not only MIC as well as inhibitory concentrations of 50% (IC50%) and 90% (IC90%) of the antimicrobial compounds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据