Measurement of ampicillin, vancomycin, linezolid and gentamicin activity against enterococcal biofilms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enterococci frequently cause biofilm infections but susceptibility of clinical isolates growing in biofilms has not been investigated. The minimum biofilm eradicating concentration (MBEC) has been suggested as a guide to treatment of biofilm infections. We measured an alternative endpoint, the minimum biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) and compared the results with MIC and MBC. OBJECTIVES: To compare the MIC, MBC and MBIC of ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid against enterococcal biofilms, to assess the impact of additional gentamicin and correlate findings with clinical outcome. METHODS: MIC and MBC were measured using standard techniques. MBICs were measured using a modification of the Calgary biofilm device method. Fifty-eight enterococcal isolates from episodes of intravascular catheter-related bloodstream infection were tested. RESULTS: Tolerance to ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid was seen in 93%, 100% and 93% of isolates, respectively. MIC(90)s of ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid were all 4 mg/L for Enterococcus faecalis isolates. MBC(90)s of ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid for E. faecalis isolates were 1024, >128 and 2048 mg/L, respectively. MBIC(90)s of ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid for E. faecalis isolates were 8192, 4096 and 4096 mg/L, respectively. Results for Enterococcus faecium were similar for vancomycin and linezolid but this species was generally more resistant to ampicillin. Adding 10 mg/L gentamicin had a variable effect on MIC, MBC or MBIC, which was not predictable by gentamicin susceptibility on disc testing. CONCLUSIONS: Very high concentrations of ampicillin, vancomycin and linezolid are required to inhibit enterococcal biofilms in vitro. Combining these agents with gentamicin significantly reduced MIC, MBC and MBIC against only a proportion of enterococcal isolates. No correlation between MBIC and outcome was found.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".