Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative in vitro antibacterial activity of seven semi-synthetic penicillins against aerobic gram-negative bacteria and enterococci

Vergleichende antibakterielle Invitro-Wirkung von sieben halbsynthetischen Penicillinen auf aerobe gramnegative Bakterien und Enterokokken

  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The MICs and MBCs of mecillinam, ticarcillin, mezlocillin, azlocillin and piperacillin were determined by the microdilution method in liquid medium using 700 strains of gram-negative bacilli and enterococci isolated from pathological sources and classified as a function of their sensitivity to ampicillin and carbenicillin. The ampicillin and carbenicillin-sensitive strains were generally sensitive to the other penicillins, although there were differences in activity. The ampicillin and carbenicillin-resistant strains ofEscherichia coli that produce a TEM-type penicillinase were sensitive to mecillinam. Mezlocillin, piperacillin and azlocillin had MICs of between 32 and 64 mg/l for 40% of these strains. TheKlebsiella strains, whose broad-spectrum penicillinase deactivates ampicillin and carbenicillin, remained sensitive to mecillinam. Mezlocillin, azlocillin and piperacillin had MICs of < 8 mg/l for 50% of these strains. The carbenicillin-resistant strains ofEnterobacter andCitrobacter were also resistant to the other penicillins. Piperacillin and mezlocillin displayed some activity against certain strains of carbenicillin-resistantSerratia, Proteus andAcinetobacter. Azlocillin, piperacillin and, to a lesser degree, mezlocillin were active against the strains ofPseudomonas, for which carbenicillin had an MIC of about 512 mg/l. Ampicillin, mezlocillin and azlocillin showed the best activity against the enterococci, against which mecillinam was inactive. The MBC of these antibiotics is greatly influenced by the density of the bacterial inoculum.

Zusammenfassung

MHK und MBK von Mecillinam, Ticarcillin, Mezlocillin, Azlocillin und Piperacillin wurden mit einer Mikroverdünnungsmethode in flüssigem Medium für 700 gramnegative Bakterienstämme und Enterokokken bestimmt, die aus pathologischem Material isoliert wurden, und als Funktion ihrer Empfindlichkeit für Ampicillin und Carbenicillin bewertet. Ampicillin- und Carbenicillin-empfindliche Stämme waren für die anderen Penicilline prinzipiell empfindlich, allerdings bei verschiedenen Konzentrationen. Ampicillin- und Carbenicillin-resistenteEscherichia coli-Stämme waren für Mecillinam empfindlich, sofern sie TEM-Penicillinase produzierten. Mezlocillin, Piperacillin und Azlocillin hatten für 40% dieser Stämme MHK-Werte zwischen 32 und 64 mg/l.Klebsiella-Stämme, deren breit wirksame Penicillinase Ampicillin und Carbenicillin abbaut, blieben für Mecillinam empfindlich. Bei 50% dieser Stämme lag die MHK für Mezlocillin, Azlocillin und Piperacillin < 8 mg/l. Die Carbenicillin-resistentenEnterobacter- undCitrobacter-Stämme waren auch für die anderen Penicilline resistent. Piperacillin und Mezlocillin zeigten Wirkung auf bestimmte Carbenicillin-resistente Stämme vonSerratia, Proteus undAcinetobacter. Azlocillin, Piperacillin und in geringerem Grad Mezlocillin wirkten aufPseudomonas-Stämme, deren Carbenicillin-MHK bei 512 mg/l lag. Ampicillin, Mezlocillin und Azlocillin hatten die stärkste Wirkung auf Enterokokken, gegen die Mecillinam unwirksam war. Die MBK dieser Antibiotika wird durch die Bakterieneinsaat stark beeinflußt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature

  1. Curtis, N. A. C., Orr, D., Ross, G. W., Boulton, M. G. Affinities of penicillins and cephalosporins for the penicillin-binding proteins ofE. coli K 12 and their bacterial activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 533–539.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Spratt, B. G. Properties of the penicillin-binding proteins ofEscherichia coli K 12. Eur. J. Biochem. 72 (1977) 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basker, M. J., Edmondson, R. A. E., Sutherland, R. Comparative antibacterial activity of azlocillin, mezlocillin, carbenicillin and relative stability to beta-lactamases ofPseudomonas aeruginosa andKlebsiella aerogenes. Infection 7 (1979) 67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jacoby, A. G., Sutton, L. Activity of β-lactam antibiotics againstPseudomonas aeruginosa carrying R plasmids determining different β-lactamases. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 243–248.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sykes, R. B., Mathew, M. The β-lactamases of gram-negative bacteria and their role in resistance to β-lactam antibiotics. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2 (1976) 115–117.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bongaerts, P. A. G., Bruggeman-Ogle, K. M. Effect of beta-lactamase and salt on mecillinam susceptibility of enterobacterial strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 18 (1980) 680–686.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tipper, D. J. Mode of action of beta-lactam antibiotics. Rev. Infect. Dis. 1 (1979) 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Medeiros, A. A., Ximenes, J., Blickstein-Goldworm, K., O'Brien, F. T., Acar, J. β-lactamases of ampicillin-resistantEscherichia coli from Brazil, France and the United States. In:Nelson, J. D., Grassi, C. (eds.): Current Chemotherapy and Infectious Diseases, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D. C. 1980, pp. 761–762.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thabaut, A., Durosoir, J. L. Semi-automatisation de la détermination de la concentration minima inhibitrice et de la concentration minima bactéricide des antibiotiques isolés et associés. Méd. Mal. Infect. 6 (1976) 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fass, J. R. Activity of mecillinam alone and in combination with other β-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 18 (1980), 906–912.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jones, R. M., Packer, R. R., Barry, A. L., Badal, R. E., Thornsberry, C., Baker, C. Piperacillin (T 1220) a new semi-synthetic penicillin:In vitro antimicrobial activity comparison with carbenicillin, ticarcillin, ampicillin, cephalothin, cefamandole and cefoxitin. J. Antibiotics 23 (1977) 1107–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Neu, H. C. Mecillinam: a novel penicillanic acid derivative with unusual activity against gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 (1976) 793–799.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thadepalli, H., Roy, I., Bach, V. T., Webb, D. In vitro activity of mezlocillin and its related compounds against aerobic bacteria. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15 (1979) 487–490.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Verbist, L. Comparison of the activities of the new ureido-penicillins, piperacillin, mezlocillin, azlocillin and Bay K 4999 against gram-negative organisms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 16 (1979) 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  15. White, G. W., Maldow, J. B., Zimelis, V. M., Pahlavan-Zadeh, H., Panwalker, A. P., Jackson, G. G. Comparativein vitro activity of azlocillin, ampicillin, mezlocillin, piperacillin and ticarcillin, alone and in combination with an aminoglycoside. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15 (1979) 540–543.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wise, R., Andrews, J. M., Bedford, K. A. Comparison of thein vitro activity of Bay K 4999 and piperacillin, two new antipseudomonal broad spectrum penicillins, with other β-lactam drugs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 14 (1978) 549–552.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gootz, T. D., Sanders, C. C., Sanders, W. E. In vitro activity of furazlocillin (Bay K 4999) compared with those of mezlocillin, piperacillin and standard beta-lactam antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 15 (1979) 783–791.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lance, G. W., Lewis, R. P., Meyer, R. D. Susceptibility of cephalothin-resistant gram-negative bacilli to piperacillin cefuroxime and other selected antibiotics. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 13 (1978) 484–489.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Witchitz, J. L., Faurisson, F., Christol, D. Sensibilité des bacilles gram-négatifs aérobies aux nouvelles pénicillines semi-synthétiques: Ticarcilline, mezlocilline, azlocilline, piperacilline, selon les phénotypes de résistance aux β-lactamines usuelles. Méd. Mal. Infect. 10 (1980) 287–293.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thabaut, A., Durosoir, J.L. & Saliou, P. Comparative in vitro antibacterial activity of seven semi-synthetic penicillins against aerobic gram-negative bacteria and enterococci. Infection 10 (Suppl 3), S249–S256 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640683

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01640683

Keywords

Navigation