The results of VITEK learn more 2 and Etest were disconcordant with respect to the susceptibility of the study strains to IMP and AN (data
not shown). Strains belonging to the same clone had different MICs. For example, MICIMP of clone A strains ranged from 1.5 to > 32 mg L−1, and MICAN among clone A strains ranged from 2 to > 256 mg L−1 (complete data now shown). Three strains belonging to clone A were resistant to COL, with MICsCOL of 24, 128, and 256 mg L−1. The MIC values, both original and those resulting from combining two antibiotics, are presented in Table S2. The combination of COL–DOX showed the best result, being additive or synergistic to 70% of tested strains. Synergy was observed in four instances: the COL–DOX this website combination to strain 12 (clone A) and strain 19 (clone B); the IMP–COL combination to strain 12; and the COL–RIF combination to strain 12. The IMP–RIF, IMP–COL, and IMP–AZT combinations had different effects on tested strains depending
on their clonality (Table 1). For example, the IMP–RIF combination was additive to five clone B strains, but not to any clone A strains. Conversely, the IMP–COL combination was additive to four clone A strains, but not to any clone B strains. For clone A, the addition of RIF did not result in a significant reduction in the mean MICIMP (P = 0.34) or the mean MICCOL (P = 0.24), while for clone B, the addition of RIF resulted in a significant reduction in MICIMP (P << 0.05) and the mean MICCOL (P << 0.005). Combinations containing COL showed the following results for two clone A, COL-resistant strains: for strain 12 (MICCOL = 128 mg L−1), the IMP–COL,
COL–RIF, and COL–DOX combinations were synergistic, while the COL–AN and COL–TGC combinations were indifferent. For strain 13 (MICCOL = 24 mg L−1), the IMP–COL, COL–RIF, and COL–DOX combinations were additive, while the COL–AN and COL–TGC combinations were indifferent. The results of aIEF and PCR screening on five strains (three from clone www.selleck.co.jp/products/Vorinostat-saha.html A and two from clone B) are summarized in Table S3. Overall, the results of the aIEF and PCR screening were consistent with each other. To illustrate, the β-lactamase ‘band’ detected at isoelectric point (pI) of 5.0 (observed in strains 12 and 13) corresponds to the PER β-lactamase. The pIs of 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 may represent the TEM β-lactamases (seen in strains 11, 12, 13, and 15), and the pI of 6.3 most likely corresponds to the OXA-Ab β-lactamase, while the band at pI of > 9.0 corresponds to the ADC β-lactamase. PCR amplification confirmed the presence of the genes encoding these enzymes. The only exception is strain 16, which had a band at pI of 5.6 but was negative for the TEM β-lactamase.