The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations
Open accessAbstract
The lack of a standardized, statistically reliable method for in vitro determinations of the minimal lethal or bactericidal concentrations of antibiotics has complicated analyses of isolates of Staphylococcus aureus which appear to be inhibited but not killed by the usual concentrations of cell wall-active antibiotics. We describe a method which identifies some of the covariants involved in determinations of minimal lethal concentrations. Lethality was defined as a 99.9% reduction in the initial inoculum of bacteria after 24 h of incubation. We limited the sample volume to 0.01 ml to minimize the inhibitory effect of antibiotic and corresponding rejection values, which detected lethality with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. When the number of colonies on subculture was equal to or less than the rejection value, the antibiotic was considered lethal for the test organism. Rejection values encompassed initial inocula from 10(5) to 10(7) colony-forming units per ml for single and duplicate samples and allowed for 1 or 5% variability in pipette volumes and errors in initial inoculum determinations. This method was used to determine the minimal lethal concentrations of semi-synthetic penicillins for S. aureau isolates, one of which was tolerant to the killing action of penicillin.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study.
Ericsson, H., & Sherris, J. C. (1971) · PubMed · Cited by 1,324
Ahrens, H. (1968) · Biometrische Zeitschrift · doi:10.1002/bimj.19680100225 · Cited by 378
A NEW TYPE OF PENICILLIN RESISTANCE OF STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS
(1977) · InPharma · doi:10.1007/bf03284982 · Cited by 253
Peterson, L. R., Gerding, D. N., Hall, W. H., & Schierl, E. A. (1978) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.13.4.665 · Cited by 51
Cited by
Principles of assessing bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics using the agar diffusion method
Bonev, B., Hooper, J., & Parisot, J. (2008) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkn090 · Cited by 644
Pfaller, M. A., Sheehan, D. J., & Rex, J. H. (2004) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.17.2.268-280.2004 · Cited by 352
Klepser, M. E., Ernst, E. J., Lewis, R. E., Ernst, M. E., & Pfaller, M. A. (1998) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.42.5.1207 · Cited by 338
Potent Synergism of the Combination of Fluconazole and Cyclosporine in Candida albicans
Marchetti, O., Moreillon, P., Glauser, M. P., Bille, J., & Sanglard, D. (2000) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.44.9.2373-2381.2000 · Cited by 252
Jacqueline, C., Navas, D., Batard, E., Miegeville, A.-F., Le Mabecque, V., Kergueris, M.-F., Bugnon, D., Potel, G., & Caillon, J. (2005) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.49.1.45-51.2005 · Cited by 95
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearson, R. D., Steigbigel, R. T., Davis, H. T., & Chapman, S. W.
- Venue
- Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1980-11
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 699-708
- ISSN
- 0066-4804 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-6596
- OpenAlex
- W2030371182
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aac.18.5.699
- The paper
- Pearson, R. D., Steigbigel, R. T., Davis, H. T., & Chapman, S. W. (1980). Method of reliable determination of minimal lethal antibiotic concentrations. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.18.5.699
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.