Comparison of methods of inoculation for antibacterial potential assay

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/09/2019
Views (799)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Comparison of methods of inoculation for antibacterial potential assay

Shazia Yaqub, Mian Anjum Murtaza, Shinawar Waseem Ali, Abdul Munim Farooq
Int. J. Biosci. 15(3), 328-333, September 2019.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2019; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

Two different methods of inoculations (spreading and pouring) were compared to choose one for better results for antibacterial potential assay. For comparison, two different parameters were selected that includes inoculation method and quantity of supernatant. In spite of spreading variable quantities of indicator organisms, no remarkable difference was observed on growth bed on agar media after incubation. When indicator organisms were poured after mixing with luke warm media, significant difference in growth bed was observed. The quantity of supernatant of test isolate P15 (Bacillus leicheniformis) showed a direct relation to inhibition zone formed. Suggesting that pouring method is effective to test the antibacterial potential of isolated strains against indicator organisms by agar well diffusion method.

Balouiri M, Sadiki M, Ibnsouda SK. 2016. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis 6, 71−79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpha.2015.11.005.

Harrigan WF. 1998. Laboratory methods in food microbiology. 3rd Edition. Gulf professional publishing. ISBN: 9780123260437.

Hoben HJ, Somasegaran P. 1982. Comparison of the pour, spread, and drop plate methods for enumeration of Rhizobium spp. in inoculants made from presterilized peat. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 44, 1246­−1247.

Kang  JH, Lee MS. 2005. Characterization of a bacteriocin produced by Enterococcus faecium GM‐1 isolated from an infant. Journal of Applied Microbiology 98,  1169−1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02556.x.

Magaldi S, Mata-Essayag S, De Capriles CH, Perez C, Colella MT, Olaizola C, Ontiveros Y. 2004. Well diffusion for antifungal susceptibility testing. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 8, 39−45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2003.03.002.

Valgas C, Souza SMD, Smania EF, Smania JA. 2007. Screening methods to determine antibacterial activity of natural products. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 38, 369−380. https://doi.org/10.1590/S151783822007000200.034

Related Articles

Lived experiences, psychosocial challenges and quality of life of drug surrenders

Van Ryan I. Alipoyo*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 184-200, February 2026.

Evaluation of the sensorial quality of peppermint (Mentha piperita) ice cream

Iriz Klir Austria, Michael Sta. Ana, Marigen E. Toraja*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 177-183, February 2026.

Epidemiology of polycystic ovary syndrome among young adult women: A cross sectional analysis

Ch. B. Praveena Devi*, S. Priya, P. Tanvi, S. Swathika, G. Bhavitha Sri, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 170-176, February 2026.

Comparative assessment of mixed and intercropping of lentil (Lens culinaris) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

Md. Shamim Ahmed*, Mohammad Tojammel Haq, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 151-158, February 2026.

Extraction of biologically active substances of fungi isolated from various ecosystems and evaluation of their effect

K. F. Bakhshaliyeva*, G. A. Tomuyeva, A. R. Hasanova, V. Y. Hasanova, A. M. Hasanov, S. E. Nagiyeva, A. G. Eyvazov, G. T. Huseynova, G. A. Qasimova, V. K. Isayeva, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 143-150, February 2026.

Integrative role of yeast culture metabolites in aquatic health and productivity

Sajjad Ur Rahman, Dur E Nayab, Rabia Kanwar*, Muhammad Mukarram Bashir, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 126-142, February 2026.

Land use efficiency and performance of sweet corn-cowpea intercropping influenced by temporal planting and methods of fertilizer application

Bryan Cristian M. Demolar, Marissa C. Hitalia*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 101-125, February 2026.