Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub
Comparison of methods of inoculation for antibacterial potential assay
Research Paper |
September 1, 2019
VIEWS 10 | Download
12
Shazia Yaqub, Mian Anjum Murtaza, Shinawar Waseem Ali, Abdul Munim Farooq
Key Words:
Int. J. Biosci.15( 3), 328-333, September 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/15.3.328-333
Certification:
IJB 2019 [Generate Certificate]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.
VIEWS 10
Shazia Yaqub, Mian Anjum Murtaza, Shinawar Waseem Ali, Abdul Munim Farooq (2019), Comparison of methods of inoculation for antibacterial potential assay; IJB, V15, N3, September, P328-333
https://innspub.net/comparison-of-methods-of-inoculation-for-antibacterial-potential-assay/
https://innspub.net/comparison-of-methods-of-inoculation-for-antibacterial-potential-assay/
Copyright © 2019
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
http://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
http://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0
Comparison of methods of inoculation for antibacterial potential assay
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
