Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Protocol
  • Published:

Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances

Nature Protocols volume 3, pages 163–175 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of broth and agar dilution methods is to determine the lowest concentration of the assayed antimicrobial agent (minimal inhibitory concentration, MIC) that, under defined test conditions, inhibits the visible growth of the bacterium being investigated. MIC values are used to determine susceptibilities of bacteria to drugs and also to evaluate the activity of new antimicrobial agents. Agar dilution involves the incorporation of different concentrations of the antimicrobial substance into a nutrient agar medium followed by the application of a standardized number of cells to the surface of the agar plate. For broth dilution, often determined in 96-well microtiter plate format, bacteria are inoculated into a liquid growth medium in the presence of different concentrations of an antimicrobial agent. Growth is assessed after incubation for a defined period of time (16–20 h) and the MIC value is read. This protocol applies only to aerobic bacteria and can be completed in 3 d.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3: Outline of the setup of a microtiter plate for antimicrobial susceptibility testing with doubling dilutions of eight different antimicrobial agents in two different concentration ranges with labeling suggestions in blue.
Figure 4: Interpretation of possible growth patterns in MIC microtiter plates.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing; sixteenth informational supplement. CLSI document M100-S16CLSI, Wayne, PA (2006).

  2. European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID). Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibacterial agents by broth dilution. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 9, ix–xv (2003).

  3. Kahlmeter, G. et al. European harmonization of MIC breakpoints for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 52, 145–148 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nanavaty, J., Mortensen, J.E. & Shryock, T.R. The effects of environmental conditions on the in vitro activity of selected antimicrobial agents against Escherichia coli. Curr. Microbiol. 36, 212–215 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. D'amato, R.F., Thornsberry, C., Baker, C.N. & Kirven, L.A. Effect of calcium and magnesium ions on the susceptibility of Pseudomonas species to tetracycline, gentamicin polymyxin B, and carbenicillin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 7, 596–600 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rhomberg, P.R., Sader, H.S. & Jones, R. Reproducibility of daptomycin MIC results using dry-form commercial trays with appropriate supplemental calcium content. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 25, 274–276 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowdish, D.M., Davidson, D.J. & Hancock, R.E. A re-evalution of the role of host defence peptides in mammalian immunity. Curr. Protein Pep. Sci. 6, 35–51 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hancock, R.E. & Sahl, H.G. Antimicrobial and host-defense peptides as new anti-infective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1551–1557 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chambers, H.F. & Hackbarth, C.J. Effect of NaCl and nafcillin on penicillin-binding protein 2a and heterogeneous expression of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 31, 1982–1988 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferguson, R.W. & Weissfeld, A.S. Comparison of the suitability of three common bacterial media for susceptibility testing of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Clin. Microbiol. 19, 85–86 (1984).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bradford, P.A. et al. Tigecycline MIC testing by broth dilution requires use of fresh medium or addition of the biocatalytic oxygen-reducing reagent oxyrase to standardize the test method. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49, 3903–3909 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomson, K.S. & Moland, E.S. Cefepime, piperacillin-tazobactam, and the inoculum effect in tests with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 3548–3554 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chambers, H.F. Methicillin-resistant staphylococci. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1, 173–186 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Granier, S.A. et al. False susceptibility of Klebsiella oxytoca to some extended-spectrum cephalosporins. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 50, 303–304 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pankey, G.A. & Sabath, L.D. Clinical relevance of bacteriostatic versus bactericidal mechanisms of action in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections. Clin. Infect. Dis. 38, 864–870 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Biedenbach, D.J., Schermer, I.H. & Jones, R.N. Validation of Etest for seven antimicrobial agents using regulatory criteria for the assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility devices. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 27, 1–5 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrews, J.M. & Wise, R. Comparison of the Etest with a conventional agar dilution method in evaluating the in vitro activity of moxifloxacin. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 45, 257–258 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Steward, C.D. et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of carbapenems: multicenter validity testing and accuracy levels of five antimicrobial test methods for detecting resistance in Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41, 351–358 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Biedenbach, D.J. & Jones, R.N. Comparative assessment of Etest for testing susceptibilities of Neisseria gonorrhoeae to penicillin, tetracycline, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ciprofloxacin: investigation using 510(k) review criteria, recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34, 3214–3217 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Di Bonaventura, G. et al. Comparison of Etest, agar dilution, broth microdilution and disk diffusion methods for testing in vitro activity of levofloxacin against Staphylococcus spp. isolated from neutropenic cancer patients. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 19, 147–154 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fritsche, T.R., Rennie, R.P., Goldstein, B.P. & Jones, R.N. Comparison of dalbavancin MIC values determined by Etest (AB BIODISK) and reference dilution methods using gram-positive organisms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44, 2988–2990 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sader, H.S., Fritsche, T.R. & Jones, R.N. Accuracy of three automated systems (MicroScan WalkAway, VITEK, and VITEK 2) for susceptibility testing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa against five broad-spectrum beta-lactam agents. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44, 1101–1104 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wiegand, I. et al. Detection of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases among Enterobacteriaceae by use of semiautomated microbiology systems and manual detection procedures. J. Clin. Microbiol. 45, 1167–1174 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andrews, JM. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 48 (suppl. 1): 5–16 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Steinberg, D.A., Hurst, M.A., Fujii, C.A., Kung, A.H., Ho, J.F., Cheng, F.C., Loury, D.J. & Fiddes, J.C. Protegrin-1: a broad-spectrum, rapidly microbial peptide with in vivo activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41, 1738–1742 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wick, WE. Influence of antibiotic stability on the results of in vitro testing procedures. J. Bacteriol. 87, 1162–1170 (1964).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Wiegand, I. & Wiedemann, B. Microbial resistance to drugs. In Encyclopedic Refererence of Molecular Pharmacology (eds. Offermanns, S. & Rosenthal, W.) 594–600 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ericsson, HM & Sherris, JC. Antibiotic sensitivity testing. Report of an international collaborative study. Acta. Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. B. 217 (suppl.), 1–90 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial assistance of the Applied Food and Materials Network and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. R.E.W.H. was supported by a Canada Research Chair award. K.H. was supported by a fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. I.W. was supported by the Juergen-Manchot-Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Microbial Diseases and Immunity Research, University of British Columbia, 2259 Lower Mall Research Station, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, British Columbia, Canada

    Irith Wiegand, Kai Hilpert & Robert E W Hancock

Authors
  1. Irith Wiegand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Hilpert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert E W Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert E W Hancock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiegand, I., Hilpert, K. & Hancock, R. Agar and broth dilution methods to determine the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of antimicrobial substances. Nat Protoc 3, 163–175 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.521

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.521

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing