The prevalence and mechanism of triclosan resistance in Escherichia coli isolated from urine samples in Wenzhou, China

Table 2 MICs of triclosan and antibiotics against the parent and mutant E. coli strains

Isolates	DC8361		DC8363		DC8400		DC8413		DC8510
Isolates	Pre^a	Post^b	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
TCS^c	0.125	32	0.125	32	0.125	64	0.25	128	0.125	32
AMP	< 4	< 4	>128^d	> 128	> 128	> 128	> 128	> 128	> 128	> 128
CIP	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	1	< 0.25	2	< 0.25	< 0.25
LVX	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	< 0.25	2	< 0.25	1^e	< 0.25	< 0.25
FEP	< 1	< 1	2	4^e	< 1	4^e	< 1	< 1	2	2
CAZ	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2
ETP	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5	< 0.5
IPM	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	1	< 0.25	< 0.25	< 0.25	1
GEN	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2
NIT	16	32	< 8	32	16	16	< 8	16	< 8	16
TOB	< 2	8^e	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	< 2	8^e	< 2	8^e

^a Pre wild-type strains; ^b Post mutant strains; ^c MICs Minimum inhibitory concentration, TCS triclosan, AMP ampicillin, CIP ciprofloxacin, LVX levofloxacin, FEP cefepime, CAZ ceftazidime, ETP ertapenem, IPM imipenem, GEN gentamicin, NIT nitrofurantoin, TOB tobramycin, ^d The values in bold font indicates resistance; ^eintermediate

ISSN: 2047-2994