Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 80178

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2009 | Month : October | Volume : 3 | Issue : 5 | Page : 1747 - 1753 Full Version

Metallo-β-lactamase production among Pseudomonas species and Acinetobacter species in costal Karnataka

Published: October 1, 2009 | DOI:

*Professor ,Department of Microbiology ,Melaka Manipal Medical College,**,***Post graduate student ,Department of Microbiology ,Kasturba Medical College,Manipal,****Professor,Department of Surgery , Kasturba Medical College ,Manipal,*****professor,Department of Microbiology,Melaka Manipal Medical College ,Manipal

Correspondence Address :
Shobha K L


Background and objectives: The emergence of multidrug resistance among Pseudomonas species and Acinetobacter species is a notable threat. Acquisition of the metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) gene is an important mechanism of broad-spectrum-β-lactam resistance. The aim of the study is to detect the prevalence of MBL among Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. isolated from various clinical samples collected from different age groups.
Materials and Methods: A total of 54 meropenem resistant Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp., tested by the disc diffusion method, were included in the study .The strains were isolates obtained from burn wounds, ulcers, sputum and urine collected from the patients aged from one year to 90 years. The strains were identified up to the species level and the EDTA disk synergy test was used, with simultaneous testing of different β-lactams (meropenem and aztreonam).
Results: Of the 54 meropenem resistant strains, 16(30%) were MBLs producing isolates, of which 13(81%) were isolates of samples from male patients and 3(19%) were those from female patients. More strains of MBLs [13(81%)] were seen in the age group of 40-75 years and only few strains of MBLs [3(19%)] were isolated from samples in the age group below 40 years and above 75 years. MBLs were more prevalent in respiratory specimens 4(45%) and less prevalent in urine specimens 3(21%) when compared to other specimens. Pseudomonas putida 7(64%) had more number of MBLs producing organisms as compared to other species of Pseudomonas. The isolates producing MBLs were more resistant to Tobramycin [16(100%)] and Gentamicin [15 (94%)] and were less resistant to Piperacillin [10(63%)] than meropenem -non susceptible isolates which did not produce MBLs.
Conclusion: The rapid discrimination of MBL producers is worrisome and necessitates the implementation of not just surveillance studies, but also the proper and judicious selection of antibiotics, especially carbapenems.


Metallo-β-lactamase, EDTA disk synergy test, carbapenems


The emergence of multidrug resistance among gram-negative bacteria is a notable threat. Clinically relevant species of gram-negative bacilli are often resistant to β-lactam antibiotics, including extended spectrum cephalosporins, but rarely to carbapenems (2). Carbapenems are often used as last resort antibiotics for treating infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacilli, as they are stable and respond only to extended spectrum and AmpC β-lactamses.

However, emergence of acquired carbapenemases, particularly Ambler class B metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs), IMP and VIM, have been increasingly reported in Asia , Europe (2), Canada (5) and in many geographical locations (10). Another type (SPM-1) has been reported in South America (9). Five enzymes have been identified (IMP, VIM, SPM, GIM and SIM types) in various host organisms, the most common ones being found in Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp (3). Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs), was first reported from Japan in 1991 (5) and then the resistance spread to other species. Recently, IMP-2-producing Acinetobacter baumannii (14) and VIM-1 and VIM-2 producing strains of P.aeruginosa have been reported in Europe (8). A particular concern is that acquired MBL genes are located on integron structures that reside on mobile genetic elements such as plasmids or transposons, thus enabling wide spread dissemination. Clinical infection with such organisms poses serious therapeutic challenges, with increasing reports of poor patient outcomes and death (19).

With the worldwide increase in the occurrence, types and rate of dissemination of MBLs, early detection is critical. The benefits of such include timely implementation of strict infection control practices, as well as clinical guidance regarding the potential risk for therapeutic failure. As seen with extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs) and AmpC type β-lactamases with cephalosporins (12), MBL carrying Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. can appear susceptible to carbapenems using current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute or British Society For Antimicrobial Chemotherapy break points (1). Pitout and colleagues reported the presence of IMP-non susceptible P.aeruginosa in clinical isolates and showed that 46% (110/241) of the strains were MBL positive (13). Similar findings have been reported by others (15).

There is difficulty in detecting such organisms, which poses significant risks, particularly due to their role in unnoticed spread within institutions and their ability to participate in horizontal MBL gene transfer with other pathogenic hospital-related organisms, as the MBL genes reside in mobile gene cassettes inserted integrons (16). The rapid detection of MBL-positive gram-negative bacilli is necessary to aid infection control and to prevent their dissemination (6). A PCR method was simple to use in detecting MBL producing isolates initially (16), but it became more difficult with the increased number of types of MBL (21).

Currently, no standardized method for MBL detection has been proposed. Several non-molecular techniques have been studied, all taking advantage of the zinc dependence of the enzymes, by using chelating agents such as EDTA or 2-mercaptopropionic acid to inhibit their activities. The commercially available MBL-E test is simple to perform, but is highly insensitive at detecting carbapenem-susceptible MBL carrying organisms (3) and is costly. Also, poor specificity has been described with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii carrying blaoxA-23 (17). A double disk synergy test (DDST) using imipenem (IPM) and 0.5M EDTA (9) and a combined-disk test either using two IPM disks or two meropenem (MEM)disks, one containing 930µg (10) or 750µg (15) of EDTA, have both been reported as reliable methods for the detection of MBLs in carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter strains. When the latter method was studied using carbapenem-susceptible isolates, the sensitivity was found to be poor, ranging from 10% to 86% (22). Thus far, no method has been reported to show adequate sensitivity and specificity for the detection of carbapenem resistant MBL-positive isolates. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of the method which involved the use of an MEM disk with added EDTA to confirm the presence of MBL-producing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp.

Material and Methods

Bacterial Strains And Isolate Collection
Consecutive non-duplicate isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. which are resistant to MEM (MIC > 8 µg/ml), were taken from various clinical specimens, which included samples of wounds (purulent), urine, respiratory tract specimens, blood and others like ascetic fluid, synovial fluid, throat swab and ear swab, which were collected from in- patients and out-patients of various departments. The departments included the medicine ward, the surgery ward, the paediatric ward, the orthopaedic ward and the ENT ward of Kasturba Medical College Hospital (KMCH), Manipal, India and the samples studied were from patients who attended these hospitals from February 2007 to January 2008. The total number of patients included in our study was 54, which included both males (41/54) and females (13/54). The age group of the patients was between 1 year and 90 years. 44 Pseudomonas species and 10 Acinetobacter species were isolated .The strains were identified up to the species level according to W.winn et al (2006) (20) (Table/Fig 1).

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using Mueller-Hinton (MHA) agar. The antimicrobial susceptibility test of the following drugs were determined by the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method: Piperacillin (PIP) (100µg), Ceftazidime (CAZ) (30µg), Ciprofloxacin (CIP) (5µg), Gentamicin (GEN) (10µg), and Tobramycin (TOB) (10µg). The quality control strains used for this part of the study were Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853. Throughout the study, the results were interpreted using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines criteria for the disc diffusion method (14). Before inoculation into Mueller Hinton agar, the strains were compared to those from McFarland standard tube no. 0.5. Antibiotic disks used in this study were obtained from Span Diagnostics Ltd .Surat, India.

Phenotypic Detection Of Mbls
An MBL phenotypic detection method was designed using a single agar plate and it comprised of three components (Table/Fig 2) .(I) In the combined-disk test, two MEM disks (10µg) (one containing 10 µl of 0.1 M (292 µg) anhydrous EDTA) were placed 25mm apart (center to center). An increase in the zone diameter of >4 mm around the MEM-EDTA disk as compared to that of the MEM disk alone, was considered positive for an MBL. (ii) In the DDST, an MEM(10 µg) disk was placed 20 mm (center to center) from a blank disk containing 10 µl of 0.1 M (292 µg) EDTA. Enhancement of the zone of inhibition in the area between the two disks was considered positive for an MBL (Table/Fig 2). (iii) The final component was an aztreonam (30 µg) disk. Given the unique sensitivity of MBLs to this antibiotic, we studied the inhibition zone sizes of all isolates to determine the utility of this component in phenotypic MBL detection. The disks were placed on the surface of the inoculated lawn culture agar plate as shown in (Table/Fig 2) and plates were incubated overnight at 37°C.


Clinical Bacterial Strains
A total of 54 non duplicate isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. were included in the study. Of the 54 MEM-non susceptible strains, 14(26%) were isolated from urine, 4(8%) from blood, 19(35%) from wounds (purulent), 9(17%) from respiratory tract specimens, and the remaining 8(15%) from various other specimens (like ascetic fluid, synovial fluid, throat swab and ear swab). Of the 54 meropenem resistant strains, 16(30%) were MBLs producing isolates, of which 13(81%) were isolates of samples from male patients and 3(19%) were from female patients. Production of MBLs was seen more [13(81%)] in the age group of 40-75 years and only few strains of MBLs were isolated from samples [3(19%)] in the age group below 40 years and above 75 years . (Table/Fig 3) The isolates producing MBLs were more prevalent in respiratory specimens 4(45%) and less prevalent in urine specimens 3(21%). Pseudomonas putida 7(64%) was found more in MBLs producing organisms (Table/Fig 1).

Antimicrobial Susceptibilities Of Clinical Strains
Of the 54 clinical isolates included in this study, 40(74%) were resistant to PIP, 46(85%) to CAZ, 53(98%) to TOB, 48(89%) to GEN, and 49(91%) to CIP. The isolates producing MBLs were more resistant to TOB [16(100%)], GEN [15(94%)], CIP [14(88%)] and CAZ [14(88%)] and were less resistant to PIP [10(63%)] than MEM-non susceptible isolates which did not produce MBLs (Table/Fig 4). A particularly important feature was that all the MBL producers were resistant to TOB as compared to 97% of the MEM-non susceptible isolates which did not produce MBLs (Table/Fig 4).


MBLs have been identified from clinical isolates worldwide, with an increasing frequency over the past few years and strains producing these enzymes have been responsible for prolonged nosocomial outbreaks that were accompanied by serious infections, as reported by Senda K, et al (1996) (15). A case-controlled study from Japan showed that patients infected with MBL-producing P. aeruginosa were more likely to receive multiple antibiotics and more importantly, that infection-related deaths due to IMP-producing P. aeruginosa were more frequent than deaths caused by blaIMP negative P. aeruginosa, as reported by Hirakata et al (2006) (7). The occurrence of an MBL-positive isolate in a hospital setting poses a therapeutic problem, as well as a serious concern for infection control management. The accurate identification and reporting of MBL-producing P. aeruginosa will aid infection control practitioners in preventing the spread of these multidrug-resistant isolates, as reported by Senda et al (1996) (15). Acinetobacter spp. is also notorious, both for its ability to acquire antibiotic resistance and for the ability of some strains, mostly strains of A. baumannii, to cause nosocomial outbreaks. Therefore, early laboratory detection is of great clinical importance.

Our study included the use of the CLSI disk methodology that developed an EDTA disk screen test with MEM disks alone and in combination with 292 µg of EDTA and Aztreonam (30 µg) per disk. All the three methodologies showed positive results for the same 16 strains .The above methods were simple to perform and the materials used were cheap, nontoxic, and easily accessible, making it highly applicable to routine clinical laboratories. In a similar study by Pitout et al.(2005) (13), they showed that the results with MEM alone and in combination with EDTA showed 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity in detecting well-characterized MBL-producing clinical strains of P. aeruginosa and that this test worked better than IPM and the MBL- E test. PCR was the most simple method which was used in detecting MBL producing isolates. Initially Senda et al (1996) (16) used this method, but it became more difficult for Yong D.K .Lee et al (2002) (21) to use it, due to the increased number of types of MBL. We do recommend however, that MEM can be used as a substrate for the EDTA disk screen test. The MEM-EDTA disks can be stored at 4°C or -20°C for 12 to 16 weeks without significant loss of activity, as suggested by Yong D.K .Lee et al (2002) (21). The EDTA disk screen test is simple to perform and interpret and since it uses the CLSI methodology, it can be easily introduced into the workflow of a clinical laboratory.

This study illustrates that the MBL-producing isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. are important causes of MEM resistance among this species which were isolated in our hospital (Table/Fig 1) . Of the 54 meropenem resistant strains, 16(30%) were MBLs producing isolates, of which 13(81%) were isolates of samples from male patients and 3(19%) were from female patients. The production of MBLs was seen more [13(81%)] in the age group of 40-75 years and only a few strains of MBLs were isolated from samples [3(19%)] in the age group below 40 years and above 75 years. The MBL-producing isolates were more resistant to various antimicrobial agents (Table/Fig 4) and were more prevalent in respiratory specimens 4(45%) than MEM-resistant isolates which did not produce MBLs. Clare Franklin et al (2006) (3), in their study, reported the presence of more number of MBL producing isolates in respiratory tract specimens than in other specimens. Our results support the notion that clinical microbiology laboratories must be able to distinguish MBL-producing Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. from strains with other mechanisms which are responsible for carbapenem resistance. Resistance to other antimicrobial agents like Tobramycin was 100% and resistance to Gentamicin was 94%.This was in concordance with the study conducted by B.V .Navaneeth et al (2004) (11), where it was seen that resistance to piperacillin-tazobactum, cefoperazone-sulbactam and ticarcillin-clavulanic acid was 12%, 20% and 36%, respectively. In the absence of novel agents for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant gram negative bacteria in the near future, the uncontrolled spread of MBL producers may lead to treatment failures, with increased morbidity and mortality. The early detection of MBL-producing Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. may avoid the future spread of these multidrug- resistant isolates.


The emergence of carbapenamase producing strains represents a serious therapeutic and epidemiological problem which can be circumvented only by the early detection and control of such multidrug resistant pathogens. The rapid detection of carbapenemases and metallo-β-lactamase producing isolates must be followed up in the laboratory on a routine basis, as the number of metallo-β-lactamase producing isolates are increasing and are posing a problem for the clinicians during the treatment of patients. The routine detection of MBLs will ensure optimal patient care and the timely introduction of appropriate infection control procedures.


Andrews JM.. BSAC standardized disc susceptibility testing metho (version 4).J. Antimicrob. Chemother 2005; 56:60–76.
Chu YW, Afzal-Shah M, ET S Houang, M.FI Palepou, D J Lyon, N Woodford, and DM Livermore. IMP-4, a novel metallo-β-lactamase from nosocomial Acinetobacter spp. collected in Hong Kong between 1994 and 1998. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001; 45:710–14.
Clare Franklin, Lisa Liolios, Anton Y. Peleg..Phenotypic detection of carbapenem-susceptible metallo-β-lactamase-producing gram–negative bacilli in clinical laboratory. J.Clin.Microbial. 2006; 44:3139-44.
Fluit AC, FT Schmitz. Class 1 integrons, gene cassettes, mobility, and epidemiology. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis 1999; 18:761–70
Gibb AP, C Tribuddharat, RA. Moore, TJ Louie, W Krulicki, D M Livermore, M.-FI. Palepou, N Woodford. Nosocomial outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa with a new blaIMP allele, blaIMP-7. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002; 46:255–58
Hirakata Y, K Izumikawa, T Yamaguchi, H Takemura, H Tanaka, R Yoshida, J. Matsuda, M Nakano, K Tomono, S Maesaki, M Kaku, YYamada, S Kamihira, S. Kohno. Rapid detection and evaluation of clinical characteristics of emerging multiple-drug resistant gram-negative rods carrying the metallo-β-lactamase gene blaIMP. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1998; 42:2006–11.
Hirakata, Y., T. Yamaguchi, M. Nakano, K. Izumikawa, M. Mine, S. Aoki, A.Kondoh, J. Matsuda, M. Hirayama, K. Yanagihara, Y. Miyazaki, K. Tomono, Y.Yamada, S. Kamihira, S. Kohno.. Clinical and bacteriological characteristics of IMP-type metallo-beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2003; 37:26–32.
Lauretti L, M L Riccio, A. Mazzariol G. Cornaglia G. Amicosante, R.Fontana, G. M. Rossolini.. Cloning and characterization of blaVIM, a new integron-borne metallo-β-lactamase gene from a Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolate. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999; 43:1584–90
Lee K, Y Chong, H B Shin, YA Kim, D Yong, JH Yum.. Modified Hodge and EDTA-disk synergy tests to screen metallo-beta-lactamase- producing strains of Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2001; 7:88-91
Livermore DM, N Woodford.. Carbapenemases: a problem in waiting? Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2000; 3:489–95
BV Navneeth, D Sridaran, D Sahay, MRS Belwadi. A preliminary study on metallo-β-lactamase producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa in hospitalized patients. Indian J Med Res 2002; 116: 264-67.
Pai H, CI Kang, JH Byeon, KD. Lee WB. Park HB. Kim EC. Kim MD. Oh KW. Choe. Epidemiology and clinical features of bloodstream infections caused by AmpC-type-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004; 48:3720–28.
Pitout J. DD, DB Gregson, L Poirel, JA McClure, P Le, DL Church. Detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa producing metallo-β-lactamases in a large centralized laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005; 43:3129–35.
Riccio ML , N Franceschini, L Boschi, B Carvelli, G Cornaglia, R Fontana, G Amicosante, GM Rossolini. Characterization of the metallo-β-lactamase determinant of Acinetobacter baumannii AC- 54/97 reveals the existence of blaIMP allelic variants carried by gene cassettes of different phylogeny. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000; 44:1229–35.
Senda K, Y Arakawa, K Nakashima H. Ito, S Ichiyama, K Shimokata, N Kato, M. Ohta.. Multifocal outbreaks of metallo-β-lactamaseproducing Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to broad-spectrum beta-lactams, including carbapenems. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1996; 40:349–53.
Senda K, Y Arakawa, S Ichiyama, K Nakashima H. Ito S. Ohsuka K.Shimokata N. Kato M. Ohta.. PCR detection of metallo-β-lactamase gene (blaIMP) in gram-negative rods resistant to broad-spectrum β-lactams. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1996; 34:2909–13.
Segal H, BG Elisha. Use of Etest MBL strips for the detection of carbapenemases in Acinetobacter baumannii. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2005; 56:598
Toleman MA., AM Simm, TA Murphy, AC Gales DJ. Biedenbach, R. N. Jones TR. Walsh.. Molecular characterization of SPM-1, a novel metallo-β-lactamase isolated in Latin America: report from the SEN-TRY antimicrobial surveillance programme. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2002; 50:673–79
Walsh TR, MA Toleman L. Poirel P. Nordmann. Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2005; 18:306–25.
W.winn.2006. Koneman’s color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology.6th edn..
Yong DK, Lee JH, Yum HB, Shin GM. Rossolini, Y. Chong.. Imipenem-EDTA disk method for differentiation of metallo-β-lactamaseproducing clinical isolates of Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter. spp.J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002; 40:3798–3801.
Yan JJ, JJ Wu, SH Tsai, CL Chuang. Comparison of the double-disk, combined disk, and Etest methods for detecting metallo-betalactamases in gram-negative bacilli. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2004; 49:5–11.

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)