摘要
采用纸片法、牛津杯法和打孔法3种不同的方法,用2株双歧杆菌标准菌株为试验菌株,对氟喹诺酮类药物中的诺氟沙星、氧氟沙星进行了敏感性检测,研究3种方法的相关性及其准确度。结果表明:牛津杯法与纸片法、打孔法差异显著(P<0.05),纸片法与打孔法之间无显著差异;纸片法对诺氟沙星、氧氟沙星的标准差均值分别为0.5685、0.8337,牛津杯法对诺氟沙星、氧氟沙星的标准差均值分别为0.4735、0.4909,打孔法对诺氟沙星、氧氟沙星的标准差均值分别为0.3474、0.4053,标准差值呈现:纸片法>牛津杯法>打孔法。由此可见,打孔法适合用于益生菌对氟喹诺酮类药物的敏感性检测。
The relativity and accuracy was studied by detecting the susceptibility of the two Bifidobacterium standard strains to the fluoroquinolones （Norfloxacin, Ofloxacin）, through three different methods- Disk diffusion method, Oxford cup method and Beating holes method. The results showed that there is significant difference （P〈0.05） between the Oxford cup method and Disk diffusion method, Beating holes method. No significant difference between Disk diffusion method and Beating holes method. The standard deviation of the average of Norfloxacin and Ofloxacin Disk diffusion method is 0.5685 and 0.8337, Oxford cup method is 0.4735 and 0.4909, Beating holes method is 0.3474 and 0.4053. Standard deviation presents： Disk diffusion method〉Oxford cup method〉Beating holes method. Therefore, the Beating holes method is most suitable for probiotics sensitivity detection of fluoroquinolones.
出处
《食品科技》
CAS
北大核心
2013年第3期22-26,共5页
Food Science and Technology
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(31060014)
内蒙古高等学校科学研究项目(NJ09059)
关键词
纸片法
牛津杯法
打孔法
氟喹诺酮类药物
益生菌
Disk diffusion method
Oxford cup method
Beating holes method
fluoroquinolones
probiotics
