Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 645
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 145

Author's reply


Department of Microbiology, Aravind Eye Hospital, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore- 641 014, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
M Bhaskar
Department of Microbiology, Aravind Eye Hospital, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore- 641 014, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 15976480

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Manikandan P, Bhaskar M, Revathi R, Narendran K, Narendran V. Author's reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005;53:145

How to cite this URL:
Manikandan P, Bhaskar M, Revathi R, Narendran K, Narendran V. Author's reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2005 [cited 2020 Nov 24];53:145. Available from: https://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2005/53/2/145/16188

Dear Editor,



We appreciate the comments made on our article "Speciation of coagulase negative Staphylococcus causing bacterial keratitis". [1] The ocular conditions listed in our article are conditions, where isolation of CoNS is not considered significant. But in postoperative endophthalmitis the pathogenic significance of CoNS is established beyond doubt. We enumerated the ocular conditions where CoNS is only implicated and its pathogenecity is disregarded. Capsule formation is not a salient feature but usually mentioned to complete the morphological description of staphylococcal species. However, the capsule/slime production is important in Staphylococcus epidermidis and other CoNS for colonizing foreign bodies, for antibiotic resistance and some authors regard them as a very significant attribute of pathogenecity. [2]



Catalase is done to differentiate between Staphylococcus and Streptococcus . But most of the biochemical tests including catalase test require these organisms to be grown on nutrient agar, and especially catalase should not be done from colonies on blood agar. Hence we have grown them on nutrient agar. Streptococcus will not be able to grow on nutrient agar, as this is nutritionally demanding bacteria. Here the need for a catalase test is obviated but can still be done to differentiate other gram-positive cocci from Staphylococci.



The colony characters with Gram stain results should definitely differentiate between Staphylococcus and Streptococcus . Staphylococcus produces opaque colonies but Streptococcus produces only transparent colonies. Hence the confusion between Staphylococcus aureus and CoNS colonies, and biochemical tests (including the coagulase test) will differentiate between the two. The coagulase test was done as per standard procedures described in Mackie & Mccartney's practical medical microbiology. [2]



The inadequacy of the inclusion criteria has been correctly pointed out. We have restructured the inclusion criteria in the continuing study. However, in the pilot study itself most of our strains showed confluent growth and growth in more than one media.



The disc diffusion was done as described in NCCLS performance standards [3] and the results were interpreted according to the same approved standard, which was based on the method originally described by Kirby, Bauer, Sherris and Turck.



In the pilot study we have included antibiotics of common use. The newer antibiotics may be included in subsequent phases.

 
  References Top

1.
Manikandan P, Bhaskar M, Revathy R, John RK, Narendran K, Narendran. V. Speciation of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus causing bacterial keratitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005; 53:59-60  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Collee JG, Fraser AG, Marmion BP, Simmons A. Mackie & Mccartney's Practical Medical Microbiology. 14th ed, Chruchill Livingstone; 1996.   Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Villanova PA. Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests. In: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Approved standard. 7th edition. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 2000. Vol 20, No 1. M2-A7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2993    
    Printed120    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded120    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal