# The impact of inoculation methods on bacterial aggregation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing

**Authors:** Yu-Ming Cai, Zhi-Zhong Wang, Mark Alexander Webber, Jacob George Malone

PMC · DOI: 10.1099/mic.0.001676 · Microbiology · 2026-03-23

## TL;DR

This study shows that different ways of preparing bacterial samples for antibiotic testing can lead to inconsistent results due to varying levels of bacterial clumping.

## Contribution

The study introduces two new mathematical indexes, EC and DC, to quantify bacterial aggregation using 2D micrographs and links aggregation patterns to AST variability.

## Key findings

- Different inoculation methods produce varying aggregation levels in Pseudomonas aeruginosa cultures.
- Aggregation patterns correlate with inconsistent antimicrobial susceptibility test results.
- Resuspending agar colonies directly in broth yields more consistent minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) results.

## Abstract

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) has been a gold standard for guiding physician treatment practices for accurate antibiotic prescription, of which the broth microdilution method is recommended and commonly used. Different inoculation methods and preparative steps of bacterial suspension for AST are applied in various settings, which are based on the assumption that planktonic broth cultures contain homogeneous single cells. However, this has been challenged by the common observation of non-surface-attached aggregates in shaking cultures. Whether different inoculation methods producing different aggregation patterns contribute to inconsistent AST results has not been systematically investigated. To address this, we evaluated how routinely used inoculation methods for Pseudomonas aeruginosa influence aggregation levels in liquid cultures, using 2D micrographs and novel mathematical indexes designated as the Entropic Coefficient (EC) and Dispersion Coefficient (DC). The aggregation levels of bacterial populations generated by different inoculation methods prior to AST were highly variable and were successfully differentiated by EC and DC using fluorescent or bright-field micrographs. The susceptibility of P. aeruginosa towards antibiotics was then measured using inocula prepared with these different methods. In line with the variations in aggregation patterns reflected by micrographs, different inoculation methods also resulted in inconsistent AST results, where, in general, directly resuspending agar colonies in broth yielded more consistent MIC results compared with other preparations. Our work indicates that different inoculation methods influence aggregation behaviours and AST results and provides rapid and inexpensive methods to quantify aggregation levels using 2D micrographs.

## Linked entities

- **Species:** Pseudomonas aeruginosa (taxon 287)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** infection (MESH:D007239), EUCAST (MESH:D013736), CF (MESH:D003550), MBC (MESH:C567712), deaths (MESH:D003643), CAMHB (MESH:D000275), CLSI (MESH:D007757), infective endocarditis (MESH:D004696)
- **Chemicals:** ciprofloxacin (MESH:D002939), C3719 (-), meropenem (MESH:D000077731), polystyrene (MESH:D011137), fluoroquinolone (MESH:D024841), aminoglycoside (MESH:D000617), hydrochloric acid (MESH:D006851), aztreonam (MESH:D001398), tobramycin (MESH:D014031), gentamycin (MESH:D005839), glycerol (MESH:D005990), silica (MESH:D012822), H2O (MESH:D014867), levofloxacin (MESH:D064704), agar (MESH:D000362), saline (MESH:D012965), beta-lactam (MESH:D047090)
- **Species:** Pseudomonas aeruginosa (species) [taxon 287], Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 (strain) [taxon 208964], Staphylococcus aureus (species) [taxon 1280], Pseudomonas aeruginosa C3719 (strain) [taxon 350704], Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606], Escherichia coli (E. coli, species) [taxon 562], Mycolicibacterium smegmatis (species) [taxon 1772]
- **Cell lines:** PAO1 — Mus musculus (Mouse), Hybridoma (CVCL_C7RB), C3719 — Homo sapiens (Human), Colon carcinoma, Cancer cell line (CVCL_LG23)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13034079/full.md

## Figures

4 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13034079/full.md

## References

69 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13034079/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13034079