Back

Implementing considered elements of standardisation for Time Kill Curve experiments across multiple sites: A European collaboration perspective

Attwood, M. L. G.; Bronstrup, M.; Das, S.; Fuchs, H.; Griffin, P.; Hinkelmann, B.; Hoare, L.; Lebrat, J.; Marchand, S.; Mercer, D.; Michel, F.; Noel, A.; Nussbaumer-Proll, A.; Zeitlinger, M.; MacGowan, A. P.

2026-06-16 microbiology
10.64898/2026.06.16.732594 bioRxiv
Show abstract

SynopsisO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSThe main advantages of Time Kill Curves (TKCs) in antimicrobial drug development are the ability to track bacterial kill and regrowth over time and with varying drug concentrations. Whilst there are guideline documents in place, such as M26-A in CLSI, there remains scope for individual laboratory differences in practice. Here we evaluated several factors which potentially influenced data generated in TKCs. MethodsFirstly, E. coli ATCC 25922 was used to determine optimum sampling volume, culture vessel volume, CFU enumeration variance factors and static versus agitated cultures in a single laboratory. Secondly, a ring test comprising of TKCs was performed by six laboratories focusing on: standardised inoculum, static culture and two culture vessel sizes 10 mL and 200 {micro}L. Data analysis was performed to determine consistency within centres and between them. ResultsConsistently accurate inocula could be achieved by use of: larger sampling volumes between 100 {micro}L > 20 mL; larger culture vessels volumes (10 mL > 100 {micro}L) and higher inocula (10 8 > 1.5x10 5 CFU). Culture agitation during the TKC experiment resulted in reduced killing compared to static cultures. Reproducibility of TKCs was best between centres when they were performed in 10 mL culture vessels. There was more variability per site when performing TKC in 96 well trays. ConclusionsTechnical factors such as preparation of inocula, agitation, vessel size and enumeration of cultures are important variables in performing TKCs that need to be standardised in drug development programmes involving multiple laboratory centres.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.0%
2
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.8%
3
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
187 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.4%
4
Antibiotics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
6
Journal of Applied Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
Microbiology
65 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
9
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.8%
11
Journal of Microbiological Methods
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
12
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
130 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
13
Journal of Hospital Infection
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
14
Journal of Medical Microbiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
BMC Microbiology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
17
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
18
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
19
mBio
833 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
20
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
The Lancet Microbe
44 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
22
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
24
Journal of Infection
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Health Science Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.6%
28
The Analyst
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
29
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%