PubMedCrossRef 14. Andrews JM, Boswell FJ, Wise R: Evaluation of the Oxoid Aura image system for measuring zones of inhibition with the disc diffusion technique. J Antimicrob Chemother 2000, 46:535–540.PubMedCrossRef 15. Korgenski EK, Daly JA: Evaluation of the BIOMIC video reader system for determining
interpretive categories of isolates on the basis of disk diffusion susceptibility results. J Clin Microbiol 1998, 36:302–304.PubMed 16. Geiss HK, Klar UE: Evaluation of the BIOMIC video reader system for routine use in the clinical microbiology laboratory. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2000, 37:151–155.PubMedCrossRef 17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility selleck chemical Testing; Tweny-first Informational Supplement. CLSI document M 100-S 21 (ISBN 1–56238–742–1). Wayne, PA, USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2011. 18. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. Version 1.3. 2011. http://www.eucast.org/antimicrobial_susceptibility_testing/previous_versions_of_tables/ (1st March 2013, date last accessed 19. Hombach M, Böttger EC, Roos M: The critical influence of the intermediate category on interpretation errors in revised EUCAST and CLSI
antimicrobial susceptibility testing guidelines. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013, 19:E59-E71.PubMedCrossRef 20. Lestari ES, Severin JA, Filius PM, Kuntaman K, Offra Duerink D, Hadi U, Wahjono H, Verbrugh HA: Comparison of the accuracy of disk diffusion zone diameters obtained by manual zone measurements to that by automated check details zone measurements to determine antimicrobial susceptibility. J Microbiol Methods 2008, 75:177–181.PubMedCrossRef 21. European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing: Reading guide. Version 2.0. http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Disk_test_documents/Reading_guide_v_2.0_EUCAST_Disk_Test.pdf (18th December
2012, date last accessed) Competing interests This work Sulfite dehydrogenase was supported by the University of Zurich. There are no competing interests to declare. Authors’ contributions MH conceived of the study, performed the statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. RZ EX 527 ic50 participated in data documentation and analysis. ECB, and participated in the study design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
“Background Proteins posttranslationally modified by covalent lipid attachment are present in eukaryal and bacterial organisms. In bacteria, 1–3% of the genome encode for lipoproteins. Bacterial lipoproteins are anchored in the membrane surface where they fulfill various cellular functions, ranging from cell wall integrity, secretion, nutrient uptake, environmental signaling to virulence [1–3].