Evaluation of a simplified agar-based population analysis profiling as a practical alternative for detecting heteroresistance in clinical bacterial isolates

Rapid and accurate detection of antibiotic heteroresistance (HR) causing clinical bacterial infections is essential for prompt and effective treatment. However, current detection methods vary across laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate a Simplified Agar-based Population Analysis Profiling (SA-PAP) method as a practical alternative to the reference Population Analysis Profiling (PAP) for HR detection, and to describe the screening performance of a modified E-test. We collected 56 carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CREC) and 305 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clinical isolates. HR to tigecycline (in CREC), vancomycin, and teicoplanin (in MRSA) was assessed using the modified E-test, SA-PAP, and PAP (reference method). The screening performance of the modified E-test was evaluated descriptively, while the diagnostic agreement of SA-PAP with PAP was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. By PAP, HR prevalence was 37.5% (21/56) to tigecycline in CREC, and 34.1% (104/305) and 53.8% (163/305) to vancomycin and teicoplanin in MRSA, respectively. Compared to PAP, the modified E-test showed variable and lower sensitivities (66.7% for CREC/tigecycline, 70.2% for MRSA/vancomycin, and 48.8% for MRSA/teicoplanin), indicating a substantial risk of false-negative results. In contrast, SA-PAP demonstrated excellent agreement (Cohen’s kappa > 0.90 for all combinations) with sensitivities of 100%, 100%, and 99.4%, and specificities of 97.1%, 95.0%, and 97.9%, respectively. Heteroresistance is highly prevalent among clinical CREC and MRSA isolates, underscoring the need for its detection. SA-PAP offers a reliable, simpler, and more economical alternative to the reference PAP method for HR confirmation. The modified E-test may serve as a rapid initial screen but has significant limitations due to its suboptimal sensitivity. Laboratories should consider adopting SA-PAP for accurate HR identification.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Infectious Diseases
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-026-13102-2
Primary Topic
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of a simplified agar-based population analysis profiling as a practical alternative for detecting heteroresistance in clinical bacterial isolates

Chenxu Zhou, Bo Huang, Guosheng Zhong, Yuting He et al.
BMC Infectious Diseases
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
article

Evaluation of a simplified agar-based population analysis profiling as a practical alternative for detecting heteroresistance in clinical bacterial isolates

Chenxu Zhou, Bo Huang, Guosheng Zhong, Yuting He, Jieying Pu, Cha Chen, Jianming Zeng, Yuyang Liu
article en

Abstract

Rapid and accurate detection of antibiotic heteroresistance (HR) causing clinical bacterial infections is essential for prompt and effective treatment. However, current detection methods vary across laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate a Simplified Agar-based Population Analysis Profiling (SA-PAP) method as a practical alternative to the reference Population Analysis Profiling (PAP) for HR detection, and to describe the screening performance of a modified E-test. We collected 56 carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CREC) and 305 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clinical isolates. HR to tigecycline (in CREC), vancomycin, and teicoplanin (in MRSA) was assessed using the modified E-test, SA-PAP, and PAP (reference method). The screening performance of the modified E-test was evaluated descriptively, while the diagnostic agreement of SA-PAP with PAP was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. By PAP, HR prevalence was 37.5% (21/56) to tigecycline in CREC, and 34.1% (104/305) and 53.8% (163/305) to vancomycin and teicoplanin in MRSA, respectively. Compared to PAP, the modified E-test showed variable and lower sensitivities (66.7% for CREC/tigecycline, 70.2% for MRSA/vancomycin, and 48.8% for MRSA/teicoplanin), indicating a substantial risk of false-negative results. In contrast, SA-PAP demonstrated excellent agreement (Cohen’s kappa > 0.90 for all combinations) with sensitivities of 100%, 100%, and 99.4%, and specificities of 97.1%, 95.0%, and 97.9%, respectively. Heteroresistance is highly prevalent among clinical CREC and MRSA isolates, underscoring the need for its detection. SA-PAP offers a reliable, simpler, and more economical alternative to the reference PAP method for HR confirmation. The modified E-test may serve as a rapid initial screen but has significant limitations due to its suboptimal sensitivity. Laboratories should consider adopting SA-PAP for accurate HR identification.

BMC Infectious Diseases
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (CN), Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (CN), The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (CN), The First People's Hospital of Tianmen (CN)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.