1932

Abstract

Resistance to antimycobacterial drugs is a major barrier to effective treatment of infection. Molecular diagnostic techniques based on the association between specific gene mutations and phenotypic resistance to certain drugs offer the opportunity to rapidly ascertain whether drug resistance is present and to alter treatment before further resistance develops. Current barriers to successful implementation of rapid diagnostics include imperfect knowledge regarding the full spectrum of mutations associated with resistance, limited utilization of molecular diagnostics where they are most needed, and the requirement for specialized laboratory facilities to perform molecular testing. Further understanding of genotypic–phenotypic correlates of resistance and streamlined implementation platforms will be necessary to optimize the public health impact of molecular resistance testing for .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-040717-051502
2019-01-27
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/70/1/annurev-med-040717-051502.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-040717-051502&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  World Health Organ 2017. Global Tuberculosis Report Geneva: World Health Organ
  2. 2.  Kim CK, Shin SY, Kim HJ, Lee K 2017. Drug resistance patterns of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Korea: amplification of resistance to oral second-line drugs. Ann. Lab. Med. 37:323–26
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Ragonnet R, Trauer JM, Denholm JT et al. 2017. High rates of multidrug-resistant and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis among re-treatment cases: Where do they come from?. BMC Infect. Dis. 17:36
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Shin SS, Keshavjee S, Gelmanova IY et al. 2010. Development of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 182:426–32
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. Am. Thorac. Soc., Cent. Dis. Control Prev. 2000. Diagnostic standards and classification of tuberculosis in adults and children. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. This statement was endorsed by the Council of the Infectious Disease Society of America, September 1999. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med 161:1376–95
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. Tuberc. Div. Int. Union Against Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2005. Tuberculosis bacteriology—priorities and indications in high prevalence countries: position of the technical staff of the Tuberculosis Division of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis 9:355–61
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Cruz AT, Starke JR 2007. Clinical manifestations of tuberculosis in children. Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 8:107–17
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Khan EA, Starke JR 1995. Diagnosis of tuberculosis in children: increased need for better methods. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1:115–23
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Karstaedt AS, Jones N, Khoosal M, Crewe-Brown HH 1998. The bacteriology of pulmonary tuberculosis in a population with high human immunodeficiency virus seroprevalence. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2:312–16
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Orenstein EW, Basu S, Shah NS et al. 2009. Treatment outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 9:153–61
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Marks SM, Flood J, Seaworth B et al. 2014. Treatment practices, outcomes, and costs of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, United States, 2005–2007. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 20:812–21
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Canetti G, Rist N, Grosset J 1963. Measurement of sensitivity of the tuberculous bacillus to antibacillary drugs by the method of proportions. Methodology, resistance criteria, results and interpretation. Rev. Tuberc. Pneumol. (Paris) 27:217–72
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Rex JH, Pfaller MA 2002. Has antifungal susceptibility testing come of age?. Clin. Infect. Dis. 35:982–89
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Lin SY, Desmond EP 2014. Molecular diagnosis of tuberculosis and drug resistance. Clin. Lab. Med. 34:297–314
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Zhang Y, Yew WW 2009. Mechanisms of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int. J.Tuberc. . Lung Dis 13:1320–30
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Van Deun A, Aung KJ, Bola V et al. 2013. Rifampin drug resistance tests for tuberculosis: challenging the gold standard. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51:2633–40
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Bollela VR, Namburete EI, Feliciano CS et al. 2016. Detection of katG and inhA mutations to guide isoniazid and ethionamide use for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 20:1099–104
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Machado D, Perdigao J, Ramos J et al. 2013. High-level resistance to isoniazid and ethionamide in multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis of the Lisboa family is associated with inhA double mutations. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 68:1728–32
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Ramirez-Busby SM, Valafar F 2015. Systematic review of mutations in pyrazinamidase associated with pyrazinamide resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 59:5267–77
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Sreevatsan S, Stockbauer KE, Pan X et al. 1997. Ethambutol resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis critical role of embB mutations. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1677–81
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Lee AS, Othman SN, Ho YM, Wong SY 2004. Novel mutations within the embB gene in ethambutol-susceptible clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:4447–9
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Li J, Gao X, Luo T et al. 2014. Association of gyrA/B mutations and resistance levels to fluoroquinolones in clinical isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Emerg. . Microbes Infect 3:e19
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Jagielski T, Bakula Z, Roeske K et al. 2015. Mutation profiling for detection of isoniazid resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 70:3214–21
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Banada PP, Sivasubramani SK, Blakemore R et al. 2010. Containment of bioaerosol infection risk by the Xpert MTB/RIF assay and its applicability to point-of-care settings. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:3551–57
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Alame-Emane AK, Pierre-Audigier C, Aboumegone-Biyogo OC et al. 2017. Use of GeneXpert remnants for drug resistance profiling and molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in Libreville, Gabon. J. Clin. Microbiol. 55:2105–15
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Chaisson LH, Roemer M, Cantu D et al. 2014. Impact of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on triage of respiratory isolation rooms for inpatients with presumed tuberculosis: a hypothetical trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 59:1353–60
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Lippincott CK, Miller MB, Popowitch EB et al. 2014. Xpert MTB/RIF assay shortens airborne isolation for hospitalized patients with presumptive tuberculosis in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 59:186–92
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Millman AJ, Dowdy DW, Miller CR et al. 2013. Rapid molecular testing for TB to guide respiratory isolation in the U.S.: a cost-benefit analysis. PLOS ONE 8:e79669
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Cowan JF, Chandler AS, Kracen E et al. 2017. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF testing in hospitalized patients with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. 64:482–89
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Blakemore R, Story E, Helb D et al. 2010. Evaluation of the analytical performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:2495–501
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Boehme CC, Nabeta P, Hillemann D et al. 2010. Rapid molecular detection of tuberculosis and rifampin resistance. N. Engl. J. Med. 363:1005–15
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Boakye-Appiah JK, Steinmetz AR, Pupulampu P et al. 2016. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among patients with rifampicin resistance using GeneXpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin in Ghana. Int. J. Mycobacteriol. 5:226–30
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Kim YW, Seong MW, Kim TS et al. 2015. Evaluation of Xpert® MTB/RIF assay: diagnosis and treatment outcomes in rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 19:1216–21
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Ardizzoni E, Fajardo E, Saranchuk P et al. 2015. Implementing the Xpert® MTB/RIF diagnostic test for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: outcomes and lessons learned in 18 countries. PLOS ONE 10:e0144656
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Ochang EA, Udoh UA, Emanghe UE et al. 2016. Evaluation of rifampicin resistance and 81-bp rifampicin resistant determinant region of rpoB gene mutations of Mycobacterium tuberculosis detected with XpertMTB/Rif in Cross River State, Nigeria. Int. J. Mycobacteriol. 5:Suppl. 1S145–46
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Page AL, Ardizzoni E, Lassovsky M et al. 2015. Routine use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in areas with different prevalences of HIV and drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 19:1078–83
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Gelalcha AG, Kebede A, Mamo H 2017. Light-emitting diode fluorescent microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF® assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis among patients attending Ambo hospital, west-central Ethiopia. BMC Infect. Dis. 17:613
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Rice JP, Seifert M, Moser KS, Rodwell TC 2017. Performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampin resistance in a low-incidence, high-resource setting. PLOS ONE 12:e0186139
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Steingart KR, Schiller I, Horne DJ et al. 2014. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2004:CD009593
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Denkinger CM, Schumacher SG, Boehme CC et al. 2014. Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 44:435–46
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Theron G, Peter J, Calligaro G et al. 2014. Determinants of PCR performance (Xpert MTB/RIF), including bacterial load and inhibition, for TB diagnosis using specimens from different body compartments. Sci. Rep. 4:5658
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Zeka AN, Tasbakan S, Cavusoglu C 2011. Evaluation of the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of rifampin resistance in pulmonary and extrapulmonary specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49:4138–41
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Mathys V, van de Vyvere M, de Droogh E et al. 2014. False-positive rifampicin resistance on Xpert® MTB/RIF caused by a silent mutation in the rpoB gene. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 18:1255–57
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Abdurrahman ST, Emenyonu N, Obasanya OJ et al. 2014. The hidden costs of installing Xpert machines in a tuberculosis high-burden country: experiences from Nigeria. Pan Afr. Med. J. 18:277
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Oxlade O, Sugarman J, Alvarez GG et al. 2016. Xpert®MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in a remote Arctic setting: impact on cost and time to treatment initiation. PLOS ONE 11:e0150119
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Choi HW, Miele K, Dowdy D, Shah M 2013. Cost-effectiveness of Xpert® MTB/RIF for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in the United States. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 17:1328–35
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Chakravorty S, Simmons AM, Rowneki M et al. 2017. The new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: improving detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and resistance to rifampin in an assay suitable for point-of-care testing. MBio 8:4e00812–17
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Dorman SE, Schumacher SG, Alland D et al. 2018. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18:76–84
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Tomasicchio M, Theron G, Pietersen E et al. 2016. The diagnostic accuracy of the MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl assays for drug-resistant TB detection when performed on sputum and culture isolates. Sci. Rep. 6:17850
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Margaryan H, Farnia P, Hayrapetyan A, Mirzoyan A 2016. Molecular genetics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistant to aminoglycosides and cyclic peptide testing by MTBDRsl in Armenia. Int. J. Mycobacteriol 5:Suppl. 1S159–60
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Seifert M, Georghiou SB, Catanzaro D et al. 2016. MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl assays: absence of wild-type probe hybridization and implications for detection of drug-resistant tuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54:912–18
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Rahman A, Sahrin M, Afrin S et al. 2016. Comparison of Xpert MTB/RIF assay and GenoType MTBDRplus DNA probes for detection of mutations associated with rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. . PLOS ONE 11:e0152694
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Bai Y, Wang Y, Shao C et al. 2016. GenoType MTBDRplus assay for rapid detection of multidrug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 11:e0150321
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Tan Y, Li Q, Wang Q et al. 2017. Evaluation of the MTBDRplus 2.0 assay for the detection of multidrug resistance among persons with presumptive pulmonary TB in China. Sci. Rep. 7:3364
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Javed H, Jamil N, Jagielski T et al. 2016. Evaluation of genotype MTBDRplus assay for rapid detection of isoniazid and rifampicin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis clinical isolates from Pakistan. Int. J. Mycobacteriol. 5:Suppl. 1S147–48
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Causse M, Ruiz P, Gutierrez JB et al. 2015. New Anyplex™ II MTB/MDR/XDR kit for detection of resistance mutations in M. tuberculosis cultures. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 19:1542–6
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Matabane MM, Ismail F, Strydom KA et al. 2015. Performance evaluation of three commercial molecular assays for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from clinical specimens in a high TB-HIV-burden setting. BMC Infect. Dis. 15:508
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Meaza A, Kebede A, Yaregal Z et al. 2017. Evaluation of genotype MTBDRplus VER 2.0 line probe assay for the detection of MDR-TB in smear positive and negative sputum samples. BMC Infect. Dis. 17:280
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Bang D, Andersen SR, Vasiliauskiene E, Rasmussen EM 2016. Performance of the GenoType MTBDRplus assay (v2.0) and a new extended GenoType MTBDRsl assay (v2.0) for the molecular detection of multi- and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis on isolates primarily from Lithuania. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 86:377–81
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Gardee Y, Dreyer AW, Koornhof HJ et al. 2017. Evaluation of the GenoType MTBDRsl version 2.0 assay for second-line drug resistance detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates in South Africa. J. Clin. Microbiol. 55:791–800
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Theron G, Peter J, Richardson M et al. 2016. GenoType® MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev 9:CD010705
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  World Health Organ 2016. The use of molecular line probe assays for the detection of resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs Policy Guidance, World Health Organ., Geneva, Switz
  63. 63.  Mitarai S, Kato S, Ogata H et al. 2012. Comprehensive multicenter evaluation of a new line probe assay kit for identification of Mycobacterium species and detection of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 50:884–90
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  Nathavitharana RR, Hillemann D, Schumacher SG et al. 2016. Multicenter noninferiority evaluation of Hain GenoType MTBDRplus version 2 and Nipro NTM+MDRTB line probe assays for detection of rifampin and isoniazid resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54:1624–30
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Willby MJ, Wijkander M, Havumaki J et al. 2018. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosispncA mutations by the Nipro Genoscholar PZA-TB II assay compared to conventional sequencing. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 62:e01871–17
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Sali M, De Maio F, Caccuri F et al. 2016. Multicenter evaluation of Anyplex™ Plus MTB/NTM MDR-TB assay for rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and multidrug-resistant isolates in pulmonary and extrapulmonary specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 54:59–63
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Perez-Garcia F, Ruiz-Serrano MJ, Lopez Roa P et al. 2017. Diagnostic performance of Anyplex II MTB/MDR/XDR for detection of resistance to first and second line drugs in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J.Microbiol. . Methods 139:74–78
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Rohlin A, Wernersson J, Engwall Y et al. 2009. Parallel sequencing used in detection of mosaic mutations: comparison with four diagnostic DNA screening techniques. Hum. Mutat. 30:1012–20
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Lin SY, Rodwell TC, Victor TC et al. 2014. Pyrosequencing for rapid detection of extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical isolates and clinical specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 52:475–82
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Campbell PJ, Morlock GP, Sikes RD et al. 2011. Molecular detection of mutations associated with first- and second-line drug resistance compared with conventional drug susceptibility testing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 55:2032–41
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. CDC (Cent. Dis. Control Prev.). 2012. Laboratory user guide for U.S. public health laboratories: molecular detection of drug resistance (MDDR) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex by DNA sequencing (version 2.0) Lab. User Guide, CDC, Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/laboratory/mddrusersguide.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Engstrom A, Hoffner S, Jureen P 2013. Detection of heteroresistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis by pyrosequencing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51:4210–12
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Chakravorty S, Kothari H, Aladegbami B et al. 2012. Rapid, high-throughput detection of rifampin resistance and heteroresistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis by use of sloppy molecular beacon melting temperature coding. J. Clin. Microbiol. 50:2194–202
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Folkvardsen DB, Thomsen VO, Rigouts L et al. 2013. Rifampin heteroresistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures as detected by phenotypic and genotypic drug susceptibility test methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51:4220–22
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Walker TM, Kohl TA, Omar SV et al. 2015. Whole-genome sequencing for prediction of Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility and resistance: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 15:1193–202
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.  Ssengooba W, Meehan CJ, Lukoye D et al. 2016. Whole genome sequencing to complement tuberculosis drug resistance surveys in Uganda. Infect. Genet. Evol. 40:8–16
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Whitfield MG, Warren RM, Streicher EM et al. 2015. Mycobacterium tuberculosis pncA polymorphisms that do not confer pyrazinamide resistance at a breakpoint concentration of 100 micrograms per milliliter in MGIT. J. Clin. Microbiol. 53:3633–35
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Malinga L, Brand J, Jansen van Rensburg C et al. 2016. Investigation of isoniazid and ethionamide cross-resistance by whole genome sequencing and association with poor treatment outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients in South Africa. Int. J. Mycobacteriol. 5:Suppl. 1S36–37
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Desjardins CA, Cohen KA, Munsamy V et al. 2016. Genomic and functional analyses of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains implicate ald in D-cycloserine resistance. Nat. Genet. 48:544–51
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  Koser CU, Bryant JM, Becq J et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing for rapid susceptibility testing of M. tuberculosis. N. Engl. J. . Med 369:290–92
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Quan TP, Bawa Z, Foster D et al. 2018. Evaluation of whole-genome sequencing for mycobacterial species identification and drug susceptibility testing in a clinical setting: a large-scale prospective assessment of performance against line probe assays and phenotyping. J. Clin. Microbiol. 56:e01480–17
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.  Witney AA, Cosgrove CA, Arnold A et al. 2016. Clinical use of whole genome sequencing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. . BMC Med 14:46
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Witney AA, Gould KA, Arnold A et al. 2015. Clinical application of whole-genome sequencing to inform treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases. J. Clin. Microbiol. 53:1473–83
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Starks AM, Aviles E, Cirillo DM et al. 2015. Collaborative effort for a centralized worldwide tuberculosis relational sequencing data platform. Clin. Infect. Dis. 61:Suppl. 3S141–46
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Rosenthal A, Gabrielian A, Engle E et al. 2017. The TB Portals: an open-access, web-based platform for global drug-resistant-tuberculosis data sharing and analysis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 55:3267–82
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Lakhani P, Sundaram B 2017. Deep learning at chest radiography: automated classification of pulmonary tuberculosis by using convolutional neural networks. Radiology 284:574–82
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Andries K, Verhasselt P, Guillemont J et al. 2005. A diarylquinoline drug active on the ATP synthase of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Science 307:223–27
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Almeida D, Ioerger T, Tyagi S et al. 2016. Mutations in pepQ confer low-level resistance to bedaquiline and clofazimine in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Antimicrob. . Agents Chemother 60:4590–99
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-040717-051502
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-040717-051502
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error