Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Beaulieu, Andrew J.; Boisseau, Jacques; Cerniglia, Carl E.; Corpetgt, Denis E.; Fernández, A. Haydée; Wilkins, Tracy D.; Woodward, Kevin N. (2011)
Publisher: Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
Journal: Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease
Languages: English
Types: Article
Dr. Beaulieu: We asked the panelists to spend about ten minutes each, addressing two questions. The first question is which in vitro and in vivo models or methods should be considered to evaluate the public health risk associated with antimicrobial residues in food, and can the model or method be used to evaluate more than one microbiological or functional endpoint in one test? The second question is how should the results obtained be used to establish an ADI? Is the standard toxicology formula appropriate to calculate an ADI for antimicrobial residues?
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Dr. Kotarski: As I recall, studies performed by Dr. Corpet sometime ago resulted in an ADI for resistant enterobacteria of less than 0.75 mg.
    • Dr. Corpet: What we saw is that 0.5 ppm in the water was enough to select for resistance. When we go back to the mg:person:day, this is purely speculative. This is extrapolation. How could we translate 0.5 ppm in mice? In my opinion, it does not translate to 7.5. It translates to 0.75 as it is in your publication with Dr. Cerniglia. When doing my calculations, the results I obtained are not exactly the same as yours; my results are ten times lower.
    • Dr. Corpet: In my study, it was 0.5 ppm and in yours it was 1 ppm, really equivalent. Those are not no-effect levels. Those are the minimum selecting concentration. We did not try at the no-effect level.
    • Dr. Kotarski: My understanding is that the inoculum used in the chemostat system was different to the inoculum used in the HFA mice. Therefore, since N ¾ 1 in both cases, we do not have a good indication of what the variation is for any of the variables for either system at this point.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from