Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Disk diffusion test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with theKleihauer–Betke test, which is also often called a "KB test".
Type of microbiology test
In diagnostic laboratories, the disk diffusion test is used to determine the susceptibility of clinical isolates of bacteria to different antibiotics. An effective antibiotic will produce a large zone of inhibition (disk C), while an ineffective antibiotic may not affect bacterial growth at all (disk A). Antibiotics to which a bacterial isolate is partially susceptible will produce an intermediate size zone of inhibition (disk B).[1][2]
In drug discovery laboratories, the disk diffusion test is used to screen natural product extracts for antibacterial activity. Extracts with antibacterial activity, for example the petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol and acetone extracts above, will produce a zone of inhibition.[3]

Thedisk diffusion test (also known as theagar diffusion test,Kirby–Bauer test,disc-diffusion antibiotic susceptibility test,disc-diffusion antibiotic sensitivity test andKB test) is aculture-basedmicrobiology assay used indiagnostic anddrug discovery laboratories. In diagnostic labs, the assay is used to determine the susceptibility of bacteria isolated from a patient's infection to clinically approved antibiotics. This allows physicians to prescribe the most appropriate antibiotic treatment.[1][2][4][5] In drug discovery labs, especiallybioprospecting labs, the assay is used to screen biological material (e.g. plant extracts, bacterial fermentation broths) and drug candidates for antibacterial activity. When bioprospecting, the assay can be performed with paired strains of bacteria to achieve dereplication and provisionally identify antibacterialmechanism of action.[6][7]

In diagnostic laboratories, the test is performed by inoculating the surface of an agar plate with bacteria isolated from a patient's infection. Antibiotic-containing paper disks are then applied to the agar and the plate is incubated. If an antibioticstops the bacteria from growing orkills the bacteria, there will be an area around the disk where the bacteria have not grown enough to be visible. This is called a zone of inhibition. The susceptibility of the bacterial isolate to each antibiotic can then be semi-quantified by comparing the size of these zones of inhibition to databases of information on known antibiotic-susceptible, moderately susceptible and resistant bacteria. In this way, it is possible to identify the most appropriate antibiotic for treating a patient's infection.[1][2] Although the disk diffusion test cannot be used to differentiate bacteriostatic and bactericidal activity, it is less cumbersome than other susceptibility test methods such asbroth dilution.[4]

In drug discovery labs, the disk diffusion test is performed slightly differently than in diagnostic labs. In this setting, it is not the bacterial strain that must be characterized, but a test extract (e.g. a plant or microbial extract). The agar plate is therefore inoculated with a bacterial strain of known phenotype (often anATCC orNCTC strain), and disks containing the test extract are applied to the surface (seebelow).[6] Zone of inhibition sizes cannot be used as a semi-quantitative measure of antibacterial potency because different extracts contain molecules with different diffusion characteristics (differentmolecular sizes,hydrophilicities etc.). Zone of inhibition sizes can be used for the purpose of dereplication though. This is achieved by testing each extract against paired strains of bacteria (e.g. streptomycin-susceptible and -resistant strains to identify streptomycin-containing extracts). Paired strains (e.g. wild type andtarget overexpressing strains) can also be used to identify antibacterial mechanism of action.[6][7]

History

[edit]

Agar diffusion was first used byMartinus Beijerinck in 1889 to study the effect ofauxins on bacterial growth. However, the method has been developed, refined and standardized by many scientists and scientific organizations over the years including George F. Reddish,Norman Heatley, James G. Vincent,[8] Alfred W. Bauer, William M.M. Kirby,John C. Sherris,[4][5] Hans Martin Ericsson, theWorld Health Organization, theClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, the Swedish Reference Group for Antibiotics, theDeutsches Institut für Normung, theBritish Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and others.[8]

Principle

[edit]

A pure bacterial culture is suspended in saline, its turbidity is standardized, and it is swabbed uniformly across an agar plate. An antibiotic- or extract-impregnated filter paper disk is then placed on the surface of the agar. The disk constituent(s) diffuse from the filter paper into the agar. The concentration of these constituents will be highest next to the disk and will decrease as the distance from the disk increases. If the antibiotic or extract is effective against bacteria at a certain concentration, no colonies will grow where the concentration in the agar is greater than or equal to the effective concentration. This is the zone of inhibition. In general, larger zones of inhibition correlate with lowerminimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of antibiotic or extract for that bacterial strain.[1] An exception to this is when molecules of the antibiotic or extract are large or hydrophobic because these diffuse through the agar slowly.[6]

Standard method

[edit]
Standard Kirby–Bauer testing: White disks containing antibiotics shown on an agar plate of bacteria. Circular zones of poor bacterial growth surround some disks, indicating susceptibility to the antibiotic.

Agar plate and inoculum preparation

[edit]

All aspects of the Kirby–Bauer procedure are standardized to ensure consistent and accurate results. Because of this, a laboratory must adhere to these standards. The media used in Kirby–Bauer testing must beMueller–Hinton agar at only 4 mm deep, poured into either 100 mm or 150 mm Petri dishes. ThepH level of the agar must be between 7.2 and 7.4. Bacterial inoculum is prepared by diluting a broth culture to match a 0.5McFarland turbidity standard, which is equivalent to approximately 150 millioncells per mL.[1]

Inoculation and incubation

[edit]

Usingaseptic technique,brothculture of a specific organism is collected with asterileswab. In the case ofGram negative bacteria, excess liquid is removed from the swab by gently pressing or rotating it against the inside of the tube. The swab is then streaked across a Mueller–Hinton agar plate to form a bacterial lawn. To obtain uniform growth, the agar plate is streaked with the swab in one direction, rotated 120° and streaked again, rotated another 120° and streaked again. Using an antibiotic disk dispenser, disks containing specific antibiotics are then applied to the plate. This must be done within 15 minutes of inoculation. Flame-sterilized forceps are used to gently press each disk onto the agar and ensure it is attached. Plates are thenincubated overnight, usually at a temperature of 35 °C. Plates must be incubated within 15 minutes of applying antibiotic disks.[1]

Test media modifications

[edit]

Certain bacteria require addition of 5% solution of mechanically defibrinated horse blood andβ-NAD (MH-F agar).[1] The following table shows media requirements of commonly tested microorganisms:

Disk diffusion media requirements[1]
Standard MH agarMH-F agar
  • Enterobacteriales
  • Pseudomonas spp.
  • Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
  • Acinetobacter spp.
  • Staphylococcus spp.
  • Enterococcus spp.
  • Aeromonas spp.
  • Achromobacter xylosoxidans
  • Vibrio spp.
  • Bacillus spp.
  • Burkholderia pseudomallei
  • Streptococcus groups A, B, C, G
  • Streptococcus pneumoniae
  • Streptococcus viridans group
  • Haemophilus influenzae
  • Moraxella catarrhalis
  • Listeria monocytogenes
  • Pasteurella multocida
  • Campylobacter jejuni andC. coli
  • Corynebacterium
  • Aerococcus sanguinicola andA. urinae
  • Kingella kingae
  • Brucella melitensis

Quality control

[edit]

To ensure veracity of test results,quality control methods must be used. In order to monitor the performance of the test, special bacterial strains are used as positive or negative control. When efficacy of β-lactamase is tested, special strains that exhibit β-lactam resistance are used. Additionally, specific media are used to test certain antibiotics. For example, when testingco-trimoxazole susceptibility, media with excessthymine andthymidine are recommended.[1] The following table lists commonly used quality control strains in the disk diffusion method:

Quality control strains (as of January 2025)[1]
BacteriumStrainDescriptionAntibiotics tested
ATCCNCTC[9]CIP[10]DSM[11]CCUG[12]CECT[13]
E. coli25922[14]1224176.24110317620434susceptible (wild type)neomycin,colistin,kanamycin,cephalexin,gentamicin,cefamandole,cephalotin,tetracycline,cephaloglycin,cephaloridine,nalidixic acid,chloramphenicol[14]
35218[15]11954102181592330600943produceTEM-1 β-lactamase, resistant to ampicillin (used to check β-lactamase component of β-lactam combination disks)
-13353[16]----producesCTX-M-15 andOXA-1 (used to check β-lactamase component of β-lactam combination disks)cefotaxime[16]
Klebsiella pneumoniae700603[17][Note 1]13368--454217787producesSHV-18 (an extended-spectrum β-lactamase, used to check β-lactamase component of β-lactam combination disks)
BAA-2814[18]-----producesKPC-3, SHV-11, TEM-1 (used to check β-lactamase component of β-lactam combination disks)novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (e.g.,meropenem/vaborbactam)[18]
Pseudomonas aeruginosa27853[19]1290376.110111717619108susceptible (wild type)
Staphylococcus aureus29213[20]12973103429256915915794produces β-lactamases (weak)
-12493[21]--67181MRSA (mecA plasmid-positive)methicillin and other antibiotics affected by MRSA strains[21]
Enterococcus faecalis29212[22]1269710321425709997795susceptible (wild type)
51299[23]133791046761295634289-HLAR (aminoglycoside-modyfing enzyme), resistant to vancomycin (vanB plasmid-positive)gentamicin,streptomycin[23]
Streptococcus pneumoniae49619[24]129771043401196733638-resistant tobenzylpenicillin
Haemophilus influenzae49766[25]129751035701197029539-susceptible (wild type)
49247[26]12699104604999926214-reduced suscibility to β-lactams (exhibits modifiedpenicillin binding proteins)
Campylobacter jejuni33560[27]1135170.2T468811284-susceptible (wild type), requires microaerobic environment and higher incubation temperature (41±1°C)

Alternate methods

[edit]

Several variations of the disk diffusion method have been developed including the Oxford penicillin cup andEtest methods used in hospital diagnostic laboratories,[28][29] and the well diffusion, cylinder diffusion and bioautography methods used in drug discovery and development laboratories.[6][30]

Oxford penicillin cup method

[edit]

Disks containing increasing antibiotic concentrations are placed on a seeded bacterial lawn on the agar surface and plates are incubated. Zone sizes are measured from the edge of the disk to the end of the clear zone. Interpretation is more complicated in mixed susceptibility populations. These are plotted as linear dimensions or squares of distances as a function of the natural logarithm of antibiotic concentration in the disks. The MIC is determined from the zero intercept of a linear regression fit through the data.[31] The intercept itself is the logarithm of the MIC. The slope of the regression line is related to the diffusion coefficient of that particular antibiotic in the agar.[28]

EUCAST Rapid Antibiotic Susceptibility Test (RAST)

[edit]

The RAST method serves as a fast means of ascertaining antibiotic susceptibility and was created as a modification of the classic disk diffusion test. It allows to shorten the time of incubation to 16-20 hours. Test scores are read after 4, 6, 8 and 16-20 hours. Compared to the standard method, RAST does not give distinct zones of inhibition within such a short timespan (all bacteria except forS. pneumoniae have a chance of being possible to read after 6 hours higher than 90%). As for quality control strains, they are diluted 1:1 000 000 and defibrinated horse or sheep blood is added. Special RAST breakpoint tables should be used when interpreting the results due to method calibration differences.[32]

Validated quality control strains include:E. coli ATCC 25922,P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853,S. aureus ATCC 29213,E. faecalis ATCC 29212,S. pneumoniae ATCC 49619.[33]

Screening for antibiotic resistance mechanisms in RAST

[edit]

RAST allows for rapid determination of possible antibiotic resistance in tested cultures. It allows to check for ESBL and/or carbapenemase producingE. coli andK. pneumoniae, using cefotaxime/ceftazidime (after 4 hours) and meropenem (after 6 hours) respectively. However, these results are not quantitative and should be used only for screening in routine medical tests.[34][35] In clinical trials, RAST method led to significant improvements in predicting efficacy of antibiotic therapy.[36]

Disk pre-diffusion method

[edit]

Disks containing antibiotics are placed on an uninoculated Mueller-Hinton agar plate and incubated for 2 hours. Then, they are removed and the bacterial suspension previously prepared using broth microdilution is applied and another disk with a different antibiotic is placed precisely in the same place as the previous one. After incubation for 16-20 hours results are correlated with the first antibiotic's MIC values. An example of the pre-diffusion method is testingin vitro efficacy of ceftazidime/avibactam (primary disks) in terms of aztreonam (secondary disks).[37]

Antifungal drug testing

[edit]

Disk diffusion method can be used to test susceptibility to antifungals.[38][39]

Bioautography assay with two extracts from the broth of different cultures of Vibrio sp. A1SM3-36-8 spotted on each TLC plate(a) against B. subtilis, and(b) against MRSA[40]

Bioautography

[edit]

Comparing to classical disk-based methods, bioautography utilisesthin-layer chromatography to separate constituents of the tested mixture. Then, the TLC plate can be either placed on the inoculated agar and be allowed to diffuse into it (contact bioautography) or be covered with microbe-containing broth (direct bioautography). Then, the sample is incubated and zones of inhibitions are measured.[41][42][40] Alternatively, the TLC plate can be covered with molten agar in theagar overlay bioautography.[43]

To visualise zones of inhibitions in direct bioautography, reagents that detectdehydrogenase activity are used (e.g.,tetrazolium salts, which are converted by microbial dehydrogenases into chromogenicformazans).[41]

Other images

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdefghijEUCAST (January 2021)."Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: EUCAST disk diffusion method"(PDF).www.eucast.org. EUCAST. RetrievedMarch 16, 2021.
  2. ^abcBrown DF, Kothari D (October 1975)."Comparison of antibiotic discs from different sources".Journal of Clinical Pathology.28 (10):779–83.doi:10.1136/jcp.28.10.779.PMC 475859.PMID 1214010.
  3. ^Sahu, BK (2013).Antimicrobial properties of aerial part ofSesbania grandiflora (Linn.) (Semester project). The Pharmaceutical College Barpali, India.
  4. ^abcBauer AW, Perry DM, Kirby WM (August 1959). "Single-disk antibiotic-sensitivity testing of staphylococci: An analysis of technique and results".Archives of Internal Medicine.104 (2):208–216.doi:10.1001/archinte.1959.00270080034004.PMID 13669774.
  5. ^abBauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M (April 1966). "Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method".American Journal of Clinical Pathology.45 (4):493–496.doi:10.1093/ajcp/45.4_ts.493.PMID 5325707.
  6. ^abcdeCushnie TP, Cushnie B, Echeverría J, Fowsantear W, Thammawat S, Dodgson JL, Law S, Clow SM (June 2020)."Bioprospecting for antibacterial drugs: a multidisciplinary perspective on natural product source material, bioassay selection and avoidable pitfalls".Pharmaceutical Research.37 (7) 125.doi:10.1007/s11095-020-02849-1.PMID 32529587.S2CID 254932190.
  7. ^abSingh SB, Young K, Miesel L (August 2011). "Screening strategies for discovery of antibacterial natural products".Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy.9 (8):589–613.doi:10.1586/eri.11.81.PMID 21819327.S2CID 986144.
  8. ^abcWheat PF (July 2001). "History and development of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methodology".Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.48 (Supplement 1):1–4.doi:10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.1.PMID 11420332.
  9. ^"Culture Collections".Culture Collections. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  10. ^"Bacteria (CIP)".Institut Pasteur (in French). 2021-06-28. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  11. ^"Leibniz Institute DSMZ: Welcome to the Leibniz Institute DSMZ".www.dsmz.de. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  12. ^"Culture Collection University Of Gothenburg".www.ccug.se. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  13. ^"Spanish Type Culture Collection".www.uv.es. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  14. ^ab"Escherichia coli (Migula) Castellani and Chalmers - 25922 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  15. ^"Escherichia coli (Migula) Castellani and Chalmers - 35218 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  16. ^ab"Escherichia coli".www.culturecollections.org.uk. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  17. ^"Klebsiella quasipneumoniae Brisse et al - 700603 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  18. ^ab"Klebsiella pneumoniae (Schroeter) Trevisan - BAA-2814 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  19. ^"Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Schroeter) Migula - 27853 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  20. ^"Staphylococcus aureus subsp. aureus Rosenbach - 29213 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  21. ^ab"Staphylococcus aureus".www.culturecollections.org.uk. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  22. ^"Enterococcus faecalis (Andrewes and Horder) Schleifer and Kilpper-Balz - 29212 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  23. ^ab"Enterococcus faecalis (Andrewes and Horder) Schleifer and Kilpper-Balz - 51299 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  24. ^"Streptococcus pneumoniae (Klein) Chester - 49619 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  25. ^"Haemophilus influenzae (Lehmann and Neumann) Winslow et al. - 49766 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  26. ^"Haemophilus influenzae (Lehmann and Neumann) Winslow et al. - 49247 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  27. ^"Campylobacter jejuni subsp. jejuni (Jones et al.) Steele and Owen - 33560 | ATCC".www.atcc.org. Retrieved2025-02-24.
  28. ^abBonev, B; Hooper, J; Parisot, J (June 2008)."Principles of assessing bacterial susceptibility to antibiotics using the agar diffusion method".Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.61 (6):1295–301.doi:10.1093/jac/dkn090.PMID 18339637.
  29. ^Lonsway DR, Elrod MG, Kendrick N, Tiller R, Sullivan MM, Edwards JR, Blaney DD, Karlsson M (April 2020). "Correlation between Etest and reference broth microdilution for antimicrobial susceptibility testing ofBurkholderia pseudomallei".Microbial Drug Resistance.26 (4):311–318.doi:10.1089/mdr.2019.0260.PMID 31596673.S2CID 204029543.
  30. ^Kshirsagar MM, Dodamani AS, Vishwakarma P, Mali G, Khobragadec VR, Deokar RN (November 2020). "Comparative assessment of antibacterial efficacy of commercially available different dental gels: An in-vitro study".Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials.16 (2):206–211.doi:10.2174/1574887115666201104155458.PMID 33148158.S2CID 226257747.
  31. ^"Analysis of bacterial sensitivity to antibiotics by the agar diffusion method".agardiffusion.com. RetrievedMarch 16, 2021.
  32. ^"Methodology - EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) directly from positive blood culture bottles. Version 5.0"(PDF). Retrieved24 February 2025.
  33. ^"Quality control criteria for the implementation of the RAST method to be performed when implementing the method, when training new staff or following a change in blood culture system or any other substantial change in the system. Version 7.0"(PDF). 5 July 2024. Retrieved24 February 2025.
  34. ^"Screening for ESBL and carbapenemases in E. coli and K. pneumoniae for epidemiological purposes as part of the RAST procedure. EUCAST Guidelines for detection of resistance mechanisms and specific resistance of clinical and/or epidemiological importance using EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) directly from positive blood culture bottles. Version 2.0"(PDF). April 2022. Retrieved24 February 2025.
  35. ^Jonasson, Emma; Matuschek, Erika; Kahlmeter, Gunnar (2023-12-01)."Evaluation of prolonged incubation time of 16–20 h with the EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility disc diffusion testing method".Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.78 (12):2926–2932.doi:10.1093/jac/dkad332.ISSN 0305-7453.
  36. ^Cardot Martin, Emilie; Colombier, Marie Alice; Limousin, Lucie; Daude, Orianne; Izarn, Oscar; Cahen, Pierre; Farfour, Eric; Lesprit, Philippe; Vasse, Marc (November 2022)."Impact of EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) on management of Gram-negative bloodstream infection".Infectious Diseases Now.52 (8):421–425.doi:10.1016/j.idnow.2022.09.002.PMID 36108973.
  37. ^Lima, Keila de Oliveira; de Lima, Aline Valério; Rocha, Darlan Augusto da Costa; Sampaio, Suely Carlos Ferreira; Cappellano, Paola; Sampaio, Jorge Luiz Mello (March 2022)."A simple disk pre-diffusion test to predict in vitro aztreonam/avibactam activity against NDM-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae complex".Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance.28:49–52.doi:10.1016/j.jgar.2021.12.009.PMID 34936924.
  38. ^Ozkutuk, A.; Ergon, C.; Metin, D.Y.; Yucesoy, M.; Polat, S.H. (February 2008)."Comparison of Disk Diffusion, E-Test and Broth Microdilution Test in Determination of Susceptibility of Aspergillus Species to Amphotericin B, Itraconazole and Voriconazole".Journal of Chemotherapy.20 (1):87–92.doi:10.1179/joc.2008.20.1.87.ISSN 1120-009X.PMID 18343749.
  39. ^Kronvall, Göran; Karlsson, Inga (April 2001)."Fluconazole and Voriconazole Multidisk Testing of Candida Species for Disk Test Calibration and MIC Estimation".Journal of Clinical Microbiology.39 (4):1422–1428.doi:10.1128/JCM.39.4.1422-1428.2001.ISSN 0095-1137.PMC 87949.PMID 11283066.
  40. ^abConde-Martínez, Natalia; Acosta-González, Alejandro; Díaz, Luis E.; Tello, Edisson (December 2017)."Use of a mixed culture strategy to isolate halophilic bacteria with antibacterial and cytotoxic activity from the Manaure solar saltern in Colombia".BMC Microbiology.17 (1): 230.doi:10.1186/s12866-017-1136-x.ISSN 1471-2180.PMC 5721385.PMID 29216824.
  41. ^abChoma, Irena M.; Grzelak, Edyta M. (May 2011)."Bioautography detection in thin-layer chromatography".Journal of Chromatography A.1218 (19):2684–2691.doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.069.PMID 21232747.
  42. ^Wang, Meng; Zhang, Yirong; Wang, Ruijie; Wang, Zhibin; Yang, Bingyou; Kuang, Haixue (2021-07-31)."An Evolving Technology That Integrates Classical Methods with Continuous Technological Developments: Thin-Layer Chromatography Bioautography".Molecules.26 (15): 4647.doi:10.3390/molecules26154647.ISSN 1420-3049.PMC 8347725.PMID 34361800.
  43. ^Nuthan, Bettadapura Rameshgowda; Rakshith, Devaraju; Marulasiddaswamy, Kuppuru Mallikarjunaiah; Rao, H C Yashavantha; Ramesha, Kolathur Puttamadaiah; Mohana, Nagabhushana Chandra; Siddappa, Shiva; Darshan, Doreraj; Kumara, Kigga Kaadappa Sampath; Satish, Sreedharamurthy (2020-08-21)."Application of Optimized and Validated Agar Overlay TLC–Bioautography Assay for Detecting the Antimicrobial Metabolites of Pharmaceutical Interest".Journal of Chromatographic Science.58 (8):737–746.doi:10.1093/chromsci/bmaa045.ISSN 0021-9665.PMID 32766714.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^Klebsiella quasipneumoniae Brisse et al
Isolation
andculture
Isolation techniques
Cultures by body site
Cultures by organism
Identification
and testing
Manual testing: basic techniques
Manual testing:
biochemical and immunologic tests
Automated andpoint-of-care testing
Antibiotic susceptibility testing
Equipment
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disk_diffusion_test&oldid=1298691366"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp