Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Mol Oral Microbiol. 2015 May 8;30(5):347–360. doi: 10.1111/omi.12098

Table 3.

Gingipain activity comparison between different strains at both exponential growth phase and stationary phase. The number showed are percentage to that of the wild-type W83, the data are the average of three biological replicates with three technical replicates each.

Strain Genotype Gingipain activity (%)
Exponential phase Stationary phase
Rgp Kgp Rgp Kgp
W83 Wild-type 100 100 100 100
FLL92 vimA::ermF 9 15 29 60
FLL370 ΔrgpB::ermF 60 86 56 100
FLL371 ΔrgpB::tetQ-vimA::ermF 1 3 7 1
FLL372 ΔrgpA::ermF 40 100 39 100
FLL373 ΔrgpA::tetQ-vimA::ermF 1 3 31 53
FLL374 Δkgp::ermF 100 0 97 2
FLL375 Δkgp::tetQ-vimA::ermF 2 2 0 2
FLL376 ΔrgpA::ermF- ΔrgpB::tetQ 2 100 2 100
FLL377 ΔrgpA::tetQ- Δkgp::ermF 46 2 53 1
FLL378 ΔrgpB::tetQ- Δkgp::ermF 47 0 47 0
FLL379 ΔrgpA::cat- Δkgp::tetQ-vimA::ermF 4 3 3 3
FLL380 ΔrgpB::cat- Δkgp::tetQ-vimA::ermF 2 4 2 4
FLL381 ΔrgpA::cat- ΔrgpB::tetQ-vimA::ermF 3 6 5 24