. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Urolithiasis. 2015 May 28;43(5):397–409. doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0781-5

Table 2.

Summary of CC-COM apparent growth inhibition and Rd(CC) for the macromolecules tested.

Sample	% Inhibition	P < 0.05	Rd(CC)	P < 0.05
pD, 100nM	92.8 ± 1.2 (5)	^*^§	0.68 ± 0.01	^*
pE, 100nM	72.1 ± 1.4 (4)	^*^¥^§^€	1.21 ± 0.03	^¥
pR, 100nM	1 ± 7 (3)	^¥^€	1.18 ± 0.04	^¥
mOPN, 100nM	92.4 ± 0.9 (2)	^*^§	1.02 ± 0.02

Polymer mixtures

pR/pD
25:75 nM	88 ± 2 (3)	^*^§^₮	1.23 ± 0.10
50:50 nM	71.5 ± 1.3 (3)	^*^¥^§^€^₮	1.21 ± 0.01
75:25 nM	-11.7 ± 0.7 (3)	^*^¥^€^₮	1.22 ± 0.02
mOPN/pR
50:50 nM	-41 ± 9 (2)	^¥^€	1.14 ± 0.01

The apparent growth rate inhibition for the CC-COM experimental runs were calculated as described in the methods section. The mean values and standard errors are reported with the number of experimental runs given in parenthesis.

Statistical significance is noted when P < 0.05 for comparisons to control,

^¥

pD,

^§

pR,

^€

mOPN.

^₮

All pR/pD mixtures were significantly different from each other.

COM lot 91086 was used throughout these experiments.