Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 13.
Published in final edited form as: Cell Host Microbe. 2019 Mar 13;25(3):432–443.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.02.008

Figure 2. efg1, brg1, rob1, tec1, and ume6 exhibit enhanced commensal fitness, while UME6OE has reduced fitness.

Figure 2.

A) Schematic of competition experiments. Mice were gavaged with 1:1 mixtures of WT and each commensalism mutant, strain abundance in feces was monitored for ≥25-days using qPCR. B-G) Results for: (B) WT (ySN226) vs. efg1 (ySN119), (C) WT (ySN425) vs. brg1 (ySN1180), (D) WT (ySN250) vs. rob1 (ySN1440), (E) WT (ySN250) vs. tec1 (ySN1442), (F) WT (ySN250) vs. ume6 (ySN1479), (G) WT (ySN1556) vs. UME6OE (ySN1558). Bars represent the mean. Significance was determined using the paired student’s t-test: n.s. not significant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001. Additional results are presented in Figures S1, S2, and S3.