Skip to main content
. 2019 Oct 11;77(8):ftz059. doi: 10.1093/femspd/ftz059

Table 1.

MIC values of CAms (µM) against G. vaginalis and other vaginal pathogens in comparison to healthy Lactobacillus species.

MIC (µM) MIC (µM) MIC (µM)
Microorganism 1a 2a 1b 2b 1c 2c
G. vaginalis 14018 2.5 ± 0.98a 18.5 ± 7.9a 6.7 ± 3.1 16.3 ± 4.4 3.4 ± 1.1 4.3 ± 1.2
G. vaginalis 14018c 4.5 ± 1.8 7.6 ± 3.6 4.4 ± 1.1 10.2 ± 5.1 3.8 ± 1.5 3.9 ± 1.0
G. vaginalis 14019_metR 1.3 ± 0 3.8 ± 1.8 7.3 ± 3.4 9.3 ± 0.0 3.3 ± 1.6 3.2 ± 1.5
L. rhamnosus 160 38.5 ± 17.6a 94.03 ± 32.1a 80.9 ± 28.0 155 ± 53.7 148.8 ± 51.6 143.1 ± 49.6
L. plantarum ATCC 39268 118 ± 34.1a 185 ± 64.4a 81.3 ± 27.4 155.6 ± 54.1 208 ± 136.4 204 ± 131.2
L. gasseri ATCC 33323 9.7 ± 4.3a 46.2 ± 16.6a 16.2 ± 7.0 23 ± 0.0 37.2 ± 12.9 28.6 ± 12.4
L. crispatus ATCC 33197 7 ± 0.0a 55.8 ± 0.0a 18.2 ± 13.2 8.7 ± 5.0 22.3 ± 0.0 16.1 ± 9.3
P. bivia ATCC 29303 28.4a 111.6a 29.1 40.9 37.5 29.2
M. curtisii ATCC 35241 28.4a 93.1a 21.4 38.0 50.9 29.2
P. anaerobius ATCC 27337 3.6a 13.9a 4.9 9.3 8.93 4.3
a

For comparison, results from Algburi et al. (2017).