Do nomadic lactobacilli fit as potential vaginal probiotics? The answer lies in a successful selective multi-step and scoring approach

Table 3 Biofilm characterization

Strain	Biomass (mg)	Cell density (Log CFU mL⁻¹)	eDNA (µg mg⁻¹)	Proteins (µg mg⁻¹)	EPS (µg mg⁻¹)
L. plantarum C5	11.30 ± 1.70^b	9.22 ± 0.27^a	1.93 ± 0.38^a	6.87 ± 1.27^a	80.11 ± 16.98^a
L. plantarum POM1	36.20 ± 12.02^a	10.13 ± 0.22^a	0.62 ± 0.10^ab	1.72 ± 0.36^a	26.11 ± 1.12^b
L. plantarum 1LS16	34.70 ± 4.81^ab	9.28 ± 0.15^a	0.66 ± 0.24^ab	2.33 ± 0.06^a	22.44 ± 0.58^b
L. plantarum D3.15	24.15 ± 5.59^ab	9.40 ± 0.24^a	1.03 ± 0.21^ab	3.50 ± 0.16^a	38.07 ± 5.00^ab
L. plantarum OE1	16.35 ± 9.40^ab	9.54 ± 0.48^a	1.16 ± 0.22^ab	4.77 ± 0.03^a	44.11 ± 10.84^ab
L. plantarum D2.6	30.85 ± 0.49^ab	9.56 ± 0.02^a	0.86 ± 0.34^ab	2.66 ± 0.02^a	35.00 ± 1.64^b
L. plantarum E3.8	34.50 ± 1.70^ab	9.55 ± 0.35^a	0.75 ± 0.02^ab	2.45 ± 0.06^a	25.08 ± 4.79^b
Lact. paracasei 41j	26.80 ± 4.81^ab	9.44 ± 0.04^a	0.59 ± 0.18^b	3.28 ± 0.39^a	17.91 ± 20.87^b

Biomass (mg), cell density (Log CFU mL⁻¹), and ECMs (eDNA, proteins, and exopolysaccharide concentration, expressed as µg/mg of the total biomass) characterization of the newly formed biofilm, and reported as mean ± standard deviation [a–b Means within the columns with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05)]

ISSN: 1475-2859