Figures
Figure 1. Viability of HT-29 cells when exposed to different
concentrations of CFS generated by L. fermentum 5.2. Different
letters indicate a statistical difference between treatments by Tukey
test (P<0.05).
Figure 2. Viability of HT-29 cells when exposed to different
concentrations of CFS generated by L. plantarum 6.2. Different
letters indicate a statistical difference between treatments by Tukey
test (P <0.05).
Figure 3. Viability of HT-29 cells when exposed to different
concentrations of CFS generated by L. plantarum 7.1. Different
letters indicate a statistical difference between treatments by Tukey
test (P <0.05).
Figure 4. Bacterial autoaggregation in vitro .A. L. fermentum 5.2; B. L. plantarum6.2; C. L. plantarum 7.1; and D. E. coliF4. Different letters indicate a statistical difference between the
times of analysis by Tukey test (P <0.05).
Figure 5. Bacterial coaggregation in vitro . A.L. fermentum 5.2 + E. coli F4; B. L.
plantarum 6.2 + E. coli F4; and C. L. plantarum7.1 + E. coli F4. Different letters indicate a statistical
difference between the times of analysis by Tukey test
(P <0.05).
Figure 6. In vitro bacterial coaggregation of L.
plantarum 7.1, L. plantarum 6.2, and L. fermentum 5.2
bacteria associated with E. coli F4. Different letters in the
same group indicate a statistical difference between bacteria by Tukey
test (P <0.05).
Figure 7. Biofilm formation index of E. coli cultured in
the presence of 40 mg/mL of CFS generated by bioprotective LAB. The
positive control consists of evaluating the E. coli F4 biofilm
without exposure to CFS. Different letters indicate a statistical
difference between treatments by Tukey test (P <0.05).