Comparison of unfiltered and filtered <i>M. smegmatis</i>.

<p>Unfiltered <i>M. smegmatis</i> under 40x magnification (A) and plated onto agar (B); <i>M. smegmatis</i> filtered through 5-µm pore filter under 40 x magnification (C) and plated onto agar (D), scale bar applies to both A and C.</p

Recovery of <i>M. smegmatis</i> after Vortexing and Filtration.

<p>Mean ±Standard Deviation; n = 4.</p

Histogram of unfiltered, vortexed and filtered <i>M. smegmatis</i>.

<p>Distributions of resorufin fluorescence signals from 384 wells of a 384-well plate contained unfiltered (A), vortexed (B) or filtered (C) <i>M. smegmatis</i>. After the treatment, the bacteria were distributed into the 384-well plates followed by the addition of resazurin, which was converted to resorufin by the living bacteria.</p

Agreement analysis of duplicate plates from unfiltered, vortexed and filtered bacteria.

<p>Correlation of two duplicate assay plates tested against LOPAC compounds using unfiltered bacteria (A), vortexed bacteria (B) and filtered bacteria (C).</p