Research Article

Evaluation of Nutritional Ingredients, Biologically Active Materials, and Pharmacological Activities of Stropharia rugosoannulata Grown under the Bamboo Forest and in the Greenhouse

Table 7

Results of antibacterial tests of BFSR and GHSR.

BacteriaGram stainBFSRAeBFSREeGHSRAeGHSREe
MICaMBCaMICaMBCaMICaMBCaMICaMBCa

E. coli.0.06250.1250.1250.1250.06250.1250.250.5
E. faecalis+0.06250.250.250.50.1250.1250.50.5
S. pneumoniae0.1250.250.2510.1250.250.251
S. aureus+0.251240.250.512
P. aeruginosa0.51120.1250.524
S. typhimurium0.52140.5144
K. pneumoniae0.52481224
S. Dublin12240.5248
S. pyogenes+2448488>8
S. maltophilia484424>8>8

Notes. E. coli. was Escherichia coli. E. faecalis was Enterococcus faecalis. S. pneumoniae was Streptococcus pneumoniae. S. aureus was Staphylococcus aureus. P. aeruginosa was Pseudomonas aeruginosa. S. typhimurium was Salmonella typhimurium. K. pneumoniae was Klebsiella pneumoniae. S. Dublin was Salmonella Dublin. S. pyogenes was Streptococcus pyogenes. S. maltophilia was Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. “+” was Gram-positive. “−” was Gram-negative. The positive controls were active against all bacteria (MIC range: 0.2–50 μg/mL). amg/mL. BFSRAe was aqueous extract of BFSR. BFSREe was ethanolic extract of BFSR. GHSRAe was aqueous extract of GHSR. GHSREe was ethanolic extract of GHSR.