## 3 Results
### Stratification Meta-Analysis of MIC Values of Each Hop Compound
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Compound** & **Time (h)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Food** \\ **Spoilage/Non-** \\ **Food Spoilage** \\ \end{tabular} & **MIC** & **95\% CI** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Studies** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Publication Bias** \\ **(p-Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Bitter acids** & 24 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 66.09 & 3.23–128.59 & 51 & 0.333 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 573.64 & 277.54–869.74 & 11 & 0.410 \\ \hline Humulone & 24 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 43.35 & 20.31–66.39 & 17 & 0.054 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \begin{tabular}{c} Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 500.0 & 153.52–846.48 & 4 & N/A \\ \hline Columbone & 24 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 12.40 & 2.66–22.14 & 21 & 0.157 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 666.67 & 340.01–993.33 & 3 & N/A \\ \hline
**CO\({}_{2}\)-extract** & 24 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 2421.91 & 0.95–842.87 & 12 & 0.296 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 260.35 & 0.00–625.64 & 12 & 0.283 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 1028.1 & 448.06–1608.1 & 31 & 0.252 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 257.81 & 10.61–505.01 & 8 & 0.044 \\ \hline
**Hydralcoholic extract** & 24 & \begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 52.65 & 28.39–76.86 & 8 & 0.573 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \begin{tabular}{c} Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 290.94 & 163.21–418.68 & 18 & 0.349 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 86.67 & 64.58–108.75 & 24 & 0.00 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 24 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 238.35 & 180.99–295.71 & 29 & 0.00 \\ \hline
**Hydroacetonic extract** & 24 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Food spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 55.66 & 12.15–99.16 & 14 & 0.026 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 48 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Food spoilage \\ Non-food \\ spoilage \\ \end{tabular} & 92.26 & 71.86–112.66 & 14 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
N/A: not applicable.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._Meta-Analysis of MIC Values of Hop Compounds and Extracts for Probiotic and Non-Probiotic Microorganisms  
In light of current efforts to develop antimicrobials that are compatible with the human microbiome [56] and the long-standing use of hop compounds as natural antimicrobials, it is compelling to examine whether these compounds can selectively inhibit non-probiotic microorganisms while sparing probiotics. To this end, we conducted a meta-analysis of MIC data from the retrieved studies, to compare antimicrobial activity of hop-derived compounds against probiotic and non-probiotic strains. If such selectivity exists, these compounds could represent high-value functional agents, with potential to support human health by suppressing pathogens while preserving beneficial microbial communities. To this end, the meta-analysis performed showed that antimicrobial activity of XN was stronger against probiotic compared to non-probiotic bacteria (Supplementary Table S2) when incubated for 24 h (8.49 as opposed to 24.75 \(\mu\)g/mL) (Table 5 and Figure 8A). However, this difference was diminished when treatment occurred for 48 h (Table 5 and Figure 8B). Because there is a significant difference in the number of studies included in each meta-analysis, the last-mentioned results should be interpreted with caution (Table 5).