## 3 Results
### Stratification Meta-Analysis of MIC Values of Each Hop Compound
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Class of** & **Compound** & **Time (h)** & **Strain** & **MIC** & **95\% CI** & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Number** \\ **of Studies** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Publication** \\ **Bias (\(p\)-Value)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Flavonoids** & Xanthhumol & 24 & _Stapylylococcus epidermidis_ & 1.37 & 0.12–2.61 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & 24 & _Stapylococcus aureus_ & 6.53 & 3.05–10.01 & 10 & 0.473 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Bacillus subtilis_ & 7.00 & 1.12–12.88 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Bacillus megaterium_ & 10.00 & 9.20–10.80 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus salivarius_ & 23.33 & 10.27–36.40 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus superlights_ & 23.33 & 1.03–3.64 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus aureus_ & 70.08 & 29.81–110.36 & 6 & 0.019 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Enterococcus faecalis_ & 62.00 & 61.31–62.96 & 2 & N/A \\ \cline{2-7}  & & 48 & _Bacteroides fragilis_ & 39.43 & 27.80–51.06 & 7 & 0.001 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Cistribution profirings_ & 32.60 & 18.72–46.48 & 5 & 0.010 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Cistribution difficile_ & 95.04–64.63 & 28 & 0.00 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Propinibacterium scans_ & 46.88 & 16.25–77.50 & 2 & N/A \\ \cline{2-7}  & Catechin & 48 & _Bacillus subtilis_ & 1200.0 & 569.96–1830.0 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Pseudomonas fluorescens_ & 1700.0 & 1698.9–1701.1 & 2 & N/A \\ \hline
**Bitter acids** & Humulome & 24 & _Staphylococcus epidermidis_ & 18.75 & 0.00–40.80 & 2 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Staphylococcus aureus_ & 83.25 & 39.87–126.63 & 8 & 0.323 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Bacillus subtilis_ & 5.01 & 0.33–6.69 & 4 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus superphoticus_ & 5.31 & 1.20–9.42 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Enterococcus faecalis_ & 60.00 & 59.31–60.69 & 2 & N/A \\ \hline Columbumolome & 24 & _Staphylococcus aureus_ & 273.75 & 196.82–350.68 & 4 & N/A \\ \hline \(\alpha\)-acids & \multirow{2}{*}{48} & \multirow{2}{*}{_Bacteroides fragilis_} & 767.14 & 408.98–1125.3 & 7 & 0.006 \\  & Xanthhum & & _Cistridium perfirgens_ & 1062.0 & 808.46–1315.5 & 5 & 0.001 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Cistridium difficile_ & 737.14 & 604.15–870.14 & 28 & 0.00 \\ \hline Lupulome & 24 & _Staphylococcus epidermidis_ & 2.25 & 0.00–5.68 & 2 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Staphylococcus aureus_ & 0.76 & 0.38–1.15 & 9 & 0.945 \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Bacillus subtilis_ & 2.33 & 1.03–3.64 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Bacillus megaterium_ & 7.67 & 3.093–12.24 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus salivarius_ & 68.33 & 6.27–130.40 & 3 & N/A \\  & Xanthhumol & & _Streptococcus superphoticus_ & 2.33 & 1.03–3.64 & 3 & N/A \\ \hline \(\beta\)-acids & \multirow{2}{*}{48} & \multirow{2}{*}{_Bacteroides fragilis_} & 258.57 & 168.10–349.04 & 7 & 0.001 \\  & Xanthhum & & _Cistridium perfirgens_ & 198.00 & 161.123–234.877 & 5 & 0.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Xanthhumol & & _Cistridium difficile_ & 38.39 & 39.40–130.10 & 28 & 0.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} N/A: not applicable.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Meta-analysis of MIC values of individual hop compounds. was intriguing to investigate whether hop compounds exhibit differential antimicrobial activity against food spoilage versus non-food spoilage bacteria. To this end, we stratified our meta-analysis according to the antimicrobial effects of hop-derived compounds and hop extracts against a diverse panel of food spoilage microorganisms, aiming to explore their potential selectivity and application beyond the brewing context [53; 54; 55]. Meta-analysis of MIC values for classes of hop compounds (subgroupped according to each compound) and extracts, stratified for food spoilage and non-food spoilage bacteria (Supplementary Table S2), for 24 h of treatment, showed that XN exerted almost the same effect irrelevant of the food spoilage characteristics of the microorganisms (Table 4 and Figure 6A).