© 2026 Nanjing Finechem Holdings Co., Ltd,
All Right Reserved
People have worked with Micrococcus lysodeikticus for over a century, usually recognizing it as the oddball Gram-positive coccus turning up on agar plates or tucked inside dusty biochemistry lab drawers. Most folks in biology meet this bacterium not as a living cell but as a freeze-dried powder used in lysozyme activity assays. Alexander Fleming laid some of the groundwork here, showing us how lysozyme enzymes hammered the cell walls of bacteria, with M. lysodeikticus as a favorite punching bag because of its vulnerable peptidoglycan layer. Across the decades, the organism’s cell wall sensitivity to lysozyme let researchers unravel the mysteries of innate immunity before the rise of genetic engineering. From those early years, its ubiquity in enzymology and clinical assays shaped how we detect everything from tear enzymes to new antibiotics. The fact that M. lysodeikticus carved itself a niche as a textbook “reference bug” isn’t just coincidence; it’s a testament to what happens when utility, consistency, and relatively simple cultivation align.
Most scientists don’t lose sleep over catalog numbers or sourcing concerns—if they need M. lysodeikticus, they typically buy a lyophilized preparation. The product looks like a pale, almost flour-like powder, with a stable shelf life provided it’s kept dry and away from sunlight. The organism, as supplied, is usually heat-killed, so there's no biohazard or risk of casual contamination. This makes it easy to use for things like lysozyme assays, antibacterial screens, or cell-wall degradation studies. UC Berkeley published protocols decades ago recommending M. lysodeikticus as the standard substrate when comparing muramidase activity across different conditions or animal tissues. Using such a consistent biological “target” means results hold up whether the experiment happens in a pharma lab or a university teaching hospital. The powder resuspends readily in buffers or water, staying cloudy for hours, which is helpful if absorbance readings form the core measurement.
The simplicity of M. lysodeikticus turns heads for anyone who values robustness in experimental reagents. On the bench, it has a characteristic yellow-beige color when dry and forms a turbid suspension after mixing with water—useful for tracking lytic reactions. Its high content of peptidoglycan makes those cell walls a perfect substrate. The organism doesn’t contain much in the way of natural pigments or interfering proteins. Most preparations float at neutral to slightly acidic pH and will survive cycles of rehydration and mild heating without much trouble, though repeated freeze-thaw isn’t a great idea. Chemically, what stands out is that the cell envelope’s N-acetylmuramic acid provides the “lock” for lysozyme’s “key.” There’s a lack of protective O-acetylation, which is why lysozyme has an easy time cleaving its backbone, and why researchers can count on a reliable drop in absorbance at 450 nm as lysis proceeds. That optical clarity—no floating slime, no precipitate—makes it a mainstay in teaching and research labs.
Real-world users focus on real details. Labeling tends to highlight source strain, the preparation’s origin, storage temperature, and lot numbers tied to published reference data. Most commercial packages give a minimum absorbance decrease per milligram per milliliter, letting researchers quantify lysozyme activity in a standardized way. Like other non-viable bacterial substrates, the packaging outlines the colony forming units before inactivation, cell wall concentration, and, if relevant, any trace contaminants. There’s a subtle but important difference between whole cell and cell wall-only preparations—some protocols call for complete cells, while others need “clean” cell envelope fractions. Good labeling means less troubleshooting and more reproducibility. The world hasn’t settled on a single “gold standard” format, but supplies from US, European, and Asian manufacturers often follow harmonized language, which helps global collaboration.
Preparing a batch of M. lysodeikticus isn’t rocket science, but optimizing yields for lab-grade powder still demands some know-how. Cultures typically grow in simple nutrient-rich media, reaching dense turbidities quickly thanks to the bacterium’s short doubling time. Once cultures reach a defined optical density, they’re harvested, washed by centrifugation, and usually given a short heat-treatment or chemical fix to knock out viability. A few vendors prefer gamma irradiation to heat, though it’s more expensive. The resulting cell mass gets lyophilized at low temperature, broken into a fine powder, and packed with desiccant pouches to prevent clumping. Some labs go a step further, isolating the cell wall fraction with detergent or enzymatic digestion; that separation offers a more purified test substrate at the expense of overall yield. Not much in the process has changed since the 1960s: nutrient broth, heat-kill, wash, powder, and seal.
Scientists are never satisfied with “off the shelf”—there’s always room for tweaks. For M. lysodeikticus, chemical modification focuses on the cell wall. Treating with mild acids, proteases, or glycosidases trims off “decorations” and contaminants, exposing pure peptidoglycan. Sulfhydryl or amine labeling lets protein chemists attach reporter groups or fluorescent tags. Sometimes, researchers treat the cells with sodium periodate to remove carbohydrates, turning the powder into a more selective substrate for lysozyme and glycoside hydrolase screens. For immunoassays, chemical crosslinking stabilizes the substrate, reducing background noise and letting the cell wall persist through more aggressive wash steps. These modifications extend the range of experiments possible, taking M. lysodeikticus from a blunt screening tool to a customizable target for specific enzyme reactions or structural studies.
Veterans of the trade often talk past each other, calling this bacterium by different names out of habit. In scientific circles, “Micrococcus lysodeikticus” keeps its place, though some older literature refers to “Micrococcus lysodeikticus cell walls” or “M. luteus” as the organism sits alongside Micrococcus luteus in taxonomic trees. Catalogs sometimes use the shorthand “Staphylococcus lysodeikticus,” reflecting shifts in bacterial classification over the decades. Some products carry the “freeze-dried whole cell” label, others simply “bacterial cell wall substrate.” For those hunting in international markets, names like “lysozyme test substrate” or “lysozyme-sensitive bacteria” all point back to the same familiar powder. Clarity matters—relying on a Latin binomial in citations helps avoid mismatched results from batch-to-batch or brand-to-brand.
One concern I hear from newcomers to the lab: “Are we going to get sick from this stuff?” The answer for most preparations is “not a chance.” The powder comes from a non-pathogenic organism, rendered non-viable by heat or radiation before packaging. That said, good hygiene and common sense still apply. Nobody likes breathing in fine biological dust, so proper ventilation and wearing masks during weighing or transfer makes sense for large-scale work. Spills clean up with ordinary disinfectant, and any waste can go in municipal trash if handled in reasonable amounts. Standards from the American Society for Microbiology and European equivalents agree: this isn’t a dangerous agent. Still, labeling for allergens or cross-contaminants is key—people with heightened sensitivities could develop mild reactions after repeated exposure.
Speaking from lab experience, most people encounter M. lysodeikticus as a go-to substrate for enzyme assays. Lysozyme research leads the pack, whether measuring enzyme activity in egg white, tears, phage-infected bacteria, or medical diagnostics. Pharmaceutical labs leverage it for screening new antibiotics or bacteriolytic compounds, with the organism’s reliable “lyses quick” profile acting as a standardized benchmark. In education, biology and biochemistry students learn the concept of enzymatic rate measurement through simple M. lysodeikticus-based experiments—mix lysozyme with suspended powder, track turbidity loss, and you’ve got a hands-on introduction to enzyme kinetics. Beyond the teaching bench, researchers working on peptidoglycan structure, innate immunity, or cell-wall-targeting therapies rely on the bacterium to run quick, clear-cut controls. Even outside the canonical fields, food safety experts use M. lysodeikticus assays to test for lysozyme presence in cheese and wine—helpful for allergen labeling or quality assessment. Some dye chemists have used its peptidoglycan in developing novel stains and adhesives, though that niche remains overshadowed by the big-ticket enzyme market.
The past decade saw molecular biologists try to push beyond classic methods with better-defined assay systems. Recombinant DNA technology tempts some to make pure, synthetic peptidoglycan fragments or engineered “cell wall surrogates.” Still, none of these have matched the simplicity and flexibility of whole-cell M. lysodeikticus powder. Ongoing collaboration between academic and industry groups keeps refining purification and characterization—improving lot-to-lot consistency, linking absorbance drops to mass-spectrometry-validated enzymatic breakdown, and tying substrate performance to in vivo relevance. The rise of high-throughput screens also put pressure on suppliers to offer larger, ultrapure batches. Synthetic biology’s promise might one day let us “program” E. coli or Bacillus with the same chemical vulnerabilities as M. lysodeikticus, but for now, the bacterium’s natural cell wall still ranks as the reference substrate of choice.
Plenty of studies looked for health hazards and drew blanks. M. lysodeikticus doesn’t make toxins or virulence factors, and the standard lab preparations do not contain live cells. Routine allergenicity screens raise only minor flags, mostly for workers with strong pre-existing sensitivities to common environmental microbes. Accidental ingestion or skin contact poses near-zero risk. Long-term chronic toxicity hasn’t been observed, and regulatory bodies long ago classified this organism as biosafety level 1. For those handling large-scale industrial extractions, the main concern remains dust inhalation—akin to flour or pollen, best managed with good industrial hygiene. As biotechnology’s reach grows, ongoing monitoring for subtle cross-reactivities matters, especially as cell wall fragments make their way into engineered pharmaceuticals or diagnostic kits.
Looking to the next decade, M. lysodeikticus will likely do more than sit as a legacy tool for enzyme assays. Four trends drive the change: advanced peptidoglycan analysis, enzyme evolution studies, next-gen therapeutics, and synthetic biology. Breakthroughs in mass spectrometry and high-resolution microscopy let scientists probe cell wall structure to phenomenal detail, revealing hidden layers of complexity. As new lysozyme analogs and engineered hydrolases emerge—with potential for specialized therapies against antibiotic-resistant pathogens—M. lysodeikticus stands as the experimental yardstick. Meanwhile, synthetic biology might give us custom-tailored cell wall substrates, combining the reliability of M. lysodeikticus with the genetic tweakability of laboratory workhorses. Smart regulations and global supply chains will play a part, ensuring that product quality and sustainable sourcing go hand in hand. If the life sciences continue their current trajectory, this “old” organism will fuel new therapies, better diagnostics, and a richer understanding of microbial dynamics in medicine and industry alike.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus finds its way into more labs than most folks realize. I remember the first time I heard that name in a microbiology class. It sounded exotic, maybe even dangerous, but this little bacterium doesn’t produce toxins or cause trouble in people. Instead, it’s all about enzymes—especially one called lysozyme.
Lysozyme steps up as one of nature’s simplest but effective defenses. The enzyme breaks down bacterial cell walls, which comes in handy for researchers studying immune responses, or screening how drugs work against infections. Micrococcus lysodeikticus provides just the right cell wall composition for lysozyme to chew up, so scientists crush up these bacteria and use their cell debris in tests. Drop in your lysozyme sample, measure how quickly the bacterial fog clears, and you have your activity readout.
Big labs and small research groups use this bacteria to compare egg white lysozyme with versions from tears or saliva. I’ve watched grad students run side-by-side tests, a row of tubes turning from cloudy to clear. That simple shift helps compare medicines or analyze food freshness because the lysozyme activity can tell a lot about health and spoilage.
Universities rely on Micrococcus lysodeikticus as a safe teaching tool. Micro students, who might be handling microbes for the first time, don’t face much personal risk. Instructors can show them the way enzymes destroy bacteria—not just on paper, but in real life, in a test tube.
Food companies also turn here when ensuring products are safe to eat. Lysozyme activity gets checked in cheese, for example, where the enzyme helps prevent spoilage. By using Micrococcus lysodeikticus in the standard test, producers keep tabs on the enzyme’s strength and guard their reputation.
Beyond lysozyme work, the enzymes in these bacteria sometimes land in genetic studies. Some researchers dig deeper, looking at enzymes that break down DNA or RNA, using these to figure out details of how genes work.
Some companies produce large batches of Micrococcus lysodeikticus, banking on the consistency of the cell wall structure to keep tests reliable. It’s the old scientific trick: keep one variable steady while changing the rest.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus became a staple because it solves real problems. By helping labs check a simple enzyme, it supports disease research, food quality assurance, and biology education. That kind of quiet usefulness deserves more attention.
Keeping tests simple and bacteria safe just makes sense. In my time helping students, reliability and safety made the difference in keeping lessons on track. The world of research keeps changing, but tried-and-true tools like Micrococcus lysodeikticus stick around because people can count on them.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus stands out as a gram-positive bacterium often found in both nature and lab settings. You’ll see this microbe show up in research because it reacts quickly to lysozyme, an enzyme in human tears and saliva. Some researchers use it as a tool when testing how well antibacterial compounds work. This brings up the question—does this often-used microbe carry risks for people handling it or when it’s included in manufactured products?
The science community generally considers Micrococcus lysodeikticus as non-pathogenic for healthy people. It isn’t like Staphylococcus aureus, which regularly causes illness. Reports point out that this microbe rarely gets linked to infection. You’ll find Micrococcus species on the skin, in soil, and in water. No evidence suggests this bacterium infects healthy adults by touch or inhalation during normal lab processes.
Still, a good chunk of knowledge in microbiology comes from handling bugs that seem routine until unforeseen problems pop up. For example, immune-compromised people face more risk from seemingly harmless organisms, even those that don’t harm most people. A single case report described an immune-suppressed patient who developed bacteremia tied to another Micrococcus species. Safety experts always stress basic lab hygiene, such as wearing gloves and washing hands after handling any culture.
Labs use Micrococcus lysodeikticus for enzyme activity assays and as a marker strain to check antibiotic action. Some commercial skincare mixes Micrococcus lysate ferment into formulas, marketing it as a “biotech” ingredient meant to support the skin’s natural defenses. Official cosmetic safety regulators in Europe and the US haven’t listed big concerns for health when microscopic lysate is used in topical products, as filtration steps destroy cell wall components and DNA. Data shows little chance of skin infection in healthy people exposed through creams or cleansers.
In food processing, authorities don’t sanction live Micrococcus lysodeikticus for human consumption, sticking with traditional fermenting species like lactobacilli. There’s no push from public health organizations to add this bacterium to probiotics or food.
Practical risks arise less from the microbe itself than sloppy handling. I remember a microbiology course where new students underestimated safety just because the sample was labeled “nonpathogenic.” A quick lapse meant culture plates could end up where they didn’t belong. Teachers always pushed for covering cuts and avoiding food or drink near bacteria of any kind, since infections—rare as they might be—could sink in with a lowered immune system or broken skin.
Guidelines from sources like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise treating all unknown microbes with respect. Standard protocol uses biosafety level 1 practices for this bacterium. Gloves, handwashing, and careful disposal work as the main lines of defense.
The bottom line calls for using common-sense precautions, even for “safe” bacteria. Personal experience and lab best practices show how a little vigilance makes accidents rare. Health agencies stress watching out for vulnerable people, such as those getting chemotherapy or living with immunodeficiency, since their defenses don’t line up with the average person. Science finds little evidence of risk from topical, filtered bacterial lysates, or short lab exposure. Still, the best approach means closing the door to surprises and sticking with proven safety rules.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus seems ordinary under the microscope, but its role in labs and industry deserves some careful respect. I have prepped this bacterium for lysozyme assays and noticed how easily things go wrong when storage is an afterthought. Warm temperatures and stray moisture spell real trouble. I learned the hard way one muggy summer. Even a sealed vial went off a bit when left in a poorly cooled fridge, making results inconsistent for weeks. It turns out, this microbe needs predictably cold conditions to keep its enzymes and cell walls in a usable shape.
Keeping Micrococcus lysodeikticus in a regular fridge barely works for the short term. Reach for lower temperatures, like those in a deep freezer at -20°C, and you save yourself hassles with contamination, denaturing, and unusable cell pellets. Studies show that even a few days at room temperature cut lysozyme activity drastically, so don’t trust an ice pack or a corner shelf. If you plan to store it beyond two weeks or if your work relies on fine, consistent enzyme reactions, stash those vials in a dedicated freezer.
Lyophilized (freeze-dried) cells hold up much better than wet suspensions. I’ve kept freeze-dried bacterial pellets for over a year with almost no drop in activity. Once rehydrated, lifespans shrink to days, even at 4°C. Manufacturers indicate the same: dry powder keeps activity, liquid culture fades much faster. Don’t open the packaging until you really need the cells. If you plan to aliquot, split up the bottle into single-use vials right at the start, then put them straight back in the freezer.
Humidity sets the stage for bacteria and fungi you don’t want. Store tubes in airtight containers with silica gel or a similar desiccant. Moisture ruins freeze-dried powder even if you can’t see obvious clumping. Direct sunlight also hurts stability; I’ve seen lyophilized pellets lose color and become unreliable after just a weekend on a windowsill.
A barcode or at least a date sticker goes a long way. I once grabbed an unlabeled vial I thought was fresh, but it had sat in the freezer since an old grant project. It wasted hours and reagents. Labs with clear tracking almost never mix up storage conditions and get the best results batch after batch.
Even though Micrococcus lysodeikticus rarely causes disease, it makes sense to treat live cultures with the same respect as clinical pathogens. Wear gloves; avoid making aerosols. If you plan to discard cultures, use an autoclave or bleach to handle what gets tossed. Respect for safe handling builds good habits for any biological work.
Most labs do fine keeping Micrococcus lysodeikticus at -20°C, dry and away from light. More investment in reliable labeling, periodic quality checks, and staff training would cut down on wasted samples and lost time. Sharing what works or fails within your team highlights best strategies faster than any standard operating procedure. Every step that guards against degradation or mix-ups puts you closer to clean, credible data and saves energy.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus once lived quietly in research labs. Scientists valued it for how well it showed off the power of lysozyme, an enzyme that helps break down cell walls in bacteria. Over time, smart minds noticed something: this bacterium holds untapped potential, especially for health products and skincare. It’s odd to imagine a common microbe taking center stage in personal care, but the trend picked up speed for good reasons.
Growing up, I watched relatives trust old remedies—oats for rashes, vinegar for sunburn. Today, the science behind bacteria-derived products deserves just as much faith. Micrococcus lysodeikticus brings serious action to the fight against unwanted bacteria. It kicks in an enzyme, lysozyme, that disrupts the cell walls of pathogens before they can wreak havoc on the skin. Research confirms this process lowers the risk for surface infections. In an age when antibiotic resistance runs high, boosting the body’s own barriers seems like the better path.
I have seen children with eczema. Scratching leads to infections that slow the healing. Skincare with Micrococcus lysodeikticus steps up the natural defenses. The extract teaches immune cells to keep watch and kick up their response when threatened. Dermatologists lean on this science, knowing a gentle nudge at the surface can spark stronger healing below. This approach opens new doors for sensitive skin solutions, where more aggressive chemicals do more harm than good.
Inflamed, red skin often signals more than just a surface problem. In flare-ups, calming the reaction makes all the difference. Something I’ve learned in family medicine: patients stay loyal to the creams that soothe, not the ones that sting. Micrococcus lysodeikticus doesn’t just attack bacteria; it also helps regulate inflammatory signals in the skin. Studies show a measured decrease in redness and discomfort after using creams with these bacterial extracts. This offers hope for people with rosacea or sunburned skin looking for relief without harsh steroids.
Years ago, exfoliating meant rough scrubs or plastic beads. Those days came to a halt as we learned what microplastics do to our lakes and rivers. Micrococcus lysodeikticus presents a smarter option. It supports enzyme-driven exfoliation, allowing skin to shed old cells and welcome in the new—no sandpaper scrubbing required. As regulations crack down on plastic microbeads, enzyme-based methods step up not only for the planet, but for skin health too.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus earns respect far beyond cosmetics. Hospitals worry about wound infections. Diabetics watch for signs of ulcers. Using products powered by proven bacteria like this one means extra security against harmful microbes. By helping prevent infections at the surface, healing speeds up and complications drop.
Relying on good bacteria isn’t a cure-all. Allergic reactions still happen. Some complex wounds demand more than natural enzymes alone. Trust comes from seeing strong published studies and leaning on medical teams that know how to weigh risks. Still, Micrococcus lysodeikticus represents the best kind of innovation—a return to natural, science-backed support for skin that’s under pressure every day.
Micrococcus lysodeikticus is a tiny bacterium, often found in labs and used in enzyme studies. Scientists rely on it to measure lysozyme activity, learn how bacteria defend themselves, and train students about enzymes in classrooms everywhere. Because these bacteria aren’t known to cause disease, many people in science don’t give much thought to possible side effects. That doesn’t mean it’s risk-free; few things in science ever are.
Some people working in labs have concerns about breathing in dust from dried bacterial cells or powders that contain these bacteria. Like any fine particulate, it could bother someone with asthma or trigger sneezing or a cough. In a research environment, if someone touches a culture with broken skin or rubs their eyes, irritation might follow. There’s no strong evidence pointing to long-term health problems linked to this bacterium specifically, but standard lab safety rules make sense precisely because reactions can catch people off guard – so gloves, coats, and regular handwashing matter.
Substances from bacteria have a knack for stirring up the body’s immune system. Though M. lysodeikticus is not considered a classic “allergen,” being exposed repeatedly or in large amounts could annoy someone’s immune system. George Konrad, a microbiologist from the 1980s, once described minor hives when preparing massive quantities for student experiments. More recently, safety sheets prepared by chemical suppliers point out that inhalation and prolonged exposure could result in mild skin or respiratory irritation, not because the bacterium is toxic, but because the proteins and cell wall pieces act like foreign material.
There’s some buzz about M. lysodeikticus as an ingredient in health supplements or cosmetics, especially in Asia and parts of Europe. Companies point out benefits for the immune system or as antioxidants. The trouble is, safety data from cosmetics and nutraceuticals doesn’t tell a whole lot. The US National Institutes of Health and the European Food Safety Authority both point out a lack of high-quality research on side effects in everyday users who might eat or apply these products. Until the evidence expands, any claims about risks or benefits rely more on short-term studies than decades of population data.
Facts from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the CDC, and reviewing supplier safety sheets, say this: M. lysodeikticus rarely causes infections, even among those with low immunity. Still, lab workers should stick with basic protection. In industrial settings, manufacturers who work with tons of dried bacteria use masks and ventilation systems. For me, as a researcher who spent years pipetting enzymes, I never skipped gloves or goggles. Lab managers frequently remind students: being complacent can only invite trouble.
Boosting transparency could help. Clearer info on food and cosmetic ingredient labels matters, especially for proteins and bacteria. Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EFSA should keep pushing for more research into side effects for new uses outside the lab. Independent testing by universities and clear reporting from manufacturers both benefit everyone. Science moves pretty fast, but health and safety need to keep pace.
1. NIH. PubChem: Micrococcus lysodeikticus. 2. Sigma-Aldrich. Safety Data Sheet: Micrococcus lysodeikticus. 3. EFSA Journal, “Scientific Opinion on the safety of bacterial strains used in food supplements.” 4. CDC. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Micrococcus lysodeikticus |
| Other names |
Micrococcus luteus Micrococcus lysodeikticus var. mondai Micrococcus lysodeikticus Fleming |
| Pronunciation | /maɪ.kroʊˈkɒk.əs ˌlaɪ.soʊ.deɪkˈtɪk.əs/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 12640-89-0 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3581814 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:135927 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3834677 |
| ChemSpider | 472491 |
| DrugBank | DB09325 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 1007003 |
| EC Number | EC 3.2.1.17 |
| Gmelin Reference | 771307 |
| KEGG | mli |
| MeSH | D008834 |
| PubChem CID | 6851044 |
| RTECS number | OX6800000 |
| UNII | ZBM2F9T0SR |
| UN number | UN2814 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C₃₇H₄₉N₉O₁₁ |
| Appearance | Light yellow, lyophilized powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.25-0.35 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | insoluble |
| log P | -4.6 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 4.6 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 7.0 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.52 |
| Dipole moment | 0.00 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 5.76 J K⁻¹ g⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | J07AX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause allergic reactions; avoid inhalation, ingestion, and contact with skin or eyes. |
| GHS labelling | Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | No hazard statements. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P280, P302+P352, P333+P313, P362+P364, P501 |
| REL (Recommended) | 656 mg/L |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
6-Aminopenicillanic acid Lysozyme Muramidase N-Acetylmuramic acid |
