Next Article in Journal
A Critical View over the Newest Antidiabetic Molecules in Light of Efficacy—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolome and Transcriptome Profiling Reveals the Function of MdSYP121 in the Apple Response to Botryosphaeria dothidea
Previous Article in Journal
RNA Interference Past and Future Applications in Plants
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Plant Transcription Factors in the Fight against Plant Viruses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 11
10.3390/ijms24119759
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plant Growth Promotion Using Bacillus cereus

by
Iryna Kulkova
1,†,
Jakub Dobrzyński
1,†,
Paweł Kowalczyk
2,*,
Grzegorz Bełżecki
2 and
Karol Kramkowski
3
1
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, Falenty, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
2
Department of Animal Nutrition, The Kielanowski Institute of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, Polish Academy of Sciences, Instytucka 3 Str., 05-110 Jabłonna, Poland
3
Department of Physical Chemistry, Medical University of Białystok, Kilińskiego 1 Str., 15-089 Białystok, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(11), 9759; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119759
Submission received: 6 May 2023 / Revised: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 1 June 2023 / Published: 5 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Insights into Plant-Biotic Interactions and Crop Yield)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) appear to be a sensible competitor to conventional fertilization, including mineral fertilizers and chemical plant protection products. Undoubtedly, one of the most interesting bacteria exhibiting plant-stimulating traits is, more widely known as a pathogen, Bacillus cereus. To date, several environmentally safe strains of B. cereus have been isolated and described, including B. cereus WSE01, MEN8, YL6, SA1, ALT1, ERBP, GGBSTD1, AK1, AR156, C1L, and T4S. These strains have been studied under growth chamber, greenhouse, and field conditions and have shown many significant traits, including indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase production or phosphate solubilization, which allows direct plant growth promotion. It includes an increase in biometrics traits, chemical element content (e.g., N, P, and K), and biologically active substances content or activity, e.g., antioxidant enzymes and total soluble sugar. Hence, B. cereus has supported the growth of plant species such as soybean, maize, rice, and wheat. Importantly, some B. cereus strains can also promote plant growth under abiotic stresses, including drought, salinity, and heavy metal pollution. In addition, B. cereus strains produced extracellular enzymes and antibiotic lipopeptides or triggered induced systemic resistance, which allows indirect stimulation of plant growth. As far as biocontrol is concerned, these PGPB can suppress the development of agriculturally important phytopathogens, including bacterial phytopathogens (e.g., Pseudomonas syringae, Pectobacterium carotovorum, and Ralstonia solanacearum), fungal phytopathogens (e.g., Fusarium oxysporum, Botrytis cinerea, and Rhizoctonia solani), and other phytopathogenic organisms (e.g., Meloidogyne incognita (Nematoda) and Plasmodiophora brassicae (Protozoa)). In conclusion, it should be noted that there are still few studies on the effectiveness of B. cereus under field conditions, particularly, there is a lack of comprehensive analyses comparing the PGP effects of B. cereus and mineral fertilizers, which should be reduced in favor of decreasing the use of mineral fertilizers. It is also worth mentioning that there are still very few studies on the impact of B. cereus on the indigenous microbiota and its persistence after application to soil. Further studies would help to understand the interactions between B. cereus and indigenous microbiota, subsequently contributing to increasing its effectiveness in promoting plant growth.

1. Introduction

Progressive agricultural pollution, such as long-term mineral fertilization (with high doses of N) and climate change, which in turn have a huge impact on water quantity and quality, have contributed to the acceleration of the development of environmentally friendly biostimulators and plant protection agents [1,2,3,4,5]. One of the environmentally safe alternatives for chemical agents can be biofertilizers including plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) [6,7]. In sustainable agriculture, PGPB may play an important role by improving yields and soil properties, reducing the growth of phytopathogens, alleviating abiotic and biotic stresses, and enhancing soil biodiversity [8]. PGPB have many beneficial traits that directly or indirectly stimulate plants. Some of them are the auxins (e.g., indole-3-acetic acid (IAA)), cytokinins, and gibberellins production, aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase (ACC) production, atmospheric nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization, lytic enzymes production (chitinase, cellulase, protease, glucanase), siderophore production, induced systemic resistance (ISR), and antibiotic lipopeptides production (Figure 1) [9,10,11,12,13]. PGPB belong to different genera such as Acinetobacter, Aeromonas, Agrobacterium, Allorhizobium, Arthrobacter, Azoarcus, Azorhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Bacillus, Bradyrhizobium, Burkholderia, Caulobacter, Chromobacterium, Delftia, Enterobacter, Flavobacterium, Frankia, Gluconacetobacter, Klebsiella, Mesorhizobium, Micrococcus, Methylobacterium, Paenibacillus, Pantoea, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Serratia, Streptomyces, Thiobacillus, and Variovorax [14,15,16].
In terms of research, one of the most interesting groups is the B. cereus group, which includes at least eight ecologically diverse but phylogenetically highly related species: B. anthracis, B. cereus, B. thuringiensis, B. mycoides, B. pseudomycoides, B. weihenstephanensis, B. cytotoxicus, and B. toyonensis [17,18]. B. cereus species is classified as a gram-positive, aerobic, or facultative anaerobic bacteria, mobile and capable of spore-forming in the presence of oxygen. In the environment, B. cereus is a ubiquitous bacterium and can be found in soil, dust, air, water, decaying matter, food products, and plant roots [17]. Some B. cereus strains produce several bacterial enterotoxins (HBL, NHE, CytK) that cause two types of food poisoning syndromes in humans and animals, e.g., vomiting and diarrhea [19]. However, non-pathogenic B. cereus strains exhibit plant growth-promoting traits and can be used in agriculture as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents [20,21].
This review concisely and comprehensively presents the most relevant information on the direct and indirect mechanisms B. cereus strains use, alone or in combination with other PGPB species, to enhance plant growth and help inhibit phytopathogens under stressed and non-stressed conditions. Furthermore, it focuses on how B. cereus can colonize and persist in the rhizosphere. The review also addresses the impact of B. cereus on the native microbiota of inoculated plants and soil.

2. Biofilm Formation in Bacillus cereus

B. cereus strains colonize plant roots by forming biofilms [22]. Biofilm-forming microorganisms are beneficial to plant health due to increasing resistance to antibiotics, chemicals, heat, UV radiation, and other environmental stresses [23,24]. Some strains of B. cereus often merge with other bacterial species, resulting in the formation of mixed biofilms, e.g., two-species biofilms [25]. The B. cereus 905 strain isolated from the wheat rhizosphere can exhibit at least two modes of biofilm formation, depending on the environmental conditions. On one hand, B. cereus 905 is able to form floating biofilms (pellicles) in a similar way to Bacillus subtilis. However, this species can also form biofilm in a manner reminiscent of the biofilm formation using the pathogen Staphylococcus aureus [26].
Biofilm formation is associated with various gene expressions. Compared with B. subtilis, the regulatory mechanisms that are involved in biofilm formation in environmental B. cereus strains are not fully understood. However, recent scientific advances regarding this bacterial species provide more information about the genes and their functions associated with biofilm [27]. Studies conducted on the environmental isolates of B. cereus AR156, B. cereus 0–9, and B. cereus 905 show how biofilm formation is carried out [27,28].
In the environmental isolate B. cereus AR156, 23 genes associated with biofilm formation were identified by a random transposon insertion mutagenesis [28]. Importantly, the ClpYQ protease gene and genes involved in purine (purD and purH) and nucleotide biosynthesis—and GTP homeostasis—contribute to biofilm formation and swarm motility in B. cereus AR156. Furthermore, sigB and several other genes in the putative SigB regulon also play important roles in the biofilm formation in B. cereus AR156 [28]. It has also been shown that in B. cereus AR156, the comER gene plays an important role, regulating both biofilm formation and spore formation, and is likely to be a part of a regulatory pathway involved in the activation of Spo0A (the key regulator of biofilm formation and sporulation in B. cereus and B. subtilis). It has also been reported that the comER gene may regulate Spo0A activity through its effect on the small checkpoint protein Sda, which plays an important role in cell development processes in Bacillus spp. [29]. Another study has shown that the genes bcspo0A, bcsinI, and bcsinR, regulated by the Spo0A-SinI-SinR regulatory circuit, are essential for sporulation and biofilm formation in B. cereus AR156. Interestingly, bcspo0A and bcsinI genes are important for nematicidal activity and biocontrol against Meloidogyne incognita with B. cereus AR156 [30].
Importantly, the regulatory protein SpoVG derived from B. cereus 0–9 controls the activation of Spo0A transcription and is crucial for both sporulation and biofilm formation [31]. This study has also shown that SpoVG influences AbrB and SinI/SinR networks and thus biofilm development. Moreover, the genes ptsI, sodA1, sodA2, gapB, and YmdB protein have been shown to play an important role in biofilm formation in B. cereus 0–9 [32,33,34,35]. Importantly, the above-mentioned studies show that the ptsI gene may be one of the key genes involved in the control of wheat sharp eyespot using B. cereus [32]. Moreover, the sodA1 gene has a crucial role in spore formation and tolerance to intracellular oxidative stress, while the sodA2 gene plays an important role in the negative regulation of phospholipase and hemolytic activity of B. cereus 0–9 [33]. The gapB gene, encoding glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), is involved in biofilm formation and extracellular DNA release of B. cereus 0–9 by regulating the expression or activity of the LrgAB autolysis regulator [34]. In turn, the YmdB protein is involved in the adaptation of B. cereus 0–9 to changing environmental conditions [35]. Interestingly, the sodA2 gene, encoding manganese-containing superoxide dismutase (MnSOD2), is particularly important in root colonization and biofilm formation in B. cereus 905 [36]. In the studies, Gao et al. [36,37,38], using random insertional mutagenesis of the TnYLB-1 transposon, identified the genes ptsI, ptsH, recA, hrcA, clc, feoB1, feoB2, ndk, and hutH, which regulate sodA2 expression in B. cereus 905, and are essential for biofilm formation.
In conclusion, B. cereus, compared with most species of the genus Bacillus, has a relatively well-studied mechanism of biofilm formation. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to search for the molecular mechanisms responsible for biofilm formation in order to gain potentially valuable information that could lead to an increase in the effectiveness of B. cereus as a PGPB, e.g., by overexpressing certain genes associated with biofilm formation in B. cereus.

3. Bacillus cereus as a Directly Plant Growth Stimulating Bacteria

The main mechanisms of PGPB activity are extensively covered by many review articles [9,39]; thereby, they are not discussed in this review in detail. Instead, it focuses on the role of B. cereus strains as plant growth promoters. Due to their ubiquity and close interaction with plants, B. cereus strains are often considered as PGPB in various studies [40]. Frequently, a single B. cereus strain can promote the growth of many different plant species, indicating that it is well adapted to different habitat conditions. Plant growth stimulation using B. cereus strains is measured by parameters such as shoot/root length, fresh/dry biomass, and chlorophyll content. Stimulation of plant growth with B. cereus has been documented, e.g., for plants such as soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L., Chinensis Group), maize (Zea mays), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), pea (Pisum sativum L.), and rice (Oryza sativa L. var. FARO 44) [20,41,42,43,44].
Most of the studies on direct plant growth promotion with B. cereus have been conducted under controlled conditions. For instance, an experiment conducted in in vitro conditions showed that B. cereus MEN8 was capable of increasing seed germination parameters (e.g., vigor index, germination energy, or percentage of germination seeds) and stimulating plant growth parameters such as root and shoot length and plant weight of chickpea [45]. Another study in in vitro conditions reported that, after inoculation of rice seeds with B. cereus strain GGBSU-1, the germination percentage after 4 days was 100% compared with 65% in the control [44]. Furthermore, after 28 days, bacterial inoculation increased not only morphological parameters and biomass of rice seedlings, but also biochemical parameters, including chlorophyll a and b content, total soluble sugar, and α-amylase [44]. On the other hand, under greenhouse conditions, B. cereus T4S, isolated from the sunflower root endosphere by Adeleke et al. [46], promoted sunflower growth, including tap root length, root length, root number, root weight, seed weight, and shoot weight, in comparison with non-inoculated treatment. In addition, the study conducted under pot experiment by Kumar et al. [41] revealed the ability of B. cereus LPR2 (isolated from the spinach rhizosphere), alone and in combination with silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), to promote maize plant growth (including root and shoot growth and fresh and dry weight) through phosphate solubilization and IAA, HCN, and ammonia production. Moreover, maize seeds coated with the microbial inoculants B. cereus LPR2 and LPR2 with AgNPs exhibited a 37.5 and 25% larger increase in germination, respectively, compared with uninoculated seeds [41].
It was also observed that the application of B. cereus P8 resulted in a statistically significant increase in plant shoot and root biomass of pea plants under poly-house conditions [43]. This strain showed significant production of IAA and siderophores and had phosphate and potassium solubilization activity [43].
However, there were also studies carried out under field conditions. For instance, Ali et al. [42] showed that potassium solubilizing B. cereus was able to increase plant height and shoot dry weight, as well as increase the number of potatoes under field conditions. In addition, the application of this B. cereus strain contributed to an increase in total potato yield of approximately 20% compared with non-inoculated plants. Importantly, B. cereus also caused an increase in leaf N, P, and K concentrations in inoculated plants compared with the control [42]. In addition, B. cereus YL6 promoted soybean and wheat growth in pot experiments, including an increase in leaf total phosphorus [20]. Nevertheless, it also increased the yield of Chinese cabbage under field conditions. Its plant growth-promoting properties were related to IAA and gibberlines production and dissolution of inorganic and organic phosphorus [20].
However, despite the fact that B. cereus is capable of directly promoting plant growth (from biometric traits to NPK and chlorophyll content or enzyme activity), there is still little research under field conditions, which is an essential step in the commercialization of biofertilizers.

4. Plant Growth Promotion by Bacillus cereus in Combination with Other PGPB Species

As is well known, the application of one or more bacterial strains stimulating plant growth can be used as a more rational and safer alternative to agrochemicals [47]. To date, several studies have demonstrated the potential of bacterial consortia with B. cereus to improve plant growth. Nevertheless, not much further research is being conducted on the stimulation of plant growth with B. cereus in the consortium under controlled conditions. Interestingly, to date, research has shown that B. cereus with other bacterial strains (e.g., Pseudomonas spp. and Azospirillum spp.) can promote the growth of either crops or medicinal plants [48,49,50,51]. For instance, in studies on wheat in a 2-year experiment, the enhancement of plant growth treated in consortium with B. cereus (phosphorus-solubilizing microorganisms) has also been reported (under controlled and field conditions) [51]. The consortium containing B. cereus (accession no. LN714048) and Pseudomonas moraviensis (accession no. LN714047) led to an increase in biometric parameters, including plant height, plant fresh weight, and seeds weight [51]. Chauhan et al. [50], in a 180-day experiment under field conditions, showed a significant increase in plant biomass of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) rhizomes by using a consortium of two bacterial strains: B. cereus TSH77 and B. endophyticus TSH42. Moreover, the study conducted by Sivasankariv and Anandharaj [48] on the Vigna unguiculata plant under in vivo and controlled conditions indicates that the consortium of B. cereus GGBSTD1 and Pseudomonas spp. GGBSTD3 (isolated from vermisources) acts as a potential biofertilizer due to its plant growth-promoting traits such as phosphate solubilization, IAA production, and siderophores. The results of the study showed that, compared with the control, the consortium significantly enhanced germination percentage, shoot length, root length, leaf area, chlorophyll a and b content in leaves, total chlorophyll content in leaves, fresh weight, and dry weight of plants. As far as chlorophyll is concerned, the positive effects of consortia involving B. cereus have already been reported in other studies. For instance, in a study conducted in a greenhouse, after double inoculation with a consortium of strains of B. cereus SrAM1 and Azospirillum brasilense, Stevia rebaudiana seedlings were characterized by an increase in chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b content and total chlorophyll content [49]. In addition, B. cereus in combination with other strains can also increase the activity of antioxidant enzymes, including catalase activity [49,51] and significant up-regulation of the ent-KO, UGT85 C, UGT74G1, and UGT76G1 genes responsible for steviol glycoside biosynthesis [49]. Interestingly, in the previously mentioned study by Chauhan et al. [50], a bacterial consortium with B. cereus increased the content of the main bioactive component, curcumin, by 13% compared with the control. In summary, B. cereus (in combination with other strains) not only promotes plants by increasing their yield and biometrics traits (root length, fresh weight, etc.), but also affects the activity of certain enzymes (e.g., antioxidant enzymes) and increases the concentration of biologically active substances that can be used in medicine, e.g., curcumin.

5. Bacillus cereus in the Alleviation of Abiotic Stress

Abiotic stress harms the biochemical, morphological, molecular, and physiological functioning of plants by exerting oxidative, osmotic, and ionic stresses. The most common ones are drought, salt, heavy metal pollution, and heat stress, to which crop plants are exposed worldwide [52,53]. Several experiments conducted by different researchers have shown that B. cereus strains are capable of promoting plant growth effectively not only in normal conditions but also in stressful environmental conditions [54,55,56,57]. In previous studies, it has been shown that, after inoculation, some plant growth-promoting B. cereus strains have considerably beneficial effects on both physiological (dry and fresh weight, shoot and root length, germination) and biochemical traits (chlorophyll content, relative water content, protein, proline, and antioxidant activity) under abiotic stress conditions. Abiotic stress tolerance induced with B. cereus strains in plants is mediated by mechanisms such as phytohormone and ACC deaminase activity, antioxidant defense (SOD, POD, APX, CAT, GR), accumulation of osmolytes, volatile compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals bioremediation, including exopolysaccharide production (EPS) and alteration of root morphology [56,58,59,60,61,62].
Recently, in the context of climate change, it has been particularly important to find PGPB effective in mitigating drought and heat stresses. Under drought stress conditions (greenhouse experiment), B. cereus UFGRB2 affected the photosynthetic efficiency in soybean by sustaining the potential quantum yield of PSII and maintaining the photosynthesis rate, while a decrease was observed in non-inoculated plants [63]. In another case, the application of B. cereus MKA4 under wheat (drought-sensitive variety HD2733) drought stress resulted in a noticeable increase in SOD, catalase, and glutathione reductase (GR) activities compared with control plants under drought conditions (pot experiment) [61]. In addition, co-inoculation of wheat under drought stress (under field conditions) using B. cereus (accession CP003187.1) with Pseudomonas fluorescens (accession GU198110.1) led to a significant increase in chlorophyll content and improved yield parameters compared to the control [64].
Interestingly, the ACC deaminase-producing B. cereus KTES strain was able to enhance shoot and root length, shoot and root weight, and leaf area of Solanum lycopersicum under heat stress conditions in the growth chamber [56]. Moreover, isolated by Khan et al. [53], the endophytic strain B. cereus SA1 was able to produce IAA, gibberellin, and organic acids. Inoculation of this bacterial strain improved the values of biomass, chlorophyll content, and chlorophyll fluorescence of soybean under standard and heat stress conditions after 10 days of cultivation in the growth chamber (controlled conditions). B. cereus SA1 also reduced the levels of heat-stress-produced abscisic acid (ABA) and reduced the amount of salicylic acid (SA).
Importantly, strains of B. cereus are also able to enhance plant growth promotion under saline conditions. For instance, isolated from the Cenchrus ciliaris (halophytic weed) endophytic strain, B. cereus (accession LN714048) caused a significant increase in proline, phytohormones, antioxidant enzymes, and yield parameters such as seed weight and spike length of wheat under saline stress (in vitro conditions) [65]. Interestingly, Zhou et al. [66] have shown that B. cereus, through enhancing the activity of antioxidants, increases the growth and photosynthesis ability of cucumber seedlings grown on a solid medium irrigated with 150 mM NaCl solution. On the other hand, Wang et al. [67] conducted a more comprehensive study (pot experiment) focusing on elucidating the mechanisms of action of B. cereus in the mitigation of salinity stress in Glycyrrhiza uralensis. For instance, B. cereus G2 noticeably enhanced proline and glycine betaine content due to upregulated expression of the BADH1 gene and soluble sugar content due to the activated expression of α-glucosidase and SS genes, which may lead to a reduction in the osmotic potential of the cell, thereby mitigating osmotic stress. In addition, B. cereus G2 mitigated oxidative stress through the effect of antioxidant enzymes [67].
B. cereus strains are also capable of mitigating plant stress caused by heavy metals, including arsenic, nickel, bo r, cadm, chromium, lead, copper, and zinc [60,68,69,70,71]. Under cadmium stress conditions (pot experiment), B. cereus S6D1-105 was able to promote the growth of rice under hydroponic conditions. Cd-tolerant B. cereus had the ability to, for example, solubilize potassium and phosphate and produce siderophores, thereby increasing plant biomass, chlorophyll content, and antioxidant enzyme activities, including polyphenol oxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and ascorbate peroxidase and reducing malondialdehyde in either rice leaves or roots [68]. Similar patterns were also obtained by other authors, e.g., Sahile et al. [69] documented that B. cereus ALT1 reduces ABA and enhances SA contents in soybean plants under Cd stress conditions (growth chamber conditions). In addition, after plant inoculation of B. cereus ALT1, the researchers noted an increase in yield parameters and chlorophyll content. Additionally, B. cereus can also alleviate plant stress caused by the presence of chromium in the soil [70]. Application of B. cereus contributed to direct Brassica nigra plant growth promotion, including increasing shoot and root length and biomass, compared with the uninoculated control. Moreover, inoculation with this strain reduced chromium toxicity (pot experiments, greenhouse). Importantly, after B. cereus application, the photosynthetic pigments content was enhanced as well as increases in chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids were observed. In addition, the strain contributed to an increase in the activity of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase [70].
Research has also demonstrated the possibility of alleviating plant stress caused by heavy metals by combining B. cereus with other bacterial strains. For example, the consortium of three heavy metal-tolerant plant growth-promoting bacteria—B. cereus MG257494.1, Alcaligenes faecalis MG966440.1, and Alcaligenes faecalis MG257493.1—showed tolerance to cadmium, lead, copper, and zinc (in vitro conditions) [71]. The results of the greenhouse study showed that the inoculation resulted in reduced bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the roots and shoots of Sorghum vulgare L.
In conclusion, using some B. cereus strains can effectively mitigate the damage caused by abiotic stresses primarily through IAA and ACC deaminase production, increasing antioxidant activity, proline content, and bioremediation of heavy metals.
Tested strains that stimulate plant growth under adverse environmental conditions, such as B. cereus (accession CP003187.1), B. cereus KTES, B. cereus SA1, B. cereus (accession LN714048), B. cereus G2, B. cereus S6D1-105, and B. cereus ALT1 alone or in combination with other PGPBs, can be considered for use in developing biofertilizers. Nevertheless, we believe that research with a genetic focus is needed to further understand the mechanisms of B. cereus in stress tolerance in plants.

6. Biocontrol Using Bacillus cereus

B. cereus strains, as endophytic microorganisms and rhizobacteria in interaction with plants, not only promote direct plant growth, but also exhibit interesting traits for biocontrol of plant diseases, which is shown in Figure 2. Some strains of B. cereus have shown biocontrol capabilities against various plant pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, nematodes, and protozoan [41,72,73,74,75,76].
B. cereus can control bacterial phytopathogens by triggering induced systemic resistance (ISR), which is mediated by the salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) pathways [77]. For instance, B. cereus AR156 was able to trigger ISR against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000-influenced gene expression (in Arabidopsis) by transcription factors WRKY70 and WRKY11, which then affected both the SA and JA/ET signaling pathways [78]. Interestingly, in a subsequent study, Jiang et al. [79] demonstrated that B. cereus AR156 also induced ISR against P. syringae pv. tomato DC3000, however, by suppressing miR472 and activating CNLs-mediated basal immunity in Arabidopsis model system. Recently, Hernández-Huerta et al. [80] demonstrated that B. cereus showed similar activity to a commercial agent (B. subtilis) against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria, the authors suggested that the biocontrol agent may be based on ISR induction. Moreover, B. cereus INT1c was able to inhibit P. syringae by producing AHL (acyl-homoserine lactone)-lactonase, i.e., an enzyme that breaks down important quorum-sensing (QS) molecules [81]. In addition, endophytic B. cereus (strain VT96) was capable of inhibiting QS-regulated virulence factors in P. aeruginosa (strain PAO1) and Pectobacterium carotovorum by producing AHL-lactonase enzyme (encoded by aiiA gene) [82]. Importantly, B. cereus was also able to control Ralstonia solanacearum, which is an important bacterial plant pathogen as well [72,83]. In the case of the study of Yanti et al. [72], the biocontrol agent involved in R. solanacearum suppression was not known. However, Wang et al. [83] suggested that B. cereus AR156 induces some specific components in tomato root exudates that may be involved in a decrease in the abundance of R. solanacearum.
One of the most important mechanisms against plant pathogens in B. cereus is the biosurfactant production of antimicrobial compounds, e.g., ribosomally as well as non-ribosomally synthesized antimicrobial peptides (NRPs) [9,84]. B. cereus genomes show a high abundance of NRPs gene clusters, such as cyclic lipopeptides (e.g., iturin A, C, D; fengycin D, CAE; plipastatin A; bacillomycin B, C, D; bacilysin A, D; and surfactin A, C), the dodecapeptides bacitracin, bacillibactin, and hybrid polyketide-nonribosomal peptide zwittermicin A. In B. cereus strains, lipopeptides exhibit strong activity against fungal pathogens such as Fusarium oxysporum, Colletotrichum gloesporioides, Cercospora lactucae-sativae, Alternaria solani, Leptosphaeria maculans, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Fusarium solani, Leptosphaeria maculans, Magnaporthe oryzae, Rhizoctonia solani, and Sclerotium rolfsii [46,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93]. For instance, B. cereus AK1 isolated from soil was able to synthesize kannurin, which is a lipopeptide antibiotic that shows similar antifungal activity to surfactin, but slightly stronger [94]. Other studies on B. cereus strains have also reported the ribosomal synthesis of peptide genes that predominantly encode bacteriocins or bacteriocin-like inhibitory substances (BLIS) such as subtilin, cerein 7A, and cerein 7B [87,95,96]. In addition, as in the case of bacterial phytopathogens biocontrol, PGPB can trigger ISR against pathogenic fungi through the activation of the SA, JA, and ET pathways [97,98,99,100]. However, in contrast to the B. cereus AR156-elicited ISR against P. syringae, the AR156-triggered ISR against B. cinerea does not require the SA signaling pathway [101]. In the case of fungal phytopathogens control, the ISR regulatory pathways are activated by various factors, e.g., recent reports suggest that oxalic acid (OA), secreted by B. cereus AR156 through the activation of the JA/ET pathway, provides resistance against the phytopathogenic Botrytis cinerea [97]. The JA and SA pathways produced by B. cereus EC9 enhance the Kalanchoe immune system against F. oxysporum [98]. Furthermore, VOCs produced by B. cereus C1L and B. cereus YMF3 strains activate the ISR, leading to effective biocontrol against not only B. cinerea but also Cochliobolus heterostrophus and Arthrobotrys oligospora [99]. The role of VOCs in ISR has also been detected in B. cereus MH778713 during tomato plant defense against F. oxysporum [100]. Another biocontrol mechanism of fungi present in B. cereus strains is the activity of lytic enzymes such as cellulases, chitinases, glucanases, chitosanases, and proteases, which efficiently hydrolyze the main components of fungal cell walls [92,102]. Several B. cereus strains producing lytic enzymes with antifungal activity are shown in Table 1.
In addition, strains B. cereus KSL-24 and B. cereus KSL-8T, which produce HCN, catalase, IAA, and siderophores, may suppress the infection caused by Phytophthora capsici belonging to the Oomycetes. It was found that the inoculated seeds caused an inhibition of P. capsici mycelial growth in vitro by 75.3 and 88.3%, respectively, compared with the control [74].
Root nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) are also important plant pathogens against which chemical nematicides are often used; however, they also have detrimental effects on human health and the environment [111]. Many studies have proven that B. cereus strains exhibit nematocidal activity and have great potential for effective protection of plants against nematode infection [112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119]. B. cereus CCBLR15 with biocontrol and plant growth-promoting properties (such as phosphate solubilization, production of siderophores, esterases, gelatinases, and chitinases) was found to have nematocidal activity against Radopholus duriophilus in young Coffea arabica plants [112]. In turn, Wang et al. [113] documented that B. cereus BCM2 caused a significant reduction in the nematode population and increased yield by colonizing tomato roots, competing with Meloidogyne incognita for an ecological niche. Moreover, Li et al. [114] observed that the B. cereus BCM2 had high activity against second-stage juveniles of M. incognita after application on tomato; B. cereus BCM2 produced nematode-reducing molecules, e.g., 3,3-dimethyloctane and 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol. In addition, in a recent study on B. cereus BCM2, Hu et al. [115] identified chitosanase, an alkaline serine and neutral protease that also contributes to the inhibition of M. incognita. Interestingly, research by Xiao et al. [116] reported that B. cereus X5 in combination with organic fertilizer, by colonizing tomato rhizosphere soil, significantly reduced the number of tomato root galls and egg masses, and the control efficiency of Meloidogyne spp. reached 63.1%. In another study, the B. cereus Bc-cm103, by activating the induced immunity of cucumber (Cucumber sativus), significantly reduced the number of M. incognita galls and reduced the disease index. In addition, B. cereus Bc-cm103 formed a biofilm on the surface of cucumber roots and activated the expression of PR1, PR2, LOX1, and CTR1 genes in seedlings, which are markers of SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways [117]. Moreover, Gao et al. 2016 [118], using LC–MS, identified two nematicidal compounds: sphingosine and phytosphingosine, of which sphingosine can induce reactive oxygen species (ROS) in M. incognita and thus lead to a lethal effect on nematodes. In addition, nematocidal activity against second-stage larvae of Heterodera filipjevi was demonstrated in vitro by treatment with bacterial suspension with a B. Cereus 09B18 strain by 83% and under greenhouse and field conditions reduced the number of white females on wheat plants by 75.9 and 43.5%, respectively [119].
Importantly, the role of B. cereus MZ-12, isolated from the rhizosphere of pak choi (Brassica campestris sp. chinensis L.), was described for the first time as a new biocontrol agent of Plasmodiophora brassicae —Protozoa [76]. The study showed that after three applications, the MZ-12 strain was able to colonize the rhizosphere of pak choi with subsequent control of the infection by inhibiting zoospores. Nevertheless, there is a need for further research to provide more information and elucidate the control mechanisms of P. brassicae by B. cereus.
As shown by the results from the text above, B. cereus may be involved in the control of many fungi and nematodes, several bacterial phytopathogens, and one member of Protozoa. However, there is still a lack of research on the induction of ISR, and to our knowledge, there have been no studies comparing its effectiveness in the biocontrol of phytopathogens with commercial chemicals.

7. Biocontrol Using Bacillus cereus in Combination with Other PGPB Species

It is worth noting that, in some cases, plant defense can be more effective and efficient when induced by microbial consortia, compared with the application of a single microbial inoculant. Therefore, considering the ability of some microbial consortiums to trigger induced systemic resistance and biologically control and rebalance the microbial community, there are many opportunities to exploit PGP traits of microbial consortiums not only to effectively increase yield, but also to resist phytopathogens in plant cultivation [120,121,122,123,124]. A number of studies indicate the possibility of controlling fungal phytopathogens, such as Rhizoctonia solani, as well as members of the genera Fusarium and Sclerotium. Naureen et al. [120] evaluated a synergistic action of the bacterial strains B. cereus Z2-7, B. subtilis SPS2, Enterobacter sp. SPR7, and Aeromonas hydrophilla in rice (Oryza sativa); the consortium increased plant yield and elicited induced systemic resistance against the phytopathogenic Rhizoctonia solani. In addition, it increased the levels of chitinases, peroxidases, and glucanases in rice. Moreover, the findings of Kushwaha et al. [93] revealed that, via activation of various biochemical processes during the plant–Bacillus interaction, a consortium of microorganisms (B. cereus EPP5, B. amyloliquefaciens EPP62, B. subtilis EPP65) showed strong inhibitory effects on phytopathogenic fungi (including Rhizoctonia solani, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Fusarium solani) and also improved pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) plant biomass and its shoot and root length. In another study, the synergistic action of consortium members B. cereus Rs-MS53 and Pseudomonas helmanticensis Sc-B94 resulted in an increased efficacy against the pathogenic fungi Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [124]. The production of microbial volatile organic compounds (mVOCs) with combinations of these strains has been identified as the main mechanism of antagonism.
Yang et al. [122] showed that cotton plants inoculated with a combination of three strains: B. cereus AR156, B. subtilis SM21, and Serratia sp. XY21 (BBS) under greenhouse and field conditions also reduced the abundance of the fungus Verticillium dahliae by 86.1 and 76% and improved yields by 49.9 and 13.7%, respectively, compared with the control. In addition, after BBS application under field conditions, soil properties were significantly improved. Then, the results of a 3-year field experiment conducted by Zhang et al. [121] on sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) revealed that the application of BBS was particularly effective in controlling the fungus-like Phytophthora capsici and increasing the yield of the plant. In addition, after BBS inoculation, the content of total chlorophyll in the leaves, dissolved sugar content, soluble solids, and vitamin C in the fruit were significantly higher in all seasons in comparison with the control plants. Moreover, the inoculation improved soil chemical properties, which could be caused by the alteration of the microbial community induced by BBS.
Importantly, B. cereus, in combination with other strains, is also capable of suppressing the growth of other pathogenic organisms. For instance, in a recent study under field conditions, the potential of the combination of B. cereus BT-23, Lysobacter antiobioticus 13-6, and Lysobacter capsici ZST1-2 was evaluated on plants of Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis) infected by members of Protozoa—Plasmodiophora brassicae [123]. The results showed that after three applications, the disease control effect was 65.78% compared with a commercial fungicide. The authors explain this effectiveness by changing the rhizosphere microbiome.
In conclusion, it is also worth mentioning that merging B. cereus with other bacteria may increase the range of biocontrol traits so that the formulation can more effectively suppress fungal phytopathogens. As previously mentioned, the merged production of mVOCs—with B. cereus and Pseudomonas helmanticensis —has led to the effective control of R. solani and S. sclerotiorum. Another case confirms that perhaps a mixture with B. cereus EPP5, B. amyloliquefaciens EPP62, and B. subtilis EPP65, in which, for example, EPP5 had a high level of chitinolytic activity and EP65 had a significantly higher level of proteolytic activity—indicating that the strains in the consortium complemented each other in antagonistic activity against R. solani, Sclerotium rolfsii, and F. solani [93].

8. Bacillus cereus Impact on Native Microbiota

Very important issues concerning the effectiveness of PGBP are their impact on the native microbiota as well as their survival in the soil or, as in the case of endophytes, in plant tissues [125,126,127]. To date, several papers have been published on the effects of Bacillus and related bacteria on the microbiota [128,129]; however, to our knowledge, only one has described the B. cereus effect on the indigenous microbiota (using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)) [130]. The study conducted by Azeem et al. [130] revealed that B. cereus with high-temperature biochar significantly increased the abundance of a few important taxa, including Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes, and significantly decreased the amount of Acidobacteria, Planctomycetes, Bacteroides, and Gemmatimonadetes in the soil, compared with the treatment with peat alone. Unfortunately, the researchers did not perform a study on untreated control [130]. In the case of other species of the genus Bacillus, studies on their impact on the indigenous microbiota have been conducted with, for instance, B. pumilus WP8 (using PCR-DDGE) [128], B. pumilus TUAT-1 (using NGS) [131], or B. subtilis (using NGS) [129].
Importantly, there is a study confirming the colonization of root surface, root tissues, and leaves of Chinese cabbage, soybean, and wheat by plant growth-promoting B. cereus (first, it colonized the root surface and hairs, subsequently penetrating the intercellular spaces and vessels, up to the leaves tissues). This phenomenon was documented using B. cereus YL6 labeled with green fluorescent protein (GFP) and fluorescence microscopy evaluation [20,132]. However, to our knowledge, there are still no studies describing the survival of B. cereus in soil or plant tissues using qPCR, which is considered the best technique to assess this parameter [126]. On the other hand, some interesting studies using qPCR have emerged for other related species [131,133]. For instance, using qPCR, Win et al. [131] detected B. pumilus TUAT-1 in the rhizosphere soil (rice) 5 weeks after inoculation. Moreover, Fu et al. [133] revealed that the abundance of B. amyloliquefaciens NJN-6 has been stable in the rhizosphere soil (banana) for 3 years after application.
In conclusion, there is still a need for research into the effects of B. cereus on the native microbiota under different conditions (e.g., climatic) and on different plants and soils. A deeper insight into the structure of the bacterial community even at the phylum level—e.g., the abundance of Acidobacteria, which are mostly oligotrophs, or Firmicutes abundance, which are mostly copiotrophs—gives us a possibility of estimating the direction of biochemical changes following PGPB inoculation. The more such research is performed, the more insights will be established, which may result in the development of appropriate practices in the use of B. cereus as a biofertilizer.

9. Conclusions

B. cereus is capable of direct stimulation of plant growth, including many important crops and even medicinal plants. Its effects on plants have been documented in both biometric traits and the content of biologically active substances. In addition, this review shows that B. cereus is capable of controlling a range of phytopathogens, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and Protozoa. Hence, B. cereus is a promising PGPB species and could be successfully used as a supplement or an alternative to conventional fertilization in the near future, providing solid competition to chemical suppressants of fungal phytopathogens. However, both in the case of direct PGP and biological control, there are still few studies conducted under field conditions, and there are no studies containing a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the bacteria and mineral fertilizers or chemical fungicides. Importantly, such an approach could accelerate the development of future B. cereus formulations. Furthermore, there is only one paper dealing with the effects of B. cereus on the indigenous microbiota. As mentioned in the section above, understanding the post-inoculation alterations in the native microbiota, especially the structure of the microbial community and the diversity of bacteria, can contribute to a better understanding of the biochemical changes occurring in the soil, which in turn can translate into practical aspects. Additionally, in order to improve the understanding of the response of the microbial community to the introduction of PGBB, such as B. cereus, RNA sequencing for metatranscriptome profiling should also be performed, which would give much more information than 16S rRNA gene sequencing. However, these analyses are much less frequent due to the higher costs than 16S gene sequencing. Moreover, to our knowledge, regarding studies on the effects of B. cereus on the native microbiota, the post-inoculation metatranscriptome has not yet been studied. Importantly, there is also little information on the tracking of the aforementioned species in soil or plant tissues. Knowledge of the abundance at a certain time after inoculation may be essential to determine the frequency of application of beneficial bacteria. Therefore, it is the study of PGPB persistence in soil that seems to be another key, so these two aspects are crucial in the analysis of PGPB efficacy; thus, scientists should focus on this issue in the near future.
Lastly, it is also necessary to perform further research focusing on the increased integration of endophytic B. cereus species into other crop management practices, which may already be a promising strategy for achieving higher yields in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.K. and J.D.; writing—original draft preparation, I.K., J.D., P.K., G.B. and K.K.; writing—review and editing, I.K., J.D. and P.K.; visualization, I.K; supervision, J.D.; project administration, I.K., J.D., P.K., G.B. and K.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was supported by grants of the Medical University of Bialystok no.: B.SUB.23.359, SUB1/NN/22/001/2201 and the National Science Center, Poland project OPUS 2021/43/B/NZ7/01903.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Katarzyna Rafalska for proofreading the English language.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kasperska-Wołowicz, W.; Rolbiecki, S.; Sadan, H.A.; Rolbiecki, R.; Jagosz, B.; Stachowski, P.; Liberacki, D.; Bolewski, T.; Prus, P.; Pal-Fam, F. Impact of the Projected Climate Change on Soybean Water Needs in the Kuyavia Region in Poland. J. Water Land Dev. 2021, 51, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wierzchowski, P.S.; Dobrzyński, J.; Mazur, K.; Kierończyk, M.; Wardal, W.J.; Sakowski, T.; Barszczewski, J. Chemical Properties and Bacterial Community Reaction to Acidified Cattle Slurry Fertilization in Soil from Maize Cultivation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zielewicz, W.; Swędrzyński, A.; Dobrzyński, J.; Swędrzyńska, D.; Kulkova, I.; Wierzchowski, P.S.; Wróbel, B. Effect of Forage Plant Mixture and Biostimulants Application on the Yield, Changes of Botanical Composition, and Microbiological Soil Activity. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dobrzyński, J.; Wierzchowski, P.S.; Stępień, W.; Górska, E.B. The Reaction of Cellulolytic and Potentially Cellulolytic Spore-Forming Bacteria to Various Types of Crop Management and Farmyard Manure Fertilization in Bulk Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heyi, E.A.; Dinka, M.O.; Mamo, G. Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources of Upper Awash River Sub-Basin, Ethiopia. J. Water Land Dev. 2022, 52, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gupta, K.; Dubey, N.K.; Singh, S.P.; Kheni, J.K.; Gupta, S.; Varshney, A. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR): Current and Future Prospects for Crop Improvement. In Current Trends in Microbial Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pathania, P.; Rajta, A.; Singh, P.C.; Bhatia, R. Role of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria in Sustainable Agriculture. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 101842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santoyo, G.; Guzman-Guzman, P.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; de los Santos-Villalobos, S.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.C.; Glick, B.R. Plant growth stimulation by microbial consortia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saxena, A.K.; Kumar, M.; Chakdar, H.; Anuroopa, N.; Bagyaraj, D.J. Bacillus species in soil as a natural resource for plant health and nutrition. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 128, 1583–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Miljaković, D.; Marinković, J.; Balešević-Tubić, S. The Significance of Bacillus spp. in Disease Suppression and Growth Promotion of Field and Vegetable Crops. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ferrusquía-Jiménez, N.I.; González-Arias, B.; Rosales, A.; Esquivel, K.; Escamilla-Silva, E.M.; Ortega-Torres, A.E.; Guevara-González, R.G. Elicitation of Bacillus cereus-Amazcala (B.c-A) with SiO2 Nanoparticles Improves Its Role as a Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) in Chili Pepper Plants. Plants 2022, 11, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sarmiento-López, L.G.; López-Meyer, M.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E.; Quiroz-Figueroa, F.R.; Sepúlveda-Jiménez, G.; Rodríguez-Monroy, M. Production of Indole-3-Acetic Acid by Bacillus Circulans E9 in a Low-Cost Medium in a Bioreactor. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2022, 134, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dobrzyński, J.; Wróbel, B.; Górska, E.B. Cellulolytic Properties of a Potentially Lignocellulose-Degrading Bacillus sp. 8E1A Strain Isolated from Bulk Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Basu, A.; Prasad, P.; Das, S.N.; Kalam, S.; Sayyed, R.; Reddy, M.; El Enshasy, H. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as Green Bioinoculants: Recent Developments, Constraints, and Prospects. Sustainability 2021, 1, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, C.; Wang, M.-Y.; Khan, N.; Tan, L.-L.; Yang, S. Potentials, Utilization, and Bioengineering of Plant Growth-Promoting Methylobacterium for Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nadeem, S.M.; Ahmad, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Javaid, A.; Ashraf, M. The Role of Mycorrhizae and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in Improving Crop Productivity under Stressful Environments. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ehling-Schulz, M.; Lereclus, D.; Koehler, T.M. The Bacillus cereus Group: Bacillus Species with Pathogenic Potential. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7, 7–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fayad, N.; Kallassy Awad, M.; Mahillon, J. Diversity of Bacillus cereus Sensu Lato Mobilome. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Etikala, A.; Thamburaj, S.; Johnson, A.M.; Sarma, C.; Mummaleti, G.; Kalakandan, S.K. Incidence, Toxin Gene Profile, Antibiotic Resistance and Antibacterial Activity of Allium Parvum and Allium Cepa Extracts on Bacillus cereus Isolated from Fermented Millet-Based Food. LWT 2022, 160, 113314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ku, Y.; Xu, G.; Tian, X.; Xie, H.; Yang, X.; Cao, C. Root Colonization and Growth Promotion of Soybean, Wheat and Chinese Cabbage by Bacillus cereus YL6. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sansinenea, E. Applications and Patents of Bacillus spp. in Agriculture. In Intellectual Property Issues in Microbiology; Singh, H.B., Keswani, C., Singh, S.P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wijman, J.G.; de Leeuw, P.P.; Moezelaar, R.; Zwietering, M.H.; Abee, T. Air-Liquid Interface Biofilms of Bacillus cereus: Formation, Sporulation, and Dispersion. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 1481–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mohsin, M.Z.; Omer, R.; Huang, J.; Mohsin, A.; Guo, M.; Qian, J.; Zhuang, Y. Advances in Engineered Bacillus subtilis Biofilms and Spores, and Their Applications in Bioremediation, Biocatalysis, and Biomaterials. Sythn. Syst. Biotechnol. 2021, 6, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gao, T.; Ding, M.; Yang, C.-H.; Fan, H.; Chai, Y.; Li, Y. The Phosphotransferase System Gene PtsH Plays an Important Role in MnSOD Production, Biofilm Formation, Swarming Motility, and Root Colonization in Bacillus cereus 905. Res. Microbiol. 2019, 170, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Majed, R.; Faille, C.; Kallassy, M.; Gohar, M. Bacillus cereus Biofilms—Same, Only Different. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Gao, T.; Foulston, L.; Chai, Y.; Wang, Q.; Losick, R. Alternative Modes of Biofilm Formation by Plant-Associated Bacillus cereus. Microbiol. Open 2015, 4, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lin, Y.; Briandet, R.; Kovács, Á.T. Bacillus cereus Sensu Lato Biofilm Formation and Its Ecological Importance. Biofilm 2022, 4, 100070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Yan, F.; Yu, Y.; Gozzi, K.; Chen, Y.; Guo, J.; Chai, Y. Genome-Wide Investigation of Biofilm Formation in Bacillus cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e00561-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Yan, F.; Yu, Y.; Wang, L.; Luo, Y.; Guo, J.; Chai, Y. The ComER Gene Plays an Important Role in Biofilm Formation and Sporulation in Both Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus cereus. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Xu, S.; Yang, N.; Zheng, S.; Yan, F.; Jiang, C.; Yu, Y.; Guo, J.; Chai, Y.; Chen, Y. The Spo0A-SinI-SinR Regulatory Circuit Plays an Essential Role in Biofilm Formation, Nematicidal Activities, and Plant Protection in Bacillus cereus AR156. Mol. Plant Microbe Inter. 2017, 30, 603–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Huang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, G. SpoVG Is an Important Regulator of Sporulation and Affects Biofilm Formation by Regulating Spo0A Transcription in Bacillus cereus 0–9. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, Y.-B.; Chen, M.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, M.; Wang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Wang, X.; Wang, G. The Phosphotransferase System Gene PtsI in the Endophytic Bacterium Bacillus cereus Is Required for Biofilm Formation, Colonization, and Biocontrol against Wheat Sharp Eyespot. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2014, 354, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, L.; Liu, F.; Wang, G. Four Superoxide Dismutases of Bacillus cereus 0–9 Are Non-Redundant and Perform Different Functions in Diverse Living Conditions. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhang, J.; Meng, L.; Zhang, Y.; Sang, L.; Liu, Q.; Zhao, L.; Liu, F.; Wang, G. GapB is involved in biofilm formation dependent on LrgAB but not the SinI/R system in Bacillus cereus 0–9. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 591926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, J.; Wang, H.; Xie, T.; Huang, Q.; Xiong, X.; Liu, Q.; Wang, G. The YmdB protein regulates biofilm formation dependent on the repressor SinR in Bacillus cereus 0–9. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gao, T.; Li, Y.; Ding, M.; Chai, Y.; Wang, Q. The phosphotransferase system gene ptsI in Bacillus cereus regulates expression of sodA2 and contributes to colonization of wheat roots. Res. Microbiol. 2017, 168, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gao, T.; Ding, M.; Wang, Q. The recA gene is crucial to mediate colonization of Bacillus cereus 905 on wheat roots. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 9251–9265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gao, T.-T.; Ding, M.-Z.; Li, Y.; Zeng, Q.-C.; Wang, Q. Identification of genes involved in regulating MnSOD2 production and root colonization in Bacillus cereus 905. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1570–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Goswami, D.; Thakker, J.N.; Dhandhukia, P.C. Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review. Cogent. Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1127500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Swiecicka, I. Natural Occurrence of Bacillus Thuringiensis and Bacillus cereus in Eukaryotic Organisms: A Case for Symbiosis. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 221–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kumar, P.; Pahal, V.; Gupta, A.; Vadhan, R.; Chandra, H.; Dubey, R.C. Effect of Silver Nanoparticles and Bacillus cereus LPR2 on the Growth of Zea Mays. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ali, A.M.; Awad, M.Y.M.; Hegab, S.A.; Gawad, A.M.A.E.; Eissa, M.A. Effect of Potassium Solubilizing Bacteria (Bacillus cereus) on Growth and Yield of Potato. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sherpa, M.T.; Bag, N.; Das, S.; Haokip, P.; Sharma, L. Isolation and Characterization of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Isolated from Organically Grown High Yielding Pole Type Native Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Variety Dentami of Sikkim, India. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2021, 2, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ibrahim, M.S.; Ikhajiagbe, B. The Growth Response of Rice (Oryza sativa L. Var. FARO 44) in vitro after Inoculation with Bacterial Isolates from a Typical Ferruginous Ultisol. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2021, 45, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baliyan, N.; Dhiman, S.; Dheeman, S.; Kumar, S.; Arora, N.K.; Maheshwari, D.K. Optimization of Gibberellic Acid Production in Endophytic Bacillus cereus Using Response Surface Methodology and Its Use as Plant Growth Regulator in Chickpea. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2022, 41, 3019–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Adeleke, B.S.; Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O. Genomic Analysis of Endophytic Bacillus cereus T4S and Its Plant Growth-Promoting Traits. Plants 2021, 10, 1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lopes, R.; Tsui, S.; Gonçalves, P.J.R.O.; de Queiroz, M.V.A. Look into a Multifunctional Toolbox: Endophytic Bacillus Species Provide Broad and Underexploited Benefits for Plants. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 34, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sivasankari, B.; Anandharaj, M. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Potential Plant Growth Promoting Bacillus cereus GGBSTD1 and Pseudomonas spp. GGBSTD3 from Vermisources. Adv. Agric. 2014, 2014, e248591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Elsayed, A.; Abdelsattar, A.M.; Heikal, Y.M.; El-Esawi, M.A. Synergistic Effects of Azospirillum Brasilense and Bacillus cereus on Plant Growth, Biochemical Attributes and Molecular Genetic Regulation of Steviol Glycosides Biosynthetic Genes in Stevia Rebaudiana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 189, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chauhan, A.K.; Maheshwari, D.K.; Dheeman, S.; Bajpai, V.K. Termitarium-Inhabiting Bacillus spp. Enhanced Plant Growth and Bioactive Component in Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.). Curr. Microbiol. 2017, 74, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hassan, T.U.; Bano, A. Biofertilizer: A novel formulation for improving wheat growth, physiology and yield. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar]
  52. Singh, V.K.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, P.P.; Kumar, A. Interaction of plant growth promoting bacteria with tomato under abiotic stress: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khan, M.A.; Asaf, S.; Khan, A.L.; Jan, R.; Kang, S.-M.; Kim, K.-M.; Lee, I.-J. Thermotolerance Effect of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacillus cereus SA1 on Soybean during Heat Stress. BMC Microbiol. 2020, 20, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Liu, F.; Ma, H.; Liu, B.; Du, Z.; Ma, B.; Jing, D. Effects of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on the Physioecological Characteristics and Growth of Walnut Seedlings under Drought Stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bhatt, S.; Pandhi, N.; Raghav, R. Improved Salt Tolerance and Growth Parameters of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Employing Halotolerant Bacillus cereus SVSCD1 Isolated from Saurashtra Region, Gujarat. Ecol. Environ. Cos. 2020, 26, S199–S212. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mukhtar, T.; Rehman, S.U.; Smith, D.; Sultan, T.; Seleiman, M.F.; Alsadon, A.A.; Amna; Ali, S.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Solieman, T.H.I.; et al. Mitigation of Heat Stress in Solanum lycopersicum L. by ACC-Deaminase and Exopolysaccharide Producing Bacillus cereus: Effects on Biochemical Profiling. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Alotaibi, B.S.; Khan, M.; Shamim, S. Unraveling the Underlying Heavy Metal Detoxification Mechanisms of Bacillus Species. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zhang, Y.; Tian, Z.; Xi, Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, S.; He, M.; Chen, Y.; Guo, Y. Improvement of Salt Tolerance of Arabidopsis Thaliana Seedlings Inoculated with Endophytic Bacillus cereus KP120. J. Plant Interact. 2022, 17, 884–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Azeem, M.; Haider, M.Z.; Javed, S.; Saleem, M.H.; Alatawi, A. Drought Stress Amelioration in Maize (Zea mays L.) by Inoculation of Bacillus spp. Strains under Sterile Soil Conditions. Agriculture 2022, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Andy, A.K.; Rajput, V.D.; Burachevskaya, M.; Gour, V.S. Exploring the Identity and Properties of Two Bacilli Strains and Their Potential to Alleviate Drought and Heavy Metal Stress. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Meenakshi; Annapurna, K.; Govindasamy, V.; Ajit, V.; Choudhary, D.K. Mitigation of Drought Stress in Wheat Crop by Drought Tolerant Endophytic Bacterial Isolates. Vegetos 2019, 32, 486–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wróbel, M.; Śliwakowski, W.; Kowalczyk, P.; Kramkowski, K.; Dobrzyński, J. Bioremediation of Heavy Metals by the Genus Bacillus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Martins, S.J.; Rocha, G.A.; de Melo, H.C.; de Castro Georg, R.; Ulhôa, C.J.; de Campos Dianese, É.; Oshiquiri, L.H.; da Cunha, M.G.; da Rocha, M.R.; de Araújo, L.G.; et al. Plant-Associated Bacteria Mitigate Drought Stress in Soybean. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 13676–13686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Khan, N.; Bano, A.; Babar, M.A. The Stimulatory Effects of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Plant Growth Regulators on Wheat Physiology Grown in Sandy Soil. Arch. Microbiol. 2019, 201, 769–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hassan, T.U.; Bano, A.; Naz, I.; Hussain, M. Bacillus cereus: A competent plant growth promoting bacterium of saline sodic field. Pak. J. Bot. 2018, 50, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhou, Y.; Sang, T.; Tian, M.; Jahan, M.S.; Wang, J.; Li, X.; Guo, S.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Shu, S. Effects of Bacillus cereus on Photosynthesis and Antioxidant Metabolism of Cucumber Seedlings under Salt Stress. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, Q.; Peng, X.; Lang, D.; Ma, X.; Zhang, X. Physio-Biochemical and Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals That the Mechanism of Bacillus cereus G2 Alleviated Oxidative Stress of Salt-Stressed Glycyrrhiza Uralensis Fisch. Seedlings. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 247, 114264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Jabeen, Z.; Irshad, F.; Habib, A.; Hussain, N.; Sajjad, M.; Mumtaz, S.; Rehman, S.; Haider, W.; Hassan, M.N. Alleviation of cadmium stress in rice by inoculation of Bacillus cereus. PeerJ 2022, 10, e13131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Sahile, A.A.; Khan, M.A.; Hamayun, M.; Imran, M.; Kang, S.-M.; Lee, I.-J. Novel Bacillus cereus Strain, ALT1, Enhance Growth and Strengthens the Antioxidant System of Soybean under Cadmium Stress. Agronomy 2021, 11, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Akhtar, N.; Ilyas, N.; Yasmin, H.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Hasnain, Z.A.; Elsayed, E.; El Enshasy, H.A. Role of Bacillus cereus in Improving the Growth and Phytoextractability of Brassica nigra (L.) K. Koch in Chromium Contaminated Soil. Molecules 2021, 26, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abou-Aly, H.E.; Youssef, A.M.; Tewfike, T.A.; El-Alkshar, E.A.; El-Meihy, R.M. Reduction of Heavy Metals Bioaccumulation in Sorghum and Its Rhizosphere by Heavy Metals-Tolerant Bacterial Consortium. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 31, 101911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yanti, Y.; Habazar, T.; Reflinaldon, R.; Nasution, C.R.; Felia, S. Indigenous Bacillus spp. Ability to Growth Promoting Activities and Control Bacterial Wilt Disease (Ralstonia solanacearum). Biodivers. J. Biol. Divers. 2017, 18, 1562–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Malik, M.S.; Haider, S.; Rehman, A.; Rehman, S.U.; Jamil, M.; Naz, I.; Anees, M. Biological Control of Fungal Pathogens of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) by Chitinolytic Bacterial Strains. J. Basic Microbiol. 2022, 62, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Hyder, S.; Gondal, A.S.; Rizvi, Z.F.; Ahmad, R.; Alam, M.M.; Hannan, A.; Ahmed, W.; Fatima, N.; Inam-ul-Haq, M. Characterization of Native Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria and Their Anti-Oomycete Potential against Phytophthora Capsici Affecting Chilli Pepper (Capsicum annum L.). Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Antil, S.; Kumar, R.; Pathak, D.V.; Kumar, A.; Panwar, A.; Kumari, A. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria—Bacillus cereus KMT-5 and B. Megaterium KMT-8 Effectively Suppressed Meloidogyne Javanica Infection. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 174, 104419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arif, S.; Liaquat, F.; Yang, S.; Shah, I.H.; Zhao, L.; Xiong, X.; Garcia, D.; Zhang, Y. Exogenous Inoculation of Endophytic Bacterium Bacillus cereus Suppresses Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) Occurrence in Pak Choi (Brassica Campestris sp. Chinensis L.). Planta 2021, 253, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yu, Y.; Gui, Y.; Li, Z.; Jiang, C.; Guo, J.; Niu, D. Induced Systemic Resistance for Improving Plant Immunity by Beneficial Microbes. Plants 2022, 11, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jiang, C.H.; Huang, Z.Y.; Xie, P.; Gu, C.; Li, K.; Wang, D.C.; Yu, Y.Y.; Fan, Z.H.; Wang, C.J.; Wang, Y.P.; et al. Transcription factors WRKY70 and WRKY11 served as regulators in rhizobacterium Bacillus cereus AR156-induced systemic resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Jiang, C.; Fan, Z.; Li, Z.; Niu, D.; Li, Y.; Zheng, M.; Wang, Q.; Jin, H.; Guo, J. Bacillus cereus AR156 Triggers Induced Systemic Resistance against Pseudomonas Syringae Pv. Tomato DC3000 by Suppressing MiR472 and Activating CNLs-Mediated Basal Immunity in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2020, 21, 854–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Hernández-Huerta, J.; Tamez-Guerra, P.; Gomez-Flores, R.; Delgado-Gardea, M.C.E.; Robles-Hernández, L.; Gonzalez-Franco, A.C.; Infante-Ramirez, R. Pepper growth promotion and biocontrol against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria by Bacillus cereus and Bacillus thuringiensis formulations. PeerJ 2023, 11, e14633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ananda, M.; Rusmana, I.; Akhdiya, A. Quorum quenching of Bacillus cereus INT1c against Pseudomonas syringae. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1277, 012010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Rajesh, P.S.; Rai, V.R. Inhibition of QS-regulated virulence factors in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 and Pectobacterium carotovorum by AHL-lactonase of endophytic bacterium Bacillus cereus VT96. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016, 7, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wang, N.; Wang, L.; Zhu, K.; Hou, S.; Chen, L.; Mi, D.; Gui, Y.; Qi, Y.; Jiang, C.; Guo, J.-H. Plant Root Exudates Are Involved in Bacillus cereus AR156 Mediated Biocontrol Against Ralstonia solanacearum. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Kumar, S.; Dheeman, S.; Dubey, R.C.; Maheshwari, D.K.; Baliyan, N. Cyclic siloxane biosurfactant-producing Bacillus cereus BS14 biocontrols charcoal rot pathogen Macrophomina phaseolina and induces growth promotion in Vigna mungo L. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 203, 5043–5054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Saravanakumar, D.; Thomas, A.; Banwarie, N. Antagonistic potential of lipopeptide producing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens against major vegetable pathogens. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 154, 319–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sarangi, T.; Ramakrishnan, S.; Nakkeeran, S. Antimicrobial Peptide Genes Present in Indigenous Isolates of Bacillus spp. Exhibiting Antimicrobical Properties. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1361–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Ramarathnam, R.; Fernando, W.D. Molecular and biochemical detection of lipopeptide antibiotics producing Bacillus spp., antagonistic to common fungal pathogens of canola (Brassica napus L.). In Proceedings of the 12th International Rapeseed Congress, Wuhan, China, 26–30 March 2007; p. 180. [Google Scholar]
  88. Amruta, N.; Kumar, M.P.; Puneeth, M.E.; Sarika, G.; Kandikattu, H.K.; Vishwanath, K.; Narayanaswamy, S. Exploring the potentiality of novel rhizospheric bacterial strains against the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Plant Pathol. J. 2018, 34, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Urdaci, M.; Pinchuk, I. Antimicrobial Activity of Bacillus Probiotics. In Bacterial Spore Formers—Probiotics and Emerging Applications; Horizon Bioscience: Norfolk, UK, 2004; pp. 171–182. [Google Scholar]
  90. Chauhan, A.K.; Maheshwari, D.K.; Kim, K.; Bajpai, V.K. Termitarium-inhabiting Bacillus endophyticus TSH42 and Bacillus cereus TSH77 colonizing Curcuma longa L.: Isolation, characterization, and evaluation of their biocontrol and plant-growth-promoting activities. Can. J. Microbiol. 2016, 62, 880–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ramarathnam, R.; Fernando, W.G.D.; de Kievit, T. The Role of Antibiosis and Induced Systemic Resistance, Mediated by Strains of Pseudomonas chlororaphis, Bacillus cereus and B. Amyloliquefaciens, in Controlling Blackleg Disease of Canola. BioControl 2011, 56, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Płaza, G.; Chojniak, J.; Rudnicka, K.; Paraszkiewicz, K.; Bernat, P. Detection of biosurfactants in Bacillus species: Genes and products identification. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 119, 1023–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Kushwaha, P.; Kashyap, P.L.; Srivastava, A.K.; Tiwari, R.K. Plant Growth Promoting and Antifungal Activity in Endophytic Bacillus Strains from Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Braz. J. Microbiol. 2020, 51, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ajesh, K.; Sudarslal, S.; Arunan, C.; Sreejith, K. Kannurin, a novel lipopeptide from Bacillus cereus strain AK 1: Isolation, structural evaluation and antifungal activities. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 1287–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Abriouel, H.; Franz, C.M.; Omar, N.B.; Gálvez, A. Diversity and applications of Bacillus bacteriocins. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 35, 201–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Zhao, X.; Kuipers, O.P. Identification and Classification of Known and Putative Antimicrobial Compounds Produced by a Wide Variety of Bacillales Species. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Yu, Y.-Y.; Si, F.-J.; Wang, N.; Wang, T.; Jin, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, W.; Luo, Y.-M.; Niu, D.-D.; Guo, J.-H.; et al. Bacillus-Secreted Oxalic Acid Induces Tomato Resistance Against Gray Mold Disease Caused by Botrytis cinerea by Activating the JA/ET Pathway. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2022, 35, 659–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Madriz-Ordeñana, K.; Pazarlar, S.; Jørgensen, H.J.L.; Nielsen, T.K.; Zhang, Y.; Nielsen, K.L.; Hansen, L.H.; Thordal-Christensen, H. The Bacillus cereus Strain EC9 Primes the Plant Immune System for Superior Biocontrol of Fusarium oxysporum. Plants 2022, 11, 687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Piechulla, B.; Lemfack, M.C.; Kai, M. Effects of Discrete Bioactive Microbial Volatiles on Plants and Fungi. Plant Cell Environ. 2017, 40, 2042–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ramírez, V.; Martínez, J.; del Bustillos-Cristales, M.R.; Catañeda-Antonio, D.; Munive, J.; Baez, A. Bacillus cereus MH778713 Elicits Tomato Plant Protection against Fusarium oxysporum. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 132, 470–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nie, P.; Li, X.; Wang, S.; Guo, J.; Zhao, H.; Niu, D. Induced systemic resistance against Botrytis cinerea by Bacillus cereus AR156 through a JA/ET- and NPR1-dependent signaling pathway and activates pamp-triggered immunity in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Chenniappan, C.; Narayanasamy, M.; Daniel, G.M.; Ramaraj, G.B.; Ponnusamy, P.; Sekar, J.; Ramalingam, P.V. Biocontrol efficiency of native plant growth promoting rhizobacteria against rhizome rot disease of turmeric. Biol. Control 2019, 129, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhou, H.; Ren, Z.; Zu, X.; Yu, X.; Zhu, H.; Li, X.; Zhong, J.; Liu, E. Efficacy of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Bacillus cereus YN917 for Biocontrol of Rice Blast. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 684888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Janahiraman, V.; Anandham, R.; Kwon, S.W.; Sundaram, S.; Karthik Pandi, V.; Krishnamoorthy, R.; Kim, K.; Samaddar, S.; Sa, T. Control of Wilt and Rot Pathogens of Tomato by Antagonistic Pink Pigmented Facultative Methylotrophic Delftia Lacustris and Bacillus spp. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Lizárraga-Sánchez, G.J.; Leyva-Madrigal, K.Y.; Sánchez-Peña, P.; Quiroz-Figueroa, F.R.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E. Bacillus cereus Sensu Lato Strain B25 Controls Maize Stalk and Ear Rot in Sinaloa, Mexico. Field Crops Res. 2015, 176, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Figueroa-López, A.M.; Cordero-Ramírez, J.D.; Martínez-Álvarez, J.C.; López-Meyer, M.; Lizárraga-Sánchez, G.J.; Félix-Gastélum, R.; Castro-Martínez, C.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E. Rhizospheric Bacteria of Maize with Potential for Biocontrol of Fusarium verticillioides. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Aydi Ben Abdallah, R.; Mokni-Tlili, S.; Nefzi, A.; Jabnoun-Khiareddine, H.; Daami-Remadi, M. Biocontrol of Fusarium Wilt and Growth Promotion of Tomato Plants Using Endophytic Bacteria Isolated from Nicotiana Glauca Organs. Biol. Control 2016, 97, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hammami, I.; Siala, R.; Jridi, M.; Ktari, N.; Nasri, M.; Triki, M.A. Partial purification and characterization of chiIO8, a novel antifungal chitinase produced by Bacillus cereus IO8. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 115, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Chang, W.-T.; Chen, Y.-C.; Jao, C.-L. Antifungal Activity and Enhancement of Plant Growth by Bacillus cereus Grown on Shellfish Chitin Wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1224–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Li, J.-G.; Jiang, Z.-Q.; Xu, L.-P.; Sun, F.-F.; Guo, J.-H. Characterization of Chitinase Secreted by Bacillus cereus Strain CH2 and Evaluation of Its Efficacy against Verticillium Wilt of Eggplant. BioControl 2008, 53, 931–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chen, W.; Wang, J.; Huang, D.; Cheng, W.; Shao, Z.; Cai, M.; Zheng, L.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, J. Volatile organic compounds from Bacillus aryabhattai MCCC 1K02966 with multiple modes against Meloidogyne incognita. Molecules 2022, 27, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Duong, B.; Marraccini, P.; Etienne, H.; Villain, L.; Hoang, G.T.; Khong, G.N.; Lebrun, M.; Duponnois, R. Potential of the coffee endophytic Bacillus cereus sensu lato strain CCBLR15 to control the plant-parasitic nematode Radopholus duriophilus. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2022, 32, 971–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, C.; Hu, H.J.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.F.; Tang, Y.Y.; Chen, S.L.; Yan, S.Z. Effects of varying environmental factors on the biological control of Meloidogyne incognita in tomato by Bacillus cereus strain BCM2. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2018, 28, 359–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Li, X.; Hu, H.-J.; Li, J.-Y.; Wang, C.; Chen, S.-L.; Yan, S.-Z. Effects of the Endophytic Bacteria Bacillus cereus BCM2 on Tomato Root Exudates and Meloidogyne incognita Infection. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 1551–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hu, H.; Gao, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, S.; Yan, S.; Tian, X. Identification and nematicidal characterization of proteases secreted by endophytic bacteria Bacillus cereus BCM2. Phytopathology 2020, 110, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Xiao, T.J.; Tan, S.Y.; Shen, Q.R.; Ran, W. Bacillus cereus X5 suppresses root-knot: Nematode of tomato by colonizing in roots and soil. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 6, 2321–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yin, N.; Zhao, J.L.; Liu, R.; Li, Y.; Ling, J.; Yang, Y.-H.; Xie, B.-Y.; Mao, Z.-C. Biocontrol efficacy of Bacillus cereus strain Bc-cm103 against Meloidogyne incognita. Plant Dis. 2021, 105, 2061–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gao, H.; Qi, G.; Yin, R.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Zhao, X. Bacillus cereus strain S2 shows high nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita by producing sphingosine. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Yuan, H.; Sun, B.; Li, H. Biological control of the cereal cyst nematode (Heterodera filipjevi) by Achromobacter xylosoxidans isolate 09X01 and Bacillus cereus isolate 09B18. Biol. Control 2016, 92, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Naureen, Z.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Roberts, M.R.A. Consortium of Siderophore-Producing Bacterial Strains from the Rhizosphere of Rice Plants Induces Systemic Resistance in Rice against Sheath Blight Disease. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2009, 98, 17–18. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhang, L.-N.; Wang, D.-C.; Hu, Q.; Dai, X.-Q.; Xie, Y.-S.; Li, Q.; Liu, H.-M.; Guo, J.-H. Consortium of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Strains Suppresses Sweet Pepper Disease by Altering the Rhizosphere Microbiota. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Yang, W.; Zheng, L.; Liu, H.X.; Wang, K.B.; Yu, Y.Y.; Luo, Y.M.; Guo, J.H. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a consortium of three plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria for biocontrol of cotton Verticillium wilt. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhang, J.; Ahmed, W.; Dai, Z.; Zhou, X.; He, Z.; Wei, L.; Ji, G. Microbial Consortia: An Engineering Tool to Suppress Clubroot of Chinese Cabbage by Changing the Rhizosphere Bacterial Community Composition. Biology 2022, 11, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mülner, P.; Bergna, A.; Wagner, P.; Sarajlić, D.; Gstöttenmayr, B.; Dietel, K.; Grosch, R.; Cernava, T.; Berg, G. Microbiota Associated with Sclerotia of Soilborne Fungal Pathogens—A Novel Source of Biocontrol Agents Producing Bioactive Volatiles. Phytobiomes J. 2019, 3, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Rilling, J.I.; Acuña, J.J.; Nannipieri, P.; Cassan, F.; Maruyama, F.; Jorquera, M.A. Current Opinion and Perspectives on the Methods for Tracking and Monitoring Plant Growth—promoting Bacteria. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 130, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Manfredini, A.; Malusà, E.; Costa, C.; Pallottino, F.; Mocali, S.; Pinzari, F.; Canfora, L. Current Methods, Common Practices, and Perspectives in Tracking and Monitoring Bioinoculants in Soil. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 698491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Dobrzyński, J.; Jakubowska, Z.; Dybek, B. Potential of Bacillus pumilus to Directly Promote Plant Growth. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1069053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Kang, Y.; Shen, M.; Wang, H.; Zhao, Q. A possible mechanism of action of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strain Bacillus pumilus WP8 via regulation of soil bacterial community structure. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 59, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Dos Santos, R.M.; Cueva-Yesquén, L.G.; Garboggini, F.F.; Desoignies, N.; Rigobelo, E.C. Inoculum Concentration and Mineral Fertilization: Effects on the Endophytic Microbiome of Soybean. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 900980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Azeem, M.; Hassan, T.U.; Tahir, M.I.; Ali, A.; Jeyasundar, P.G.S.A.; Hussain, Q.; Bashir, S.; Mehmood, S.; Zhang, Z. Tea Leaves Biochar as a Carrier of Bacillus cereus Improves the Soil Function and Crop Productivity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 157, 103732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Win, K.T.; Okazaki, K.; Ohkama-Ohtsu, N.; Yokoyama, T.; Ohwaki, Y. Short-Term Effects of Biochar and Bacillus pumilus TUAT-1 on the Growth of Forage Rice and Its Associated Soil Microbial Community and Soil Properties. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020, 56, 481–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Wang, X.; Xie, H.; Ku, Y.; Yang, X.; Chen, Y.; Yang, N.; Mei, X.; Cao, C. Chemotaxis of Bacillus cereus YL6 and its colonization of Chinese cabbage seedlings. Plant Soil 2020, 447, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Fu, L.; Penton, C.R.; Ruan, Y.; Shen, Z.; Xue, C.; Li, R.; Shen, Q. Inducing the Rhizosphere Microbiome by Biofertilizer Application to Suppress Banana Fusarium Wilt Disease. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 104, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 24 09759 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic overview of direct and indirect mechanisms of PGPB.
Figure 1. Schematic overview of direct and indirect mechanisms of PGPB.
Ijms 24 09759 g001
Ijms 24 09759 g002 550
Figure 2. Main mechanisms used by B. cereus to combat plant pathogens.
Figure 2. Main mechanisms used by B. cereus to combat plant pathogens.
Ijms 24 09759 g002
Table
Table 1. Biocontrol traits of Bacillus cereus strains.
Table 1. Biocontrol traits of Bacillus cereus strains.
Strains B. cereusSourcePlant SpeciesExperimental ConditionsPlant Disease and EffectsLytic EnzymesReferences
CellulaseChitinaseβ-1,3-GlucanaseProtease
B. cereus YN917Rice leafRiceGreenhouseAntifungal activity against Magnaporthe oryzae; promoting seed germination and seedling plant growth+-++[103]
B. cereus PPB-1Phyllopla-ne of crop plantsTomatoIn vitro,
greenhouse		Antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum, Sclerotium rolfsii, Pythium ultimum, and Rhizoctonia solani-++-[104]
B. cereus B25Rhizosphe-re of maizeMaizeIn vitro,
in planta,
field		Antifungal activity against Fusarium verticillioides;
increase in grain, yield, plant height		-+++[105,106]
B. cereus S42Tobacco organsTomatoIn vitro,
in vivo, greenhouse		Antifungal activity against Fusarium wilt;
increase in height of plants, fresh weight, root length, root fresh.		-+-+[107]
B. cereus IO8SoilTomatoIn vitro and
in vivo		Antifungal activity against Alternaria solani, Fusarium solani, Fusarium sambucinum, Alternaria citri, Penicillium occitanis, Aspergillus nidulans, Verticillium dahliae, and Botrytis cinerea-+--[108]
B. cereus QQ308SoilChinese cabbagePots on the balconyAntifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium solani, and Pythium ultimum;
increase in total weight and total height		-+-+[109]
B. cereus CH2Rhizosphere of eggplantEggplantGreenhouseActivity against Verticillium wilt;
increase in plant biomass, both fresh and dry		-+--[110]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kulkova, I.; Dobrzyński, J.; Kowalczyk, P.; Bełżecki, G.; Kramkowski, K. Plant Growth Promotion Using Bacillus cereus. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 9759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119759

AMA Style

Kulkova I, Dobrzyński J, Kowalczyk P, Bełżecki G, Kramkowski K. Plant Growth Promotion Using Bacillus cereus. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(11):9759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119759

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kulkova, Iryna, Jakub Dobrzyński, Paweł Kowalczyk, Grzegorz Bełżecki, and Karol Kramkowski. 2023. "Plant Growth Promotion Using Bacillus cereus" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 11: 9759. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24119759

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop