Ready-to-Use or Ready-to-Adapt: Can the Self-Healing Potential of Bacillus licheniformis Be Modified?
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bacterial Strain and Culture Conditions
2.2. UV Irradiation and Adaptive Evolution
- •
- UV-adapted strain (UV-strain in the following text), which was compared to;
- •
- The untreated natural strain (N-strain in the following text).
2.3. Growth Performance and Survival
2.4. Determination of Urease Activity
2.5. Precipitation Potential
2.6. Physiological and Surface Properties
2.7. Experimental Design
2.8. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Screening Differences in N- and UV- B. licheniformis Strains
3.1.1. Growth Performance and Survival
3.1.2. Urease Activity and Ammonification
3.1.3. CaCO3 Precipitation
3.1.4. Physiological and Cell Surface Properties
3.2. Evaluate the Relationships Among Physiological, Biochemical, Mineralization, and Surface Parameters of N- and UV-Bacillus licheniformis
3.3. ANN Modeling
3.3.1. ANN Model
3.3.2. Performance of the Optimal ANN Model
3.3.3. Predictive Performance of the ANN Model Based on R2 Values
3.3.4. Verification of the ANN Model
4. Discussion
4.1. Screening Differences in N- and UV- Phenotypic B. licheniformis
4.2. Evaluation of the Relationships Among Physiological, Biochemical, Mineralization, and Surface Parameters of N- and UV-Strains of B. licheniformis
4.3. ANN Modeling
5. Conclusions
- •
- The UV-strain demonstrated enhanced biomineralization potential compared to the N-strain, with higher urease activity (approx. 33% increase), ammonium production, and CaCO3 precipitation (up to 2.37 mg/100 mL).
- •
- Despite improved metabolic performance, the UV-strain retained comparable physiological robustness, with only minor reductions in survival under alkaline and saline conditions relevant to cementitious environments.
- •
- Multivariate analysis confirmed that self-healing potential is governed by two key domains: (i) ureolysis-driven biomineralization efficiency, and (ii) physiological and surface-related properties influencing nucleation and mineral deposition.
- •
- ANN modeling (MLP 6-10-14) demonstrated high predictive capability (R2 > 0.90) for key biomineralization parameters, confirming the suitability of data-driven approaches for modeling complex microbial systems.
- •
- The results indicate that UV-induced phenotypic adaptation can be used as a simple and cost-effective strategy to enhance microbial performance for self-healing applications without significantly compromising its/their stability.
- •
- The relatively small differences in CaCO3 yield and the controlled laboratory conditions highlight the need for caution when extrapolating results to real cementitious systems.
- •
- The study introduces an integrated experimental modeling framework combining controlled UV-induced phenotypic adaptation with multivariate analysis and ANN modeling, enabling systematic evaluation and prediction of biomineralization performance in bacterial self-healing systems.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rusnak, C.R. Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective. Infrastructures 2025, 10, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Hou, P.; Zhou, L.; Golewski, G.L.; Zheng, Y. The fracture performance of modified recycled concrete: Influence of recycled aggregate and recycled powder. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2026, 331, 111709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, X.; Pagcaliwagan, A.M.; Hou, H.; Yin, X. Advancements in self-healing concrete: Material mechanisms, durability assessment, and implications for infrastructure lifecycle management. Alex. Eng. J. 2025, 131, 104–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šovljanski, O.; Pezo, L.; Milović, T.; Pezo, M.; Radenković, M.; Mejić, L.; Bulatović, V.; Dramićanin, M.; Tomić, A. Bio-Intelligent Approach for Rapid Healing of Cracks via Artificial Neural Network-Optimized Urban Bacterial Consortium. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 117, 114851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, A.; Zhou, Y.; Bertolesi, E.; Liu, M.; Liao, F.; Fan, M. Factors influencing self-healing mechanisms of cementitious materials: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 393, 131550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales Sandoval, P.H.; Ortega Urquieta, M.E.; Valenzuela Ruíz, V.; Montañez Acosta, K.; Campos Castro, K.A.; Parra Cota, F.I.; Santoyo, G.; de los Santos Villalobos, S. Improving Beneficial Traits in Bacillus cabrialesii subsp. cabrialesii TE3T through UV-Induced Genomic Changes. Plants 2024, 13, 2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanakdande, A.P.; Khobragade, C.N.; Mane, R.S. Ultraviolet induced random mutagenesis in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (MF 510169) for improving biodiesel production. Fuel 2021, 304, 121380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jyoti; Ubaldi, S.; Boschetti, A.; Nanni, F.; Fabbrocino, F.; Luciano, R.; Bragaglia, M. A comprehensive review of encapsulation-based self-healing concrete for construction applications. J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2025, 15, 1447–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abavisani, I.; Rezaifar, O.; Kheyroddin, A. Efficient approaches to autogenous and autonomous self-healing concrete: A review. Mag. Concr. Res. 2023, 75, 1051–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, P.Y.; Mal, J.; Sandak, A.; Luo, L.; Jian, J.; Pradhan, N. Advances in microbial self-healing concrete: A critical review of mechanisms, developments, and future directions. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 947, 174553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahimizadeh, M.; Pasbakhsh, P.; Mae, L.S.; Tan, J.B.L.; Raman, R.S. Multifunctional, sustainable, and biological non-ureolytic self-healing systems for cement-based materials. Engineering 2022, 13, 217–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeksting, B.J.; Hoffmann, T.D.; Tan, L.; Paine, K.; Gebhard, S. In-depth profiling of calcite precipitation by environmental bacteria reveals fundamental mechanistic differences with relevance to application. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2020, 86, e02739-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šovljanski, O.; Milović, T.; Bulatović, V.; Erceg, T.; Stanojev, J.; Bajac, B.; Tomić, A. Insights into self-healing capacity of cement matrix containing high-efficiency bacteria under challenging conditions. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 111094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonkers, H.M. Bacteria-based self-healing concrete. Heron 2011, 56, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Jonkers, H.M.; Schlangen, E. Development of a bacteria-based self-healing concrete. Tailor Made Concr. Struct. 2008, 1, 425–430. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, J.; Liu, Q.; Hou, W.; Cai, J.; Wang, B.; Lu, C. Enhanced sporulation of B. licheniformis BF-002 through automatic co-feeding of carbon and nitrogen sources. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2024, 121, 1642–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tabalvandani, M.N.; Tajabadi-Ebrahimi, M.; Sarafraz, M.E.; Sepahi, A.A. Investigation of self-healing properties in concrete with Bacillus licheniformis isolated from agricultural soil. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 67, 106057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukumaran, A.; Johnpaul, V.; Balasundaram, N.; Kumar, S.S. Bacterial concrete: The future of self-healing and sustainable infrastructure. MethodsX 2025, 15, 103569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ivaškė, A.; Gribniak, V.; Jakubovskis, R.; Urbonavičius, J. Bacterial viability in self-healing concrete: A case study of non-ureolytic Bacillus species. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milović, T.; Bulatović, V.; Pezo, L.; Dramićanin, M.; Tomić, A.; Pezo, M.; Šovljanski, O. Enhancing Compressive Strength of Cement by Indigenous Individual and Co-Culture Bacillus Bacteria. Materials 2024, 17, 4975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elgendy, I.M.; Elkaliny, N.E.; Saleh, H.M.; Darwish, G.O.; Almostafa, M.M.; Metwally, K.; Yahya, G.; Mahmoud, Y.A.G. Bacteria-powered self-healing concrete: Breakthroughs, challenges, and future prospects. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2025, 52, kuae051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahid, M.; Usman, M.; Shahzad, T.; Ali, I.; Hassan, M.U.; Mahmood, F.; Qari, S.H. Enhancement of Wheat Growth by UV-Mutagenesis of Potential Chromium Tolerant Bacillus sp. Strain SR-2-1/1. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghazi, S.; Sepahy, A.A.; Azin, M.; Khaje, K.; Khavarinejad, R. UV mutagenesis for the overproduction of xylanase from Bacillus mojavensis PTCC 1723 and optimization of the production condition. Iran. J. Basic Med. Sci. 2014, 17, 844. [Google Scholar]
- Achal, V.; Mukherjee, A.; Basu, P.C.; Reddy, M.S. Strain improvement of Sporosarcina pasteurii for enhanced urease and calcite production. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 36, 981–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; He, Y. Utilizing ARTP mutagenized calcifying microorganisms to drive low-urea biocementation: Enhancing strength and reducing ammonium waste emissions. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 116923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tayyem, N.E.A.; Elhello, K.T.; Elmanama, A.A. Isolation, identification and growth conditions of calcite producing bacteria from urea-rich soil. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 15, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Song, Y.; Li, Q.; He, J.; Song, Y. Effective microbial calcite precipitation by a new mutant and precipitating regulation of extracellular urease. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 167, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abir, A.H. Engineered microbial self-healing strategies in low-carbon concrete: A critical review. Next Mater. 2026, 10, 101443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, W.L.; Munakata, N.; Horneck, G.; Melosh, H.J.; Setlow, P. Resistance of Bacillus endospores to extreme terrestrial and extraterrestrial environments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2000, 64, 548–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattacharya, S.; Dineshkumar, R.; Dhanarajan, G.; Sen, R.; Mishra, S. Improvement of ε-polylysine pro-duction by marine bacterium Bacillus licheniformis using artificial neural network modeling and particle swarm optimi-zation technique. Biochem. Eng. J. 2017, 126, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šovljanski, O.; Pezo, L.; Stanojev, J.; Bajac, B.; Kovač, S.; Tóth, E.; Ristić, I.; Tomić, A.; Ranitović, A.; Cvetković, D.; et al. Comprehensive Profiling of Microbiologically Induced CaCO3 Precipitation by Ureolytic Bacillus Isolates from Alkaline Soils. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šovljanski, O.; Pezo, L.; Tomić, A.; Ranitović, A.; Cvetković, D.; Markov, S. Contribution of bacterial cells as nucleation centers in microbiologically induced CaCO3 precipitation—A mathematical modeling approach. J. Basic Microbiol. 2021, 61, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bolton, J.R.; Linden, K.G. Standardization of methods for fluence (UV dose) determination in bench-scale UV experiments. J. Environ. Eng. 2003, 129, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragosits, M.; Mattanovich, D. Adaptive laboratory evolution-principles and applications for biotechnology. Microb. Cell Factories 2013, 12, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.K.; Petin, V.G.; Morozov, I.I. Quantitative evaluation of the parameters of bacterial photoreactivation after exposure to ultraviolet light and ionizing radiation. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 2005, 81, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basheer, I.A.; Hajmeer, M. Artificial neural networks: Fundamentals, computing, design, and application. J. Microbiol. Methods 2000, 43, 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Q.; Kim, K.; Sharma, N. Prediction of ankle dorsiflexion moment by combined ultrasound sonography and electromyography. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2019, 28, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Šovljanski, O.; Tomić, A.; Markov, S. Relationship between Bacterial Contribution and Self-Healing Effect of Cement-Based Materials. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, M.; Hu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Xue, D.; Zhao, Y. Growth environment optimization for inducing bacterial mineralization and its application in concrete healing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390052477_Mathematical_Modeling_of_Complex_Biological_Systems_Using_Nonlinear_Differential_Equations (accessed on 19 March 2026).
- Shahriar, M.F.; Kamal, T.; Rahman, R. Durability challenges of concrete structures in chemically aggressive riverine zones contaminated by textile discharge: A brief review. Discov. Civ. Eng. 2025, 2, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padan, E.; Bibi, E.; Ito, M.; Krulwich, T.A. Alkaline pH homeostasis in bacteria: New insights. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Biomembr. 2005, 1717, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, H.; Kobayashi, H. Bacterial responses to alkaline stress. Sci. Prog. 2003, 86, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maksimova, Y.; Eliseeva, A.; Maksimov, A. Metabolic and Morphological Aspects of Adaptation of Alkaliphilic Bacillus aequororis 5-DB and Alkali-Tolerant Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 to Changes in pH and Mineralization. Int. J. Microbiol. 2024, 1, 3087296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, Q.; Wu, Y.; Liu, S.; Lu, L.; Wang, J. The adaptability of Sporosarcina pasteurii in marine environments and the feasibility of its application in mortar crack repair. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 332, 127371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiri, M.; Bahari, A.; Sarbangholi, M.M.K.; IvanovichVatin, N.; Rahmani, H.; Bozorg, A.E.; Gholamian, E.; Kordlou, M. Microbial-induced calcite precipitation by indigenous alkaliphilic bacteria: A dual-enzyme strategy for crack-healing in cementitious materials. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2026, 110, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, L.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, A.; Sun, J.; Fan, X.; Yan, X.; Pang, Q. Bacillus licheniformis Jrh14-10 enhances alkaline tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana by regulating crosstalk between ethylene and polyamine pathways. Physiol. Plant. 2024, 176, e14411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Zhu, L.; Xie, Y.; Li, F.; Xiao, X.; Ma, Z.; Wang, J. Bacillus licheniformis SA03 confers increased saline-alkaline tolerance in Chrysanthemum plants by induction of abscisic acid accumulation. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meghashree, M.; Urs, N.; Geetha, N.K.; Reshma, E.K. Advancing sustainable concrete with bacterial self-healing technology and Kuhn-Tucker condition. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 33736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Soens, H.; Verstraete, W.; De Belie, N. Self-healing concrete by use of microencapsulated bacterial spores. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 56, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdmann, N.; Strieth, D. Influencing factors on ureolytic microbiologically induced calcium carbonate precipitation for biocementation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2022, 39, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M.S.; Tuttle, M.J.; Mancini, J.A.; Martineau, R.; Hung, C.-S.; Gupta, M.K. Microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation by Sporosarcina pasteurii: A case study in optimizing biological CaCO3 precipitation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2023, 89, e0179422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanisch, P.; Pechtl, M.; Maurer, H.; Maier, F.; Bischoff, S.; Nagy, B.; Eulenkamp, C.; Kustermann, A.; Huber, R. The effect of different additives on bacteria adsorption, compressive strength and ammonia removal for MICP. Environ. Earth Sci. 2024, 83, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Wei, R.; Dai, D. Improvement schemes for bacteria in MICP: A review. Materials 2024, 17, 5420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajasekar, A.; Moy, C.K.S.; Wilkinson, S.; Sekar, R. Microbially induced calcite precipitation performance of multiple landfill indigenous bacteria compared to a commercially available bacteria in porous media. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Q.; Fan, L.; Quach, W.-M.; Duan, J. The impact of seawater ions on urea decomposition and calcium carbonate precipitation in the MICP process. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2024, 152, 105631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubey, A.A.; Toprak, P.; Pring, A.; Rodriguez-Navarro, C.; Mukherjee, A.; Dhami, N.K. Effect of substrate mineralogy, biofilm and extracellular polymeric substances on bacterially induced carbonate mineralisation investigated with in situ nanoscale ToF-SIMS. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 29368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kolodkin-Gal, I.; Parsek, M.R.; Patrauchan, M. The roles of calcium signaling and calcium deposition in microbial multicellularity. Trends Microbiol. 2023, 31, 1225–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haystead, J.; Gilmour, K.; Sherry, A.; Dade-Robertson, M.; Zhang, M. Effect of (in)organic additives on microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2024, 135, lxad309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bozorg, A.; Gates, I.D.; Sen, A. Impact of biofilm on bacterial transport and deposition in porous media. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2015, 183, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kragh, K.N.; Hutchison, J.B.; Melaugh, G.; Rodesney, C.; Roberts, A.E.; Irie, Y.; Jensen, P.Ø.; Diggle, S.P.; Allen, R.J.; Gordon, V.; et al. Role of multicellular aggregates in biofilm formation. mBio 2016, 7, e00237-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arias, D.; Gallardo, K.; Saldana, M.; Galleguillos-Madrid, F. Urease-Driven Microbially Induced Carbonate Precipitation (MICP) for the Circular Valorization of Reverse Osmosis Brine Waste: A Perspective Review. Minerals 2025, 15, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Wang, J. Effect of regulating urease activity on the properties of bio-CaCO3 precipitated on recycled aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 403, 133119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leeprasert, L.; Chonudomkul, D.; Boonmak, C. Biocalcifying Potential of Ureolytic Bacteria Isolated from Soil for Biocementation and Material Crack Repair. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mallick, S.; Das, S. Treatment of low-pH rubber wastewater using ureolytic bacteria and the production of calcium carbonate precipitate for soil stabilization. Chemosphere 2024, 356, 141913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wei, W.; He, Q.; Pang, S.; Ji, S.; Cheng, Y.; Sun, N.; Liang, Y. Enhancing crack self-healing properties of low-carbon LC3 cement using microbial induced calcite precipitation technique. Front. Mater. 2024, 11, 1501604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šovljanski, O.; Pezo, L.; Grahovac, J.; Tomić, A.; Ranitović, A.; Cvetković, D.; Markov, S. Best-performing Bacillus strains for microbiologically induced CaCO3 precipitation: Screening of relative influence of operational and environmental factors. J. Biotechnol. 2022, 350, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreekala, A.G.V.; Nair, S.; Nathan, V.K. Microbially Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Using Lysinibacillus sp.: A Ureolytic Bacterium from Uttarakhand for Soil Stabilization. Curr Microbiol. 2024, 81, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zehner, J.; Røyne, A.; Wentzel, A.; Sikorski, P. Microbial-induced calcium carbonate precipitation: An experimental toolbox for in situ and real time investigation of micro-scale pH evolution. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 20485–20493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Mitrani, H.; Wipat, A.; Moreland, P.; Haystead, J.; Zhang, M.; Robertson, M.D. A Numerical Bio-Geotechnical Model of Pressure-Responsive Microbially Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Wang, Y. Efficiency and characteristics of MICP in environments with elevated salinity, diminished oxygen, and lowered temperature: A microfluidics investigation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2025, 151, 04024151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Soga, K.; DeJong, J.T.; Kabla, A.J. Effects of bacterial density on growth rate and characteristics of microbial-induced CaCO3 precipitates: Particle-scale experimental study. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.; Kavala, A.M.; Clarà Saracho, A.; Marek, E.J. Modeling the Effect of Microbially Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation (MICP) on CO2 Trapping. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 59, 21486–21500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]








| N-Strain | UV-Strain | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Regr.Coeff. | Std.Err. | p | −95, % | +95, % | Regr.Coeff. | Std.Err. | p | −95, % | +95, % |
| Mean/Interc. | −115.24 | 32.81 | 0.001 | −182.26 | −48.23 | −107.89 | 33.99 | 0.003 | −177.30 | −38.48 |
| Time (L) | −0.29 | 0.13 | 0.040 | −0.56 | −0.01 | −0.43 | 0.14 | 0.004 | −0.71 | −0.14 |
| Time (Q) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.733 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.308 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| pH initial (L) | 28.35 | 6.73 | 0.000 | 14.61 | 42.09 | 27.61 | 6.97 | 0.000 | 13.38 | 41.84 |
| pH initial (Q) | −1.60 | 0.35 | 0.000 | −2.32 | −0.89 | −1.62 | 0.36 | 0.000 | −2.37 | −0.88 |
| Urea (L) | −0.86 | 0.17 | 0.000 | −1.22 | −0.51 | −0.79 | 0.18 | 0.000 | −1.16 | −0.43 |
| Urea (Q) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.071 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.717 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| NaCl (L) | −0.65 | 1.14 | 0.577 | −2.98 | 1.69 | −0.14 | 1.18 | 0.906 | −2.56 | 2.28 |
| NaCl (Q) | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.200 | −0.13 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.229 | −0.03 | 0.13 |
| Time × pH initial | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.052 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.02 | 0.07 |
| Time × Urea | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.000 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| Time × NaCl | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.215 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.392 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| pH initial × Urea | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.000 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.000 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
| pH initial × NaCl | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.301 | −0.11 | 0.35 | −0.04 | 0.12 | 0.726 | −0.28 | 0.20 |
| Urea × NaCl | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.247 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.999 | −0.01 | 0.01 |
| R2 | 0.965 | 0.967 | ||||||||
| adj.R2 | 0.949 | 0.952 | ||||||||
| MLP 6-10-14 | Bacterial Concentration | Survival Rate | Lag Time | µmax | Urease Activity | NH4 | ΔpH | pH Final | CaCO3 | Precipitation Rate | Average Crystal Size | Cell Electronegativity | Cell Hydrophobicity | Aggregation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 0.790 | 0.752 | 0.567 | 0.640 | 0.950 | 0.940 | 0.935 | 0.976 | 0.939 | 0.800 | 0.755 | 0.860 | 0.792 | 0.610 |
| Test | 0.708 | 0.787 | 0.583 | 0.580 | 0.906 | 0.924 | 0.945 | 0.983 | 0.919 | 0.584 | 0.629 | 0.894 | 0.765 | 0.603 |
| Valid | 0.803 | 0.554 | 0.658 | 0.588 | 0.927 | 0.857 | 0.883 | 0.971 | 0.875 | 0.693 | 0.474 | 0.705 | 0.686 | 0.648 |
| Model | χ2 | RMSE | MBE | MPE | SSE | AARD | r2 | Skew | Kurt | Mean | StDev | Var |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial concentration | 0.046 | 0.215 | −0.009 | 2.210 | 12.479 | 2.210 | 0.774 | 0.099 | −0.183 | −0.009 | 0.215 | 0.046 |
| Survival rate | 3.798 | 1.945 | −0.228 | 1.699 | 1021.619 | 1.699 | 0.718 | 0.100 | 0.074 | −0.228 | 1.935 | 3.746 |
| Lag time | 0.137 | 0.370 | 0.015 | 8.807 | 36.872 | 8.807 | 0.577 | −0.053 | −0.195 | 0.015 | 0.370 | 0.137 |
| µmax | 0.001 | 0.025 | −0.001 | 3.831 | 0.164 | 3.831 | 0.620 | −0.351 | 0.037 | −0.001 | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Urease activity | 0.497 | 0.704 | 0.063 | 8.459 | 133.796 | 8.459 | 0.943 | 0.174 | 0.188 | 0.063 | 0.702 | 0.493 |
| NH4 | 2.092 | 1.444 | 0.085 | 10.121 | 562.882 | 10.121 | 0.928 | 0.096 | 0.098 | 0.085 | 1.444 | 2.085 |
| ΔpH | 0.020 | 0.141 | 0.010 | 11.887 | 5.404 | 11.887 | 0.928 | 0.202 | 0.099 | 0.010 | 0.141 | 0.020 |
| pH final | 0.023 | 0.150 | 0.014 | 1.110 | 6.059 | 1.110 | 0.976 | 0.130 | 0.232 | 0.014 | 0.149 | 0.022 |
| CaCO3 | 75.643 | 8.681 | 0.067 | 15.010 | 20,347.890 | 15.010 | 0.929 | 0.048 | −0.211 | 0.067 | 8.697 | 75.638 |
| Precipitation rate | 0.060 | 0.244 | −0.002 | 15.650 | 16.033 | 15.650 | 0.756 | −0.111 | 1.911 | −0.002 | 0.244 | 0.060 |
| Average crystal size | 0.718 | 0.845 | 0.036 | 16.204 | 193.010 | 16.204 | 0.698 | −0.053 | 0.156 | 0.036 | 0.846 | 0.716 |
| Cell electronegativity | 2.628 | 1.618 | −0.035 | −8.001 | 706.964 | 8.001 | 0.843 | −0.052 | 0.022 | −0.035 | 1.621 | 2.627 |
| Cell hydrophobicity | 8.434 | 2.899 | 0.202 | 9.336 | 2268.733 | 9.336 | 0.772 | 0.011 | 0.229 | 0.202 | 2.897 | 8.393 |
| Aggregation | 7.884 | 2.803 | 0.121 | 12.529 | 2120.884 | 12.529 | 0.608 | −0.116 | 0.606 | 0.121 | 2.805 | 7.870 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Mejić, L.; Šovljanski, O.; Pezo, M.; Pezo, L.; Milović, T.; Tomić, A. Ready-to-Use or Ready-to-Adapt: Can the Self-Healing Potential of Bacillus licheniformis Be Modified? Bioengineering 2026, 13, 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050495
Mejić L, Šovljanski O, Pezo M, Pezo L, Milović T, Tomić A. Ready-to-Use or Ready-to-Adapt: Can the Self-Healing Potential of Bacillus licheniformis Be Modified? Bioengineering. 2026; 13(5):495. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050495
Chicago/Turabian StyleMejić, Luka, Olja Šovljanski, Milada Pezo, Lato Pezo, Tiana Milović, and Ana Tomić. 2026. "Ready-to-Use or Ready-to-Adapt: Can the Self-Healing Potential of Bacillus licheniformis Be Modified?" Bioengineering 13, no. 5: 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050495
APA StyleMejić, L., Šovljanski, O., Pezo, M., Pezo, L., Milović, T., & Tomić, A. (2026). Ready-to-Use or Ready-to-Adapt: Can the Self-Healing Potential of Bacillus licheniformis Be Modified? Bioengineering, 13(5), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13050495

