Next Article in Journal
Distribution and Molecular Characterization of Clinically Relevant Acinetobacter Species from Selected Freshwater Sources in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Interaction between Plants and Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) for Sustainable Development
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review on Applied Applications of Microbiome on Human Lives

by
Nitin S. Kamble
1,*,†,
Surojit Bera
2,
Sanjivani A. Bhedase
3,
Vinita Gaur
2 and
Debabrata Chowdhury
4,*
1
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA
2
Department of Microbiology, School of Bioengineering and Biosciences, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara 144411, India
3
Rajaram College, Kolhapur 416004, India
4
Department of Pharmacology and System Physiology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
First author.
Bacteria 2024, 3(3), 141-159; https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3030010
Submission received: 19 March 2024 / Revised: 16 June 2024 / Accepted: 5 July 2024 / Published: 10 July 2024

Abstract

:
It is imperative to say that we are immersed in a sea of microorganisms due to their ubiquitous presence on the planet, from soil to water and air. Human bodies harbor a vast array of microorganisms from both the inside and out called the human microbiome. It is composed of single-celled organisms, including archaea, fungi, viruses, and bacteria, including bacteriophages, where bacteria are the biggest players, and this is collectively referred to as the human microbiome. These organisms have a symbiotic relationship with humans and impact human physiology where they colonize various sites on and in the human body, adapting to specific features of each niche. However, dysbiosis, or the deviation from normal microbial composition, is associated with adverse health effects, disrupted ecosystems, and eco-imbalance in nature. In this review, we delve into the comprehensive oversight of bacteria, their cosmopolitan presence, and their additional applications affecting human lives.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The origin of the ‘Microbial World’ dates back to the early 1900s, when the coexistence of a vast number of microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts, and viruses, was reported on various sites on the human body and in and around its surroundings [1]. Microorganisms are ubiquitously found in soil, water, and air, including space [2]. The human and microbial world go hand in hand, and the human microbiome is often referred to as ‘the hidden organ’, which contributes over 150 times more genetic information than that of the entire human genome [3]. Recent advances in sequencing have enabled genome sequencing of the microorganisms and thus their understanding [4]. The composition of the microbiome varies from environment to environment and from site to site in the human body [5]. In the current review, our goal is to comprehensively focus on how the microbial world influences human lives in health and well being (Figure 1). Additionally, we provide a comprehensive overview of microorganisms of agricultural importance, biopesticides, biofertilizers, and nitrogen fixation, providing detailed accounts of PGPR (plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria). We also discuss air, water, and soil pollution with regard to the microbial world. Then, we present a detailed account of microbial applications in the food industry and pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, we discuss various probiotics and how they influence mental and reproductive health in human beings. As this is a very dynamic and diverse area of research, there is a significant requirement for advanced technologies, such next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics approaches, to completely understand the microbiome and how it influences human lives in different ways.

2. Beneficial Bacteria of Agricultural Importance

Microbes are tiny structures that are difficult to visualize with the naked eye and have variability starting from micrometers to millimeters in length. However, their small unicellular structures act as machinery for the production of several compounds that provides several benefits in the agricultural sector. Sometimes, their whole cells are also as useful as products in practical applications. Some of the frequent and paramount aspects of bacteria in the agricultural field are discussed here (Figure 1).

2.1. Decomposition of Organic Matters

The decomposition of organic materials is a fundamental ecological phenomenon in which nature recycles nutrients into the lithosphere and biosphere [6,7]. The conversion of soluble substances, like sugars and nitrogenous products, is the preliminary choice for conversion since they serve as the predominant energy source for bacteria [8]. They mainly turn into aliphatic acids (acetic, formic, etc.), hydroxy acids (citric, lactic, etc.), or alcohols (ethyl alcohol, etc.) by different groups of bacteria by simple oxidation processes. The decomposition of insoluble complex substances, like cellulose, which is broken down mostly into cellobiose and glucose, is further converted into organic acids [9]. Hemicellulose is broken down into component sugars and uranic acid, which are further metabolized to pentose and carbon dioxide [10,11]. Pectin is broken down into galacturonan or rhamnogalacturonan [12]. Lignin is broken down into hydroxy cinnamyl alcohols (or monolignols), coniferyl alcohol, and sinapyl alcohol, p-coumaryl alcohol [13]. Starch is broken down into glucose via amylose and amylopectin [14,15], xylan into xylose [8], chitin into n-acetyl D glucosamine and then fructose 6 phosphate [11], keratin into simple amino acid molecules [16], lipids into fatty acids and glycerol [17], and many more.

2.2. Soil Fertility/PGPR

The upper surface or crust of our earth is a breathing element continuously recycling nutrients, minerals, gases, and all kinds of life forms, which also aid the base for plants [18]. PGPR is an emerging group of organisms responsible for enhancing the growth and bodily functions of terrestrial autotrophs, viz., plants [19]. The direct PGPR machinery involves the fixation of molecular N2, the production of siderophores, the mineralization of inorganic phosphates, the solubilization of potassium, and the production of growth hormones beneficial to the plants, whereas the indirect PGPR involves the secretion of antibiotics, the production of HCN, the release of hydrolytic enzymes, polysaccharide accumulation, and induced systemic resistance [19,20]. For example, a recent study identified two novel biofilm-forming PGPR strains, Bacillus subtilis-FAB1 and Pseudomonas azotoformans-FAP3, which resulted in improved growth and productivity of wheat under drought conditions [21,22]. Similar encouraging results were found in corn using PGPR mix formulation, which mainly comprised different Bacillus sp. [23]. In an earlier study, Dyadobacter sp. was used to enhance the growth of legumes and finger millets by fixing atmospheric N2 and making it more available to plants [24,25].
When it comes to the demand of the growing population, an increase in population, decrease in agricultural land area, an increase in seasonal variations and different biotic and abiotic stresses which have brough down the food production annually are the most concerning factors. [19]. The emerging needs of microbes focus on PGPR as a boon in the agriculture sector that can increase the productivity and disease control in plants [21]. Beneficial free-living bacteria in soil are referred to as PGPR or yield-increasing bacteria (YIB) by one group of workers in China [22,26]. Currently, PGPR as a bioinoculant in sustainable farming practices has received greater attention [23]. PGPR stimulates plant growth through several mechanisms, either directly by supplying plants with phytohormones, phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, and siderophore production, or indirectly by protecting plants from phytopathogens through different mechanisms [23]. The group of PGPR includes bacteria belonging to different genera, such as Acinetobacter, Agrobacterium, Arthobacter, Azobacter, Azospirillum, Burkholderia, Bradyrhizobium, Rhizoobium, Frankia, Serratia, Thiobacillus, Pseudomonads, and Bacillus [19,21].

2.2.1. PGPR by Phytohormone Production

Many PGPR are well known to secrete hormones and manipulate hormone balance in the plants to boost growth and stress response, which finally regulate root/shoot growth [27]. The hormones involved mostly include auxins, cytokinins, and ethylene and, to a lesser extent, gibberellins and abscisic acid [28].

Auxin Producing PGPR

Patten and Glick (1996) reported that around 80% of PGPR possess the ability to produce indole acetic acid (IAA) [29]. Indole acetic acid plays a vital role in the growth and developmental aspects of plants, such as the development of vascular tissues, lateral root formation, cell differentiation, apical dominance, etc. [29]. Two strains, Pseudomonas fluorescens (M4) and Serratia proteamaculans (M11), have shown 13.26 µg/mL and 19.19 µg/mL auxin production in presence of L-tryptophan, which showed an increase in plant height by 45%, fresh biomass by 56%, total chlorophyll content by 29%, total phenolic content by 59 to 73%, phosphorus content by 26%, potassium content by 50%, and protein content by 27% [30]. Similarly, a substantial increment in straw yield, cob length, cob weight, grain weight, and grain yield were recorded with inoculation of the Bacillus strain. IAA production with tryptophan was 57–288 µg/mL by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CMG860), and the root elongation of germinating seeds and shoot lengths was the highest when inoculated with CMG860 [29]. IAA production by Azosprillum brasilense (DSM1690) is reported to be 32µg/mL. The maximum grain yield (13.8 g/plant) was seen when inoculated with isolate S54 [29,30].

Cytokinin-Producing PGPR

Cytokinins influence plant growth and development by cell division, the expansion of leaves, delaying leaf senescence, etioplast conversion to chloroplast, and chloroplast accumulation in leaves [31]. Cytokinins are plant hormones and in one of the research projects, it was found that wheat plants inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense (RA17) showed increased plant height, crop growth rate, relative growth rate, net assimilation rate, and leaf area index during different developmental stages of the plant [28,31]. It also showed an increase in proline content, endogenous hormones, and antioxidant enzyme activity in wheat kernels. Other physiological parameters like epicuticular wax, stomatal conductance, the photosynthetic rate, and chlorophyll contents were also found to improve [28]. Bacillus megaterium (UMCV1) increased root and shoot fresh weight in wild-type Arabidopsis thaliana [32]. One of the studies reveal that the AK1 strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens increased isopentanyl adenosine (IPA), dihydroxyzeatin riboside (DHZR), and zeatin riboside (ZR) production with time in pure cultures, i.e., at 12 h 2.1 pmol/mL and at 336 h 5.5 pmol/mL IPA at 96 h 0.2 pmol/mL, at 336 h 1.38 pmol/mL of DHZR, at 72 h 2.5 pmol/mL, and at 336 h 3.1 pmol/mL ZR. Inoculation with root exudates at 5.9 pmol/mL IPA and 2.6 pmol/mL ZR showed no significant difference in DHZR in treated and untreated plants [33]. The free-living bacteria Paenibacillus polymyxa produced isopentenyladenine during its stationary phase of growth [34].

ACC-Producing PGPR

Ethylene is a gaseous hormone that causes senescence and fruit ripening in plants [35]. 1-Aminocyclopropane 1-carboxylic acid (ACC) is a direct precursor of ethylene biosynthesis [36]. PGPR-producing ACC deaminase promotes plant growth by lowering plant ethylene levels. The inoculation of Glutamicibacter (YD01) species had the ability to produce ACC deaminase and had shown increased shoot height, root length, fresh weight, and dry weight, and enhanced salt tolerance in rice [37]. Brevibacterium iodinum (RS16), Bacillus licheniformis (RS656), and Zhihengliuela alba (RS111) have been shown to reduce ethylene production by 57%, 44%, and 53%, which helped in to reduce salt stress in red pepper plants [38]. Methylobacterium fujisawaense promoted root elongation in canola [39]. Pseudomonas sp. and Bradyrhizobium sp. enhanced nodulation in mung beans [40] and Pseudomonas plecoglossicida strain Pp20 plant photosynthesis in maize plants under saline stress [38].

PGPR-Producing Siderophores

Siderophores are low molecular weight iron chelating compounds synthesized by many bacteria, which form complexes with free iron [41]. These molecules are encoded by five genes in operon [41,42]. In addition, siderophore has applications in clinical, environmental fields, and phytoremediation [41]. Siderophore-producing bacteria have been shown to induce metal tolerance in plants [43]. Studies in Indian mustard have shown that Bacillus edaphicus stimulated plant growth, facilitated soil Pb mobilization, and enhanced Pb accumulation [35,44]. Streptomyces tendae F4 promoted plant growth, facilitated soil metal solubilization, and enhanced Cd and Fe uptake in sunflowers [45]. Streptomyces acidiscabies E13 protected plants from metal toxicity and enhanced the uptake of Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and U in cowpeas [46]. Presently, 500 siderophores are reported from selected microorganisms. A great variation is seen in the siderophore structure from one species to another [41].

PGPR with Antifungal Properties

PGPR, having antifungal properties, can be used as bio-fungicides and to minimize yield loss and maximize crop productivity [47]. The plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria OUG38 strain has shown a high level of inhibition against Colletotrichum capscici (80%) and Rhizoctonia solani (76%), and OUG61 has shown a high level of inhibition against Fusarium oxysporum (78%) and Macrophomina phaseolena (78%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa (B7-1, B11-5, B3-, Rh-1, Rh-2) and Pseudomonas putida (B53) showed antifungal activity against Fusarium oxysporum [48,49,50]. Bacillus (Bac10) has shown the highest antifungal activity against Macrophomina, while Azotobacter (Azt12) has shown the highest antagonistic activity against Helminthosporium sp., and (Azt6) against Fusarium sp. Azotobacter (WR7) showed maximum inhibition against Rhizoctonia solani in wheat [49,51].

Phosphate Solubilizing PGPR

Phosphorus is the second most critical macronutrient after nitrogen required for the metabolism, growth, and development of plants [52]. Despite its abundance, it is mostly unavailable to plants [21]. The application of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms in the soil is a promising approach to restoring soil health [53]. The solubilization index shown by Lysinibacillus pakistanensis (PCPSMR15) is 4.0 [54]. Mung beans inoculated with PCPSMR15 brought remarkable enhancement in the root (3.1 cm), stem (20.8 cm), and leaf (2.9 cm) length, as well as the control at 1.3 cm, 7.1 cm, and 1.6 cm, respectively [54,55]. Qualitative analysis reports that the phosphate solubilizing efficiency shown by the Bacillus subtilis strain 3 (PS4) is the highest, i.e., 50.9 and 10.22 µg/mL [56]. There is a diversity of phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms in the soil, which are nowadays used as biofertilizers [54]. The number of published articles on PSB from 2002 to 2022 is 1% to 13%. According to data obtained from the Web of Science (WOS) database, a total of 67 countries are involved in the publication of the topic on PSB, among which, 15 countries showed the highest number of publications, and there are 225 institutions involved in research [57]. Although PSB research is abundant, the isolation, identification, and selection of PSB strains have not yet been successfully commercialized; thus, the application is still found to be limited [21,28,58].

2.3. Nitrogen Fixation

Nitrogen is a significant component used for autotrophs and heterotrophs offered in assorted redox conditions, and its regulation for transport and assimilation might vary significantly, depending on the organism’s nature [59]. There is an unmet demand for nitrogen fertilizer to fulfill the requirement of nitrogen in agriculture. However, we do not have any options left but to depend on nature and microbes to fix them spontaneously. These biological fixations could be either symbiotic, free living, or associative in nature [25]. Numerous efforts have been made to make engineered plants that can directly fix nitrogen or enter an association with microbes (e.g., making non-leguminous plants compatible with symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria). However, the results are still not promising enough to be introduced on a large scale to date [24,60]. In a recent study, bacterium, like Rhodobacter sphaeroides, can be seen fixing nitrogen along with the microalgae strain Coelastrella sp. in a mutual nutrient exchange understanding [61]. On the other hand, novel free-living bacteria, like Fundidesulfovibrio magnetotacticus, have been reported recently in rice fields capable of fixing significant amounts of nitrogen [62]. Newer approaches, like the isolation of plant tissue extract and subsequent 16 S rRNA gene profiling for total culture-independent bacterial microbiome revealing newer species, are capable of fixing nitrogen in association with plants, except for the formation of legumes [14].

2.4. As Biofertilizers

Biofertilizers are predominantly live organisms or their products and can be used to enhance the nutrient attributes of soil, thus improving its health and productivity. Biofertilizers can be bacteria, fungi, algae, or cyanobacteria, helping to recuperate the fertility of soil via mineral and organic matter recycling. However, biosafety trials with bacteria as bio-stimulants and biofertilizers should be based on bioassays rather than taxonomy [63]. Bacteria used as major biofertilizers include nitrogen fixers (as discussed in the previous section), cyanobacteria, phosphate, and potassium solubilizers. Proven nitrogen fixer biofertilizer bacteria may include but are not limited to Rhizobium sp., Bradyrhizobium sp., Streptomyces griseoflavus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus pumilus, Bacillus licheniformis, Kelbsiella pneumoniae, Azotobacter, Azospirillum, Nostoc, Anabaena, and many more [22,43,64,65]. Phosphate solubilizers showing great potential as biofertilizers may include but are not limited to Pseudomonas fluorescens, Sphingobacterium suaedae, Bacillus pimilus, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus endophyticus, Bacillus sphaericus, Bacillus megaterium, Virgibacillus sp., and Enterobacter aerogenes [21,53,58,66]. Potassium solubilizer bacteria are sometimes put under PGRP; however, their great potential might lead to them being prospective candidates in the biofertilizer market soon. A few important potassium solubilizing bacteria are Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida, Enterobacter sp., Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus firmus, Pantoeaagglomeran, Bacillus pseudomycoides, and Bacillus cereus [67,68].

2.5. As Biopesticides

Biopesticides are naturally derived substances from animals, plants, bacteria, or certain minerals that can control pest infestation in an ecofriendly manner, whereas chemical pesticides have always been a concern for the environment, as they are recalcitrant xenobiotics and are prone to bioaccumulation and biomagnification [69]. Several bacteria have been reported to produce a lethal toxin capable of controlling pests, but they are nontoxic and nonpathogenic to animals and humans [69]. Bacillus thuringiensis, a Gram-positive, spore-forming soil organism, was first identified in the early 20th century in Japan and was commercialized as a biopesticide in the late 1930s in France [64]. The most widely studied and applied strains for Bacillus thuringiensis are kurstaki, galeriae, and dendrolimus, which secrete ‘Cry’ protein as an endotoxin; the gastrointestinal enzymes present in the gut of different insect larvae can activate the toxin, thus leading to subsequent gut paralysis and death of the insect [70,71]. Other agriculturally important bacteria used as biopesticides include (but are not limited to) cyclic lipopeptides (CLPs) producing Bacillus velezensis [72]; hydrogen sulfide producing Pseudoxanthomonas indica [73]; and Agrobacterium radiobacter (now Rhizobium rhizogenes), which produce agrocin, an antibiotic capable of controlling Crown Gall disease caused by Agrobacterium tumefaciens [74]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is capable of producing shenqinmycin, an antifungal agent [75]. Pseudomonas fluorescens is capable of producing phenazine and others [33,76].

3. Bacteria: The Natural Scavenger of Environmental Pollutants

Rising contamination in the lithosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere imposes a severe threat to public health and safety not only in underdeveloped countries but also in industrialized developing or developed countries, such as The United States of America, the European Union, China, and India [77]. The last few decades have shed some light on the eradication of contaminants from the soil, water, or air catalytic activities of microorganisms—specifically bacteria rather than relying solely on chemical methods [46]. Additionally, the inception of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the early 1980s has extended the opportunity to degrade or remove certain compounds, thus improving the scope for bacterial bioremediation [78].

3.1. In Water Pollution Control

Contamination of water has become a global concern, as major sources for such pollution are from the agricultural revolution (producing herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers), the industrial revolution (producing synthetic dyes, oil and grease, metals, chlorinated solvents, and toxic sludge), and the healthcare revolution (producing radioactive element and antibiotics), which are inevitable for the thriving of human civilization [79]. In 2018, fluoride was removed from water by nanoparticles synthesized using Bacillus subtilis as a microbial agent [80]. A study by Wan et al. showed that heterotrophic (Thauera and Ferritrophicum) and autotrophic bacteria (Chlorobaculum) can be useful for removing perchlorate and nitrate from water [81]. Various studies for synthetic dye (such as Malachite Green, Congo Red, Direct Green, Bromophenol Blue, Acid Red, Basic Blue, and many more) removal from water have been performed previously, which revealed that physicochemical parameters might be a crucial factor influencing removal percentage from aqueous solutions [4,82,83,84]. Recent studies have shown bacteria’s ability to remove antibiotics [85], chemical fertilizers [86], herbicides [78], pesticides [79], radioactive elements [87], oil and grease [88], and many more from water [89].

3.2. In Air Pollution Control

Air pollution is generally regarded as the admixture of harmful elements generated via any anthropogenic activity or natural sources, leading to ~4 million premature mortalities every year [90]. The principal causes behind air pollution are alleged to be PM2.5 (particles whose diameter is less than 2.5 mm), as these can infiltrate the respiratory, cardiovascular, and circulatory systems, thus leading to several diseases, including cancer [90,91]. As per research data, the most susceptible groups affected by air pollution are pregnant women, adolescents, and elderly people in terms of their physical and mental health [91]. Moreover, flue gases such as CO, NO, SO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) generated by combustion of fuels and flammable substances are equally poisonous to humans. Biofiltration is an emergent practice and is being used to remove air pollutants discharged by different industries. Several bacteria are being reported as competent biological agents to be used in biofilters to remove air pollutants [92]. In 2017, Bravo et al. exploited a non-culturable microbial community in an anaerobic bioscrubber and found that Methanosaeta sp., Methanospirillum sp., Methanobacterium sp., Geobacter sp., and Pelobacter sp. are predominant while removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) [93]. In another study, three proteobacteria, viz., Thioalkalimicrobium cyclicum, Stappia sp., and Ochrobactrum sp., were predominantly found in bioscrubbers and were successfully involved in the desulfurization of biogas [94]. A recent study showed that Thiobacillus sp. can act as a better denitrifying agent in anaerobic conditions, whereas Cryseobacterium and unclassified Xanthomonadaceae can work as efficient sulfide oxidizing agents under aerobic conditions in bioscrubbers [95].

3.3. In Soil Pollution Control

Soil is a natural compound that mainly forms the loose surface of the earth and principally consists of five elements—minerals, organic matter, living microbes, gases, and water [40]. Among them, soil minerals are predominantly categorized into clay, silt, and sand, which vary in percentage to make different types of soil in general [14]. Rapid industrialization and the agricultural revolution continuously produce unusual environmental contaminants, like hydrocarbons, heavy metals, synthetic dyes, microplastics, and pesticides, whose cytotoxic and genotoxic effects are well known along with their non-biodegradability and advanced persistence [70,96,97]. Zhang et al., 2019, showed that the immobilization of bacterial cells in natural biochar can enhance the bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil and has a potential for application in ex situ bioremediations [97]. A range of bacteria like Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacillus weihenstephanensis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Rhodococcus ruber can be useful for the biodegradation of microplastic and nanoplastic residues from the soil via biodeterioration, biofragmentation, assimilation, and mineralization [98]. Reports suggest that several bacteria such as Bacillus, Klebsiella, Mycobacterium, Pandoraea, Pseudomonas, Sphingomonas, Sphingopyxis, Rhodococcus, Sphingobium, and Phanerochaete chrysosporium are involved in the bioremediation of pesticide-contaminated soil, thus controlling soil toxicity and nutrient recycling [99]. However, an integrated approach may be taken among microbiological methods linked with field application design so that genetically modified or engineered microbial stains can be developed, achieving a more effective in situ and ex situ bioremediation of hazardous waste from the soil using recombinant bacterial cells [100].

4. Microbial Applications in the Food Industry

The contemporary food system depends on unsustainable practices and often fails to meet the food demand of a rapidly growing population [101]. Hence, there is an urgent demand for novel sustainable food systems and processes [63,101]. Microorganisms have gained significant attention as a new nutrition source owing to their low carbon footprints, low reliance on land and water, and seasonal variations coupled with a favorable nutrition profile [102]. With the emergence of new tools in synthetic biology, the use of microbes has expanded, showing tremendous potential to meet our global food requirement/demand [103]. Here, we present a detailed account of various applications of microbes in food, and we cover both the use of microbes to produce whole food out of their biomass and as cell factories in making highly functional and nutritional biomolecules.

4.1. Fermented Dairy Products

The fermentation of dairy products is accomplished through a diverse group of microbes. Along with the wide-range commercial production of fermented dairy products, the usage of starter and adjunct culture(s) has also gained application in the last century [104]. In recent years, severe investigations have also been carried out on the health benefits being conferred by various dairy products. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains remove anti-nutritional factors, like lactose and glucose, from dairy products through their fermentative action [105]. The lactic acid bacteria develop flavor and texture and acidify milk through their proteolytic activities [106]. Some studies have demonstrated that kefir consumption has been found to have a positive impact on the metabolism and mineral density of bones [107]. Likewise, the consumption of yogurt is associated with a lower threat of type 2 diabetes [108]. The use of fermented milk products containing Bifidobacterium lactis CNCM I-2494 demonstrated a positive effect on the tolerance of a plant-based diet in patients with disorders in gut–brain interactions [109]. The most common starter cultures of Gram-positive lactic acid bacteria that are widely used are Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus helveticus, Lactobacillus lactis, and Lactobacillus delbruckii subsp. bulgaricus. Some of these strains also help in the preservation of fermented milk by producing bacteriocins [110]. Some specific lactic acid bacteria, like Fructilactobacillus, Lacticaseibacillus, Lactiplantibacillus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Lactobacillus, Lentilactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Limosilactobacillus, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, Weissella sp., etc., synthesize exopolysaccharides (EPSs) that impart desirable physical properties to fermented dairy products [103].

4.2. Fermented Non-Dairy Products Based on Cereal and Vegetables

Around the world, the consumption of fermented cereals and vegetables constitutes a significant part of the human diet, with a substantial contribution to the food supply chain for a constantly growing world population [111]. Several different species of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) prevail in various fermented vegetables, depending on raw materials and environmental and physiochemical conditions during fermentation. Most predominant species in table olives are Lactobacillus pentosus and Lactobacillus plantarum [112]. Kimchi, a traditional South Korean fermented product, is made from cabbages, radish, and other vegetables and contains Weissella and Leuconostoc, along with Pediococcus, which is the predominant species [111]. Sauerkraut, a fermented food product made from cabbage, contains Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc as the dominant species during the early and middle/late stages of its fermentation. Streptococcus malefermentans was also found to play an important role in sauerkraut fermentation when carried out at lower temperatures [113]. During the production of pickled cucumbers, Pediococcus ethanolidurans, Enterococcus thailandicus, and diverse species of the genus Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc play a key role in the fermentation process [14,114].
In cereal fermentations, a key role is played by Bacillus and Lactobacillus species by hydrolyzing complex polyphenols to simpler and biologically active forms. Lactobacillus plantarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae play a significant role in the fermentation of wheat noodles, affecting the structure and flavor. A significant effect was seen in the enhanced continuity of the gluten network and pore formation [14]. Many fermented food products made from cereals, like Akamu/ogi and Uji, a thin maize gruel, and ting, a fermented porridge, are used in African countries. LAB strains are mostly used in the fermentation of cereals but are sometimes mixed with the inoculum of other organisms like Candida spp., Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Streptococcus spp., and Acetobacter spp. [115].

4.3. In Industrial Breweries

Acetic acid bacteria have been associated with the production of vinegar and other fermented beverages [102]. A. pasteurianus, A. aceti, Komagataeibacter xylinus, K. europaeus, and K. hansenii are commonly used in vinegar production. K. xylinus, A. pasteurianus, K. hansenii, A. aceti, Gluconacetobacter saccharivorans, Acetobacter, Gluconobacter, and Gluconacetobacter spp. are involved in the production of a fermented beverage, kombucha [93,110]. Acetobacter lovaniensis, Acetobacter fabarum, Acetobacter cerevisiae, A. aceti, Acetobacter ghanensis, A. lovaniensis/fabarum, and Acetobacter sicerae are the predominant species during fermentation of water kefir [24]. A. lambici and G. cerevisiae are the significant species associated with the fermentation of lambic beer [4]. A study has demonstrated that Lactobacillus fermentum KKL1 exerts a substantial effect and enhances functional aspects during the preparation of haria, a rice-based beverage consumed by ethnic people of Central and Eastern India [116]. Cheka, Keribo, Borde, Areki, Tella, Shamita, Booka, and Korefe are some of the Ethiopian indigenous fermented beverages produced from several kinds of cereal. During the preparation of these beverages, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) species and Acetobacter species play a significant role in enhancing their organoleptic and nutritional properties and improving their bio-preservation [117]. Cauim (Kawi) is a non-alcoholic beverage of South American origin prepared from several substrates like banana, cotton seeds, maize, pumpkin, rice, cassava, etc. Lactic acid bacteria are the dominant species and play a significant role during cauim preparation. Among LAB, Lactobacillus pentosus and Lactobacillus plantarum are the most prevalent species. A few species of Bacillus are also present in small amounts [118]. Wine malolactic fermentation is carried out by Lactobacillus hilgardii [119].

4.4. In the Meat Industry and Related Products

Carnobacterium piscicola, C. divergens, Lactobacillus sakei, L. curvatus, L. plantarum, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Le. Gelidum, and Le. carnosum are the natural strains of LAB present in meat and meat products. In fresh meat, LAB are responsible for mild fermentation changes without affecting organoleptic properties [120]. The bacteriocins (proteinaceous toxins) produced by many bacteria can inhibit the growth of other bacteria in meat and meat products, e.g., the bacteriocin produced by Pediococcus acidilactici inhibits the growth of L. monocytogenes in meat products stored under refrigerated conditions for about 28 days [4]. Likewise, bacteriocins of the genus Lactobacillus have shown antimicrobial effects against several Salmonella sps., such as Enteritidis, Heidelberg, Newport, and Typhimurium [4]. The bacteriocin nisin produced by Lactobacillus lactis has a positive effect on meat bio-preservation [120]. Lactobacillus sakei and L. curvatus are the main producers of bacteriocins among the LAB present in meat and meat products and produce sakacins and curvacins, respectively [121]. Studies have shown that a combination of garlic extract with Lactobacillus reuteri and L. plantarum from beef is known to inhibit Listeria monocytogenes by the production of antibacterial agents [122]. In beef sausage, bacteriocinogenic strains of Enterococcus mundtii, along with curing agents (3% sodium chloride, 0.02% sodium nitrate, 0.0075% ascorbic acid, 0.75% glucose and sucrose), have shown an inhibitory effect on Listeria monocytogenes [123]. Pediocin secreted by Pediococcus pentosaceus and extract from Murraya koenigii berries were demonstrated to reduce the growth of Listeria innocua in goat meat emulsion [124]. Fermented meat products like Arabic sausage, lean pork, and shrimp paste contain bacterial strains of Lactobacillus alimentarius, L. pentosus, L. plantarum, L. versmoldensis, Pediococcus acidilactici, P. pentosaceu, Stolephorus species, and Sardinella species, which help in the flavoring of meat products and increase their shelf life [125,126].

4.5. As Probiotics

Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Pediococcus, and Leuconostoc are some of the genera of lactic acid bacteria used as probiotics in the intestine [127]. Apart from these, some stains of genera Bacillus and bacteria Akkermansia muciniphilaare and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii have also been recognized as potential sources of probiotics [128]. Commercial probiotics food, e.g., BIO®, Actimel®, LC1®, and Yakult®, contain lactic acid bacterial strains Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus acidophilus. Probiotics enhance the nutritive value of food, improving the test. The fermented food doenjang/soybean paste contains bacterial strains of Bacillus species, Tetragenococcus, and Zygosaccharomyces, acting as probiotics. These bacterial strains enhance the activity of natural killer (NK) cells of the spleen. They can also improve the inhibitory effect of bioactive peptides on the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) [129]. Fermented food products, like glutinous rice, tapioca, idli–dosa, kimchi, natto, sauerkraut, vinegar, etc., contain Lactobacillus that impart several health beneficiary effects, such as mitigating constipation and stimulating the human immune system. They also have antioxidant, antihypertensive, and anti-diabetic properties [4]. Studies have demonstrated that the introduction of antigens inside the human body along with probiotic bacteria can provide an effective means to attenuate autoimmune diseases, as this leads to the simultaneous suppression of both antibody and cell-mediated immune responses [130]. Some riboflavin-producing lactic acid bacteria strains, e.g., Lactobacillus plantarum, have also displayed probiotic traits. These are appealing from an industrial perspective as multifunctional adjunct cultures for the production of biofortified fermented edibles, and they exercise probiotic characteristics [119].

4.6. In the Pharmaceutical, Nutraceutical, and Cosmeceutical Industries

Many lactic acid bacteria possess beneficial properties of being, antagonistic, antioxidant, and antimicrobial, and they also have immunomodulatory properties [111]. So, they are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Bacteriocins produced by several bacteria, including LAB, are widely used in food processing industries [121,131]. Due to their promising anti-bacterial, anti-viral, and anti-cancer nature, these bacterial products are further studied for their use in the pharmaceutical and medical fields [110]. Several metabolites secreted by strains of Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, and Lactococcus have shown anti-proliferative impacts on distinct cancer cell lines by the induction of apoptosis [121,132]. Microbial by-products produced by S. epidermidis are known to inhibit the colonization of pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus responsible for several clinical conditions [133,134].
Nutraceuticals are natural compounds and have the properties of chemoprotection, antioxidation, and anti-inflammation, and they are derived from food or are part of the food [135]. A high-value bread was obtained with the fermentation of barley sourdough using the Pediococcus acidilactici LUHS29 strain that was immobilized in apple pomace [15]. It showed variable carbohydrate metabolism and better adaptability to acidic environments due to increased lactic acid production, β-glucan solubility, scavenging of free radicals, and an increase in total phenolic content by the bacterial strain [111]. An increase in vitamin B2 and B9 levels and elevated blood hemoglobin was detected when pasta fermentation was carried out with a mixed culture of Lactobacillus plantarum CRL 1964 and L. plantarum CRL 2107 [119]. Lactobacillus strains also display anti-colorectal cancer properties [119]. Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus pentosaceus, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus are involved in the elimination of carcinogens and toxins from fecal material by modulating the mechanism and decreasing the pH [113].
The usage of Staphylococcus epidermidis for application in basic cosmetics as a beneficial bacterium for skin health is widely accepted [136]. S. epidermidis produces several metabolic products, like organic acids and glycerin, which help maintain skin health by retaining moisture, improving the rough texture of the skin, and maintaining low acidic conditions on the surface of the skin [134]. Further, it also has anti-aging properties due to the presence of superoxide dismutase, which destroys reactive oxygen intermediates [136,137]. Cutibacterium acnes secret propionic acid as one of the short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) during triacylglycerol fermentation in the sebum [127]. Propionic acid keeps the pH of hair follicles of sebaceous glands at an acidic level, thereby controlling the growth of pathogenic bacteria [138,139].

5. Probiotic Bacteria and Their Benefits in Human Health

Probiotics are live, beneficial microorganisms, which include mostly bacteria and yeasts and are consumed or applied on the body and are proposed to improve or maintain our healthy lives [140]. The term symbiotics is used to define a combination of probiotics and prebiotics, the compounds used as a supplement with the probiotics that selectively favor the growth of beneficial bacteria and prevent the growth of harmful bacteria [140,141]. Probiotics play a critical role in the restoration of healthy gut microbiome communities that protect the gut by building a healthy intestinal mucous membrane, inhibiting the intestinal colonization of the pathogenic bacteria, ameliorating the host immunity, or preventing gut inflammation and systemic disease [109,141]. Apart from the promising role in the gut, the advantages of probiotics in human immune, reproductive, and respiratory systems, skin diseases, and oral and mental health have been demonstrated [142,143,144]. Lactic acid bacteria, a broad heterogeneous Gram-positive, spore-free bacteria, exist widely in the natural environment and include soil and fermented foods in or on the host body [105]. This group of bacteria plays a beneficial role in the host by regulating the microbiome in the gut [132]. Common strains of lactic acid bacteria, including L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, L. casei, L. delbrueckii, L. plantarum, L. reuteri, L. pracasei, B. bifidum, B. animalis, B. longum, B. infantis, B. adolescentis, etc., are used as probiotics for health benefits. C. butyricum, S. boulardii, S. cerevisiae, B. coagulans, and E. coli Nissle 1917 are widely used non-lactic acid bacteria and also have a probiotic effect on the hosts [42,116,132]. These microorganisms protect us from infections, hypertension, high blood cholesterol, diabetes, food allergies, oxidative stress, mutations, and carcinogens [145,146]. Here, we briefly summarize health-beneficial bacteria consumed by our body as probiotics for protection against several medical concerns.

5.1. Reproductive Health

Historically, it was thought that there were no native bacteria in the reproductive tract [147]. Many believed that microbes were only present during infection [148]. Several studies have demonstrated that the gut microbiome is an important regulatory component for sustaining the basal nourishing of the mammalian reproductive tract [130,132]. The healthy female reproductive tract has low bacterial diversity due to the main genus Lactobacillus spp. [147]. Probiotics and the molecules they produce help maintain a healthy reproductive tract by supporting healthy bacterial communities, inhibiting pathogen growth, maintaining the proper pH, and facilitating the immune system to function properly [147,149]. In the female reproductive tract, probiotics not only help to maintain an acidic pH but also can aid in fertilization by promoting epithelial barrier function and membrane integrity, which are essential for successful basculation and formation of the amnion, chorion, and placenta [91,147,150]. One example of the symbiotic relationship between microbes and hosts in the female reproductive tract is Lactobacillus spp., which metabolizes sugar glucose to produce energy and lactic acid [147]. This lactic acid then lowers the pH of the female reproductive tract and prevents pathogenic bacteria from growing, such as Gardnerella vaginalis [147].

5.2. Mental Health

An altered microbiome in the gut–brain axis has been associated with neuropsychological illnesses, including autism spectrum disorder and depression. Studies have also signified that the consumption of probiotics can modulate gut microbiomes that restore mental health. The beneficial effects of probiotics on the enteric nervous system and central nervous system have been reported by a series of investigations. For example, feeding L. reuteri to rats for 9 days elevated excitability and declined the slow afterhyperpolarization in sensory afterhyperpolarization neurons [151]. Similarly, a B. longum NCC3001-fermented medium inhibits the enteric nervous system neuron excitability [152]. Probiotic L. rhamnosus, ingested into healthy Balb/C mice, reduced emotional behavior, including anxiety and depression [153]. A study demonstrated that healthy women volunteers consumed 4 weeks of a fermented milk product containing B. animalis subsp. Lactis, L. lactis subsp. Lactis, L. bulgaricus, and S. thermophilus, resulting in induced brain activity in the emotional system [154]. Healthy volunteers improved their mood after drinking milk containing probiotic L. casei Shirota for 3 weeks [155]. One interesting study reported that 30 days of consumption of a formulated probiotic mixture consisting of L. helveticus R0052 and B. longum R0175 by healthy volunteers improved their psychological distress. Furthermore, this study also demonstrated that the daily administration of the same mixture of probiotics to rats for 2 weeks showed anxiolytic-like activity [156]. Taken together, probiotics play a vital role in protecting mental health.

5.3. Respiratory Health

Microbes occupy virtually all the surfaces of the human body, and the respiratory tract is not an exception [157,158]. Recent techniques of respiratory biology have begun to shed light on the microbial world of the respiratory tract, which was long considered to be a sterile environment [33,130]. It is clear that the human lungs are often exposed to live microbes and their by-products, and the nature of the lung microbiome is distinct from other microbial communities residing in our bodies, such as the gut [132]. The upper and lower respiratory tracts have different microbial compositions and biomasses. The upper tract is made up of the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and pharynx, and the supraglottic portion of the larynx is primarily colonized with bacteria [157]. There are topographical differences in the microbial composition, and the nasal cavity and nasopharynx are dominated by Moraxella, Staphylococcus, Corynebacterium, Haemophilus, and Streptococcus species, while the oropharynx is dominated by Prevotella, Veillonella, Streptococcus, Leptotrichia, Rothia, Neisseria, and Haemophilus species [157]. On the contrary, the lower respiratory tract, which includes the trachea and lungs, exhibits low biomass due to rapid microbial clearance via several physiological mechanisms. It allows the lower tract to perform its most crucial function: the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide [33,42,130].

6. Summary and Conclusions

In this review, we highlighted the many ways by which microorganisms can influence their environment by altering the properties of their surroundings or by building microbial communities and structures. As environmental properties are also known to affect their surrounding microbial communities, the interaction between soil microbial community composition and soil microorganisms is reciprocal. Thus, microorganisms and their environmental interaction entail networks of causation of feedback, in which previously selected microorganisms drive environmental changes and, as a a consequence, microbially driven shifts in environmental properties subsequently shape microbial community composition and possibly evolutionary trajectories.
To advance the field, integrative research bridging soil sciences, ecology, biogeochemistry, evolution, and microbiology is paramount. Owing to the interconnected nature of microbial communities and soil properties, identifying the underlying mechanisms remains challenging. With the pressing need to protect and restore the environment, future approaches and steps should leverage insights gained from studying natural systems. Progress towards understanding the functional roles of the microbiome in shaping soil properties can also come from using more proactive approaches, whereby microbial communities are directly manipulated in controlled experiments. Such studies should include examining the evolutionary consequences of niche construction by microorganisms. Thus, the evidence outlined in this review shows that microbially driven shifts in environmental properties can also have practical applications, such as limiting soil erosion, promoting carbon sequestration, or restoring contaminated soil through bioremediation. The directed modification of the microbiome is an emerging research area that requires a better understanding of how microbially mediated shifts in properties can be used to combat threats to health and other environmental challenges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization writing and original draft preparation, methodology, review, editing and validation N.S.K., with the help of S.B., S.A.B., V.G. and D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) declare no financial support was received for the review, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This review did not require the Institutional Review Board approval.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the review was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hou, K.; Wu, Z.X.; Chen, X.Y.; Wang, J.Q.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, D.; Koya, J.B.; Wei, L.; Li, J.; et al. Microbiome in health and diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koehle, A.P.; Brumwell, S.L.; Seto, E.P.; Lynch, A.M.; Urbaniak, C. Microbial applications for sustainable space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. NPJ Microgravity 2023, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Eisenstein, M. The skin microbiome. Nature 2020, 588, S209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tuma, J.M.; Pratt, J.M. Clinical child psychology practice and training: A survey. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 1982, 137, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bozeman, B.; Feeney, M.K. Toward a Useful Theory of Mentoring: A Conceptual Analysis and Critique. Adm. Soc. 2007, 39, 719–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bay, L.; Ring, H.C. Human skin microbiome in health and disease: The cutaneous communities’ interplay in equilibrium and dysbiosis. Apmis 2021, 130, 706–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Filipiak, Z.M.; Ollerton, J.; Filipiak, M. Uncovering the significance of the ratio of food K:Na in bee ecology and evolution. Ecology 2023, 104, e4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Mihara, H.; Kurihara, T.; Yoshimura, T.; Esaki, N. Kinetic and mutational studies of three NifS homologs from Escherichia coli: Mechanistic difference between L-cysteine desulfurase and L- selenocysteine lyase reactions. J. Biochem. 2000, 127, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chaudhary, A.; Hussain, A.; Ahmad, Q.U.A.; Shehzadi, A.; Manzoor, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Deepanraj, B. Production of ethanol from xylan by indigenous xylanolytic and ethanologenic bacteria isolated from fruit wastes. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 57, 103216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Walls, L.E.; Otoupal, P.; Ledesma-Amaro, R.; Velasquez-Orta, S.B.; Gladden, J.M.; Rios-Solis, L. Bioconversion of cellulose into bisabolene using Ruminococcus flavefaciens and Rhodosporidium toruloides. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 368, 128216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, C.; Cai, B.; Sun, Y.; Kang, J.; Pei, F.; Ge, J. Microbial communities that drive the degradation of flax pectin and hemicellulose during dew retting with Bacillus licheniformis HDYM-04 and Bacillus subtilis ZC-01 addition. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 371, 128516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dang, Y.R.; Zhang, X.Y.; Liu, S.S.; Li, P.Y.; Ren, X.B.; Qin, Q.L. Genomic analysis of Marinimicrobium sp. C6131 reveals its genetic potential involved in chitin metabolism. Mar. Genom. 2023, 67, 101007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, C.C.; Healey, G.R.; Kelly, W.J.; Patchett, M.L.; Jordens, Z.; Tannock, G.W.; Sims, I.M.; Bell, T.J.; Hedderley, D.; Henrissat, B.; et al. Genomic insights from Monoglobus pectinilyticus: A pectin-degrading specialist bacterium in the human colon. ISME J. 2019, 13, 1437–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Atiwesh, G.; Parrish, C.C.; Banoub, J.; Le, T.A.T. Lignin degradation by microorganisms: A review. Biotechnol. Prog. 2022, 38, e3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, L.; Zhang, M.; Huang, S.; Li, L.; Gao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Huang, S.; Yuan, L.; Wen, Y.; et al. A highly conserved core bacterial microbiome with nitrogen-fixation capacity inhabits the xylem sap in maize plants. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang, T.; Xie, X.; Wu, L.; Li, L.; Li, H.; Xi, Y.; Feng, Y.; Xue, L.; Chen, M.; Chen, X.; et al. Microbial communities and physiochemical properties of four distinctive traditionally fermented vegetables from north china and their influence on quality and safety. Foods 2022, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bordel, S.; Martín-González, D.; Muñoz, R.; Santos-Beneit, F. Genome sequence analysis and characterization of Bacillus altitudinis B12, a polylactic acid- and keratin-degrading bacterium. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2023, 298, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Akram, F.; Mir, A.S.; Haq, I.U.; Roohi, A. An Appraisal on Prominent Industrial and Biotechnological Applications of Bacterial Lipases. Mol. Biotechnol. 2023, 65, 521–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Håland, J. Rituals of Death and Dying in Modern and Ancient Greece. 2014. Available online: https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-6127-4-sample.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2024).
  20. Ahmad Ansari, F.; Ahmad, I.; Pichtel, J. Synergistic effects of biofilm-producing PGPR strains on wheat plant colonization, growth and soil resilience under drought stress. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2023, 30, 103664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Nwachukwu, B.C.; Babalola, O.O. Perspectives for sustainable agriculture from the microbiome in plant rhizosphere. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2021, 15, 259–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mukhtar, S.; Shahid, I.; Mehnaz, S.; Malik, K.A. Assessment of two carrier materials for phosphate solubilizing biofertilizers and their effect on growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Microbiol. Res. 2017, 205, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sumbul, A.; Ansari, R.A.; Rizvi, R.; Mahmood, I. Azotobacter: A potential bio-fertilizer for soil and plant health management. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 3634–3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lin, Y.; Watts, D.B.; Kloepper, J.W.; Feng, Y.; Torbert, H.A. Influence of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on Corn Growth under Drought Stress. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Triplett, E.W. Diazotrophic endophytes: Progress and prospects for nitrogen fixation in monocots. Plant Soil 1996, 186, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pankievicz, V.C.S.; Irving, T.B.; Maia, L.G.S.; Ané, J.M. Are we there yet? The long walk towards the development of efficient symbiotic associations between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and non-leguminous crops. BMC Biol. 2019, 17, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Adler, J. Chemotaxis in Bacteria. Science 1966, 153, 708–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Backer, R.; Rokem, J.S.; Ilangumaran, G.; Lamont, J.; Praslickova, D.; Ricci, E.; Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 871, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wang, Y.H.; Irving, H.R. Developing a model of plant hormone interactions. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 494–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ratnaningsih, H.R.; Noviana, Z.; Dewi, T.K.; Loekito, S.; Wiyono, S.; Gafur, A.; Antonius, S. IAA and ACC deaminase producing-bacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of pineapple plants grown under different abiotic and biotic stresses. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matre, R.D.; Barate, D.L. Studies on IAA Producing Pseudomonas and Serratia spp. Isolated from Agricultural and Garden Soil of Akola Region. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 2492–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, F.; Xing, S.; Ma, H.; Du, Z.; Ma, B. Cytokinin-producing, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria that confer resistance to drought stress in Platycladus orientalis container seedlings. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 9155–9164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ortíz-Castro, R.; Valencia-Cantero, E.; López-Bucio, J. Plant growth promotion by Bacillus megaterium involves cytokinin signaling. Plant Signal. Behav. 2008, 3, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kim, W.; Levy, S.B. Increased fitness of Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf0-1 leucine auxotrophs in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 3644–3651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Timmusk, S.; Grantcharova, N.; Wagner, E.G.H. Paenibacillus polymyxa invades plant roots and forms biofilms. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 7292–7300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Iqbal, N.; Khan, N.A.; Ferrante, A.; Trivellini, A.; Francini, A.; Khan, M.I.R. Ethylene role in plant growth, development and senescence: Interaction with other phytohormones. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Vanderstraeten, L.; van Der Straeten, D. Accumulation and transport of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) in plants: Current status, considerations for future research and agronomic applications. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ali, B.; Hafeez, A.; Afridi, M.S.; Javed, M.A.; Sumaira, N.; Suleman, F.; Nadeem, M.; Ali, S.; Alwahibi, M.S.; Elshikh, M.S.; et al. Bacterial-Mediated Salinity Stress Tolerance in Maize (Zea mays L.): A Fortunate Way toward Sustainable Agriculture. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 20471–20487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Chatterjee, P.; Kanagendran, A.; Samaddar, S.; Pazouki, L.; Sa, T.M.; Niinemets, Ü. Inoculation of Brevibacterium linens RS16 in Oryza sativa genotypes enhanced salinity resistance: Impacts on photosynthetic traits and foliar volatile emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 721–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Madhaiyan, M.; Poonguzhali, S.; Ryu, J.; Sa, T. Regulation of ethylene levels in canola (Brassica campestris) by 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase-containing Methylobacterium fujisawaense. Planta 2006, 224, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Favero, V.O.; Carvalho, R.H.; Motta, V.M.; Leite, A.B.C.; Coelho, M.R.R.; Xavier, G.R.; Rumjanek, N.G.; Urquiaga, S. Bradyrhizobium as the Only Rhizobial Inhabitant of Mung Bean (Vigna radiata) Nodules in Tropical Soils: A Strategy Based on Microbiome for Improving Biological Nitrogen Fixation Using Bio-Products. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 602645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Timofeeva, A.M.; Galyamova, M.R.; Sedykh, S.E. Bacterial Siderophores: Classification, Biosynthesis, Perspectives of Use in Agriculture. Plants 2022, 11, 3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Siddiqui, N.A.; Houson, H.A.; Kamble, N.S.; Blanco, J.R.; O’Donnell, R.E.; Hassett, D.J.; Lapi, S.E.; Kotagiri, N. Leveraging copper import by yersiniabactin siderophore system for targeted PET imaging of bacteria. JCI Insight 2021, 6, e144880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Medina-Cordoba, L.K.; Chande, A.T.; Rishishwar, L.; Mayer, L.W.; Valderrama-Aguirre, L.C.; Valderrama-Aguirre, A.; Gaby, J.C.; Kostka, J.E.; Jordan, I.K. Genomic characterization and computational phenotyping of nitrogen-fixing bacteria isolated from Colombian sugarcane fields. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 9187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ahemad, M.; Kibret, M. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2014, 26, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pacios-Michelena, S.; Aguilar González, C.N.; Alvarez-Perez, O.B.; Rodriguez-Herrera, R.; Chávez-González, M.; Arredondo Valdés, R.; Ascacio Valdés, J.A.; Govea Salas, M.; Ilyina, A. Application of Streptomyces Antimicrobial Compounds for the Control of Phytopathogens. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 696518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dimkpa, C.O.; Svatoš, A.; Dabrowska, P.; Schmidt, A.; Boland, W.; Kothe, E. Involvement of siderophores in the reduction of metal-induced inhibition of auxin synthesis in Streptomyces spp. Chemosphere 2008, 74, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khan, S.; Shahid, M.; Khan, M.S.; Syed, A.; Bahkali, A.H.; Elgorban, A.M.; Pichtel, J. Fungicide-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mitigate physiological disruption of white radish caused by fungicides used in the field cultivation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Degani, O. Production and Purification of Cutinase from Fusarium oxysporum Using Modified Growth Media and a Specific Cutinase Substrate. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Green, C.A.; Kamble, N.S.; Court, E.K.; Bryant, O.J.; Hicks, M.G.; Lennon, C.; Fraser, G.M.; Wright, P.C.; Stafford, G.P. Engineering the flagellar type III secretion system: Improving capacity for secretion of recombinant protein. Microb. Cell Fact. 2019, 18, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Vinogradova, E.E.; Alekseenko, A.L.; Popkov, S.V.; Kolotyrkina, N.G.; Kravchenko, A.N.; Gazieva, G.A. Synthesis and Evaluation on the Fungicidal Activity of S-Alkyl Substituted Thioglycolurils. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 5756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, N.; Martínez-Hidalgo, P.; Ice, T.A.; Maymon, M.; Humm, E.A.; Nejat, N.; Sanders, E.R.; Kaplan, D.; Hirsch, A.M. Antifungal activity of bacillus species against fusarium and analysis of the potential mechanisms used in biocontrol. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kvakić, M.; Tzagkarakis, G.; Pellerin, S.; Ciais, P.; Goll, D.; Mollier, A.; Ringeval, B. Carbon and Phosphorus Allocation in Annual Plants: An Optimal Functioning Approach. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mohsen, B.; Asadzadeh, F.; Masoumeh, H.; Edith, C.H.; Ramesh, R.V.; Vahedi, R. Optimization of Biofertilizer Formulation for Phosphorus solubilizing by Pseudomonas fluorescencs Ur21 via response Surface Methodology. Process 2022, 10, 650. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lelapalli, S.; Baskar, S.; Jacob, S.M.; Paranthaman, S. Characterization of phosphate solubilizing plant growth promoting rhizobacterium Lysinibacillus pakistanensis strain PCPSMR15 isolated from Oryza sativa. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2021, 2, 100080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nawaz, A.; Qamar, Z.U.; Marghoob, M.U.; Imtiaz, M.; Imran, A.; Mubeen, F. Contribution of potassium solubilizing bacteria in improved potassium assimilation and cytosolic K+/Na+ ratio in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under saline-sodic conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1196024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gupta, R.; Kumari, A.; Sharma, S.; Alzahrani, O.M.; Noureldeen, A.; Darwish, H. Identification, characterization and optimization of phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria (PSRB) from rice rhizosphere. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Benbrik, B.; Elabed, A.; El Modafar, C.; Douira, A.; Amir, S.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; El Abed, S.; El Gachtouli, N.; Mohammed, I.; Koraichi, S.I. Reusing phosphate sludge enriched by phosphate solubilizing bacteria as biofertilizer: Growth promotion of Zea Mays. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 101825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kumar, A.; Bera, S. Revisiting nitrogen utilization in algae: A review on the process of regulation and assimilation. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 12, 100584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Good, B.A. Toward nitrogen-fixing plants. Science 2018, 359, 869–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aburai, N.; Tsukagoshi, T.; Sekiguchi, S.; Arakawa, H.; Imamura, Y.; Abe, K. Mutual supply of carbon and nitrogen sources in the co-culture of aerial microalgae and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Algal Res. 2023, 70, 103001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yang, S.; Tang, R.; Han, S.; Xie, C.J.; Narsing Rao, M.P.; Liu, G.H.; Zhou, S.G. Fundidesulfovibrio agrisoli sp. nov., A Nitrogen-Fixing Bacterium Isolated from Rice Field. Curr. Microbiol. 2023, 80, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Barros-Rodríguez, A.; Rangseekaew, P.; Lasudee, K.; Pathom-aree, W.; Manzanera, M. Regulatory risks associated with bacteria as biostimulants and biofertilizers in the frame of the European Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gabra, F.A.; Abd-Alla, M.H.; Danial, A.W.; Abdel-Basset, R.; Abdel-Wahab, A.M. Production of biofuel from sugarcane molasses by diazotrophic Bacillus and recycle of spent bacterial biomass as biofertilizer inoculants for oil crops. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 101112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Htwe, A.Z.; Moh, S.M.; Soe, K.M.; Moe, K.; Yamakawa, T. Effects of biofertilizer produced from bradyrhizobium and streptomyces griseoflavus on plant growth, nodulation, nitrogen fixation, nutrient uptake, and Seed Yield of Mung Bean, Cowpea, and Soybean. Agronomy 2019, 9, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Soumare, A.; Boubekri, K.; Lyamlouli, K.; Hafidi, M.; Ouhdouch, Y.; Kouisni, L. From Isolation of Phosphate Solubilizing Microbes to Their Formulation and Use as Biofertilizers: Status and Needs. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 7, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kalayu, G. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms: Promising approach as biofertilizers. Int. J. Agron. 2019, 2019, 4917256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Reed, J.L.; Vo, T.D.; Schilling, C.H.; Palsson, B.O.; Palsson, B.; Palsson, B.; Edwards, J.; Covert, M.; Palsson, B.; Varma, A.; et al. An expanded genome-scale model of Escherichia coli K-12 (iJR904 GSM/GPR). Genome Biol. 2003, 4, R54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Tijjani, A.; Bashir, K.A.; Mohammed, I.; Muhammad, A.; Gambo, A.; Musa, H. Biopesticides for pests control: A review. J. Biopestic. Agric. 2016, 3, 6–13. [Google Scholar]
  71. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.V.N.; Jeevanantham, S.; Karishma, S.; Yaashikaa, P.R. A review on catalytic-enzyme degradation of toxic environmental pollutants: Microbial enzymes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kumar, P.; Kamle, M.; Borah, R.; Mahato, D.K.; Sharma, B. Bacillus thuringiensis as microbial biopesticide: Uses and application for sustainable agriculture. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ma, Z.; Hu, J. Complete genome sequence of a marine-sediment-derived bacterial strain Bacillus velezensis SH-B74, a cyclic lipopeptides producer and a biopesticide. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Morales-Borrell, D.; González-Fernández, N.; Mora-González, N.; Pérez-Heredia, C.; Campal-Espinosa, A.; Bover-Fuentes, E.; Salazar-Gómez, E.; Morales-Espinosa, Y. Design of a culture medium for optimal growth of the bacterium Pseudoxanthomonas indica H32 allowing its production as biopesticide and biofertilizer. AMB Express 2020, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kerr, A.; Bullard, G. Biocontrol of crown gall by rhizobium rhizogenes: Challenges in biopesticide commercialisation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jiang, H.X.; Wang, J.; Zhou, L.; Jin, Z.J.; Cao, X.Q.; Liu, H.; Chen, H.F.; He, Y.W. Coenzyme Q biosynthesis in the biopesticide Shenqinmycin-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain M18. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 46, 1025–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Castaldi, S.; Masi, M.; Sautua, F.; Cimmino, A.; Isticato, R.; Carmona, M.; Tuzi, A.; Evidente, A. Pseudomonas fluorescens showing antifungal activity against macrophomina phaseolina, a severe pathogenic fungus of soybean, produces phenazine as the main active metabolite. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dvořák, P.; Nikel, P.I.; Damborský, J.; de Lorenzo, V. Bioremediation 3.0: Engineering pollutant-removing bacteria in the times of systemic biology. Biotechnol. Adv. 2017, 35, 845–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pileggi, M.; Pileggi, S.A.V.; Sadowsky, M.J. Herbicide bioremediation: From strains to bacterial communities. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Saleh, I.A.; Zouari, N.; Al-Ghouti, M.A. Removal of pesticides from water and wastewater: Chemical, physical and biological treatment approaches. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 19, 101026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Maity, J.P.; Hsu, C.M.; Lin, T.J.; Lee, W.C.; Bhattacharya, P.; Bundschuh, J.; Chen, C.Y. Removal of fluoride from water through bacterial-surfactin mediated novel hydroxyapatite nanoparticle and its efficiency assessment: Adsorption isotherm, adsorption kinetic and adsorption Thermodynamics. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2018, 9, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wan, D.; Li, Q.; Liu, Y.; Xiao, S.; Wang, H. Simultaneous reduction of perchlorate and nitrate in a combined heterotrophic-sulfur-autotrophic system: Secondary pollution control, pH balance and microbial community analysis. Water Res. 2019, 165, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bera, S.; Sharma, V.P.; Dutta, S.; Dutta, D. Biological decolorization and detoxification of malachite green from aqueous solution by Dietzia maris NIT-D. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2016, 67, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Din, M.O.; Danino, T.; Prindle, A.; Skalak, M.; Selimkhanov, J.; Allen, K.; Julio, E.; Atolia, E.; Tsimring, L.S.; Bhatia, S.N.; et al. Synchronized cycles of bacterial lysis for in vivo delivery. Nature 2016, 536, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Gupta, J.C.; Pandey, G.; Mukherjee, K.J. Two-stage cultivation of recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae to enhance plasmid stability under non-selective conditions: Experimental study and modeling. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2001, 28, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lu, Z.Y.; Ma, Y.L.; Zhang, J.T.; Fan, N.S.; Huang, B.C.; Jin, R.C. A critical review of antibiotic removal strategies: Performance and mechanisms. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Velusamy, K.; Periyasamy, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Vo, D.V.N.; Sindhu, J.; Sneka, D.; Subhashini, B. Advanced techniques to remove phosphates and nitrates from waters: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 3165–3180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shukla, A.; Parmar, P.; Saraf, M. Radiation, radionuclides and bacteria: An in-perspective review. J. Environ. Radioact. 2017, 180, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Wallace, T.; Gibbons, D.; O’Dwyer, M.; Curran, T.P. International evolution of fat, oil and grease (FOG) waste management—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 187, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ju, F.; Beck, K.; Yin, X.; Maccagnan, A.; McArdell, C.S.; Singer, H.P.; Johnson, D.R.; Zhang, T.; Bürgmann, H. Wastewater treatment plant resistomes are shaped by bacterial composition, genetic exchange, and upregulated expression in the effluent microbiomes. ISME J. 2019, 13, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, X.; Jin, L.; Kan, H. Air pollution: A global problem needs local fixes. Nature 2019, 570, 437–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Manisalidis, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Stavropoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Front. Public Heal. 2020, 8, 505570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Marsidi, N.; Abu Hasan, H.; Sheikh Abdullah, S.R. A review of biological aerated filters for iron and manganese ions removal in water treatment. J. Water Process Eng. 2018, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bravo, D.; Ferrero, P.; Penya-roja, J.M.; Álvarez-Hornos, F.J.; Gabaldón, C. Control of VOCs from printing press air emissions by anaerobic bioscrubber: Performance and microbial community of an on-site pilot unit. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. San-Valero, P.; Penya-roja, J.M.; Javier Álvarez-Hornos, F.; Buitrón, G.; Gabaldón, C.; Quijano, G. Fully aerobic bioscrubber for the desulfurization of H2S-rich biogas. Fuel 2019, 241, 884–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wen, H.; Yan, J.; Wu, L.; Chang, X.; Ye, W.; Zhang, H.; Huang, L.; Xiao, T. Desulfurization of hydrophilic and hydrophobic volatile reduced sulfur with elemental sulfur production in denitrifying bioscrubber. Chemosphere 2023, 316, 137806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Li, C.; Cui, C.; Zhang, J.; Shen, J.; He, B.; Long, Y.; Ye, J. Biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons based pollutants in contaminated soil by exogenous effective microorganisms and indigenous microbiome. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 253, 114673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhang, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, X. Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil by petroleum-degrading bacteria immobilized on biochar. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 35304–35311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sharma, H.; Neelam, D.K. Understanding challenges associated with plastic and bacterial approach toward plastic degradation. J. Basic Microbiol. 2023, 63, 292–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Bokade, P.; Gaur, V.K.; Tripathi, V.; Bobate, S.; Manickam, N.; Bajaj, A. Bacterial remediation of pesticide polluted soils: Exploring the feasibility of site restoration. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 441, 129906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, L.; Bilal, M.; Duan, X.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Mitigation of environmental pollution by genetically engineered bacteria—Current challenges and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 667, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Eldakak, M.; Milad, S.I.M.; Nawar, A.I.; Rohila, J.S. Proteomics: A biotechnology tool for crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lynch, K.M.; Zannini, E.; Wilkinson, S.; Daenen, L.; Arendt, E.K. Physiology of Acetic Acid Bacteria and Their Role in Vinegar and Fermented Beverages. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 587–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Korcz, E.; Varga, L. Exopolysaccharides from lactic acid bacteria: Techno-functional application in the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 110, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Macori, G.; Cotter, P.D. Novel insights into the microbiology of fermented dairy foods. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 49, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ebringer, L.; Ferenčík, M.; Krajčovič, J. Beneficial health effects of milk and fermented dairy products—Review. Folia Microbiol. (Praha) 2008, 53, 378–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Otto, M. Strategi Implementasi…, Baragina Widyaningrum, Program Pascasarjana, 2008. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 7, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Tu, M.Y.; Chen, H.L.; Tung, Y.T.; Kao, C.C.; Hu, F.C.; Chen, C.M. Short-Term Effects of Kefir-Fermented Milk Consumption on Bone Mineral Density and Bone Metabolism in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Osteoporotic Patients. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Ban, Q.; Cheng, J.; Sun, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, S.; Song, X.; Guo, M. Effects of a synbiotic yogurt using monk fruit extract as sweetener on glucose regulation and gut microbiome in rats with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 2956–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Nevé, B.L.; la Torre, A.M.D.; Tap, J.; Ruiz, A.N.; Derrien, M.; Cotillard, A.; Faurie, J.M.; Barba, E.; Mego, M.; Dornic, Q.; et al. A fermented milk product containing B. lactis CNCM i-2494 improves the tolerance of a plant-based diet in patients with disorders of gut–brain interactions. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rakhmanova, A.; Khan, Z.A.; Shah, K. A mini review fermentation and preservation: Role of Lactic Acid Bacteria. MOJ Food Process. Technol. 2018, 6, 414–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bautista-Gallego, J.; Medina, E.; Sánchez, B.; Benítez-Cabello, A.; Arroyo-López, F.N. Role of lactic acid bacteria in fermented vegetables. Grasas y Aceites 2020, 71, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Benítez-Cabello, A.; Calero-Delgado, B.; Rodríguez-Gómez, F.; Garrido-Fernández, A.; Jiménez-Díaz, R.; Arroyo-López, F.N. Biodiversity and multifunctional features of lactic acid bacteria isolated from table olive biofilms. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Tlais, A.Z.A.; Lemos Junior, W.J.F.; Filannino, P.; Campanaro, S.; Gobbetti, M.; Di Cagno, R. How Microbiome Composition Correlates with Biochemical Changes during Sauerkraut Fermentation: A Focus on Neglected Bacterial Players and Functionalities. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e0016822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Cheng, K.; Zhao, R.; Li, Y.; Qi, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, H.; Qin, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, C.; et al. Bioengineered bacteria-derived outer membrane vesicles as a versatile antigen display platform for tumor vaccination via Plug-and-Display technology. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Kayitesi, E.; Onojakpor, O.; Moyo, S.M. Highlighting the Impact of Lactic-Acid-Bacteria-Derived Flavours or Aromas on Sensory Perception of African Fermented Cereals. Fermentation 2023, 9, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ghosh, K.; Ray, M.; Adak, A.; Halder, S.K.; Das, A.; Jana, A.; Parua (Mondal), S.; Vágvölgyi, C.; Das Mohapatra, P.K.; Pati, B.R.; et al. Role of probiotic Lactobacillus fermentum KKL1 in the preparation of a rice based fermented beverage. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 188, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Hotessa, N.; Robe, J. Ethiopian Indigenous Traditional Fermented Beverage: The Role of the Microorganisms toward Nutritional and Safety Value of Fermented Beverage. Int. J. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 8891259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Huang, D.W.; Sherman, B.T.; Lempicki, R.A.; Huang, D.; Sherman, B.; Lempicki, R.; Huang, D.; Sherman, B.; Lempicki, R.; Maere, S.; et al. Bioinformatics enrichment tools: Paths toward the comprehensive functional analysis of large gene lists. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bhushan, B.; Sakhare, S.M.; Narayan, K.S.; Kumari, M.; Mishra, V.; Dicks, L.M.T. Characterization of Riboflavin-Producing Strains of Lactobacillus plantarum as Potential Probiotic Candidate through in vitro Assessment and Principal Component Analysis. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2021, 13, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hernández-Aquino, S.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Fujikawa, H.; de Jesús Maldonado-Simán, E.; Alarcón-Zuñiga, B. Antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria to improve shelf life of raw meat. Biocontrol Sci. 2019, 24, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Da Costa, R.J.; Voloski, F.L.S.; Mondadori, R.G.; Duval, E.H.; Fiorentini, Â.M. Preservation of Meat Products with Bacteriocins Produced by Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Meat. J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, 4726510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Khalili Sadaghiani, S.; Aliakbarlu, J.; Tajik, H.; Mahmoudian, A. Anti-listeria activity and shelf life extension effects of Lactobacillus along with garlic extract in ground beef. J. Food Saf. 2019, 39, e12709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Orihuel, A.; Bonacina, J.; Vildoza, M.J.; Bru, E.; Vignolo, G.; Saavedra, L.; Fadda, S. Biocontrol of Listeria monocytogenes in a meat model using a combination of a bacteriocinogenic strain with curing additives. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Kumar, A.; Hsu, L.H.-H.; Kavanagh, P.; Barrière, F.; Lens, P.N.L.; Lapinsonnière, L.; Lienhard, V.J.H.; Schröder, U.; Jiang, X.; Leech, D. The ins and outs of microorganism–electrode electron transfer reactions. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2017, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Tamang, J.P.; Watanabe, K.; Holzapfel, W.H. Review: Diversity of microorganisms in global fermented foods and beverages. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lv, X.; Li, Y.; Cui, T.; Sun, M.; Bai, F.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Yi, S. Bacterial community succession and volatile compound changes during fermentation of shrimp paste from Chinese Jinzhou region. Lwt 2020, 122, 108998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Lv, M.; Shao, Z.; Hungwe, M.; Wang, J.; Bai, X.; Xie, J.; Wang, Y.; Geng, W. Metabolism Characteristics of Lactic Acid Bacteria and the Expanding Applications in Food Industry. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 612285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kowalska, E.; Ziarno, M.; Ekielski, A.; Żelaziński, T. Materials Used for the Microencapsulation of Probiotic Bacteria in the Food Industry. Molecules 2022, 27, 3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lee, S.; Lee, S.; Singh, D.; Oh, J.Y.; Jeon, E.J.; Ryu, H.S.K.; Lee, D.W.; Kim, B.S.; Lee, C.H. Comparative evaluation of microbial diversity and metabolite profiles in doenjang, a fermented soybean paste, during the two different industrial manufacturing processes. Food Chem. 2017, 221, 1578–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Matsuzaki, T.; Chin, J. Modulating immune responses with probiotic bacteria. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2000, 78, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Daba, G.M.; Elkhateeb, W.A. Bacteriocins of lactic acid bacteria as biotechnological tools in food and pharmaceuticals: Current applications and future prospects. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 28, 101750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Hemarajata, P.; Versalovic, J. Effects of probiotics on gut microbiome: Mechanisms of intestinal immunomodulation and neuromodulation. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2013, 6, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Nakatsuji, T.; Gallo, R.L.; Shafiq, F.; Tong, Y.; Chun, K.; Butcher, A.M.; Cheng, J.Y.; Hata, T.R. Use of Autologous Bacteriotherapy to Treat Staphylococcus aureus in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021, 157, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Nakatsuji, T.; Chen, T.H.; Butcher, A.M.; Trzoss, L.L.; Nam, S.J.; Shirakawa, K.T.; Zhou, W.; Oh, J.; Otto, M.; Fenical, W.; et al. A commensal strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis protects against skin neoplasia. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaao4502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Bartkiene, E.; Özogul, F.; Rocha, J.M. Bread Sourdough Lactic Acid Bacteria—Technological, Antimicrobial, Toxin-Degrading, Immune System-, and Faecal Microbiota-Modelling Biological Agents for the Preparation of Food, Nutraceuticals and Feed. Foods 2022, 11, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Nodake, Y.; Matsumoto, S.; Miura, R.; Honda, H.; Ishibashi, G.; Matsumoto, S.; Dekio, I.; Sakakibara, R. Pilot study on novel skin care method by augmentation with Staphylococcus epidermidis, an autologous skin microbe—A blinded randomized clinical trial. J. Dermatol. Sci. 2015, 79, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Bewley, M.A.; Pham, T.K.; Marriott, H.M.; Noirel, J.; Chu, H.-P.; Ow, S.Y.; Ryazanov, A.G.; Read, R.C.; Whyte, M.K.B.; Chain, B.; et al. Proteomic Evaluation and Validation of Cathepsin D Regulated Proteins in Macrophages Exposed to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2011, 10, M111.008193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Brock, M.; Maerker, C.; Schütz, A.; Völker, U.; Buckel, W. Oxidation of propionate to pyruvate in Escherichia coli. Eur. J. Biochem. 2002, 269, 6184–6194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Brohem, C.A.; Da Silva Cardeal, L.B.; Tiago, M.; Soengas, M.S.; De Moraes Barros, S.B.; Maria-Engler, S.S. Artificial skin in perspective: Concepts and applications. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2011, 24, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Damián, M.R.; Cortes-Perez, N.G.; Quintana, E.T.; Ortiz-Moreno, A.; Noguez, C.G.; Cruceño-Casarrubias, C.E.; Pardo, M.E.S.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Functional Foods, Nutraceuticals and Probiotics: A Focus on Human Health. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Baud, D.; Dimopoulou Agri, V.; Gibson, G.R.; Reid, G.; Giannoni, E. Using Probiotics to Flatten the Curve of Coronavirus Disease COVID-2019 Pandemic. Front. Public Heal. 2020, 8, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Stunkard, A.J. NIH Public Access. Psychiatry Interpers. Biol. Process. 2009, 162, 214–220. [Google Scholar]
  144. Kamble, N.; Kharofa, J.R.; Vatner, R.E.; Sertorio, M.G.B.; Kotagiri, N. Radiolytic Escherichia coli Nissle: A Novel Radiosensitizer Delivery Platform Using a Live Bacterial Therapeutic. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 114, S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Thomas, S.C.; Madaan, T.; Kamble, N.S.; Siddiqui, N.A.; Pauletti, G.M.; Kotagiri, N. Engineered Bacteria Enhance Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy through Stromal Remodeling of Tumors. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2021, 11, 2101487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Wu, H.J.; Wu, E. The role of gut microbiome in immune homeostasis and autoimmunity. Gut Microbes 2012, 3, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Amabebe, E.; Bhatnagar, N.; Kamble, N.; Reynolds, S.; Anumba, D.O. Exploring the antimicrobial properties of vaginal Lactobacillus crispatus against preterm birth-associated bacteria. Reprod. Fertil. 2022, 3, L6–L8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Palaia, I.; Perniola, G.; Musella, A.; Antonilli, M.; Marchetti, C.; Didonato, V.; Tomao, F.; Graziano, M.; Faiano, P.; Donfrancesco, C.; et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LGN-IUD) versus oral progestins (OP) in patients taking hormone-replacement therapy (HRT): A case-control study. Climacteric 2011, 14, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Ministro, J.; Manuel, A.M.; Goncalves, J. Current Applications of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; ISBN 9783030404635. [Google Scholar]
  150. Coronado, M.; De Haro, H.; Deng, X.; Rempel, M.A.; Lavado, R.; Schlenk, D. Estrogenic activity and reproductive effects of the UV-filter oxybenzone (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl-methanone) in fish. Aquat. Toxicol. 2008, 90, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Kunze, W.A.; Mao, Y.K.; Wang, B.; Huizinga, J.D.; Ma, X.; Forsythe, P.; Bienenstock, J. Lactobacillus reuteri enhances excitability of colonic AH neurons by inhibiting calcium-dependent potassium channel opening. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2009, 13, 2261–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Khoshdel, A.; Verdu, E.F.; Kunze, W.; Mclean, P.; Bergonzelli, G.; Huizinga, J.D. Bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 inhibits AH neuron excitability. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2013, 25, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Bravo, J.A.; Forsythe, P.; Chew, M.V.; Escaravage, E.; Savignac, H.M.; Dinan, T.G.; Bienenstock, J.; Cryan, J.F. Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 16050–16055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Tillisch, K.; Labus, J.; Kilpatrick, L.; Jiang, Z.; Stains, J.; Ebrat, B.; Guyonnet, D.; Legrain-Raspaud, S.; Trotin, B.; Naliboff, B.; et al. Consumption of fermented milk product with probiotic modulates brain activity. Gastroenterology 2013, 144, 1394–1401.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Benton, D.; Williams, C.; Brown, A. Impact of consuming a milk drink containing a probiotic on mood and cognition. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Messaoudi, M.; Lalonde, R.; Violle, N.; Javelot, H.; Desor, D.; Nejdi, A.; Bisson, J.F.; Rougeot, C.; Pichelin, M.; Cazaubiel, M.; et al. Assessment of psychotropic-like properties of a probiotic formulation (Lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175) in rats and human subjects. Br. J. Nutr. 2011, 105, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Ahanchian, H.; Jafari, S.A. Probiotics and Prebiotics for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Tract Infections. Probiotics Prebiotics Synbiotics 2016, 575–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Velikova, T.; Kukov, A.; Mihova, A.; Snegarova, V.; Batselova, H.; Nakov, R. Gastrointestinal mucosal immunity and COVID-19. World J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 27, 5047–5059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Interdependence and subtypes of physical, chemical, and biological remediation (generated using Biorender.com, accessed on 27 May 2024).
Figure 1. Interdependence and subtypes of physical, chemical, and biological remediation (generated using Biorender.com, accessed on 27 May 2024).
Bacteria 03 00010 g001
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

Kamble, N.S.; Bera, S.; Bhedase, S.A.; Gaur, V.; Chowdhury, D. Review on Applied Applications of Microbiome on Human Lives. Bacteria 2024, 3, 141-159. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3030010

AMA Style

Kamble NS, Bera S, Bhedase SA, Gaur V, Chowdhury D. Review on Applied Applications of Microbiome on Human Lives. Bacteria. 2024; 3(3):141-159. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3030010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kamble, Nitin S., Surojit Bera, Sanjivani A. Bhedase, Vinita Gaur, and Debabrata Chowdhury. 2024. "Review on Applied Applications of Microbiome on Human Lives" Bacteria 3, no. 3: 141-159. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3030010

APA Style

Kamble, N. S., Bera, S., Bhedase, S. A., Gaur, V., & Chowdhury, D. (2024). Review on Applied Applications of Microbiome on Human Lives. Bacteria, 3(3), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria3030010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop