Sun. Nov 24th, 2024

LACTIC ACID BACTERIA: GARDEN AND SOIL BENEFITS

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are beneficial microorganisms commonly associated with fermented foods and dairy products. However, they also play a significant role in gardening and soil health. Here are some benefits of using lactic acid bacteria in gardening and soil management:

  1. Improved Nutrient Availability: LAB can help break down organic matter in the soil, making nutrients more readily available to plants. They convert complex organic compounds into simpler forms that plants can easily absorb, leading to improved nutrient uptake and plant growth.
  2. Enhanced Soil Structure: LAB contribute to the formation of stable soil aggregates, which improve soil structure. This enhanced structure allows for better water infiltration and retention, as well as improved aeration. Healthy soil structure is crucial for root development and overall plant health.
  3. Disease Suppression: Certain strains of LAB have been shown to produce antimicrobial compounds that can suppress harmful pathogens and pests in the soil. This can help reduce the incidence of soil-borne diseases and promote a healthier plant environment.
  4. Faster Composting: LAB can accelerate the decomposition of organic matter during composting. Their activity speeds up the breakdown of materials, resulting in a more nutrient-rich compost that can be used to enrich the soil.
  5. Increased Nutrient Cycling: LAB play a role in nutrient cycling by breaking down organic matter and releasing nutrients back into the soil. This process helps maintain a sustainable nutrient balance in the soil, reducing the need for external fertilizers.
  6. Biofertilizer Production: LAB can be used to create biofertilizers through a fermentation process. These biofertilizers contain beneficial microorganisms that can improve soil fertility, nutrient availability, and plant growth. Applying biofertilizers can reduce the reliance on synthetic fertilizers.
  7. Reduced Chemical Dependency: Incorporating LAB into gardening practices can lead to a reduced reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides. This can contribute to more environmentally friendly and sustainable gardening practices.
  8. Stress Resistance: LAB-treated plants have been shown to exhibit increased resistance to environmental stressors such as drought, salinity, and extreme temperatures. This is attributed to the role of LAB in improving nutrient availability and overall plant health.
  9. Bioremediation: Some LAB strains are capable of breaking down and detoxifying certain pollutants and contaminants present in the soil. This makes them valuable for soil bioremediation projects aimed at restoring polluted or degraded soils.
  10. Plant Growth Promotion: LAB can produce plant growth-promoting hormones and compounds such as auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins. These substances enhance root growth, flowering, and overall plant development.

To harness the benefits of lactic acid bacteria in gardening and soil management, you can consider using commercial LAB-based products or creating your own fermented solutions using organic matter and LAB cultures. However, it’s important to note that not all strains of LAB may have the same effects, so it’s recommended to research and select appropriate strains based on your specific gardening needs. source

The Benefits of a Lactobacillus to Your Health (click Here)

 

How To: Culture Lactobacillus (LAB) for Horticultural use

 

Generally when it comes to bacteria and microbes we’d be referring to the aerobic type you’d hope to produce in a Compost Tea (AACT) system, the reason being that the presence of anaerobic bacteria in these systems are nearly always ‘bad news’. However there are useful anaerobes out there and it is very much worth looking in to putting them to use in your horticultural endeavours!!

Enter Lactobacillus….

Lactobacillus is a facultive anaerobe that we are generally interested in for it’s ability to ferment a wide variety of things. It is this process that makes Lactobacillus or LAB the cornerstone of a range of processes the savvy gardener will find extremely useful. I’ll mention more about that later in this piece and in further blogs, but lets show you how to culture your own Lactobacillus first….

Step 1 – Rice wash

Technically you can use any reasonable carbohydrate source (preferably not simple sugars) but in this instance we’ll go with a Rice wash – I will be trying other more exciting things in the future, but until then….. Well the title says it all really, wash some rice and collect the water. This milky wash will now contain some of the starches from the rice and provide a food source for your bacteria.

Step 2 – Collect your initial culture

Place your rice wash in a suitable vessel (a jar…) and protect the neck with some kind of net to stop anything random getting in. Ideally you’ll want to place this outside, in a garden, on a balcony ect away from the elements but open to the air. This will allow the bacteria to go to work on the wash. A day or so should be fine. You will notice a change in the wash as the bacteria start to work, it will start to smell slightly sour and three distinct layers should be visible. You now need to collect the middle of these layers – the best way is with a siphon, but a syringe or whatever you have to hand will work – just try not to disrupt the layers.

Step 3 – Feed the LAB

Now it’s time to culture just the LAB that are present and nothing else. To do this we add milk to the liquid we collected at about 10:1, so for every 10ml of liquid you want to add 100ml of milk – You can use pretty much any milk as it’s the LAB in the wash we are culturing, however the least adulterated milk you can get your hands on the better. It’s probably worth saying you can’t use a lactose free milk for fairly obvious reasons….Finally we want to store this in an anaerobic state, so you have a few options – Ideally you can use a container with an airlock – the same as homebrewers use (or make one), you could use a bottle or jar and release the pressure every so often (not the best plan) or as I have use a heavy lid with a seal so any gas can escape but will then re-seal (not ideal to be honest….go buy some airlocks, you’ll want them for further projects!)

Step 4 – Prep & Store the LAB

After about a week you should notice a distinct change – You’ll have a layer of curds and a liquid layer – whey. It’s this liquid layer we want. Nothing too stressful here, just use a sieve and collect the liquid in a vessel – The curds can be put on the compost or whatever, it will be a great addition. Again your brew should smell sour (actually quite pleasant if you’re in to sour beers at all….) but not rancid, if it is bin it. OK, now you have your liquid you have 2 options, store it in the fridge where it will keep for about a week or mix it with Molasses to stabilise the culture where it will keep for 6 months or more. To stabilise mix the culture 1:1 with molasses, so 1 litre culture to 1 Litre of Molasses gives you 2 Litres…..it’s worth airlocking this too until the mix stabilises.

What’s the point?

Excellent question :o) The more mundane uses for LAB include using it as an odour neutraliser if you happen to keep chickens etc – Mix 30ml per litre of water and spray around the coop to reduce the smell – Unblock drains – 15ml per litre and let it go to work over night and many more! For your growing needs however mix 30ml or so with every litre of your plant’s water. The microbes will help cycle the nutrients in the soil making them more available to the plant! Add your LAB to compost – 30ml per litre and damp down every time you add to the pile or as you’re layering up. The Lactobacillus will speed up decomposition and start to cycle the nutrients! Finally (and more excitingly), I mentioned earlier that LAB is the cornerstone of further processes that are highly beneficial to a gardener. For instance LAB can be used for Bokashi composting, no more need to buy bran for your indoor composting! If you’ve never heard of Bokashi, I’ll cover it at some point. LAB can also be used to ferment plant material, for instance if you already add seaweed meal to your feeding regime, imagine if you could ‘pre-digest’ the nutrients held within the seaweed – making the non soluble elements readily available at application….with LAB you can. If you’re a gardener familiar with the process of rotting comfrey or nettles in a bucket to annoy your plot mates, why not use LAB to break down the vegetable matter without the smell, and more importantly, without the risk of culturing the bad anaerobic bacteria. Using these principles it’s basically possible to make your own organic liquid plant food for free and without losing friends or neighbours….. The last point for this post is probably my favourite – With LAB it’s possible to create your own fish fertiliser (Fish hydrolysate) this in conjunction with your nettle/seaweed/comfrey/grass brews will give you the perfect base for making your own liquid organic fertiliser…. …that’s not bad for a little milk and help from a bacterium.

Foot notes – There should really be a sequence of pictures to go with this post, but frankly they weren’t up to scratch. If anything needs clearing up drop me an email or comment below. – N.D source 


Prominent use of lactic acid bacteria in soil-plant systems

Highlights

  • actic acid bacteria enhance soil fertility and nutrient uptake.

  • actic acid bacteria control plant pathogens and diseases.

  • actic acid bacteria increase plant growth and yield.

  • actic acid bacteria reduce the use of chemical fertilizers.

  • actic acid bacteria improve soil structure and water-holding capacity.

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are ubiquitous, Gram-positive, probiotic, and facultative aerophilic microorganisms. They are commonly found in wide range of environments including food-rich environments, decaying plants, milk products, the human gut, vaginal flora, and on the skin of various living organisms. These multifaceted bacteria have multiple roles including promoting food safety; promoting plant growth; improving soil, animal, and human health. They are also an integral part of sustainable farming strategies with a low risk of resistance to chemical pesticides, making them an environmentally friendly and effective way of managing pests and diseases and improving plant production. While the traditional role of LAB in food processing and human health sectors has been widely studied and documented, there is increasing attention to their additional roles that empirical evidences and research have validated such as serving as biofertilizers, biocontrol, and biostimulant agents in plant production through the production of bacteriocins, organic acids, and other compounds. However, there is still a gap in unlocking the relationship between LAB, soil, and plant hosts. Through a review of the literature and metadata, this review aims to discuss the less-explored relevance of LAB in soil-plant systems and spotlight the prospects for increased acceptance as sustainable and safe soil and plant health enhancers. The first part concentrates on analyzing the existing metadata, while the discussion part essentially focus on literature review.

Introduction

LAB are low guanine-cytosine DNA, Gram-positive, microaerophilic, nonsporulating, lacking cytochromes, fermentative, rod or coccus bacteria (Bintsis, 2018). Their name is derived from the fact that the main end product of carbohydrates catabolism is lactic acid, but also produces other compounds (König and Fröhlich, 2017). They are classified into different genera including Aerococcus, Alloiococcus, Carnobacterium, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Leuconostoc, Pediococcus, Streptococcus, Tetragenococcus, Vagococcus, as well as Bifidobacterium. Phylogenetically, the latter one, together with Propionibacterium, Brevibacterium, and the microbacteria looks like actinomycete (Axelsson, 2004; Pot et al., 1994). They habit rich-nutrient areas (milk, meat, fruits, vegetables, beverages), especially fermented or decomposing ones; sewage; plants; human and animal gut, respiratory and genital tracks (Raman et al., 2022). LAB are preferred for food biopreservation because they are safe to consume, improve taste, and during storage they naturally dominate the microflora of many foods and inhibit the growth of food-spoiling bacteria (Stiles, 1996). The capacity of LAB to produce organic acids, phenolic compounds, antimicrobial (fungal, bacterial) metabolites, flavor substances, and bacteriocins (Fig. 1) has put them among the best food preservatives (Dalié et al., 2010; Delves-Broughton et al., 1996). They are used in wineries and breweries (for starting the malolactic fermentation), bakeries, and other plant and animal-based foods and drinks factories and play big roles in the production of cheese, bread, yogurt, silage, and others (Nguyen et al., 2015). Additionally, LAB have shown capabilities in reducing the malodor of decomposing organic material (DuPonte and Fischer, 2012) and when consumed by livestock in their feed and/or water help promote healthy gut flora, enhance their immune systems, and aid in digestion (probiotic) (Corcionivoschi et al., 2010; Fuentes Fajardo et al., 2012). These important uses of LAB have led to a thorough study of their physiology and the bioactive compounds they produce and proven their safety and value for humans and animals health as probiotics (Garsa et al., 2014; Żukiewicz-Sobczak et al., 2014).

Although this sole role played by LAB in the food industry and as probiotics is well documented, advances in knowledge of soil-plant-bacteria interactions have kept pointing to the additional vital importance of these bacteria in enhancing plant and soil health and resilience as a promising strategy for stabilizing plant production in these climate-changing and population growing times (Lamont et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2015). The mutual and symbiotic relationship between these three without causing any harm to either has helped the evolution and survival of LAB, as well as studies on them. Recently, studies on plant growth-promoting properties of LAB are increasing in number and scope and show that they are effective biofertilizers as they improve nutrient availability, biocontrol agents of a wide variety of fungal and bacterial phytopathogens, and biostimulants as they promote plant growth and seed germination, as well as alleviating various abiotic stresses (Afanador-Barajas et al., 2021; Mohd Jaini et al., 2022; Yaghoubi Khanghahi et al., 2021; Zhang, 2016).

Apart from decomposing macromolecular substances in organic material, degrading indigestible polysaccharides, and transforming undesirable flavor substances especially during composting (Wang et al., 2021), it was demonstrated that LAB with other useful (effective) microorganisms enhance the release of nutrients necessary for soil fertility, plant growth, and also produce antimicrobial secondary metabolites. Different studies have proven an increase in root and shoot length, plant biomass, IAA, and other organic acids following the addition of organic matter treated with LAB compared to the untreated control, and this has resulted in increased yields (Caplice, 1999; Higa and Kinjo, 1989; Lamont et al., 2017; Primavesi and Molina, 1984). LAB are used together with other microorganisms to accelerate decomposition during compost and compost teas making for soil amendment and nutrient mineralization before or after planting (Higa and Kinjo, 1989). Lactic acid bacteria culture, diluted with water, and mixed with other nutrients may be applied on shoots or leaves (overdose leads to loss of fruits sweetness) and even seeds to fight fungal problems and induce germination (Hamed et al., 2011). During metabolism, they produce a variety of compounds including different active antimicrobial substances, organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins, short-chain fatty acids, amines, vitamins, carbon dioxide, and exopolysaccharides (Kumariya et al., 2019; Todorov et al., 2012). Bacteriocins are <60 amino acids long, cationic, hydrophobic, and are synthesized by ribosomes. In sufficient amounts, together with produced organic acids, these peptides can kill or inhibit growth of bacteria and other microorganisms competing for the same ecological niche or the same nutrient pool. This role is supported by the fact that many bacteriocins have a narrow host range and are likely to be most effective against related microorganisms competing for the same scarce resources (Deegan et al., 2006; Kumariya et al., 2019). Bacteriocins are classified into three classes with different subclasses according to their molecular properties, length, heat stability, and their mechanisms of action (Chatterjee et al., 2005; Deegan et al., 2006; Diep and Nes, 2002; Garsa et al., 2014; Kumariya et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2018). Up to now, the most known commercially produced bacteriocins are such as nisin (or group N inhibitory substance), produced by Lactococcus lactis and marketed as Nisaplin™ (product description-PD45003-7EN; Danisco, Copenhagen, Denmark), and pediocin PA-1, produced by Pediococcus acidilactici, marketed as ALTA™ 2431 (Kerry Bioscience, Carrigaline, Co. Cork, Ireland), (Deegan et al., 2006).

Today, sustainable food production strategies have gained much attention due to the various risks associated with the continuous use of synthetic agricultural inputs (pesticides, chemical fertilizers), including the development of resistance, the resurgence in insects, accumulation of pesticide residues in the food chain, environmental pollution, groundwater contamination, and other health-related risks. Biofertilizers, biopesticides, and biostimulants have shown the ability to manage all those issues in a safe way. Among others, LAB-treated soil, seed, and plants have shown many of these latter-highlighted properties (Dhaliwal and Koul, 2011; Kumariya et al., 2019; Lamont et al., 2017; Raman et al., 2022) and can positively impact soil nutrient balance, plant growth, plant defense, and crop productivity without adverse risks. The use of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) in soil-plant systems has been the subject of increasing interest in recent years, but there is still a need for more comprehensive and contextualized reviews of their use. This study offers a novel and original contribution to the field by providing a detailed examination of the use of LAB in soil-plant systems and highlighting its potential benefits. It synthesizes and summarizes the latest research findings on the use of LAB in soil-plant systems, and identifies research gaps and future directions. By doing so, it provides a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners interested in exploring the use of LAB in soil-plant systems, and contributes to the promotion of sustainable agriculture practices. Therefore, since most studies on plant growth-promoting microorganisms have for a long time focused on common symbiotic rhizosphere and endophytic microorganisms such as rhizobia, mycorrhizae, and endophytic fungi leaving behind other potential groups of organisms including LAB, this study helps explore the functional interactions between LAB and soil-plant hosts. It focuses on other benefits provided by these bacteria, in addition to fermentation, food preservation, and being probiotics. An increased understanding of LAB will improve their acceptance and use in organic farming and other sustainable farming systems.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

This part focuses on collecting, cleaning, sorting, and processing the existing data to extract and quantify the relevant and valuable information to help an in-depth understanding of current findings and insights related to LAB roles in the soil-plant system to later propose the future vistas (Bai et al., 2018; Cheng and Phillips, 2014).

Results

Overall, in the full dataset, the mean effect size was strong (d = 2.86, CI = (2.214, 2.447), p < 0.001, ndouble bond377), indicating that the presence of LAB significantly improves plant growth, defense, and microbial control. To further test whether the inclusion of multiple observations per study affected the results, we run the model again on a reduced dataset that contained only a single, randomly selected independent measurement and this resulted also in a positive effect size as there was little

Discussion

This part reviews and summarizes the current state of understanding on LAB in soil-plant system through analyzing and discussing not only our results but also other relevant published studies.

Conclusion and future perspectives

Although LAB are part of an effective phytomicrobiome, in addition to their long history of being used in the food industry as food /feed additives, food spoilage preventers, and fermentation agents; they are not studied and exploited yet in their full potential as plant growth promoters and antimicrobial agents. Many studies have proven the relevance and application of LAB as safe, renewable, and effective tools for agriculture, the environment, and humans. LAB contribute to increased

Declaration of competing interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by research project No. NAZV QK22010255 of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic and by research project No. GAJU 085/2022/Z of the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice.


Application of Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) in Sustainable Agriculture: Advantages and Limitations

Abstract

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are significant groups of probiotic organisms in fermented food and are generally considered safe. LAB regulate soil organic matter and the biochemical cycle, detoxify hazardous chemicals, and enhance plant health. They are found in decomposing plants, traditional fermented milk products, and normal human gastrointestinal and vaginal flora. Exploring LAB identified in unknown niches may lead to isolating unique species. However, their classification is quite complex, and they are adapted to high sugar concentrations and acidic environments. LAB strains are considered promising candidates for sustainable agriculture, and they promote soil health and fertility. Therefore, they have received much attention regarding sustainable agriculture. LAB metabolites promote plant growth and stimulate shoot and root growth. As fertilizers, LAB can promote biodegradation, accelerate the soil organic content, and produce organic acid and bacteriocin metabolites. However, LAB show an antagonistic effect against phytopathogens, inhibiting fungal and bacterial populations in the rhizosphere and phyllosphere. Several studies have proposed the LAB bioremediation efficiency and detoxification of heavy metals and mycotoxins. However, LAB genetic manipulation and metabolic engineered tools provide efficient cell factories tailor-made to produce beneficial industrial and agro-products. This review discusses lactic acid bacteria advantages and limitations in sustainable agricultural development.

Keywords: lactic acid bacteria, sustainable, agricultural, plant growth, biocontrol, bioremediation

1. Introduction

Agriculture is an important economic sector in many countries, and according to the FAO, 37% of the global land area is dedicated to agriculture []. Conventional farming uses chemical fertilizers and pesticides to boost yield and production. However, increasing the usage of chemical fertilizers affects ecological balance and food safety and is the main causative factor of land and water pollution. In recent years, sustainable agriculture has drawn the attention of the global community, and this approach promotes organic farming in the context of soil health, securing environmental quality. The interaction between plants and microbes is an integral part of sustainable agriculture. Therefore, microbial-based agricultural practices and advancements could promote plant health and soil fertility. Indeed, this approach may secure food for people and ensure a profit and global health. Agricultural microbiology deals with the plant-associated microbes and their application to minimize disease and increase soil fertility. In addition, soil fertility is improved by the microbes’ decomposition process and the addition of adequate plant nutrients. The interaction between plants and beneficial microorganisms in the rhizosphere is a symbiotic relationship: both species are benefited. In addition, the microbes play a crucial role in plant growth promotion, improving nutrient acquisition, and protecting the plant from biotic and abiotic stress [,]. The genera RhizobiumBacillus, and Pseudomonas, as well as mycorrhizal fungi, are beneficial microorganisms in the soil []. In contrast, several pathogenic fungi and bacterial species seriously affect the yield and quality of agricultural products. Therefore, plant pathogenic fungi and insects are enormous challenges to sustainable agriculture. For this reason, developing highly potential and novel antimicrobial agents is a high priority to increase the yield and raise incomes for farmers. LAB are ubiquitous members of many plant microbiomes, but functional information regarding the interaction between LAB and their hosts is lacking. In addition, plant-root-associated rhizobacteria are abundant in soil, while LAB are minimal and not dominant in organic farming soil []. LAB promote seed germination, increase soil fertility, aeration, and solubility, alleviate various abiotic stress, and neutralize toxic gasses. However, LAB plant-growth-promoting properties are not well explored and have limited evidence in the literature.

A comprehensive understanding of LAB is that they are a phylogenetically diverse group of Gram-positive bacteria. They are rod-shaped or spherical, non-spore-forming, and catalase-negative bacteria. LAB strains are fastidious microbes, require expensive media nitrogen sources, and have limited biosynthetic pathways. LAB have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status by the Food and Drug Administration. They are safe for human and animal consumption and have become ideal for commercial development [,]. LAB strains show probiotic properties and are used in the food and dairy industry. Among them, Lactobacilli and cocci have been predominantly used in food industry. Lactobacillus species transform undesirable flavor substances in the environment. At the same time, they are decomposing macromolecules and complex biomolecule substances. LAB produce short-chain fatty acids, amines, organic acids, bacteriocins, vitamins, and exopolysaccharides []. Bacteriocin metabolites are toxic to microbes and are the most promising for developing antibiotic drugs with probiotic properties. In addition, organic acids are the prominent secondary metabolites that exhibit antifungal activity and preservative effects in fermented food and silage []. However, most inhibitory compounds are secondary metabolites produced after 48 h of LAB fermentation []. Furthermore, LAB fatty acid metabolites exhibit antimicrobial properties and protect host cells against infections []. LAB-derived unsaturated fatty acids and hydroxyl unsaturated fatty acids exhibit antifungal activity. Furthermore, glycolipid biosurfactants play a significant role in preventing bacterial attachment and eradicating biofilm []. In addition, biosurfactants have broad applications in bioremediation, biodegradation, and the agricultural, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries. LAB metabolites indicated a synergistic effect in pathogenic microbes []. Hashemi and Jafarpour demonstrated that LAB-incorporated Konjac-based edible film prevents fungal growth in fresh fruits and positively impacts their shelf life []. Furthermore, several studies have shown that LAB could produce antifungal and antibacterial substances to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microbes []. In addition, LAB culture conditions such as temperature, low pH, and anaerobic conditions inhibit various mold and food-borne pathogens []. Thus, the LAB characterized by antagonistic properties are crucial to countering potential pathogens []. LAB strains are a promising biocontrol agent; they have a plant growth stimulation effect and inhibit phytopathogenic microbes []. In addition, LAB controls the insects and pests and is involved in bioremediation, and the general agricultural application of LAB is illustrated in Figure 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ijms-23-07784-g001.jpg

Lactic acid bacteria agricultural application. (A). Anti-bacterial and anti-fungal activity; (B) biopesticides and insecticides; (C) biofertilizer increases soil fertility, aeration and retention of moisture content, elevates the mineral uptake and organic decomposition, acetifies the soil and reduces pest diseases. (D) IAA, cytokinin, and siderophore secretion increases the root and shoot length and solubilizes the phosphate in the soil. (E) Heavy metal removal, detoxification of fungal mycotoxins, acidification by LA and organic acid, increases organic decomposition, and increases the organic content in the soil, biodegradation. (F) CRISPR-Cas systems and derived molecular machines, endogenous or exogenous engineering to enhanced functional attributes.

2. Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB)

LAB play a multifaceted role in the food, agricultural, and medicine sectors and has GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status by the Food and Drug Administration []. They are safe for human and animal consumption and have become ideal for commercial development [,]. LAB species are used in many food and feed industries, and those industries are constantly seeking potential strains to enhance sensor and product quality. They are isolated from decomposing plant material, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, fermented food, fermented beverages, silages, juices, sewage, and the gastrointestinal tracts and cavities of humans and animals [,,,] (Figure 2). Although LAB identification is challenging, contemporary 16S rDNA sequencing techniques accurately identify individual strains, but phenotypic methods are unreliable []. Therefore, the molecular taxonomy and genome sequencing of LAB strains become an effective method for identifying species levels. Lactobacillus plantarumL. caseiLactococcusBifidobacterium, and Streptococcus lactis are isolated from the intestinal tract of animals and fermented food []. L. acetotoleransL. pontis, and L. suebicus species show high survival rates in the cow gut []. LAB constitute part of the animal gut, and fermented food and silage are recognized as the primary niche of LAB activity. They have been clustered into two different groups, homo- and hetero-fermentative strains, based on lactic acid (LA) yield. Homo-fermentation yields two molecules of LA, while hetero-fermentation yields one molecule of LA and one molecule of ethanol or acetic acid by utilizing glucose. Homo-fermentative strains are commercially important, and they can produce optically pure LA by downstream processes []. Lactic acid (LA) is a by-product of metabolic activities produced by LAB. Therefore, silage can be considered a primary source to transmit and deliver the probiotic LAB species. Fermented cattle milk is an LA source that enhances food quality and flavor.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ijms-23-07784-g002.jpg

LAB occurrence and dynamism in distinct ecology niches: A widespread application in agricultural, environmental and functional health properties.

LAB are widespread in dairy and agro-product development, utilizing carbon as an energy source. LAB-based agro-products are safe, eco-friendly, have low production costs, and have fast development rates. Most plant-growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPM) are bacteria/fungi that can promote plant growth, suppress pathogenicity, and accelerate nutrient availability and uptake. For some time, LAB have been used in agriculture as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents to promote plant growth, but the mechanisms of LAB have yet to be explored. LAB are diversified in the phyllosphere, the endosphere in the seed, and the rhizosphere of many plants [,]. Several LAB strains were isolated from rhizospheres. In addition, L. lactis species have been isolated from horticultural and fruit crop plantations [,]. They facilitate tissue repair in damaged plants, while cellular components are released for defense/interaction. In the rhizosphere, plants release various chemical substances, including 20–40% of the carbohydrates and organic acids []. Those metabolites attract the LAB and colonize the root systems’ surface. LAB can also survey seed and plant propagules such as endophytes []. The carbohydrate-rich environment appears ideal for LAB proliferation. They quickly break down the organic acids and acidify the rhizosphere []. At the same time, the acidic environment and weak organic acid exert a toxic effect on other microorganisms. LAB diversity in soils depends on carbon richness, which is abundant in the fruit tree rhizosphere. Lactobacillus lactis subsp. lactis is broadly distributed in horticultural crops. They have been isolated from the mulberry rhizosphere []. Moreover, LAB are halotolerant and survive in low water intensity and high salinity in dry environments. Fhoula et al. (2013) isolated and characterized 119 LAB strains from the rhizosphere of olive trees and desert truffles, and they showed tremendous antimicrobial activity [].

3. Biocontrol Agents of LAB

Fungal contamination of food crops costs the world an estimated USD 60 billion a year in lost agricultural production []. About 50% of fruits and vegetables in tropical regions are lost every year due to fungal spoilage []. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that mycotoxin contamination of food crops globally is 25% and could be up to 60–80% []. Maize, groundnuts, and tree nuts are the most common foods at risk of contamination with aflatoxins. They are most commonly produced by AspergillusPenicilliumFusarium, and Alternaria genera, affecting cereal grains []. Among them, F. oxysporum is a soil-borne pathogenic fungi that is a significant causative agent in damage to horticultural crops. Fusarium wilt is a common disease in the Solanaceae family. Fusarium species decrease crop yield and cause considerable losses in banana production. In this context, LAB control pathogenicity in agricultural and horticultural crops, as listed in Table 1. LAB strains are isolated from dairy products and control soil-borne pathogens. In addition, Lactobacillus buchneri isolated from corn silages showed antifungal activity against F. graminearum []. Hamed et al. (2011) demonstrated that seed pre-treatment before planting with an LAB nutritive solution reduces the damping-off diseases []. Several studies have shown that LAB could produce antifungal and antibacterial substances to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microbes []. Furthermore, lactic acid bacteria, yeast, and phototrophic bacteria culture broth and cell-free extract promote plant growth and protect the plants from abiotic stress []. Naturally fermented microbial cocktails are thought to be plant stimulants, and diluted solutions are spraying onto the plant and soil. A simple method to utilize LAB is an aqueous extract/culture filtrated to reduce the E. coli population and distribution in fermented food and plants. The earlier implementation of LAB to agricultural and horticultural crops may reduce the risk factors without disturbing the ecosystem. For example, Laury-Shaw et al., demonstrated that an LAB aqueous solution spray could reduce the E. coli growth in spinach [].

Table 1

Biocontrol properties of LAB on agricultural and horticultural crops.

Strain Name (LAB) Pathogens Food Crops References
LAB Alternaria alternata Post-harvest decay []
Lactobacillus plantarum CUK-501 Aspergillus flavuFusarium graminearumRhizopus stoloniferB. cinerea Cucumber []
LAB Bacteria and fungi Vegetables and fruits []
L. plantarum IMAU10014, Penicillium digitatum Citrus japonica (kumquat), []
Pediococcus pentosaceous P. expansum Pyrus (pear), Vitis vinifera (grape), Prunus (plum) []
L. plantarum LR/14 A. nigerR. stoloniferMucor racemosusP. chrysogenum Wheat seeds []
LAB Fusarium Cereal-based products []
Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis Rhizopus stolonifer Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit) []
Lactic acid bacteria 43, LCM5 Penicillium expansum Malus domestica (apple) []
LAB Zymoseptoria tritici Wheat []
L. plantarum Filamentous fungi and yeast []
Lactobacilli F. verticillioides Ensiled corns []
LAB Fusarium malting Wheat grains []
L. sucicolaP. acidilactici P. digitatum Citrus []
L. plantarum Fragaria x ananassa (strawberry) []
L. plantarumL. pentosusP. pentosaceus A. nigerCladosporium sphaerospermumP. chrysogenum Pitaya (cactus fruit) []
L. plantarum TR7 P. expansum Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) []
LAB Blackening Banana []
L. plantarum TE10 Aspergillus flavus Fresh maize seeds []
L. plantarum Botrytis cinerea Horticultural crops []

4. Antibacterial Activity of LAB

LAB strains make different classes of chemical compounds. Among them, the bacteriocins group is the best-studied one. Bacteriocins are toxic to microbes and are the most promising primary metabolites for developing antibiotic drugs. Bacteriocins are peptides or proteins synthesized by ribosomes, and they inhibit the growth and reproduction of a variety of bacteria []. Many researchers have proposed the mechanism behind the activity. In addition, bacteriocins may inhibit nucleic acid and protein synthesis []. They are divided into two categories. The first is lantibiotics, containing lanthionine or the absence of lanthionine [,]. The Lactobacillus lactis-derived lanthionine group polycyclic antibacterial peptide causes cell damage in Gram-positive bacteria []. The second category of bacteriocins is Helveticin M and Helveticin J, produced by L. crispatus and L. helveticus. Both bacteriocins are used as food preservatives. Recently, Rooney et al., proposed bacteriocin-mediated resistance in plants to control bacterial pathogens in commercial crops [].

Furthermore, biosurfactants of bacterial origin have broad applications in the food, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries. Bacterial origin biosurfactants exhibit antibacterial, antifungal, antimycoplasma, and antiviral properties []. Biosurfactants cause membrane damage in pathogens, creating pores on lipid membranes and disrupting porosity and membrane integrity. Additionally, biosurfactants detach microbial cells from surfaces through sloughing, which may cause erosion and abrasion []. However, biosurfactants regulate quorum sensing signaling and quorum-sensing-dependent activities. For example, biofilm formation, motility, and pathogenicity are influenced by this signaling. Rodrigues et al., reported that biosurfactants derived from Lactococcus lactis inhibit the bacteria and yeast cell adhesion []. Fermented dairy products exhibit antimicrobial activity against E. coli, while glycolipid biosurfactants responded to the activity [].

Interestingly, L. plantarum significantly reduced the virulence factors and inhibited the biofilm formation of pathogenic bacteria []. Lactobacillus rhamnosus effective against Pseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureus and E. coli. Shrestha et al., reported LAB inhibits plant pathogenic bacteria Ralstonia solanacearum [,]. In addition, L. plantarum exhibits antagonistic effects against the phytopathogenic bacteria P. campestris []. Glycolipid biosurfactants eradicate bacterial biofilm formation and surface adhesion []. However, a limited number of strains have been reported for their biosurfactant production ability, antimicrobial potential, and inhibition of biofilm formation.

5. Antifungal Activity of LAB

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a severe fungal disease of wheat and cereal crops and affects livestock feed and the quality of seeds. Bafforni et al., demonstrated that L. plantarum and Bacillus species were applied as biocontrol agents to reduce the FHB index []. In addition, LAB increase the nutritional properties of wheat flour and related bakery products and silage. The food-grade LAB can synthesize several promising and eco-friendly metabolites, acting as a biocontrol agent to inhibit molds on fruits and horticultural crops (Table 2). The ascomycete fungus Zymoseptoria tritici causes septoria leaf blotch in wheat plants. The primary foliar diseases in wheat are a significant threat to global food grain production. Lynch et al., found that LAB exhibit an antifungal effect against Z. tritici []. In addition, LAB reduce the toxic agents in wheat and maize grains produced by the filamentous fungi [,,]. De Simone and co-workers demonstrated that the Lactiplantibacillus plantarum species exerted strong antagonism against the necrotrophic fungus Botrytis cinerea []. Grey mold B. cinerea, an etiological agent, is a typical contaminant of many horticultural crops. Sathe et al., demonstrated that LAB strains could prolong the shelf life of cucumber []. Lactobacillus plantarum IMAU10014 exhibits strong antifungal activity against citrus green rot []. Crowley and co-workers reported that Pediococcus pentosaceous showed a broad spectrum of antifungal activity against fruit crop fungal pathogens []. Furthermore, food-grade LAB control the fruit rot diseases caused by Rhizopus stolonifer in jackfruit []. Matei et al., reported that LAB protect fresh food products against blue mold fungal infection []. At the same time, post-harvest decay is the primary source of economic loss, due to infection by the mesophilic fungus P. digitatumLactobacillus sucicola and Pediococcus acidilactici showed antifungal activity against P. digitatum and other pathogenic species []. Several authors reported that LAB exhibits antifungal activity against horticultural and fruit crops [,,,,]. On the other hand, Li et al., demonstrated that edible films embedded with 2% LAB prolong shelf life and prevent banana blackening []. In addition, the same author observed the antioxidant activity of the composite film, and affirmed its uses in food packaging applications [].

Table 2

Lactic acid bacteria and their active compounds against plant pathogenic fungi.

Strains Source Active Compound Active Spectrum References
Antibacterial
L. plantarum Cucumber pickle Organic acids Pseudomonas campestris []
LAB strain Tomato rhizosphere None Ralstonia solanacearumXanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria,
Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum
[,]
LAB strain Unknown None Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria []
L. lactis Curd Glycolipid biosurfactants E. coli []
Antifungal
Lactobacillus species Type culture 3-Phenyllactic acid P. expansumA. flavus []
L. acidophilus Chicken intestine Organic acid Fusarium sp., Alternaria alternate [,]
L. amylovorus Gluten-free sourdough Fatty acid, LA, salicyclic acid P. paneumCladosporium sp., Rhizopus oryzaeEndomyces fibuligerAspergillus sp., Fusarium culmorum [,,]
L. brevis Brewing barley Organic acid, proteinaceous A. flavusF. culmorumTrichophyton tonsuransEurotium repens,
Penicillium sp.
[,,].
L casei Dairy products None Trichophyton tonsuransPenicillium sp. [,]
L. coryniformis Silage, flower, sourdough PLA, proteinaceous Aspergillus sp., FusariumRhodotorula sp., Talaromyces flavus,
Kluyveromyces sp.
[,]
L. fermentum Fermented food and dairy products Proteinaceous, PLA A. nigerFusarium graminearumA. oryzaeA. nigerFusarium sp. [,]
L. harbinensis Type strain Fatty acids Mucor racemosus []
L. lactis Wheat semolina None P. expansum []
L. mesenteroides Raw milk LA, succinic acid, fatty acids Penicillium species []
L. plantarum Plant materials, food grains, fermented soybean, raw milk Fatty acids, LA, cyclic dipeptide, phenyllactic acid, peptides, succinic acid Broad spectrum [,,,,,,,,]
L. paracasei Dairy products, raw milk Proteinaceous, LA, succinic acid, fatty acids Fusarium sp. [,]
L. pentosus Fruit and fermented food PLA A. oryzaeA. nigerFusarium sp. []
Pediococcus pentosaceus None Proteinaceous, cyclic acids Penicillium sp., Aspergillus sp., Fusarium sp., Rhizopus stoloniferSclerotium oryzaeRhizoctonia solaniBotrytis cinerea,
Sclerotinia minorRhodotorula sp.
[,,,]
L. reuteri Murine gut, porcine None F. graminearumA. nigerFusarium sp. [,]
L. sakei Leaves, dandelions, flour Peptide, PLA A. fumigatusFusarium species []
L. salivarius Chicken intestine Peptide, PLA A. nidulansF. sporotrichioies []
Weissella cibaria Food grains, fruits,
and vegetables
Organic acids, proteinaceous Fusarium culmorumPenicillium sp., Aspergillus sp., Rhodotorula sp., Endomyces fibuliger [,,,]
W. confuse Food grains Organic acids, proteinaceous Penicillium sp., Aspergillus nidulansRhodotorula sp.,
Endomyces fibuliger
[,]
W. paramesenteroides Fermented wax gourd Organic acids Penicillium sp., Fusarium graminearumRhizopus stoloniferSclerotium oryzaeRhizoctonia solaniBotrytis cinerea,
Sclerotinia minor
[,]

Nevertheless, increased resistance of pathogenic fungi toward commercial fungicides and climate change impedes the control of fungi in the food supply and necessitates the development of complementary fungicides. LAB-derived metabolites significantly inhibit the pathogenic fungal population and neutralize the mycotoxin levels in fruit and vegetable crops. In addition, they reduce post-harvest decay and inhibit the production of mycotoxins in fermented food products []. By increasing the level of the natural antimicrobial compound phenyllactic acid (PLA) during kimchi fermentation, PLA content might enhance the safety of the food products []. Furthermore, fatty acids derived from L. pentosus exhibit the antifungal activity of various filamentous fungi and yeast pathogens []. 3-hydroxyl fatty acid derived from L. plantarum inhibited yeasts more actively than filamentous fungi []. Lappa et al., demonstrated that LAB act as a potential biocontrol agent against toxigenic fungi in table grapes []. In addition, LAB significantly reduced the mycotoxin level in viticulture by 32–92%. LAB combined with carboxymethyl cellulose coatings on fresh strawberries reduced the yeast and mold growth and improved the fruits’ shelf life []. In addition, the biocontrol properties of LAB strains on Cucumis sativusCitrus japonicaSelenicereus undatus (pitahaya), and other fruits and vegetables have also been reported []. LAB-derived coriolic acid inhibited the phytopathogenic blast fungi []. However, pathogenic fungi are the primary causative agent for fruit deterioration and cause considerable losses in the viticulture industry. The Lactobacillus plantarum strain inhibits halos against fungi from Aspergillus and Penicillium genera. Lactobacillus plantarum essential oils combined with a fermented filter showed a synergic antifungal effect against necrotrophic fungus B. cinerea []. Omedi et al., reported that the phenolic compounds dihydrocaffeic acid, benzoic acid, caffeic acid, phenyllactic acid, p-coumaric acid, and syringic acid showed antifungal activity []. LAB strains incorporate an edible coating that protects grapefruits from fungi infection and extends shelf life []. However, several authors reported that LAB metabolites showed an antagonistic effect against various economically significant plant pathogenic fungi (Table 2).

6. Biopesticides and Insecticides of LAB

Global climate change and extreme temperatures significantly impact crop production and agricultural pests. Climate change can favor insect and pest populations and prolong their lifespan and survival rate []. However, pests and insects cause severe economic damage to many crops and fruit trees. Therefore, the agrochemical industry produces several insecticides and pesticides worldwide. Organophosphorus is a chemical pesticide that causes acute poisoning in humans and animals []. Therefore, researchers and the agro-farm industry are looking for alternative tools to prevent agricultural pests. Biopesticides are an alternative to conventional chemical pesticides, and they are eco-friendly and target specific. In addition, microbial-based pesticides comprise numerous microbes such as fungi, bacteria, and nematode-associated bacteria that protect crops from pests and nematodes []. For example, LAB species L. sakei and L. curvatus can efficiently produce metabolites, which tend to kill nematodes []. Alawamleh et al., reported that the lactic acid bacteria Oenococcus oeni release versatile metabolites and were desirable for spotted wing drosophila []. In contrast, the high attraction of fruit fly drosophila results in a high capture rate in traps. However, further study of LAB fermented dairy products in the presence of commercial insecticides that accelerated the acetic condition might have elevated the insecticide activity []. Takei et al., demonstrated that LAB enclosing poly(ε-caprolactone) microcapsules are efficient in removing root-knot nematodes []. LAB-based microcapsules have been used in horticultural crops to remove root-knot nematodes. In addition, poly(ε-caprolactone) exhibited higher LA production and enhanced the viability and entrapment of LAB cells []. In recent years, nanobiotechnology has gained much attention in the agriculture and food sectors. Microbial-based agro-nanotechnology is an eco-friendly approach that might reduce the usage of hazardous chemicals. At the same time, the systematic approach (controlled release) for applying fertilizers and pesticides to crops might enhance the yield and quality of the agro-food. Indeed, nano-based approaches promise an effect on plant health and yield, and these advantages support sustainable agriculture. In addition, nanomaterials have also been tested for pest management of insects in agricultural and urban management []. Zinc oxide and silver nanoparticles are widely used due to their antibacterial and antifungal activity []. In addition, enzyme-based zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) control insect pests and pathogens []. The chitinase from L. coryniformis immobilizes ZnONPs and its effect on corn lice as a potential insecticide in agricultural bioprocesses, which supports the economy.

7. Biostimulants of LAB

Plant-associated microorganisms synthesize phytohormones, and the structure and functional properties are similar. Microbial phytohormones exhibit a similar effect on the plants, and they stimulate or inhibit microbial proliferation []. There is limited evidence of LAB-related growth hormones. However, LAB stimulate plant growth and resistance to water and abiotic stress. According to Ampraya et al., LAB exhibit plant-growth-promoting (PGP) properties, and they can produce auxin indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and solubilize minerals []. Lynch precisely reported that the LAB growth hormones cytokinins and other metabolites were found in the soil []. In a hypothetical view, LAB gradually incorporated into plant rhizospheric soil may alter plants’ physical properties to maximize the yield. For example, rice seeds coated with Lactococcus lactis significantly promoted the root length and shoot length. In addition, L. lactis significantly promotes cabbage growth and yield []. In addition, several bacterial species produce bacterial exopolysaccharides (EPS) that promote plant growth and enhance soil fertility []. LAB-derived EPS exhibits a variety of structural and functional properties. EPS is used in functional food, medicine, and pharmaceuticals. However, there is a lack of evidence on agricultural applications.

Even though further studies on LAB could enhance organic decomposition and soil humus formation, resulting in high growth and yield in cucumbers [], high organic matter stimulates specific bacteria populations. It changes the microbiota, which could be highly beneficial to plant and soil fertility. According to a concept formulated by H.P. Rusch, soil fertility of organic agricultural soils can be related to lactic acid bacteria (no literature evidence yet to be disclosed) []. Somers et al., found that BacillusPaenibacillus, and Staphylococcus species isolated from organic farms significantly promote plant growth in crops []. In addition, Rhodobacter sphaeroidesL. plantarum, and yeast species promote plant growth and increase plant hormones, amino acids, and nutrient content in cucumber []. Lutz et al., found that a few Lactobacillus strains act as biocontrol and biostimulant agents []. LAB colonized in pepper (Capsicum annum) rhizosphere produced IAA and siderophore metabolites. LAB strains solubilize phosphate to promote plant growth and control the bacterial spot diseases in pepper []. Strafella et al., investigated the comparative genomics and plant growth promotion properties in L. plantarum isolated from the wheat rhizosphere []. The recombinant L. plantarum produced higher succinic acid in the fermented substrate, stimulating plant growth []. Several studies have shown that LAB promote plant growth and can act as a biocontrol agent in horticultural crops (Table 3). However, some limitations, often related to plant stimulation effects and inconsistent performance in field conditions, need to promote wide LAB use in agriculture.

Table 3

LAB biostimulants and biofertilizer properties on sustainable crop production (PGPR—plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria; IAA—indole acetic acid; LA—lactic acid).

Strains Source Crops Effects Mechanisms References
L. plantarum EM-4, type strain, grape must Radish, tomato Increased yield, shoot branching, shoot and root growth None [,]
L. plantarum Grape must, oyster mushroom Tomato Increased germination, increased shoot and root growth Bacteriogenic metabolites []
L. plantarum Commercial phytostimulant Cucumber Increased germination and seedling growth None []
L. plantarum Dairy products Tomato Increasing germination rate and root growth Bacteriogenic metabolites []
L. plantarum Human probiotic Wheat Osmotic stress alleviation None []
L. plantarum PGPR Corp. (Korea) Cucumber Increased growth, nutrient uptake, and amino acid content Increased nutrient availability via succinic acid and LA []
L. plantarum Unknown Swertia chirayita Salt stress tolerant Stress response []
L. acidophilus Dairy products Tomato Increased shoot branching, shoot and root growth None []
Lactobacillus sp. Dairy products Tomato Increased shoot branching, shoot and root growth None []
LAB Unknown Pepper Biocontrol and biostimulant property IAA and siderophores []
L. acidophilus Wheat rhizosphere Wheat Increased plant length and chlorophyll content IAA []
L. casei Commercial phytostimulant Cucumber Increased germination rate None []
LAB strain KLF01 Tomato rhizosphere Pepper Increased root and shoot length, root fresh weight, and chlorophyll content IAA, phosphate solubilization []
LAB strain KLCO2, KPD03 Unknown Pepper Increased root and shoot length, root fresh weight and chlorophyll content IAA, phosphate solubilization []
LAB strain BL06 Sugarcane ferment Citrus seedling Increased height, stem diameter, root and shoot weight Phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation []
LAB None None PGP properties IAA and mineral solubilization []

8. Biofertilizer of LAB

Anthropogenic ammonia emissions are major risk factors that cause secondary pollution, reduce nitrogen availability, and damage forests and vegetation. Biofertilizers are substances containing a variety of microbes to protect the plant and enhance the plant’s nutrients. However, LAB and nitrification bacteria reduce ammonia emissions and promote nitrification []. Recently, LAB and other Bacillus-based biofertilizers have been validated with established microbes in agriculture and the environment. Microbial-based biofertilizers increase crop yield and accelerate the mineral update of the plant root. Further, they enhance the organic matter catabolism (Table 3). Spay and soil injection methods are highly recommended for commercial applications. LAB-based liquid fertilizer spray on the plant and soil is hypothesized to assist plant health. Fermented LAB, yeast, and phototrophic bacteria cocktails are used as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents. At the same time, LAB and bacillus-based biofertilizers showed a high crop yield and enhanced the organic matter degradation (patent no: CA2598539A1, 2006) []. In this context, farmyard manure and plant-based compost is integral to organic farming and sustainable agriculture. LAB decompose and bio-stabilize the animal and plant waste to improve the agronomic value and assimilate organic matter such as lignin and cellulose materials []. Wang et al., found that Bacillus stearothermophilus elevate the relative abundance of LAB strains in soil []. In addition, LAB strains exhibit an antagonistic effect against phytopathogenic agents in soil.

Globally, the mushroom industry has grown rapidly in recent years, with a market value of USD 11.9 million in 2019 []. At the same time, spent mushroom substrate (SMS) is a residual material remaining after the harvest: 5 kg of SMS is produced from 1 kg of mushroom harvest. SMS is an alternative animal feed and manure source for horticultural crops [,,]. Compost temperature, average pH, and microaerobic conditions accelerated the LAB growth in SMS. Several LAB species have been isolated from SMS and composting substrate. The most compatible identified in SMS, L. plantarum, may have promoted fermentation []. Chuang et al., reported that SMS contains multiple constituents, such as a mushroom mycelium, metabolites, organic acid, lactic acid, and polysaccharides. Those metabolites improve animal health and antioxidant capacity while feeding SMS [].

In addition, LAB-based fermented compost materials increase soil fertility, soil structure, aeration, neutralize alkalinity, and promote moisture retention. Cacace et al., found that LAB produces enormous organic acids during food and backer waste ferment []. For this reason, LAB-based composting materials are well suitable for alkaline soils that promote phosphorous and iron precipitates, such as Ca phosphates and iron oxides []. Those conditions led to a significant availability of Mn, Fe, and Cu in soils []. Some hypothetical views revealed that LAB fix atmospheric nitrogen and produce iron-chelating compounds []. However, the comparative genomics data for LAB and food-related strains were differentiated. The recent comparative genomic analysis carried out by Mao et al., provides evidence that the LAB strains differ according to the food niche []. Hence, LAB strains exhibit high genomic diversity based on function and substrate, while gene manipulating and metabolic engineering tools alter the gene expression, resulting in plant growth and protection.

9. Soil Bioremediation of Lactic Acid Bacteria

Soil carbon pools are the most significant terrestrial carbon stored in the soil, and they affect the physical, chemical, biological properties. Further, soil organic matter accumulation is crucial for soil fertility, water retention, and crop production. The terrestrial plants utilize inorganic and organic sources of carbon. Hence, modern agricultural practices have negatively impacted the soil ecosystem, due to factors such as intensive tillage, commercial fertilizers, and chemical pesticides. Microorganisms degrade organic and inorganic wastes in soil by the process of bioremediation. Fungi are the predominant species in the soil ecosystem, and they mineralize carbon sources and biosorbent heavy metals from polluted soils. In addition, LAB strains are prevalent in the soil and have been used in the bioremediation process (Figure 3). LAB strains are essential for improving the soil carbon pool, removing heavy metals, and detoxifying the mycotoxins [,,]. Heavy metals are adsorbed by electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions []. Therefore, LAB might be used to produce commercial bio-filters to purify water contaminated with heavy metals and aflatoxin. Lactobacillus plantarum is a promising biosorbent for removing cationic metals ion such as cadmium and lead from industrial wastewater [,]. However, many authors proposed LAB heavy metal biosorption mechanisms [,,], while the bacterial functional groups carboxyl, hydroxyl, and phosphate are involved in this process. Formerly, LAB-based microcapsules exhibited desirable biodegradability properties compared to hydrogel and synthetic polymers []. The LA-based microcapsule was more efficient, and the production capacity was comparatively higher than commercial soil amendments. Furthermore, LAB detoxify and degrade pesticides in fermented milk and other fermented food products [,]. Zhou and Zhao found that LAB degrade nine different organophosphorus pesticides in dairy products [].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ijms-23-07784-g003.jpg

The role of LAB in bioremediation for sustainable agriculture.

10. Modern Technology and Metabolic Engineering of LAB

LAB degrade macromolecule substances through lactic acid fermentation and produce several metabolic end-products. Hence, LAB metabolites are commercially important, with wide applications in food and medicine []. LAB are favorable for metabolism modification since they have a small genome and encode a limited range of biosynthesis capabilities. In recent years, LAB have been receiving much attention as alternative cell factories for the producers of valuable metabolites by metabolic engineering. Genetic manipulation methods have been well established in LAB, promoting industrial application []. In addition, LAB strains are widely used in CRISPR-Cas-based genome editing. They are currently a trove of potential for many industries, whether for new vaccine delivery systems or more robust probiotics and starter cultures []. The metabolic engineered LAB strains produce lactic acid from an unconventional carbon source, and lactic acid is an essential chemical source for polylactic acid (PLA) and other value-added products. At the same time, metabolic engineered LAB species fermented a considerable quantity of agricultural biomass and produced lactic acid at a low cost with conventional methods. PLA is a biodegradable plastic with excellent biocompatibility and processability. It has been used in agricultural applications such as netting for vegetation and weed prevention []. Tsuji et al., demonstrated that recombinant L. plantarum produced a higher succinic acid []. LAB-derived lactic acid and succinic acids stimulate plant growth. However, the succinic acid fermentation process has not been commercialized yet. Despite these success stories, highly efficient LAB inoculants are not used in sustainable agriculture, although metabolic engineering tools provide efficient cell factories tailor-made to produce beneficial industrial and agro-products.

11. Limitations and Future Prospects of LAB

Since ancient times, lactic acid bacteria have been used as food and medicine, and are the most commonly used probiotics in food. They synthesize various organic acids and other metabolites in the fermentation process. At the same time, the primary acidification process in the fermentation of food and feed substrates prevents the spoilage of microbe populations. Hence, LAB are the most promising candidates for preventing food spoilage and are used as food/feed preservatives [,,,,,]. LAB-derived metabolites are highly beneficial to human and animal health, and are used as food supplements, medicine, and cosmetic products. In contrast, LAB uptake is a high carbon source as an energy source during fermentation, while yielding low biomass and a limited number of metabolites. In addition, acidification and coagulation, low buffering capacity, and sugar depletion are the main limiting factors during fermentation [,]. In addition, the high production cost and acidic conditions are drawbacks, limiting the commercial application. However, several studies have pointed out that LAB probiotics are complementary to treating urinary tract infections and respiratory tract infections in humans. However, very limited studies elucidated the role of LAB in the rhizosphere and their plant-growth-promoting properties [,]. LAB promote growth in different crops, even though the underlying mechanisms behind this bio-stimulation remain unclear. In addition, LAB showed weak inhibitory activity against plant pathogenic fungi and bacteria. However, LAB exhibited a wide range of antagonistic effects against Gram-positive bacteria. They have minimal effects on Gram-negative bacteria []. Plant-growth-promoting properties were limited in LAB, while their performance was poor compared to other beneficial bacteria and fungi. Recently, metabolic engineered microbes have been used in food and agricultural sectors. Although genetically engineered LAB strains positively affect the food and feed industry, fewer studies have investigated agricultural applications. The positive explanation regarding genetically modified LAB was found to have limited evidence, and legal issues limit advanced technology. However, specialization in the LAB gene structure and function and amino acid biosynthesis pathways are warranted. In addition, LAB-based modern farming, LA, PLA, and bacteriocins can be produced sustainably, stimulating technology adoption. LAB strains are highly beneficial to animal health, and they inhibit harmful microbes and promote animal health in nutrition. Various reports have shown that the LAB strains are isolated from forage, control infectious pathogens, and promote the gut microbiota of humans and animals [,,]. In the future, those emerging technologies will increase the yield and build sustainability across crop cultivation and animal husbandry.

12. Conclusions

Sustainable agriculture has recently been more concerned with a sustainable food system, and organic farming is most important for global health. Microbial-based agricultural practices would help alleviate these concerns and supply sufficient food for the world population. In this context, novel soil amendments and the exploitation of plant-growth-promoting microorganism potential are promising tools for sustainable agriculture. In contrast, LAB uptake is a high carbon source as an energy source during fermentation with a limited number of yielded metabolites. The acidification and coagulation, low buffering capacity, and sugar depletion of LAB strains are the main limiting factors during mass production. In addition, production cost and high acidic conditions are drawbacks in commercial applications. However, very few studies elucidated the role of LAB and their plant-growth-promoting and biostimulant properties in agricultural applications. In nature, few beneficial microbes that can fit into sustainable agriculture. However, LAB strains are used as a plant growth promoter and biocontrol agent in fruit trees, rice, and horticultural crops. LAB can ferment and decompose animal and mushroom spent substrate waste. They can detoxify the mycotoxin and pesticides in food and feed substrates. In addition, LAB and their antimicrobial and growth-promoting compounds can replace inorganic fertilizer and pesticides. Furthermore, LAB incorporated starch films to protect fruits and vegetables from oxidation damage. This strategy may enhance shelf life without altering the quality of food packaging applications. Recently, LAB encapsulation with different matrices has been used as probiotics in aquaculture []. LAB nanomaterials and nano chemicals have appeared as promising agents for plant growth promotion and disease control agents in the near future. The overall agro-based benefits of LAB have been discussed in this review, and we conclude that lactic acid bacteria are a promising candidate for sustainable agriculture.

Acknowledgments

The first author is thankful to the Agricultural Microbiology Division (Project No. PJ01577903), provided by the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea, for the postdoctoral fellowship.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (Project No. PJ01577903) Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Author Contributions

J.R. was involved in the writing—review and editing of the original draft; S.-J.K. provided supervision and validation; J.-S.K. provided literature collection and reviewing; Y.-J.K. was involved in reviewing; K.R.C., H.E. and D.Y. contributed to visualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

 

References

1. [(accessed on 20 June 2020)]. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#country
2. Avis T.J., Gravel V.R., Antoun H., Tweddell R.J. Multifaceted beneficial effects of rhizosphere microorganisms on plant health and productivity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008;40:1733–1740. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.013. [CrossRef[]
3. Lamont J.R., Wilkins O., Bywater-Ekegärd M., Smith D.L. From yogurt to yield: Potential applications of lactic acid bacteria in plant production. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017;111:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.03.015. [CrossRef[]
4. Vessey J.K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil. 2003;255:571–586. doi: 10.1023/A:1026037216893. [CrossRef[]
5. Duar R.M., Lin X.B., Zheng J., Martino M.E., Grenier T., Perez-Muñoz M.E., Leulier F., Ganzle M., Walter J. Lifestyles in transition: Evolution and natural history of the genus LactobacillusFEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2017;41:S27–S48. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fux030. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
6. Sadiq F.A., Yan B., Tian F., Zhao J., Zhang H., Chen W. Lactic Acid Bacteria as Antifungal and Anti-Mycotoxigenic Agents: A Comprehensive Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019;18:1403–1436. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12481. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
7. Chen H., Yan X., Du G., Guo Q., Shi Y., Chang J., Wang X., Yuan Y., Yue T. Recent developments in antifungal lactic acid bacteria: Application, screening methods, separation, purification of antifungal compounds and antifungal mechanisms. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021;15:1–15. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1977610. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
8. Arena M.P., Russo P., Spano G., Capozzi V. Exploration of the Microbial Biodiversity Associated with North Apulian Sourdoughs and the Effect of the Increasing Number of Inoculated Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains on the Biocontrol against Fungal Spoilage. Fermentation. 2019;5:97. doi: 10.3390/fermentation5040097. [CrossRef[]
9. Gajbhiye M.H., Kapadnis B.P. Antifungal-Activity-Producing Lactic Acid Bacteria as Biocontrol Agents in Plants. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2016;26:1451–1470. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2016.1213793. [CrossRef[]
10. Rouse S., Harnett D., Vaughan A., Sinderen D. Lactic acid bacteria with potential to eliminate fungal spoilage in foods. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008;104:915–923. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03619.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
11. Desbois A.P., Smith V.J. Antibacterial free fatty acids: Activities, mechanisms of action and biotechnological potential. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010;85:1629–1642. doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2355-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
12. Patel M., Siddiqui A.J., Hamadou W.S., Surti M., Awadelkareem A.M., Ashraf S.A., Alreshidi M., Snoussi M., Rizvi S.M.D., Bardakci F., et al. Inhibition of bacterial adhesion and antibiofilm activities of a glycolipid biosurfactant from Lactobacillus rhamnosus with its physicochemical and functional properties. Antibiotics. 2021;17:1546. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10121546. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
13. Cortes-Zavaleta O., Lopez-Malo A., Hernandez-Mendoza A., Garcia H.S. Antifungal Activity of Lactobacilli and Its Relationship with 3-Phenyllactic Acid Production. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014;173:30–35. [PubMed[]
14. Hashemi S.M.B., Jafarpour D. Bioactive Edible Film Based on Konjac Glucomannan and Probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum Strains: Physicochemical Properties and Shelf Life of Fresh-Cut Kiwis. J. Food Sci. 2021;86:513–522. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.15568. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
15. Govindaraj K., Samayanpaulraj V., Narayanadoss V., Uthandakalaipandian R. Isolation of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Intestine of Freshwater Fishes and Elucidation of Probiotic Potential for Aquaculture Application. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 2021;13:1598–1610. doi: 10.1007/s12602-021-09811-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
16. Bintsis T. Lactic acid bacteriaas starter cultures: An update in their metabolism and genetics. Aims Microbiol. 2018;4:665–684. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.4.665. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
17. Sathe S., Nawani N., Dhakephalkar P., Kapadnis B. Antifungal lactic acid bacteria with potential to prolong shelf-life of fresh vegetables. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007;103:2622–2628. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03525.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
18. Trias R., Bañeras L., Montesinos E., Badosa E. Lactic acid bacteria from fresh fruit and vegetables as biocontrol agents of phytopathogenic bacteria and fungi. Int. Microbiol. 2008;11:231–236. [PubMed[]
19. Djadouni F., Kihal M. Antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria and the spectrum of their biopeptides against spoiling germs in foods. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2012;55:435–443. doi: 10.1590/S1516-89132012000300015. [CrossRef[]
20. Liu W., Pang H., Zhang H., Cai Y. Biodiversity of lactic acid bacteria. In: Zhang Y., Cai Y., editors. Lactic Acid Bacteria. Springer Science & Business Media; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 2014. []
21. Khalid K. An overview of lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Biosci. 2011;1:1–13. []
22. Hidalgo D., Corona F., Martín-Marroquin J. Manure biostabilization by effective microorganisms as a way to improve its agronomic value. Biomass Convers. Bioref. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s13399-022-02428-x. [CrossRef[]
23. Han H., Ogata Y., Yamamoto Y., Nagao S., Nishino N. Identification of lactic acid bacteria in the rumen and feces of dairy cows fed total mixed ration silage to assess the survival of silage bacteria in the gut. J. Dairy Sci. 2014;97:5754–5762. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-7968. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
24. McDonald L.C., McFeeters R.F., Daeschel M.A., Fleming H.P. A differential medium for the enumeration of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987;53:1382–1384. doi: 10.1128/aem.53.6.1382-1384.1987. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
25. Minervini F., Celano G., Lattanzi A., Tedone L., De Mastro G., Gobbetti M., De Angelis M. Lactic acid bacteria in durum wheat flour are endophytic components of the plant during its entire life cycle. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015;81:6736–6748. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01852-15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
26. Ekundayo F.O. Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from rhizosphere soils of three fruit trees, fish and ogi. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014;3:991–998. []
27. Chen Y.S., Yanagida F., Shinohara T. Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from soil using an enrichment procedure. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2005;40:195–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2005.01653.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
28. Canarini A., Kaiser C., Merchant A., Richter A., Wanek W. Root Exudation of Primary Metabolites: Mechanisms and Their Roles in Plant Responses to Environmental Stimuli. Front. Plant Sci. 2019;10:157. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
29. Jones D.L. Organic acid in the rhizosphere—A critical review. Plant Soil. 1998;205:25–44. doi: 10.1023/A:1004356007312. [CrossRef[]
30. Fhoula I., Najjari A., Turki Y., Jaballah S., Boudabous A., Ouzari H. Diversity and antimicrobial properties of lactic acid bacteria isolated from rhizosphere of olive trees and desert truffles of Tunisia. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013;2013:405708. doi: 10.1155/2013/405708. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
31. Varsha K.K., Nampoothiri K.M. Appraisal of lactic acid bacteria as protective cultures. Food Control. 2016;69:61–64. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.04.032. [CrossRef[]
32. Eskola M., Kos G., Elliott C.T., Hajslova J., Mayar S., Krska R. Worldwide contamination of food-crops with mycotoxins: Validity of the widely cited “FAO estimate” of 25. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020;60:2773–2789. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1658570. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
33. Wagacha J.M., Muthomi J.W. Mycotoxin problem in Africa: Current status, implications to food safety and health and possible management strategies. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008;124:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.01.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
34. Paradhipta D.H.V., Joo Y.H., Lee H.J., Lee S.S., Noh H.T., Choi J.S., Kim J., Min H.G., Kim S.C. Effects of Inoculants Producing Antifungal and Carboxylesterase Activities on Corn Silage and Its Shelf Life against Mold Contamination at Feed-Out Phase. Microorganisms. 2021;9:558. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9030558. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
35. Hamed H.A., Moustafa Y.A., Abdel-Aziz S.M. In vivo efficacy of lactic acid bacteria in biological control against Fusarium oxysporum for protection of tomato plant. Life Sci. 2011;8:462–468. []
36. Oliveira P.M., Zannini E., Arendt E.K. Cereal fungal infection, mycotoxins, and lactic acid bacteria mediated bioprotection: From crop farming to cereal products. Food Microbiol. 2014;37:78–95. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2013.06.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
37. Laury-Shaw A., Gragg S.E., Echeverry A., Brashears M.M. Survival of Escherichia coli O157: H7 after application of lactic acid bacteria. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019;99:1548–1553. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9332. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
38. Prusky D., Kobiler I., Akerman M., Miyara I. Effect of acidic solutions and acidic prochloraz on the control of postharvest decay caused by Alternaria alternata in mango and persimmon fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006;42:134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.06.001. [CrossRef[]
39. Wang H., Sun Y., Chen C., Sun Z., Zhou Y., Shen F., Zhang H., Dai Y. Genome shuffling of Lactobacillus plantarum for improving antifungal activity. Food Control. 2013;32:341–347. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.12.020. [CrossRef[]
40. Crowley S., Mahony J., van Sinderen D. Comparative analysis of two antifungal Lactobacillus plantarum isolates and their application as bioprotectants in refrigerated foods. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012;113:1417–1427. doi: 10.1111/jam.12012. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
41. Gupta R., Srivastava S. Antifungal effect of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs LR14) derived from Lactobacillus plantarum strain LR/14 and their applications in prevention of grain spoilage. Food Microbiol. 2014;42:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2014.02.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
42. Ghosh R., Barman S., Mukhopadhyay A., Mandal N.C. Biological control of fruit-rot of jackfruit by rhizobacteria and food grade lactic acid bacteria. Biol. Control. 2015;83:29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.12.020. [CrossRef[]
43. Matei G.M., Matei S., Matei A., Cornea C.P., Draghici E.M., Jerca I.O. Bioprotection of fresh food productsagainst blue mold using lactic acid bacteria with antifungal properties. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2016;21:11201–11208. []
44. Lynch K.M., Zannini E., Guo J., Axel C., Arendt E.K., Kildea S., Coffey A. Control of Zymoseptoria tritici cause of septoria tritici blotch of wheat using antifungal Lactobacillus strains. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2016;121:485–494. doi: 10.1111/jam.13171. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
45. Liang N., Cai P., Wu D., Pan Y., Curtis J.M., Ganzle M.G. High-speed counter-current chromatography (HSCCC) purification of antifungal hydroxy unsaturated fatty acids from plant-seed oil and Lactobacillus cultures. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017;65:11229–11236. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b05658. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
46. Kharazian Z.A., Jouzani G.S., Aghdasi M., Khorvash M., Zamani M., Mohammadzadeh H. Biocontrol potential of Lactobacillus strains isolated from corn silages against some plant pathogenic fungi. Biol. Control. 2017;110:33–43. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.04.004. [CrossRef[]
47. Juodeikiene G., Bartkiene E., Cernauskas D., Cizeikiene D., Zadeike D., Lele V., Bartkevics V. Antifungal activity of lactic acid bacteria and their application for Fusarium mycotoxin reduction in malting wheat grains. LWT. 2018;89:307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.061. [CrossRef[]
48. Ma J., Hong Y., Deng L., Yi L., Zeng K. Screening and characterization of lactic acid bacteria with antifungal activity against Penicillium digitatum on citrus. Biol. Control. 2019;138:104044. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104044. [CrossRef[]
49. Khodaei D., Hamidi-Esfahani Z. Influence of bioactive edible coatings loaded with Lactobacillus plantarum on physicochemical properties of fresh strawberries. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019;156:110944. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2019.110944. [CrossRef[]
50. Omedi J.O., Huang W., Zheng J. Effect of sourdough lactic acid bacteria fermentation on phenolic acid release and antifungal activity in pitaya fruit substrate. Food Sci. Technol. 2019;111:309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.05.038. [CrossRef[]
51. Luz C., D’Opazo V., Quiles J.M., Romano R., Manes J., Meca G. Biopreservation of tomatoes using fermented media by lactic acid bacteria. LWT. 2020;130:109618. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109618. [CrossRef[]
52. Li Z., Wang L., Xie B., Hu S., Zheng Y., Jin P. Effects of exogenous calcium and calcium chelant on cold tolerance of postharvest loquat fruit. Sci. Hortic. 2020;269:109391. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109391. [CrossRef[]
53. Muhialdin B.J., Algboory H.L., Kadum H., Mohammed N.K., Saari N., Hassan Z., Hussin A.S.M. Antifungal activity determination for the peptides generated by Lactobacillus plantarum TE10 against Aspergillus flavus in maize seeds. Food Control. 2020;109:106898. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106898. [CrossRef[]
54. De Simone N., Capozzi V., de Chiara M.L.V., Amodio M.L., Brahimi S., Colelli G., Drider D., Spano G., Russo P. Screening of Lactic Acid Bacteria for the Bio-Control of Botrytis cinerea and the Potential of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum for Eco-Friendly Preservation of Fresh-Cut Kiwifruit. Microorganisms. 2021;9:773. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9040773. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
55. Diep D.B., Nes I.F. Ribosomally synthesized antibacterial peptides in Gram positive bacteria. Curr. Drug Targets. 2002;3:107–122. doi: 10.2174/1389450024605409. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
56. Kumariya R., Garsa A.K., Rajput Y.S., Sood S.K., Akhtar N., Patel S. Bacteriocins: Classification, synthesis, mechanism of action and resistance development in food spoilage causing bacteria. Microb. Pathog. 2019;128:171–177. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.01.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
57. Deegan L.H., Cotter P.D., Hill C., Ross P. Bacteriocins: Biological tools for bio-preservation and shelf-life extension. Int. Dairy J. 2006;16:1058–1071. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.026. [CrossRef[]
58. Cotter P.D., Hill C., Ross R.P. Bacteriocins: Developing innate immunity for food. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2005;3:777–788. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1273. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
59. Montville T.J., Chen Y. Mechanistic action of pediocin and nisin: Recent progress and unresolved questions. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1998;50:511–519. doi: 10.1007/s002530051328. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
60. Rooney W.M., Grinter R.W., Correia A., Parkhill J., Walker D.C., Milner J.J. Engineering bacteriocin-mediated resistance against the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringaePlant Biotechnol. J. 2020;18:1296–1306. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13294. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
61. Quadriya H., Ali S.A.M., Parameshwar J., Manasa M., Khan M.Y., Hameeda B. Implication of Quorum Sensing System in Biofilm Formation and Virulence. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2018. Microbes Living Together: Exploiting the Art for Making Biosurfactants and Biofilms; pp. 161–177. []
62. Rodrigues L., van der Mei H.C., Teixeira J., Oliveira R. Biosurfactant from Lactococcus lactis 53 inhibits microbial adhesion on silicone rubber. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2004;66:306–311. doi: 10.1007/s00253-004-1674-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
63. Saravanakumari P., Mani K. Structural characterization of a novel xylolipid biosurfactant from Lactococcus lactis and analysis of antibacterial activity against multi-drug resistant pathogens. Bioresour. Technol. 2010;101:8851–8854. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.104. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
64. Ahn K.B., Baik J.E., Park O.J., Yun C.H., Han S.H. Lactobacillus plantarum lipoteichoic acid inhibits biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutansPLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0192694. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192694. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
65. Shrestha A., Kim E.C., Lim C.K., Cho S.Y., Hur J.H., Park D.H. Biological control of soft rot on Chinese cabbage using beneficial bacterial agents in greenhouse and field. Korean J. Pestic. Sci. 2009;13:325–331. []
66. Shrestha A., Choi K.U., Lim C.K., Hur J.H., Cho S.Y. Antagonistic effect of Lactobacillus sp. Strain KLF01 against plant pathogenic bacteria Ralstonia solanacearumJ. Pestic. Sci. 2009;13:45–53. []
67. Visser R., Holzapfel W.H., Bezuidenhout J.J., Kotze J.M. Antagonism of lactic acid bacteria against phytopathogenic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1986;52:552–555. doi: 10.1128/aem.52.3.552-555.1986. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
68. Baffoni L., Gaggia F., Dalanaj N., Prodi A., Nipoti P., Pisi A., Biavati B., Di Gioia D. Microbial inoculants for the biocontrol of Fusarium spp. in durum wheat. BMC Microbiol. 2015;15:242. doi: 10.1186/s12866-015-0573-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
69. Tsitsigiannis D.I., Dimakopoulou M., Antoniou P.P., Tjamos E.C. Biological control strategies of mycotoxigenic fungi and associated mycotoxins in Mediterranean basin crops. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2012;51:158–174. []
70. Valerio F., Lavermicocca P., Pascale M., Visconti A. Production of phenyllactic acid by lactic acid bacteria: An approach to the selection of strains contributing to food quality and preservation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004;233:289–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09494.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
71. Lipinska L., Klewicki R., Sojka M., Bonikowski R., Zyzelewiz D., Kolodziejczyk K., Klrwicka E. Antifungal Activity of Lactobacillus pentosus ŁOCK 0979 in the Presence of Polyols and Galactosyl-Polyols. Probiotics Antimicro. Proteins. 2018;10:186–200. doi: 10.1007/s12602-017-9344-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
72. Sjogren J., Magnusson J., Broberg A., Schnürer J., Kenne L. Antifungal 3-hydroxy fatty acids from Lactobacillus plantarum MiLAB 14. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003;69:7554–7557. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.12.7554-7557.2003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
73. Lappa I.K., Mparampouti S., Lanza B., Panagou E.Z. Control of Aspergillus carbonarius in grape berries by Lactobacillus plantarum: A phenotypic and gene transcription study. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018;275:56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.04.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
74. Pohl C.H., Kock J.L.F., Thibane V.S. Antifungal free fatty acids: A review. In: Mendez-Vilas A., editor. Science against Microbial Pathogens: Current Research and Technological Advances. Volume 1. Formatex; Badajoz, Spain: 2011. pp. 61–71. []
75. Dopazo V., Luz C., Quiles J.M., Calpe J., Romano R., Manes J., Meca G. Potential application of lactic acid bacteria in the biopreservation of red grape from mycotoxigenic fungi. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022;102:898–907. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.11422. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
76. Marin A., Plotto A., Atares L., Chiralt A. Lactic acid bacteria incorporated into edible coatings to control fungal growth and maintain postharvest quality of grapes. HortScience. 2019;54:337–343. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI13661-18. [CrossRef[]
77. Magnusson J., Strom K., Roos S., Sjogren J., Schnürer J. Broad and complex antifungal activity among environmental isolates of lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2003;219:129–135. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1097(02)01207-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
78. Ryan L.A.M., Zannini E., Dal Bello F.B., Pawlowska A., Koehler P., Arendt E.K. Lactobacillus amylovorus DSM 19280 as a novel food-grade antifungal agent for bakery products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011;146:276–283. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.02.036. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
79. De Muynck C., Leroy A.I.J., De Maeseneire S., Arnaut F., Soetaert W., Vandamme E.J. Potential of selected lactic acid bacteria to produce food compatible antifungal metabolites. Microbiol. Res. 2004;159:339–346. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2004.07.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
80. Guo J., Mauch A., Galle S., Murphy P., Arendt E., Coffey A. Inhibition of growth of Trichophyton tonsurans by Lactobacillus reuteriJ. Appl. Microbiol. 2011;111:474–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05032.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
81. Falguni P., Shilpa V., Mann B. Production of proteinaceous antifungal substances from Lactobacillus brevis NCDC 02. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2010;63:70–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2009.00553.x. [CrossRef[]
82. Florianowicz T. Antifungal activity of some microorganisms against Penicillium expansumEur. Food Res. Technol. 2001;212:282–286. doi: 10.1007/s002170000261. [CrossRef[]
83. Gerez C., Torres M.J., Font de Valdez G., Rollan G. Control of spoilage fungi by lactic acid bacteria. Biol. Control. 2012;64:231–237. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.10.009. [CrossRef[]
84. Muhialdin B.J., Hassan Z., Sadon S.K., Zulkifli N.A., Azfar A. Effect of pH and heat treatment on antifungal activity of Lactobacillus fermentum Te007, Lactobacillus pentosus G004 and Pediococcus pentosaceus Te010. Innov. Rom. Food Biotechnol. 2011;8:41–53. [PubMed[]
85. Salas M.L., Mounier J., Maillard M.B., Valence F., Coton E., Thierry A. Identification and quantification of natural compounds produced by antifungal bioprotective cultures in dairy products. Food Chem. 2019;301:125260. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125260. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
86. Ouiddir M., Bettache G., Salas M.L., Pawtowski A., Donot C., Brahimi S., Mabrouk K., Coton E., Mounier J. Selection of Algerian lactic acid bacteria for use as antifungal bioprotective cultures and application in dairy and bakery products. Food Microbiol. 2019;82:160–170. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2019.01.020. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
87. Lavermicocca P., Valerio F., Evidente A., Lazzaroni S., Corsettti A., Gobbetti M. Purification and characterization of novel antifungal compounds from the sourdough Lactobacillus plantarum strain 21 B. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000;6:4084–4090. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.9.4084-4090.2000. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
88. Strom K., Sjogren J., Broberg A., Schnürer J. Lactobacillus plantarum MiLAB 393 produces the antifungal cyclic dipeptides cyclo(L-Phe-L-Pro) and cyclo(L-Phe-trans-4-OH-L-Pro) and 3-phenyllactic acid. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002;68:4322–4327. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.9.4322-4327.2002. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
89. Sangmanee P., Hongpattarakere T. Inhibitory of multiple antifungal components produced by Lactobacillus plantarum K35 on growth, aflatoxin production and ultrastructure alterations of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticusFood Control. 2014;40:224–233. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.12.005. [CrossRef[]
90. Dal Bello F., Clarke C.I., Ryan L.A.M., Ulmer H., Schober T.J., Strom K., van Sinderen D., Schnurer J., Arendt E.K. Improvement of the quality and shelf life of wheat bread by fermentation with the antifungal strain Lactobacillus plantarum FST 1.7. J. Cereal Sci. 2007;45:309–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2006.09.004. [CrossRef[]
91. Yang E.J., Chang H.C. Purification of a new antifungal compound produced by Lactobacillus plantarum AF1 isolated from kimchi. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010;139:56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.02.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
92. Franco T., Garcia S., Hirooka E., Ono Y., dos Santos J. Lactic acid bacteria in the inhibition of Fusarium graminearum and deoxynivalenol detoxification. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2011;111:739–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05074.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
93. Lan W., Chen Y., Wu H., Yanagida F. Bio-protective potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from fermented wax gourd. Folia Microbiol. 2012;57:99–105. doi: 10.1007/s12223-012-0101-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
94. Valerio F., Favilla M., De Bellis P., Sisto A., de Candia S., Lavermicocca P. Antifungal activity of strains of lactic acid bacteria isolated from a semolina ecosystem against Penicillium roquefortiAspergillus niger and Endomyces fibuliger contaminating bakery products. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2009;32:438–448. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2009.01.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
95. Skendzic S., Zovko M., Zivković I.P., Lesic V., Lemic D. The Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Insect Pests. Insects. 2021;12:440. doi: 10.3390/insects12050440. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
96. Karami-Mohajeri S., Ahmadipour A., Rahimi H.R., Abdollahi M. Adverse effects of organophosphorus pesticides on the liver: A brief summary of four decades of research. Arh. Hig. Rada. Toksikol. 2017;68:261–275. doi: 10.1515/aiht-2017-68-2989. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
97. Ruiu L. Microbial Biopesticides in Agroecosystems. Agronomy. 2018;8:235. doi: 10.3390/agronomy8110235. [CrossRef[]
98. Kim H.M., Park J.H., Choi I.S., Wi S.G., Ha S., Chun H.H., Hwang I.M., Chang J.Y., Choi H.J., Kim J.C., et al. Effective approach to organic acid production from agricultural kimchi cabbage waste and its potential application. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0207801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207801. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
99. Alawamleh A., Durovic G., Maddalena G., Guzzon R., Ganassi S., Hashmi M.M., Wäckers F., Anfora G., Cristofaro A.D. Selection of Lactic Acid Bacteria Species and Strains for Efficient Trapping of Drosophila suzukiiInsects. 2021;12:153. doi: 10.3390/insects12020153. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
100. Al-Mahin A., Sonomoto K. Nisin tolerance of DnaK-overexpressing Lactococcus lactis strains at 40 °C. Am. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012;2:157–166. doi: 10.3923/ajbmb.2012.157.166. [CrossRef[]
101. Takei T., Yoshida M., Hatate Y., Shiomori K., Kiyoyama S. Lactic acid bacteria-enclosing poly(epsilon-caprolactone) microcapsules as soil bioamendment. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2008;106:268–272. doi: 10.1263/jbb.106.268. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
102. Athanassiou C.G., Kavallieratos N.G., Benelli G., Losic D., Rani P.U., Desneux N. Nanoparticles for pest control: Current status and future perspectives. J. Pest Sci. 2018;91:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10340-017-0898-0. [CrossRef[]
103. Chen H.D., Yada R.N. Nanotechnologies in agriculture: New tools for sustainable development. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011;22:585–594. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2011.09.004. [CrossRef[]
104. Dikbas N., Ucar S., Tozlu G., Ozer T.O., Kotan R. Bacterial Chitinase Biochemical Properties, Immobilization on Zinc Oxide (ZnO) Nanoparticle and its Effect on Sitophilus zeamais as a Potential Insecticide. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021;37:173. doi: 10.1007/s11274-021-03138-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
105. Tsavkelova E.A., Klimova S.Y., Cherdyntseva T.A., Netrusov A.I. Microbial producers of plant growth stimulators and their practical use: A review. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2006;42:117–126. doi: 10.1134/S0003683806020013. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
106. Amprayna K., Supawonga V., Kengkwasingha P., Getmalab A. Plant Growth Promoting Traits of Lactic Acid Bacterium Isolated from Rice Rhizosphere and Its Effect on Rice Growth; Proceedings of the 5th Burapha University International Conference STP-029-10; Pattaya, Thailand. 28–29 July 2016. []
107. Lynch J.M. Origin, Nature and Biological Activity of Aliphatic Substances and Growth Hormones Found in Soil. In: Vaughan D., Malcolm R.E., editors. Soil Organic Matter and Biological Activity. Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences. Volume 16 Springer; Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 1985. []
108. Somers E., Amake A., Croonenborghs A., Overbeek L.S., Vanderleyden J. Lactic acid bacterial in organic agricultural soil; Proceedings of the Rhizosphere 2; Montpellier, France. 26–31 August 2007. []
109. Higa T., Kinjo S. Effect of lactic acid fermentation bacteria on plant growth and soil humus formation. In: Parr J.F., Hornick S.B., Whitman C.E., editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 17–21 October 1989. US Department of Agriculture; Washington, DC, USA: 1991. pp. 140–147. []
110. Rusch H.P. Bodenfruchtbarkeit. Karl F. Haug Verlag; Heidelberg, Germany: 1964. []
111. Kang S.M., Radhakrishnan R., You Y.H., Khan A.L., Park J.M., Lee S.M., Lee I.J. Cucumber performance is improved by inoculation with plant growth-promoting microorganisms. Acta Agric. Scand. B soil Plant Sci. 2015;65:36–44. doi: 10.1080/09064710.2014.960889. [CrossRef[]
112. Lutz M.P., Michel V., Martinez C., Camps C. Lactic acid bacteria as biocontrol agents of soil-borne pathogens biological control of fungal and bacterial plant pathogens. Biol. Control Fungal Bact. Plant Pathog. 2012;78:285–288. []
113. Shrestha A., Kim B.S., Park D.H. Biological control of bacterial spot disease and plant growth-promoting effects of lactic acid bacteria on pepper. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2014;24:763–779. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2014.894495. [CrossRef[]
114. Strafella S., Simpson D.J., Yaghoubi Khanghahi M., De Angelis M., Ganzle M., Minervini F., Crecchio C. Comparative genomics and in vitro plant growth promotion and biocontrol traits of lactic acid bacteria from the wheat rhizosphere. Microorganisms. 2021;9:78. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9010078. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
115. Tsuji A., Okada S., Hols P., Satoh E. Metabolic engineering of Lactobacillus plantarum for succinic acid production through activation of the reductive branch of the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2013;53:97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2013.04.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
116. Limanska N., Ivanytsia T., Basiul O., Krylova K., Biscola V., Chobert J.M., Ivanytsia V., Haertle T. Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum on germination and growth of tomato seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013;35:1587–1595. doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-1200-y. [CrossRef[]
117. Rzhevskaya V.S., Oturina I.P., Oturina L.M. Teplitskaya Study of the biological characteristics of the lactic acid bacteria strains. Серuя Бuoлoгuя Xuмuя 2014;27:145–160. []
118. Yarullina D.R., Asafova E.V., Kartunova J.E., Ziyatdinova G.K., Ilinskaya O.N. Probiotics for plants: NO-producing lactobacilli protect plants from drought. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2014;50:166–168. doi: 10.1134/S0003683814020197. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
119. Phoboo S., Sarkar D., Bhowmik P.C., Jha P.K., Shetty K. Improving salinity resilience in Swertia chirayita clonal line with Lactobacillus plantarumCan. J. Plant Sci. 2016;96:117–127. doi: 10.1139/cjps-2015-0178. [CrossRef[]
120. Mohite B. Isolation and characterization of indole acetic acid (IAA) producing bacteria from rhizospheric soil and its effect on plant growth. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 2013;13:638–649. doi: 10.4067/S0718-95162013005000051. [CrossRef[]
121. Giassi V., Kiritani C., Kupper K.C. Bacteria as growth-promoting agents for citrus rootstocks. Microbiol. Res. 2016;190:46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
122. Wang Y., Bi L., Liao Y., Lu D., Zhang H., Liao X., Liang J.B., Wu Y. Influence and characteristics of Bacillus stearothermophilus in ammonia reduction during layer manure composting. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019;180:80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.04.066. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
123. Blais A. Lactic Acid and Bacillaceae Fertilizer and Method of Producing Same. No. CA2598539A1. [(accessed on 16 June 2022)];Canadian Patent. 2006 August 31; Available online: 
124. 2020 Industry Report: Mushroom, 2021, Market Intelligence Team. [(accessed on 16 June 2022)]. Available online: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com
125. Raman J., Lee S.K., Im J.H., Oh M.J., Oh Y.L., Jang K.Y. Current prospects of mushroom production and industrial growth in India. J. Mushrooms. 2018;16:239–249. []
126. HaqMaher M.J., Smyth S., Dodd V.A., McCabe T., Magette W.L., Duggan J., Hennerty M.J. Managing Spent Mushroom Compost. Teagasc; Dublin, Ireland: 2000. pp. 111–121. []
127. Kwiatkowski C.A., Harasim E. The Effect of Fertilization with Spent Mushroom Substrate and Traditional Methods of Fertilization of Common Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) on Yield Quality and Antioxidant Properties of Herbal Material. Agronomy. 2021;11:329. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11020329. [CrossRef[]
128. Kim J.S., Lee Y.H., Kim Y.I., Ahmadi F., Oh Y.K., Park J.M., Kwak W.S. Effect of microbial inoculant or molasses on fermentative quality and aerobic stability of sawdust-based spent mushroom substrate. Bioresour. Technol. 2016;216:188–195. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.056. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
129. Chuang W.Y., Liu C.L., Tsai C.F., Lin W.C., Chang S.C., Shih H., Shy Y.M., Lee T.T. Evaluation of Waste Mushroom Compost as a Feed Supplement and Its Effects on the Fat Metabolism and Antioxidant Capacity of Broilers. Animals. 2020;10:445. doi: 10.3390/ani10030445. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
130. Cacace C., Rizzello C.G., Brunetti G., Verni M., Cocozza C. Reuse of Wasted Bread as Soil Amendment: Bioprocessing, Effects on Alkaline Soil and Escarole (Cichorium endivia) Production. Foods. 2022;11:189. doi: 10.3390/foods11020189. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
131. Cocozza C., Ercolani G.L. Siderophore production and associated characteristics in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere fluorescent pseudomonads. Ann. Microbiol. 1997;47:17–28. []
132. Sposito G. The Chemistry of Soil. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK: 2008. []
133. Mao B., Yin R., Li X., Cui S., Zhang H., Zhao J., Chen W. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Isolated from Different Niches. Genes. 2021;12:241. doi: 10.3390/genes12020241. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
134. Yan Y.H., Zhang F., Chai Z.Y., Liu M., Battino M., Meng X.H. Mixed fermentation of blueberry pomace with L. rhamnosus GG and L. plantarum-1: Enhance the active ingredient, antioxidant activity and health promoting benefits. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019;131:110541. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.05.049. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
135. Halttunen T., Salminen S., Tahvonen R. Rapid removal of lead and cadmium from water by specific lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007;114:30–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.10.040. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
136. Haskard C., El-Nezami H., Kankaanpaa P., Salminen S., Ahokas J. Surface binding of aflatoxin B1 by lactic acid bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001;67:3086–3091. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.3086-3091.2001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
137. Kromah V., Zhang G. Aqueous Adsorption of Heavy Metals on Metal Sulfide Nanomaterials: Synthesis and Application. Water. 2021;13:1843. doi: 10.3390/w13131843. [CrossRef[]
138. Ameen F.A., Hamdan A.M., El-Naggar M.Y. Assessment of the heavy metal bioremediation efficiency of the novel marine lactic acid bacterium, Lactobacillus plantarum MF042018. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:314. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-57210-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
139. Kirillova A.V., Danilushkina A.A., Irisov D.S., Bruslik N.L., Fakhrullin R.F., Zakharov Y.A., Bukhmin V.S., Yarullina D.R. Assessment of Resistance and Bioremediation Ability of Lactobacillus Strains to Lead and Cadmium. Int. J. Microbiol. 2017;2017:9869145. doi: 10.1155/2017/9869145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
140. Kinoshita H. Biosorption of Heavy Metals by Lactic Acid Bacteria for Detoxification. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019;1887:145–157. [PubMed[]
141. Bo L.Y., Zhang Y.H., Zhao X.H. Degradation kinetics of seven organophosphorus pesticides in milk during yoghurt processing. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2011;76:353–362. doi: 10.2298/JSC100615035B. [CrossRef[]
142. Islam M.A., Math R.K., Cho K.M., Lim W.J., Hong S.Y., Kim J.M., Yun M.G., Cho J.J., Yun H.D. Organophosphorus hydrolase (OpdB) of Lactobacillus brevis WCP902 from kimchi is able to degrade organophosphorus pesticides. J. Agri. Food Chem. 2010;58:5380–5386. doi: 10.1021/jf903878e. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
143. Zhou X.W., Zhao X.H. Susceptibility of nine organophosphorus pesticides in skimmed milk towards inoculated lactic acid bacteria and yogurt starters. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015;95:260–266. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6710. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
144. Papagianni M. Metabolic engineering of lactic acid bacteria for the production of industrially important compounds. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2012;29:e201210003. doi: 10.5936/csbj.201210003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
145. Roberts A., Barrangou R. Applications of CRISPR-Cas systems in lactic acid bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2020;44:523–537. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuaa016. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
146. Auras R., Lim L.T., Selke S.E.M., Tsuji H. Poly (Lactic Acid): Synthesis, Structures, Properties, Processing, and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2010. [CrossRef[]
147. Soundharrajan I., Park H.S., Rengasamy S., Sivanesan R., Choi K.C. Application and Future Prospective of Lactic Acid Bacteria as Natural Additives for Silage Production—A Review. Appl. Sci. 2021;11:8127. doi: 10.3390/app11178127. [CrossRef[]
148. Alonso S., Castrol M.C., Berdascol M., de la Banda I.G., Moreno-Ventas X., de Rojas A.H. Isolation and partial characterization of lactic acid bacteria from the gut microbiota of marine fishes for potential application as probiotics in aquaculture. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins. 2019;11:569–579. doi: 10.1007/s12602-018-9439-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef[]
error: Content is protected !!