Search Advanced

AIMS Bioengineering

2015, Volume 2, Issue 4: 404-422. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.4.404
Previous Article Next Article
Mini review Special Issues

Surface modification of materials to encourage beneficial biofilm formation

  • 1.
    School of Science, Monash University, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway 46150, Selangor, Malaysia;
  • 2.
    School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth 6102, Western Australia
  • Biofilms are communities of sessile microorganisms that grow and produce extrapolymeric substances on an abiotic or biotic surface. Although biofilms are often associated with negative impacts, the role of beneficial biofilms is wide and include applications in bioremediation, wastewater treatment and microbial fuel cells. Microbial adhesion to a surface, which is highly dependent on the physicochemical properties of the cells and surfaces, is an essential step in biofilm formation. Surface modification therefore represents an important way to modulate microbial attachment and ultimately biofilm formation by microorganisms. In this review different surface modification processes such as organosilane surface modification, plasma treatment, and chemical modification of carbon nanotubes, electro-oxidation and covalent-immobilization with neutral red and methylene blue molecules are outlined. The effectiveness of these modifications and their industrial applications are also discussed. There is inadequate literature on surface modification as a process to enhance beneficial biofilm formation. These methods need to be safe, economically viable, scalable and environmental friendly and their potential to fulfil these criteria for many applications has yet to be determined.

    Citation: Amreeta Sarjit, Sin Mei Tan, Gary A. Dykes. Surface modification of materials to encourage beneficial biofilm formation[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2015, 2(4): 404-422. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2015.4.404

    Related Papers:

    [1] Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011
    [2] Yu Song, Rongjun Yin, Hui Shen, Xin Tao, Linmei Li, Nan Gao . Whole-Genome analysis of Bacillus subtilis NRCB002 and characterization of its metabolite acetoin as a plant growth stimulant. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(3): 574-587. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025024
    [3] Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 502-524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502
    [4] Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 747-748. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.747
    [5] Alexandra Díez-Méndez, Raul Rivas . Improvement of saffron production using Curtobacterium herbarum as a bioinoculant under greenhouse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 354-364. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.354
    [6] Paola Ortiz-Ojeda, Katty Ogata-Gutiérrez, Doris Zúñiga-Dávila . Evaluation of plant growth promoting activity and heavy metal tolerance of psychrotrophic bacteria associated with maca (Lepidium meyenii Walp.) rhizosphere. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 279-292. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.279
    [7] Luciana Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, Lina Marcela Blandon Garcia, Cristine Rodrigues, Marcela Cândido Camara, Gilberto Vinícius de Melo Pereira, Juliana de Oliveira, Carlos Ricardo Soccol . Potential applications of plant probiotic microorganisms in agriculture and forestry. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 629-648. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.629
    [8] Alejandro Jiménez-Gómez, Lorena Celador-Lera, María Fradejas-Bayón, Raúl Rivas . Plant probiotic bacteria enhance the quality of fruit and horticultural crops. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 483-501. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.483
    [9] Ananya Mukherjee, Puja Bhattacharjee, Rituparna Das, Arundhati Pal, Amal K. Paul . Endophytic bacteria with plant growth promoting abilities from Ophioglossum reticulatum L.. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 596-612. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.596
    [10] Srirengaraj Vijayaram, Reshma Sinha, Caterina Faggio, Einar Ringø, Chi-Chung Chou . Biopolymer encapsulation for improved probiotic delivery: Advancements and challenges. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 986-1023. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024043
  • Biofilms are communities of sessile microorganisms that grow and produce extrapolymeric substances on an abiotic or biotic surface. Although biofilms are often associated with negative impacts, the role of beneficial biofilms is wide and include applications in bioremediation, wastewater treatment and microbial fuel cells. Microbial adhesion to a surface, which is highly dependent on the physicochemical properties of the cells and surfaces, is an essential step in biofilm formation. Surface modification therefore represents an important way to modulate microbial attachment and ultimately biofilm formation by microorganisms. In this review different surface modification processes such as organosilane surface modification, plasma treatment, and chemical modification of carbon nanotubes, electro-oxidation and covalent-immobilization with neutral red and methylene blue molecules are outlined. The effectiveness of these modifications and their industrial applications are also discussed. There is inadequate literature on surface modification as a process to enhance beneficial biofilm formation. These methods need to be safe, economically viable, scalable and environmental friendly and their potential to fulfil these criteria for many applications has yet to be determined.


    Abbreviations:

    ACC 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate ANI average nucleotide identity
    FAO Food and Agriculture Organization DDH DNA-DNA hybridization
    IAA indol acetic acid JA jasmonic acid
    OTUs Operational taxonomic units NGS next generation sequencing
    PGP plant growth promoters WHO World Health Organization
    PGPR plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria

    1. What is a Plant Probiotic?

    The concept of probiotic was first described by Elie Metchnikoff in the early 20th century, in an attempt to identify some beneficial bacteria that could colonize the human gut. Today, probiotics are still associated with gut microbiota, although the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation Report defines them as "live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host" [1]. This definition is perfectly applicable to microorganisms responsible for improving plant development or protection against pathogens, but it has not been used in this sense until recently. The microorganisms able to live inside healthy plant tissues are called endophytes, they have a strong relationship with their host and, in most cases, this relationship is the response of millions of years of coevolution [2]. Indeed, plants are thought to rely on their microbiomes for faster adaptations to sudden environmental changes. While plants are quite limited in terms of adaptation (due to their inability to move and their slow mutation rate), microorganisms can compensate by evolving functionality more quickly with their short life cycles [2].

    The plant probiotics concept includes all the microorganisms, specially fungi and bacteria—known as plant growth promoters (PGP)—due to their beneficial role in the general growth of plants and their faster adaptation to environmental changes, such as drought, heat or salinity. These microorganisms encompass the well-studied nitrogen suppliers (rhizobia strains or Frankia), other nutrient suppliers (Pseudomonas, which supply phosphorus), those that induce systemic resistance (Trichoderma) and those which directly protect the plants against pathogens (such as Bacillus spp. which produce fungicides). This review is focused on plant probiotic bacteria and their taxonomy.

    Several bacterial genes are already known to be implicated in beneficial effects observed on plants, such as (ⅰ) genes involved in the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen (nif genes, which encode for the nitrogenase complex and other regulatory proteins); (ⅱ) nodulation (nod); (ⅲ) pathogen control (chi genes, which produce chitinases and sfp genes, which produce surfactins); (ⅳ) phytohormone production (acdS, which encode the production of an ACC deaminase that improve tolerance to stress decreasing ethylene levels in the plant; and ipdC/ppdC implicated in indol acetic acid production); (ⅴ) vitamin production (pqq, which encode for pyrroloquinoline quinone) and (ⅵ) nutrient mobilization (bgl/ybg genes, which are implicated in phosphate solubilization and rhb genes, which encode for siderophore production). Moreover, the implication of other genes from plant probiotics start to become known in the last years thanks to the new technologies available, as detailed below.

    2. Classical Taxonomy and Systematics in Probiotics

    2.1. Microbial classification

    Taxonomy is a branch of biology that was established in the early 19th century, but is a field on decline owing to the fact that the direct application of research is an imperative nowadays [3]. Many of the articles that can be found on the subject of taxonomy in probiotics are related to Lactobacillus strains and human probiotics [4,5,6], but there is limited information offered regarding the taxonomy of plant probiotics as a group. This is probably due to the high variability within this group of bacteria, which belong to several phyla, and because most of their phylogenetic analyses have been conducted within their specific genus, as can be seen in Supplementary Table 1.

    Table 1. List of genera with confirmed capacity as plant probiotics.
    Bacteria Plant References
    Phylum Actinobacteria
    Agromyces Oryza sativa Bal et al., 2013 [146]
    Arthrobacter Triticum aestivum Upadhyay et al., 2012 [147]
    Brassica, Hordeum vulgare, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Curtobacterium Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Hordeum vulgare Cardinale et al., 2015 [149]
    Frankia Atriplex cordobensis, Colletia hystrix, Trevoa trinervis, Talguenea quinquenervia, Retanilla ephedra Fabri et al., 1996 [150]
    Kocuria Vitis vinifera Salomon et al., 2016 [151]
    Microbacterium Hordeum vulgare Cardinale et al., 2015 [149]
    Oryza sativa Bal et al., 2013 [146]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Arabidopsis thaliana Schwachtje et al., 2012 [153]
    Vitis vinifera Salomon et al., 2016 [151]
    Brassica, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Micromonospora Lupinus angustifolia Trujillo et al., 2010 [13]; Trujillo et al., 2015 [154]
    Discaria trinervis Solans, 2007 [155]
    Streptomyces Aristida pungens, Cleome arabica, Solanum nigrum, Panicum turgidum, Astragallus armatus, Peganum harmala, Hammada scoparia, Euphorbia helioscopia Goudjal et al., 2014 [156]
    Triticum aestivum, Solanum lycopersicum Anwar et al., 2016 [157]
    Discaria trinervis Solans, 2007 [155]
    Rhodococcus Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Hordeum vulgare, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Phylum Bacterioidetes
    Flavobacterium Triticum aestivum Gontia-Mishra et al., 2016 [158]
    Capsicum annuum Kolton et al., 2014 [159]
    Pholidota articulata Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Solanum lycopersicum Subramanian et al., 2016 [161]
    Chryseobacterium Glycine max Simonetti et al., 2015 [162]
    Pholidota articulata Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Vigna unguiculata Leite et al., 2017 [49]
    Pedobacter Solanum lycopersicum Subramanian et al., 2016 [161]
    Sphingobacterium Vigna unguiculata Leite et al., 2017 [49]
    Phylum Firmicutes
    Bacillus Triticum aestivum Upadhyay et al., 2012 [147]
    Allium cepa, Allium fistulosum, Allium sativum, Brassica, Hordeum vulgare, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Bal et al., 2013 [146]; Banik et al., 2016 [41]
    Glycine max Simonetti et al., 2015 [162]
    Brevibacillus Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Lysinibacillus Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Paenibacillus Allium fistulosum, Brassica napa, Hordeum vulgare, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Bal et al., 2013 [146]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Sporosarcina Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Terribacillus Vitis vinifera Salomon et al., 2016 [151]
    Viridibacillus Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Phylum Proteobacteria
    Acetobacter Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Achromobacter Capsicum annuum Kong et al., 2016 [163]
    Acinetobacter Allium cepa Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Aeromonas Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Agrobacterium Pholidota articulata Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Aminobacter Anthyllis vulneraria Maynaud et al., 2012 [164]
    Ancylobacter Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Azospirillum Lactuca sativa Fasciglione et al., 2011 [165]
    Zea mays Couillerot et al., 2013 [166]
    Oryza sativa Chaman et al., 2013 [167]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Azorhizobium Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Azotobacter Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Bradyrhizobium Lupinus albus Qui񯮥s et al., 2013 [168]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Burkholderia Paphiopedilum appletonianum Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Devosia Neptunia natans Rivas et al., 2002 [169]
    Ensifer Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Psoralea corylifolia Prabha et al., 2013 [170]
    Enterobacter Triticum aestivum Gontia-Mishra et al., 2016 [158]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Erwinia Paphiopedilum appletonianum Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Herbaspirillum Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Janthinobacterium Capsicum annuum Kong et al., 2016 [163]
    Klebsiella Triticum aestivum Gontia-Mishra et al., 2016 [158]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Kosakonia Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Marinobacterium Psoralea corylifolia Sorty et al., 2016 [171]
    Mesorhizobium Cicer arietinum Brígido et al., 2016 [172]
    Leucaena leucocephala Rangel et al., 2017 [173]
    Methylophaga Oryza sativa Bal et al., 2013 [146]
    Methylotropic Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Methylobacterium Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Novosphingobium Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Pantoea Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Allium fistulosum Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Phyllobacterium Arabidopsis thaliana Kechid et al., 2013 [174]
    Pseudomonas Allium cepa, Allium fistulosum, Brassica napa, Hordeum vulgare, weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Arabidopsis thaliana Schwachtje et al., 2012 [153]
    Hordeum vulgare Cardinale et al., 2015 [149]
    Glycine max Simonetti et al., 2015 [162]
    Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]; Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Solanum lycopersicum Subramanian et al., 2016 [161]
    Mentha piperita Santoro et al., 2016 [175]
    Ochrobactrum Oryza sativa Pandey et al., 2013 [176]
    Arachis hypogaea Paulucci et al., 2015 [177]
    Ralstonia Oryza sativa Bertani et al., 2016 [41]
    Ranhella Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Rhizobium Capsicum annuum, Lycopersicon esculentum Garcia-Fraile et al., 2012 [178]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Psoralea corylifolia Prabha et al., 2013 [170]
    Serratia Allium fistulosum Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Stenotrophomonas Hordeum vulgare Kim et al., 2011 [148]
    Capsicum annuum Kong et al., 2016 [163]
    Oryza sativa Banik et al., 2016 [152]
    Pholidota articulata Tsavkelova et al., 2007 [160]
    Staphylococcus Solanum melongena, Capsicum annuum Amaresan et al., 2014 [179]
    Variovorax Weed Kim et al., 2011 [148]
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    First microbial classifications rely on phenotypic characterization of isolated strains, from morphological aspects to biochemical identification, trying to identify the functional capabilities through culture-based methods. However, these tests alone induced many taxa misclassifications that could not be solved until the introduction of genetic features and polyphasic approaches [7].

    2.2. Genotyping approaches

    Following the isolation of potential plant probiotics, analyses used to include genotyping characterization of strains, including methods such as RAPD (Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA) [8], ERIC-PCR (Enterobacterial Repetitive Intergenic Consensus) [9], BOX-PCR (Repetitive extragenic palindromic sequences) [10], RFLPs (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism) or ARDRA (Amplified rDNA Restriction Analysis) [11] to classify the microorganisms obtained [12,13,14]. These kinds of analyses are useful for grouping the bacteria into phylogenetic clusters. The first three methods determine clones within the isolated strains whilst the last two give information at species level. However, it has also been shown that the presence of genes related with promotion characteristics are strain-dependent, rather than the species or higher-level taxonomic group to which they belong [14].

    With the appearance of the gold-standard marker in microbiology, the 16S rRNA gene, the identification of the strains has become feasible at genus and species level. This gene was selected owing to specific characteristics, such as size, ubiquity in bacteria, and slow rates of evolution. An in-depth analysis of bacteria phylogeny has incorporated "housekeeping genes", using the multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) approach. The selected genes depend on the group of bacteria, since several studies have shown that certain genes are more efficient in some genera than in others. For example, the gene which codes for recombinase (recA), has been shown to be able to properly differentiate strains of the genus Rhizobium [15], while its use is relatively poor in the Micromonospora genus [12]. Typical "housekeeping genes" used in phylogeny include: atpD (ATP synthase subunit beta), dnaJ (chaperone dnaJ or heat shock protein 40 kD), dnaK (chaperone dnaK or heat shock protein), gap (glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase), glnA (glutamine synthetase), gltA (citrate synthase), gyrA (DNA gyrase subunit A), gyrB (DNA gyrase subunit B), hsp60 (heat shock protein 60 kD), hsp65 (heat shock protein 60 kD), infB (translational initiation factor), pheS (phenylalanyl-tRNA synthase alpha subunit), pnp (polynucleotide phosphorylase), rpoA (RNA polymerase alpha subunit), rpoB (RNA polymerase beta subunit), recA (recombinase), truA (tRNA pseudouridine synthase A) or thrC (threonine biosynthesis gene C) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].

    The taxonomic status of a strain is not restricted to molecular methods, and both phenotypic and genetic characterization also needs to be performed according to the polyphasic taxonomy [7]. This characterization calls for combining chemotaxonomic features with phenotypic ones, such as enzyme production, tolerance tests (Temperature, NaCl concentration or pH), antibiotic resistance, ability to metabolize carbon and nitrogen sources, in addition to other genetic traits of the taxon such as GC content and DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH) with the closest type strains. In fact, prokaryotic species delineation was defined by a group of strains sharing more than 97% of 16S rRNA similarity [25], 70% of DDH [26], and/or 95–96% of average nucleotide identity (ANI) [27,28]. For plant probiotic bacteria, the complete polyphasic approach is determined for most of the studies only when the probiotic strains seem to represent a new species of their genus, while the majority of strains isolated lack of these analyses.

    Recently, next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have become everyday tools for laboratories, with hundreds of genomes and metagenomes generated each day [29]. The application of this information to different fields, such as plant probiotic analysis or taxonomic determination, is still in its first stages. We will analyze here how these technologies are applied to the study of some taxa described as plant probiotics.

    3. Next Generation Sequencing

    The evolution of next generation sequencing (NGS) has vastly increased our ability to obtain full genome sequences of prokaryotes in a scale of cost and time never seen before, making great strides both economically and technically. The use of NGS techniques permits the analysis in parallel of different molecules, genes using genomics, transcripts using transcriptomics, proteins using proteomics and metabolites using metabolomics [30]. This genomic information will change the approach of many biological disciplines owing to new information being obtained in a more easy and reliable manner, as has happening with the understanding of human microbiome effects [31] or unravel the brain complexity [32]. The study of gene composition in a bacterial genome or in the comparative analysis between bacteria with specific functions or ecological roles looking for differences allow a better comprehension of host-microbe interactions [33]. Within these interactions, one of the first questions tried to be answered using NGS technologies was "Who is there?" using the metagenomic analysis of plant samples [30]. The technologies applied in understanding plant microbial communities and their interactions has been studied in detail in previous reviews, from library preparation [34] to metabolic engineering by gene edition [35].

    4. Metagenomic Analysis and Diversity

    Probiotic bacteria have attracted the attention of the scientific community due to their beneficial effects on human, plant and animal health [36,37]. One of the reasons for the increasing use of probiotic concepts in plant-microorganism relationships has been the development of these new sequencing technologies—mainly metagenomics analysis—which has recently highlighted the complex composition of symbioses, showing a rich microbial community living together within healthy plants [38,39,40]. Most of these studies describe the presence of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria as the most abundant phyla detected [39,41]. All of these groups contain strains that have been described as plant growth promoter bacteria (PGPB), e.g. Azospirillum or Rhizobium in Proteobacteria, Bacillus or Paenibacillus in Firmicutes, Flavobacterium or Pedobacter in Bacteroidetes, and Streptomyces or Micromonospora in Actinobacteria (Table 1). The abundance of microorganisms belonging to the phyla Proteobacteria has been highlighted in most of the studies determining plant microorganismxs diversity, with a range from 40 to 90% for either isolation or microbiomes analyses [41,42,43]. However, these percentages are different depending on the part of the plant analyzed, with high variations between roots, nodules, stems, leaves or flowers [41,43,44]. Proteobacteria is the largest prokaryotic phylum [45] and is commonly found in soil and water habitats; therefore, it is expected that its presence in plants will be high but in many occasions only represent an incidental event rather than a symbiotic relationship. However, there are also many genera that have never been previously studied in their relationship with plants (e.g. Terracocus genus [46]), as well as many that were unknown before these metagenomic analyses allowed their determination without previous isolation [40].

    To understand how a plant's probiotic bacterium interacts with its host, it is also necessary to understand how it interacts with its plant microbiome, a system in which complex interactions can be analyzed [47]. The compounds produced through plant-bacteria interactions are also implicated, as has been shown for the jasmonic acid (JA), whose induction is related to plant defenses and is a selective characteristic for PGPR bacteria. Liu et al. [48] have analyzed how JA expression could have an influence on the microbiome of wheat plants. The results showed that the presence of JA changes the root endophytic communities, reducing their diversity, but not changes were observed on shoot or rhizospheric communities. The analysis of the diversity of the microorganisms, and the taxonomic groups to which they belong, was made using Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs), which are artificial groupings of taxa based on sequence similarity. These OTUs are used to determine the genus of the microorganisms analyzed, but can be used no further in the taxonomy due to the absence of a more complete genomic database and the inability to properly differentiate the data obtained into separated taxa.

    The OTUs present in plant tissues where symbiosis occurs have been also analyzed in several legumes to determine their relationship with the symbiotic bacteria, the soil, and the plants [49,50,51]. However, each of these studies has highlighted that the main influence is carried out by a different agent. While analysis by Xiao et al. [51] found that plants determine the microorganisms detected as endophytes, Leite et al. [49] show that soils have an important influence on plant bacterial communities, higher than the plants themselves. On the other hand, the analysis presented by Zgadza et al. [50] remarks on the important influence of nodule symbiotic bacteria and their ability to fix nitrogen as key in the other endophytes selection. Changes in the plant microbiome generate perturbations in the balance of associated ecosystems. The understanding of these processes could be used in agriculture to induce specific changes or responses for plant health improvement [52].

    General analysis of probiotic bacteria on plants are focused on the determination of their PGP characteristics; however, new analysis has shown that other parameters should also be of high importance when attempting to determine the necessary bacteria for the wellbeing of plants. Shade et al. [44] found that a phyla that is not used to take into account in these analyses, Deionococcus-Thermus, is highly abundant in plant flowers, and probably influence their development. Furthermore, the work of Ushio et al. [53] has shown how the flower microbial communities are signatures for pollinators, and thus, have a direct effect on plant reproduction. The study of plants and their microbiomes as a whole entity is key to understanding their ecology and understanding how small changes can affect the whole system balance.

    5. Genome Analysis Looking for Promotion Genes of Plant Probiotic Bacteria

    5.1. Proteobacteria

    Analysis of individual genomes from plant probiotics in order to determine potential genes alongside their plant relationships is a major objective at this moment in laboratories worldwide [54]. Several recent studies are focused on the "rhizobia" group of bacteria, the nitrogen-fixing bacteria that lives in symbiosis with legume plants [55,56]. In a study by Seshadri et al., [56], 163 of these genomes (44 of Rhizobium, 41 of Ensifer, 36 of Bradyrhizobium, 17 of Mesorhisobium, 13 of Burkholderia, 5 of Cupriavidus, 3 of Methylobacterium, 2 of Azorhizobium and 2 of Microvirga) have been analyzed and compared to non-nodule bacteria in order to identify specific genes of host-rhizobia interactions. Researchers have found that, beyond their ability for nitrogen fixation, most of these bacteria possess other capacities for plant growth promotion, such as 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase (acds), biocontrol or stress tolerance genes [56]. Most of the genome sequences of non-symbiotic plant probiotics available today belong to the Pseudomonas genera. The study of the Pseudomonas fluorescens F113 genome compared to 50 genomes of other Pseudomonas strains has revealed several specific characteristics specific to its plant interactions [57]. Several genes have been identified as potential probiotic genes, being implicated in motility, chemotaxis and antimicrobial compounds production. Recently, the inclusion of more PGP Pseudomonas strains has allowed the identification of more traits related with plant interaction [52]. Garrido-Sanz et al. [58] have determined that the presence of the genes for 2, 4-diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG); for pyoluteorin, for phenazine-1-carboxylic acid (PCA); and for phenazines or for pyrrolnitrin—all of them related with antifungal activity—are specifically related to precise clusters within the Pseudomonas strains. They have also detected genes related to the production of siderophores (to sequester iron from the environment), the production of indol-3-acetic acid (IAA) (a plant hormone related with growth and development), the degradation of phenylacetic acid (PAA) (a molecule that has been related with root colonization [59]), the synthesis of polyamine spermidine (related to a resistance to salinity, drought and cold temperatures in plants), and the denitrification process.

    Within the same phyla, the genome analysis of 304 Proteobacteria to determine the presence of genes related with plant probiotic characteristics was carried out [33]. The presence of 23 genes was analysed over known PGPR, endophytic, saprophytic, and phytopathogenic bacteria, and Bruto et al. [33] proposed that the distribution of some of these bacteria could be related to certain taxonomic properties, as some distributions were according to their ecological type. Between the genes analyzed were those related to phosphate solubilization; pyrroloquinoline quinone (pqqBCDEFG); 2, 4 diacetylphloroglucinal synthesis (phlACB); indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase/phenylpyruvate decarboxylase synthesis (ipdC/ppdC); hydrogen cyanide synthesis, acetoine/2, 3-butanediol synthesis; nitric oxide synthesis (nirK); acetoine/2, 3-butanediol synthesis (budABC); auxin synthesis (indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase/phenylpyruvate decarboxylase gene (ipdC/ppdC); ACC deamination (acds); and nitrogen fixation (nifHDK) [33]. In other proteobacteria studies, the presence of genes related to the production of siderophores, acetoin, butanediol, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), heat and cold shock tolerance, glycine-betaine production, or genes involved in oxidative stresses (catatases, peroxidases, and superoxide dismutases) has been demonstrated [60]. The genome analysis of an Azospirillum strain has also provided insights regarding plant hormone synthesis of this bacterium, and has shown high probability for another pathway for production of auxin [61]. In addition, thanks to horizontal gene transfer events, an adaptation of Azospirillum amazonense to the environment and its host plant has been proposed.

    5.2. Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes

    Much fewer studies related to PGP genes have been carried out on Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes phyla detected as plant endophytes. However, as many of their genomes start to become available [62,63,64,65], new studies to analyze these features are expected to be produced in the following years. Within the Actinobacteria, the complete genome of Micromonospora lupini Lupac 08, isolated from nitrogen-fixing root nodules of a legume plant, has been shown to possess characteristics of a PGP [66]. These characteristics were detected through genome mining and wet-lab techniques, indicating the production of several phytohormones, siderophores and defensin compounds. The presence of genes related to plant-polymer degrading enzymes was also detected, and a role in internal colonization was proposed for them [66]. Within the Bacteroidetes, 25 genomes of root-associated Flavobacterium were analyzed to identify markers for niche adaptation, and found that plant-related Flavobacterium could be determined by the presence of genes involved in the metabolism of glucans containing arabinose and rhamnogalacturonan [42]. Within the Firmicutes, the most abundant analyses are found for Bacillus genus. A comparative study using 31 genomes shows that plant-related Bacillus strains contain more genes related to intermediary metabolism and secondary metabolites production than those which are unrelated [67]. Most of the genome mining studies on Bacillus which have been presented so far are focused on secondary metabolites and antibiotic/antifungal compounds, due to their use as biocontrol agents [68,69]. On the other hand, Paenibacillus genomic analysis has focused on other plant-growth promoting traits, such as nitrogen fixation, IAA production, or genes related to phosphate solubilization and assimilation [3].

    The comparison between probiotic bacteria and their closest phylogenetic neighbors which are not able to colonize plant tissues, reveals necessary features for establishing and maintaining bacteria-plant interactions [47]. The information about plant-related bacteria genomes will be highly increased in the near future, thanks to the massive sequencing projects that are being carried out, and include the sequencing of genomes from soil and plant-associated bacteria [70].

    6. Phylogenomic and Genomic Analysis Highlighting the PGPR Traits

    6.1. Taxonomy in the genomic era

    Taxonomy has a crucial role, not only in the classification and identification of, and differentiation between, the probiotic species or strains, but also in understanding the relationship between them and their habitats. Descriptions of a particular physiological or functional characteristic of species linked to plant-beneficial effects calls for an application of these bacteria in probiotic products. In addition, giving an appropriate name to each species or genus avoids confusion and allows for the taxon to be recognizable around the word.

    In this scenario, traditional taxonomy based on the morphological and biochemical traits does not accurately distinguish between phenotypically-similar species and/or determine the phylogenetic relationship of some bacteria [71]. Modern taxonomy based on the single gene 16S rRNA gene, the MLSA, and the DDH, in addition to the emersion of several molecular typing methods, dramatically increases the number of the species or genus of bacteria with potential probiotic effect. However, all methods cited above have their own limitations which can be explained by (ⅰ) the low variability in the 16S rRNA gene sequence for some taxa, which handicap its efficiency in the differentiation of microorganism at species level; (ⅱ) the dependence of the MLSA technique on the choice of the housekeeping genes, which differ from one taxa to another [72], in addition to their influence by horizontal gene transfer [73,74]; and (ⅲ) the time consuming technique of wet lab DDH, which is difficult to reproduce.

    NGS have allowed overcoming some of these limitations with the availability of thousands of prokaryotic genome sequences and the accessibility to tools for phylogenomic analysis in public databases, with an important impact on the taxonomic community. Several methods have been developed to clarify the taxonomic status of some taxa which calls for a reexamination, since the phylogenetic analysis that the methods were based on were not sufficient [75]. These new methods based on genome information are helping to clarify the phylogeny of some microorganisms and provide a better understanding of their inter-and intra-relationships, and their evolutionary path. It has been shown that the phylogenomic approach has had a reliable impact on the phylogeny and the taxonomy of prokaryotes [76,77]. Methods based on the complete genome sequence—as nucleotide composition relying on the tetranucleotide frequencies [78,79], protein-encoding gene families [80,81], and the gene order [82,83]—have been used to highlight the relationship between microorganisms. Moreover, the gene-content approach reflecting the "pan genome" of species, the "core genome" (for all the strains), the "dispensable genome" (only for some strains), and the "unique genes" (for specific strains) are powerful methods in taxonomic classification [83].

    6.2. Analyses in Proteobacteria

    Comparative genomic approaches have led to the detection of significant markers for taxonomic classification, and the revelation of several genes with plant-growth-promoting functions in bacteria, which were not previously recognized as PGPR [38]. Between these genes appear phlABCD, pqqFG, budABC, ipdC, ppdC and hcnABC, which have been shown to have a strong relationship with proteobacterial phylogeny [33], while other PGPR genes appear to have weaker phylogenetic signals. To take advantage of PGP microorganisms with high confidence in their effectiveness in enhancing plant growth, their taxonomic status and their phylogenetic relationship need to be studied based on a state-of-art of genomic analysis. Genome and phylogenetic relationships analyses of plant probiotic bacteria have also been shown to be important in the determination of their evolution and the timing for colonization of terrestrial and plant habitats [84]. Moreover, it has been shown that phylogenomics is a powerful approach for an ideal taxonomic affiliation of taxa with a very low risk of mislabeling.

    Whole genome sequences were used for the classification and analysis the PGPR effect of three rhizobacteria isolated from a commercial plantation [60]. The phylogeny of the isolates and their relatedness to the other group of PGPR were determined using pairwise genome comparison, showing the membership of 2 isolates to Enterobacter cloacae [85,86] and one to Pseudomonas putida [87]. Screening the genome of these three rhizobacteria for the PGP genes led to the detection of common genes such as catalases, superoxide dismutase, peroxidases and glutathione transferases, all involved in the protection of the plant against oxidative stress, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), known recently by its increasing effect on seed germination. Moreover, different genes with the same function as rimM, dcyD (Enterobacter group) and acdS (Pseudomonas groups), all of which encode for ACC deaminase, have been detected. However, other genes, as fpv and mbt, encoding for the same function, pyverdine production, seem to be restricted to the taxonomic genus rank, because they are only present in the genomes of isolates belonging to the genus Enterobacter. Conversely, other molecular markers were found to be present to the species or strain level as budAC [88] and als [89] at the origin of 2, 3-butanediol and acetoin production, respectively. These were later detected in only one of the isolates belonging to Enterobacter group [60]. The comparison of PGP rhizobia with the closest neighbor non-PGPR taxon provides important genetic information regarding the PGP properties of some strains or species. In this regard, Gupta et al. [60] has shown that P. putida, which is well known by its PGP traits, lacks some PGP genes encoding for enterobactin, siderophore, pyrroloquinoline quinone and phenazine biosynthesis. The comparison of 50 genomes of Pseudomonas fluorescens strains analyzed in the previous section shows a classification of five main subgroups that possess a highly conserved core genome, but probably should be divided into five separate species [57]. Indeed, an update on the evaluation of this P. fluorescens complex has been presented recently, including the DDH in silico with several methods, and shows that hundreds of species compose this complex [58]. More recent analysis of this genus (but in this case using plant pathogenic Pseudomonas) has shown how genome similarity can be used in taxonomy to analyze strains that have been considered the same species until now, establishing differences within the pathovars analyzed and using a proposal that can be extended to other bacteria [90].

    Among the taxa of the phylum Proteobacteria, the genus Azospirillum was recognised as PGPB due to their beneficial effects on plants. The genus encompasses 19 species with validly published names, according to LPSN classification [91]. The particular taxonomic status of the Azospirillium amazonense species, which showed a closer phylogenetic relationship to Rhodospirillum centenum and Azospirillum irakense than to Azospirillum brasilense, and distinctive phenotypic and physiological features which increase its beneficial role in PGP compared to the other member of the genus Azospirillum, called for comparative genomic of A. amazonense with its closely phylogenetic neighbor. Genomic information has highlighted a number of specific genes for A. amazonense which are not common with any other Azospirillium species but are more related to Rhizobiales [61].

    The genomic screening of 23 genes recognized as PGP, based on 304 genome sequences of proteobacteria and non-PGPR proteobacteria, showed a taxonomic specific link between the bacteria and their ecological type: saprophyte, symbiotic, endophyte, plant and animal pathogens. In fact, the following PGP gene phlACB was restricted to only 3 proteobacteria genomes, while ppdC, was detected in some Azospirillium and Bradyrhizobium, which belong to endophyte/symbiont category. Genes nifHDK were retrieved in different symbiont endophytes of proteobacterial taxa and bacteria classified as PGPR, while genes hcnABC (hydrogen cyanide synthesis) were detected in all non-phytopathogenic Pseudomonas strains [92]. However, several genes were found to be distributed independently of the taxonomic rank, which is the case for nirK and pqq genes propagated in different Proteobacteria. Alphaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and all members of Burkholderiaceae contained acdS, while ipdC and budAB genes were mainly present in Enterobacteteriaceae [92]. Within this study is apparent that analyzing PGP gene occurrence helps to determine the lifestyle boundaries at species and strain level [92]. In this context, the genus Burkholderia encompasses 103 species from different ecological niches, with pathogens to humans, animals or plants in additional to the environmental species. Among the last ones, some members were identified as plant growth promoting bacteria, such as Burkholderia phytofirmans [93]. This latter category of Burkholderia was classified into a new genus—Paraburkholderia—after the taxonomic revision of this genus based on the phylogenomic and comparative genomic analyses [94]. Using a concatenated tree based on 21 conserved proteins for 45 species covering the genetic diversity of the genus, and the 16S rRNA gene, the genus was structured in two superclades in which the clinical species, Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC), and Burkholderia pseudomallei, were grouped together in distinct clades from the environmental species. These findings were in line with the comparative genomic analysis which led to the detection of six specific conserved protein sequences for pathogenic Burkholderia and 2 for the environmental species. Moreover, other specific protein sequences were detected for different groups of Burkholderia and used as molecular markers for improving the diagnostic assay, mostly for the clinical species [94].

    Rhizobia have been amongst the better-studied PGPR, due to their ability to fix nitrogen in symbiosis with legume plants, a process that researchers have been trying to understand for more than a century [95]. A taxonomic revision of the family Rhizobiaceae, of the phylum proteobacteria focusing on the genera Agrobacterium, Rhizobium, Shinella and Ensifer, was recently carried out based on the phylogenomic approach [96]. It has been found that the type strain of Rhizobium giardinii formed a distinct clade within the members of the superclade of Sinella and Ensifer. In parallel, a study using MLSA has also proposed the clarification of the taxonomic status of Rhizobium giardinii by transferring this taxon to a new genus [97]. Another study including 163 genomes from Rhizobium, Ensifer, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhisobium, Burkholderia, Cupriavidus, Methylobacterium, Azorhizobium and Microvirga has analyzed their phylogenetic diversity according to their geographic localization [56]. Plant-related genes and their distribution through these genera were analyzed, and it was found that, for example, a berberine-like domain (related with pathogen defense response) is phylogenetically restricted to some groups [56].

    6.3. Analyses in Actinobacteria

    The genomes of other phyla have also been analyzed in order to locate these lifestyle-taxonomic links. Among several genus of the phylum Actinobacteria identified as PGPR (Table S1), the genus Frankia encompasses nitrogen-fixing bacteria, well known by their symbiotic association in the root nodule of diverse taxonomic actinorhizal plants [98], their saprophytic, facultative and obligate symbiont lifestyle and their PGPR effect [99,100,101]. The genus was structured in four groups or clades according to the host plant specificity [102,103,104,105,106,107,108]. Since the availability of whole genome sequences of Frankia strains cover the genetic diversity of each lineage of the genus, the lifestyle of this actinobacterium was deciphered by highlighting the clear correlation between the genome size, host-plant range and Frankia lifestyle [101,109]. In fact, the genome size is highly variable between groups: (ⅰ) clade 1 varied from 7.5 Mb for strains recognized by its intermediaries" host-range to 5.4 Mb for subclade 1 of Frankia-Casuarina know by their facultative symbiont lifestyle and limited host range; (ⅱ) clade 2 varied from 5.3 to 5.8 Mb for Frankia known by its low genetic variability and its facultative and non-cultivable symbiont lifestyle; (ⅲ) clade 3 members possess 8.9 Mb, being strains associated with a broad range of host-plant and known by their saprophytic lifestyle; and (ⅳ) clade 4 ranged from 6.7 Mb to 9.9 Mb corresponding to atypic Frankia, non-infective and /or non-effective, isolated from different host-plant [101].

    In addition, the availability of the genome sequences of Frankia strains provides a significant progress at a taxonomic level and in the physiologic potential of Frankia in terms of natural product biosynthesis [100]. Using the genome sequence for calculating the digital DDH value between Frankia strains helped to complete the taxonomy of this taxon by describing a new species inside each clade [110,111,112,113], after more than one decade from the first description of Frankia alni [114,115]. Comparative genomics of 25 Frankia strains revealed the presence of an unexpected number of gene bioclusters encoding for siderophore, signaling molecules [100], nitrogenase, uptake hydrogenase, hopanoid, truncated hemoglobin and stress tolerance [116]. These are later involved in symbiosis with the plants and it seems different from what has been described before, knowing that some of the genes were scattered in the genome [100,109,116] and not clustered. This genomic insight highlights the significant importance of this nitrogen-fixing symbiotic actinobacterium, which can be an excellent candidate for biotechnology engineering development applied in agriculture or in phytoremediation fields.

    Another advantage for PGPB is the ability to cope with cold environments by the production of xeroprotectants [117,118], as is the case in some species of Arthrobacter [118,119]. Whole genome sequences have been used to confirm this feature and to provide more genetic information about the evolutionary relatedness of cold-shock protein with other proteins, such as chaperone HSP31, glyoxalase 3, S1 RNA binding protein or rhodanase, which are helpful to decipherate the mechanism of tolerance of bacteria to the temperature stress [120]. Other species of Arthrobacter were identified as desiccation-tolerant bacteria, such as Arthrobacter siccitolerans [118] and Arthrobacter koreensis [121]. This later feature was also found in Rhodococcus sp and Leucobacter genera [122,123]. In this regard, whole genome sequences provide more insights about the PGP effects of the Arthrobacter sp., as described in Manzanera et al. [124] and Singh et al. [120].

    6.4. Analyses in Firmicutes

    Genome sequence analysis of Bacillus strains has also been used for understanding the molecular mechanisms of PGP at different levels; for example, deciphering genes associated with plant disease in order to have a better application of biocontrol, which consequently may have positive economic impact in the society [125]. The genus Bacillus is considered as one of the predominant taxons with a PGPR effect in the phylum Firmicutes [125]. The genus encompasses 355 species with validly published names, according to LPSN classification [91] in which the group of Bacillus subtilis was characterized by their stimulation of plant growth and plant anti-pathogenic effect [126,127,128]. Phylogenomic and phylogenetic analysis based on the average nucleotide identity (ANI) approach (calculated from pair-wise comparisons of all sequences shared between any two strains [27]), core genome, and gyrB gene were performed to study the inter-phylogenetic relationship of Bacillus species and led to clarifying the affiliation of several strains [125]. One of these strains originally classified as a member of the species Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, was transferred to B. subtilis and the type strain of the species Bacillus siamensis [129] was transferred to B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum [130]. This taxonomic information has a crucial importance in understanding the distribution of different subsystem categories of the genus Bacillus, as described in Hossain et al. [125]. Comparative genomics of members of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. amyloliquefaciens and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum showed 73 genes present in almost all the strains of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp plantarum and which are likely to also be involved in carbon degradation and signaling between others [125]. These genes could be responsible for the interaction of members of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum with plant and rhizosphere [125]. The same authors have confirmed the high potential biocontrol activities of B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum strains after detection of genes encoding for difficin (dfnD) and macrolactin.

    6.5. Analyses in Bacteroidetes

    Members of the genus Flavobacter (phylum Bacteroidetes) have commanded the attention of the scientific community in different fields due to their ecological heterogeneity (aquatic and terrestrial habitats). Moreover, they belong to completely distinct categories, as some species are pathogenic to fish [131,132] while others have been identified as PGP bacteria [133,134], with high potential to be applied in bioremediation of terrestrial and marine soils [135,136]. It has been shown that Flavobacter with terrestrial origin are ubiquitous in the rhizosphere and phyllosphere [137,138,139]. To understand their habitat-adaptation, mainly their abundance in the rhizosphere, a comparative genomic study of root-associated Flavobacter with other strains from the same genus has been carried out by Kolton et al. [42]. They found that (ⅰ) the size of the genome of Flavobacter varied by almost two-fold in the size between the terrestrial ones (largest genome) and the aquatic strains [42]; (ⅱ) these two groups of Flavobacter (aquatic and terrestrial) formed two distinct clades based on functional similarity, and they are characterized by high number of genes implicated in carbohydrates metabolism which can be related to the adaptation of Flavobacter to the plant (terrestrial Flavobacter), and by high value of peptide and proteins (aquatic Flavobacter) which can led to better understanding of the lifestyle of the aquatic Flavobacter [42].

    7. Future and Perspectives

    Recently developed technologies in genomics and metagenomics have completely changed our vision of the microbial world. The identification of each individual sequence within a microbial community, and its classification using taxonomic tools, allows for access to basic information about their physiology, epidemiology and evolutionary history [140], obtaining indirect information about their ecological role [141]. However, how we should use this information in taxonomy is still unclear.

    In microbiology, there are minimal standards for valid publication of bacterial names in microbiological journals, with criteria that prevents many of the new species descriptions be validated, resulting in literature full of names with uncertain meanings [29]. The availability of genomic information at prices even cheaper than many phenotypic tests has driven a new controversial proposal: should new classification be based on genomic information alone? Taxonomists and other researchers related to the topic have expressed opposing arguments for continually using the polyphasic taxonomy. Those against deem that retaining this methodology is an attempt to keep species descriptions as the privilege of only a small group of laboratories which are able to carry on the phenotypic, genotypic and chemotaxonomic analyses necessary [45,142]. On the other hand, pro-polyphasic taxonomy groups remember the importance of this phenotypic characterization not only in taxonomy but also for other applications to the broader community [3,143]. At this moment what is certain is that the scientific community is asking for changes. We should revise the utility of some of the classical techniques in these times and be permitted to incorporate all the genomic information available to generate new "minimal standards" in taxa description.

    Within plant probiotics, next-generation sequencing analyses has allowed for a huge increase in our general knowledge and understanding of bacterial compositions and their abilities relative to the plants. Different methods have been proposed in phylogenomic analysis, showing in most cases clear improvement regarding classical gene phylogenies, but a deep comparison between them is necessary to define which is the best of them and should be used systematically in taxonomy. General improvements in genome accuracy are also expected for next years, as well as the development of the so-called "third generation sequencing methods" and their advantages [143,144].

    Metagenomic analyses have exposed the high diversity that inhabits plant tissues and their surroundings, including many bacteria that were not previously described as plant probiotics or else belong to new genus previously unknown. All of these have the potential to be objects of interest in the future, particularly in trying to establish their functions and their relationships with the plants. Determining the healthiest microbial composition for each crop will help to improve the agricultural system with limited use of unfriendly-environmental chemicals.

    The analysis of whole genome sequences has been shown to be of great value in the redefinition of phylogenetic position and the taxonomic classification of previously unclassified or misclassified taxa [140,145]. Moreover, important changes can be expected within this area of study in the next few years, as soon as new genomic information becomes available, and plant probiotic bacteria taxonomy will not be an exception. Indeed, taxonomic analysis and the correct determination of the bacteria that are planned to be used as probiotics in plants should be accurately carried out. If we only take into account the promotion capacity or other characteristics after isolation, without paying attention to their correct identification, we are risking including certain opportunistic pathogens into the food chain. Several bacteria belonging to Achromobacter, Enterobacter, Erwinia, Ochrobactrum, Paenibacillus, Pseudomonas, Serratia or Stenotrophomonas genera have been previously described as probiotics of plants. However, as many species of these genera are considered as human potential pathogens, special attention should be paid in their identification. New-omics technologies have increased our capacity of identification and analysis of plant probiotic microorganisms in an unprecedented manner; however, more genomic databases are needed, and the capacity of analysis of these data still has ample scope for improvement.

    Acknowledgments

    LC and IN thank Newcastle University for postdoctoral fellowships.

    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Garrett TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang Z (2008) Bacterial adhesions and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci 18: 1049-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.04.001
    [2] Heydorn A, Ersboll BK, Hentzer M (2000) Experimental reproducibility in flow chamber biofilms. Microbiology 146: 2409-2415. doi: 10.1099/00221287-146-10-2409
    [3] Singh R, Paul D, Jain RK (2006) Biofilms: implications in bioremediation. Trends Microbiol 14: 389-397. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2006.07.001
    [4] Spector MP, Kenyon WJ (2012) Resistance and survival strategies of Salmonella enterica to environmental stresses. Food Res Int 45: 455-481. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.056
    [5] Carpentier B, Cerf O (1993) Biofilms and their consequences, with particular reference to hygiene in the food industry. J Appl Bacteriol 75: 499-511. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1993.tb01587.x
    [6] Berlowska J, Kregiel D, Ambroziak W (2013) Enhancing adhesion of yeast brewery strains to chamotte carriers through aminosilane surface modification. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 29: 1307-1316. doi: 10.1007/s11274-013-1294-4
    [7] Kang CS, Eaktasang N, Kwon DY, et al. (2014) Enhanced current production by Desulfovibrio desulfuricans biofilm in a mediator-less microbial fuel cell. Bioresour Technol 165: 27-30. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.148
    [8] Lackner S, Holmberg M, Terada A, et al. (2009) Enhancing the formation and shear resistance of nitrifying biofilms on membranes by surface modification. Water Res 43: 3469-3478. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.05.011
    [9] Wang Y, Lee SM, Dykes GA (2014) The physicochemical process of bacterial attachment to abiotic surfaces: Challenges for mechanistic studies, predictability and the development of control strategies. Crit Rev Microbiol. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2013.866072.
    [10] Dunne WM (2002) Bacterial adhesion: Seen any good biofilms lately? Clin Microbiol Rev 15: 155-166. doi: 10.1128/CMR.15.2.155-166.2002
    [11] Costerton JW, Cheng KJ, Geesey GG, et al. (1987) Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Annu Rev Microbiol 41: 435-464. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.41.100187.002251
    [12] Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, et al. (1995) Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol 49: 711-745. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.49.100195.003431
    [13] Elder MJ, Stapleton F, Evans E, et al. (1995) Biofilm-related infections in ophthalmology. Eye 9: 102-109. doi: 10.1038/eye.1995.16
    [14] Ofek I, Doyle RJ (2000) Bacterial adhesion to cells and tissues. London/New York: Chapman & Hall.
    [15] van der Aa BC, Dufrêne YF (2002) In situ characterization of bacterial extracellular polymeric substances by AFM. Colloid Surfaces B 23:173-182.
    [16] Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 8: 881-890. doi: 10.3201/eid0809.020063
    [17] Kanematsu H, Barry DM (2015) Conditioning films, In: Kanematsu H., Barry D.M., Eds, Biofilm and Materials Science, New York: Springer, 9-16.
    [18] Lorite GS, Rodrigues CM, de Souza AA, et al. (2011) The role of conditioning film formation and surface chemical changes on Xylella fastidiosa adhesion and biofilm evolution. J Colloid Interf Sci 359: 289-295. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2011.03.066
    [19] Bos R, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ (1999) Physico-chemistry of initial microbial adhesive interactions - its mechanisms and methods for study. FEMS Microbiol Rev 23: 179-230. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1999.tb00396.x
    [20] An YH, Dickinson RB, Doyle RJ (2000) Mechanisms of bacterial adhesion and pathogenesis of implant and tissue infections, In: An, Y.H., Friedman, R.J., Eds, Handbook of bacterial adhesion: principles, methods, and applications, New Jersey: Humana Press, 1-27.
    [21] Boland T, Latour RA, Sutzenberger FJ (2000) Molecular basis of bacterial adhesion, In: An, Y.H., Friedman, R.J., Eds, Handbook of bacterial adhesion: principles, methods, and applications, New Jersey: Humana Press, 29-41.
    [22] Brading MG, Jass J, Lappin-Scott HM (1995) Dynamics of bacterial biofilm formation, In: Lappin-Scott, H.M., Costerton, J.W., Eds, Microbial biofilms, New York: Cambridge University Press, 46-63.
    [23] Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP (1999) Bacterial biofilms: A common cause of persistent infections. Science 284: 1318-1322. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5418.1318
    [24] Mortensen KP, Conley SN (1994) Film fill fouling in counterflow cooling towers: Mechanisms and design. CTI J 15: 10-25.
    [25] McDonogh R, Schaule G, Flemming HC (1994) The permeability of biofouling layers on membranes. J Membr Sci 87: 199-217. doi: 10.1016/0376-7388(93)E0149-E
    [26] Goulter RM, Gentle IR, Dykes GA (2009) Issues in determining factors influencing bacterial attachment: A review using the attachment of Escherichia coli to abiotic surfaces as an example. Lett Appl Microbiol 49: 1-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2009.02591.x
    [27] Bazaka K, Jacob MV, Truong VK, et al. (2011) The effect of polyterpenol thin film surfaces on bacterial viability and adhesion. Polymers 3: 388-404. doi: 10.3390/polym3010388
    [28] Bos R, Van der Mei HC, Gold J, et al. (2000) Retention of bacteria on a substratum surface with micro-patterned hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 189: 311-315. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb09249.x
    [29] Shi X, Zhu X (2009) Biofilm formation and food safety in food industries. Trends Food Sci Tech 20: 407-413.
    [30] Christensen BE, Characklis WG (1990) Physical and chemical properties of biofilms. In: Characklis W.G., Marshall K.C., Eds, Biofilms, New York,Wiley, 93-130.
    [31] Sheng G-P, Yu H-Q, Li X-Y (2010) Extracellular polymer substances (EPS) of microbial aggregates in biological wastewater treatment systems: A review. Biotechnology Adv 28: 882-894. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.08.001
    [32] Flemming H-C, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nature Rev Microbiol 8:623-633.
    [33] Whitchurch CB, Tolker-Nielsen T, Ragas PC, et al. (2002) Extracellular DNA required for bacterial biofilm formation. Science 295:1487. doi: 10.1126/science.295.5559.1487
    [34] Vilain S, Pretorius JM, Theron J, et al. (2009) DNA as an adhesion: Bacillus cereus requires extracellular DNA to form biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 2861-2868.
    [35] Das T, Sharma PK, Busscher HJ, et al. (2010) Role of extracellular DNA in initial bacterial adhesion and surface aggregation. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 3405-3408.
    [36] Das T, Sharma PK, Krom BP, et al. (2011) Role of eDNA on the adhesion forces between Streptococcus mutans and substratum surfaces: influence of ionic strength and substratum hydrophobicity. Langmuir 27: 10113-10118.
    [37] Harmsen M, Lappann M, Knochel S, et al (2010) Role of extracellular DNA during biofilm formation by Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol 76: 2271-2279. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02361-09
    [38] Thomas VC, Thurlow LR, Boyle D, et al (2008) Regulation of autolysis-dependent extracellular DNA release by Enterococcus faecalis extracellular proteases influences biofilm development. J Bacteriol 190: 5690-5698. doi: 10.1128/JB.00314-08
    [39] Polson EJ, Buckman JO, Bowen D, et al (2010) An environmental-scanning electron microscope investigation into the effect of biofilm on the wettability of quartz. Soc Pet J 15: 223-227.
    [40] Neu TR (1996) Significance of bacterial surface-active compounds in interaction of bacteria with interfaces. Microbiol Rev 60: 151-166.
    [41] Olofsson A-C, Hermansson M, Elwing H (2003) N-acetyl-L-cysteine affects growth, extracellular polysaccharide production, and bacterial biofilm formation on solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 4814-4822. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.8.4814-4822.2003
    [42] Epifanio M, Inguva S, Kitching M, et al. (2015) Effects of atmospheric air plasma treatment of graphite and carbon felt electrodes on the anodic current from Shewanella attached cells. Bioelectrochemistry 106: 186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2015.03.011
    [43] Bhattacharjee S, Ko CH, Elimelech M (1998) DLVO interaction between rough surfaces. Langmuir 14: 3365-3375.
    [44] Czarnecki J, Warszyński P (1987) The evaluation of tangential forces due to surface in homogeneties in the particle deposition process. Colloid Surface 22: 197-205.
    [45] Scheuerman TR, Camper AK, Hamilton MA (1998) Effects of substratum topography on bacterial adhesion. J Colloid Interface Sci 208: 23-33. doi: 10.1006/jcis.1998.5717
    [46] Chia TWR, Goulter RM, McMeekin T, et al. (2009) Attachment of different Salmonella serovars to materials commonly used in a poultry processing plant. Food Microbiol 26: 853-859. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2009.05.012
    [47] Howell D, Behrends B (2006) A review of surface roughness in antifouling coatings illustrating the importance of cutoff length. Biofouling 22: 401-410. doi: 10.1080/08927010601035738
    [48] Scardino A J, Harvey E, De Nys R (2006) Testing attachment point theory: diatom attachment on microtextured polyimide biomimics. Biofouling 22: 55-60. doi: 10.1080/08927010500506094
    [49] Guðbjörnsdóttir B, Einarsson H, Thorkelsson G (2005) Microbial adhesion to processing lines for fish fillets and cooked shrimp: influence of stainless steel surface finish and presence of gram-negative bacteria on the attachment of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Technol Biotech 43: 55-61.
    [50] Li B, Logan BE (2004). Bacterial adhesion to glass and metal-oxide surfaces. Colloids Surface B 36: 81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2004.05.006
    [51] Kristich CJ, Li YH, Cvitkovitch, DG, et al. (2004) Esp-independent biofilm formation by Enterococcus faecalis. J Bacteriol 186: 154-163. doi: 10.1128/JB.186.1.154-163.2004
    [52] Stoodley P, Cargo R, Rupp CJ. (2002) Biofilm material properties as related to shear-induced deformation and detachment phenomena. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 29: 361-367. doi: 10.1038/sj.jim.7000282
    [53] Liu YJ, Tay JH (2002) Metabolic response of biofilm to shear stress in fixed-film culture. J Appl Microbiol 90: 337-342.
    [54] Ohashi A, Harada H (2004) Adhesion strength of biofilm developed in an attached-growth reactor. Water Sci Technol 29: 281-288.
    [55] Chen MJ, Zhang Z, Bott TR (1998) Direct measurement of the adhesive strength of biofilms in pipes by micromanipulation. Biotechnol Tech 12: 875-880. doi: 10.1023/A:1008805326385
    [56] Morikawa M (2006) Beneficial biofilm formation by industrial bacteria Bacillus subtilis and related species. J Biosci Bioeng 101: 1-8. doi: 10.1263/jbb.101.1
    [57] Singh P, Cameotra SS (2004) Enhancement of metal bioremediation by use of microbial surfactants. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 317: 291-297.
    [58] Quereshi FM. (2005) Genetic manipulation of genes for environmental bioremediation and construction of strains with multiple environmental bioremediation properties. Karachi, Pakistan: University of Karachi.
    [59] Salah KA, Sheleh G, Levanon D, et al. (1996) Microbial degradation of aromatic and polyaromatic toxic compounds adsorbed on powdered activated carbon. J Biotechnol 51: 265-272. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1656(96)01605-7
    [60] Nishijima W, Speital G (2004) Fate of biodegradable dissolved organic carbon produced by ozonation on biological activated carbon. Chemosphere 56: 113-119. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.03.009
    [61] Scholz M, Martin R (1997) Ecological equilibrium on biological active carbon. Water Res 31: 2959-2968. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00155-3
    [62] Takeuchi Y, Mochidzuki K, Matsunobu N, et al. (1997) Removal of organic substances from water by ozone treatment followed by biological active carbon treatment. Water Sci Technol 35: 171-178.
    [63] Zhang S, Huck P (1996) Parameter estimation for biofilm processes in biological water treatment. Water Res 30: 456-464. doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00162-X
    [64] Rabaey K, Clauwaert P, Aelterman P, et al. (2005) Tubular microbial fuel cells for efficient electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 39: 8077-8082. doi: 10.1021/es050986i
    [65] Upadhyayula VKK, Gadhamshetty V (2010) Appreciating the role of carbon nanotubes composites in preventing biofouling and promoting biofilms on material surfaces in environmental engineering: A review. Biotechnol Adv 28: 802-816. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.06.006
    [66] Kriegel D (2014) Advances in biofilm control for food and beverage industry using organo-silane technology: A review. Food Control 40: 32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.014
    [67] Mittal KL (2009) Silanes coupling agents in Silanes and other coupling agents. Netherland: Koninklijke Brill NV, 1-176.
    [68] Van Ooij WJ, Child T (1998) Protecting metals with silane coupling agents. Chemtech 28: 26-35.
    [69] Subramanian PR, van Ooij WJ (1999) Silane based metal pretreatments as alternatives to chromating. Surface Eng 15: 168-172. doi: 10.1179/026708499101516407
    [70] Van Schaftinghen T, LePen C, Terryn H, et al. (2004) Investigation of the barrier properties of silanes on cold rolled steel. Electrochimica Acta 49: 2997-3004. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2004.01.059
    [71] Materne T, de Buyl F, Witucki GL (2006) Organosilane technology in coating applications: Review and perspectives. USA: Dow Corning Corporation.
    [72] Carré A, Birch W, Lacarriére V (2007) Glass substrate modified with organosilanes for DNA immobilization, In: Mittal, K.L., Ed., Silanes and other coupling agents, Netherlands: VSP Utrecht, 1-14.
    [73] Li N, Ho C (2008) Photolithographic patterning of organosilane monolayer for generating large area two-dimensional B lymphocyte arrays. Lab on a Chip 8: 2105-2112. doi: 10.1039/b810329a
    [74] Saal K, Tätte T, Tulp I, et al. (2006) Solegel films for DNA microarray applications. Mater Lett 60: 1833-1838. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2005.12.035
    [75] Seo JH, Shin D, Mukundan P, et al. (2012) Attachment of hydrogel microstructures and proteins to glass via thiol-terminated silanes. Colloids Surfaces B 98: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.03.025
    [76] Shriver-Lake LC, Charles PT, Taitt CR. (2008) Immobilization of biomolecules onto silica and silica-based surfaces for use in planar array biosensors. Methods Mol Biol 504: 419-440.
    [77] Yamaguchi M, Ikeda K, Suzuki M, et al. (2011) Cell patterning using a template of microstructured organosilane layer fabricated by vacuum ultraviolet light lithography. Langmuir 27: 12521-12532. doi: 10.1021/la202904g
    [78] Khramov AN, Balbyshev VN, Voevodin NN, et al. (2003) Nanostructured sol-gel derived conversion coatings based on epoxy- and amino-silanes. Prog Org Coat 47: 207-213. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9440(03)00140-1
    [79] White JS, Walker GM. (2011) Influence of cell surface characteristics on adhesion of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to the biomaterial hydroxylapatite. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Int J Gen Mol Microbiol 99: 201-209. doi: 10.1007/s10482-010-9477-6
    [80] Bekers M, Ventina E, Karsakevich A, et al. (1999) Attachment of yeast to modified stainless steel wire spheres growth of cells and ethanol production. Process Biochem 35: 523-530. doi: 10.1016/S0032-9592(99)00100-4
    [81] Karsakevich A, Ventina E, Vina I, et al. (1998) The effect of chemical treatment of stainless steel wire surface on Zymomonas mobilis cell attachment and product synthesis. Acta Biotechnol 18: 255-265. doi: 10.1002/abio.370180310
    [82] Friedrich J (2012) Plasma, In: Friedrich, J. Plasma chemistry of polymer surfaces advanced techniques for surface design, Ed., Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmBH & Co. KGaA, 35-53.
    [83] Goddard JM, Hotchkiss JH (2007) Polymer surface modification for the attachment of bioactive compounds. Prog Polymer Sci 32: 698-725. doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.04.002
    [84] Cha S, Park YS (2014) Plasma in dentistry. Clin Plasma Med 2: 4-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cpme.2014.04.002
    [85] Xiong Z, Cao Y, Lu X, et al. (2011) Plasmas in tooth root canal. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 39: 2968-2969. doi: 10.1109/TPS.2011.2157533
    [86] Okajima K, Ohta K, Sudoh M (2005) Capacitance behaviour of activated carbon fibers with oxygen-plasma treatment. Electrochim Acta 50: 2227-2231. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2004.10.005
    [87] Díaz-Benito B, Velasco F (2013) Atmospheric plasma torch treatment of aluminium: Improving wettability with silanes. Appl Surface Sci 287: 263-269. doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.09.138
    [88] Kamgang JO, Naitali M, Herry JM, et al. (2009) Increase in the hydrophilicity and Lewis acid-base properties of solid surfaces achieved by electric gliding discharge in humid air: Effects on bacterial adherence. Plasma Sci Technol 11: 187-193. doi: 10.1088/1009-0630/11/2/11
    [89] Flexer V, Marque M, Donose BC, et al. (2013) Plasma treatment of electrodes significantly enhances the development of anodic electrochemically active biofilms. Electrochim Acta 108: 566-574. doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.06.145
    [90] He YR, Xiao X, Li WW, et al. (2012) Enhanced electricity production from microbial fuel cells with plasma-modified carbon paper anode. Phys Chem Chem Phys 14: 9966-9971.
    [91] Ploux L, Beckendorff S, Nardin M, et al. (2007) Quantitative and morphological analysis of biofilm formation on self-assembled monolayers. Colloid Surface B 57:174-181. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.01.018
    [92] Lijima S (1991) Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 354: 56-58. doi: 10.1038/354056a0
    [93] Baughman RH, Zakhidov AA, de Heer WA. (2002) Carbon nanotubes—the route toward applications. Science 297: 787-792. doi: 10.1126/science.1060928
    [94] Li YH, Di ZC, Luan ZK, et al. (2004) Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by carbon nanotubes: adsorption equilibrium and kinetics. J Environ Sci (China) 16: 208-211.
    [95] Yan XM, Shi BY, Lu JJ, et al. (2008) Adsorption and desorption of atrazine on carbon nanotubes. J Colloid Interface Sci 321: 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.01.047
    [96] Gotovac S, Yang CM, Hattori Y, et al. (2007) Adsorption of poly aromatic hydrocarbons on single walled carbon nanotubes of different functionalities and diameters. J Colloid Interface Sci 314: 18-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.04.080
    [97] Lu C, Chung YL, Chang KF (2005) Adsorption of trihalomethanes from water with carbon nanotubes. Water Res 39: 1183-1189. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.12.033
    [98] Pan B, Lin D, Mashayekhi H, et al. (2008) Adsorption and hysteresis of bisphenol A and 17-α-ethinyl estradiol on carbon nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 2008: 15.
    [99] Upadhyayula VKK, Deng S, Mitchell MC, et al. (2009) Application of carbon nanotube technology for removal of contaminants in drinking water: A review. Sci Total Environ 408: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.027
    [100] Hyung H, Kim JH (2008) Natural organic matter (NOM) adsorption to multi walled carbon nanotubes: effect on NOM characteristics and water quality parameters. Environ Sci Technol 42: 4416-4421. doi: 10.1021/es702916h
    [101] Yan H, Gong A, He H, et al. (2006) Adsorption of microcystins by carbon nanotubes. Chemosphere 62: 142-148. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.03.075
    [102] Corry B (2008) Designing carbon nanotube membrane for efficient water desalination. J Phys Chem B 112: 1427-1434. doi: 10.1021/jp709845u
    [103] Raval HD, Gohil JM (2009) Carbon nanotube membrane for water desalination. Int J Nucl Desal 3: 360-368. doi: 10.1504/IJND.2009.028863
    [104] Huang S, Maynor B, Cai X, et al. (2003) Ultralong well-aligned single-walled carbon nanotube architecture on surfaces. Adv Mater 15: 1651-1655. doi: 10.1002/adma.200305203
    [105] Agnihotri S, Mota JPB, Rostam-Abadi M, et al. (2005) Structural characterization of single walled carbon nanotube bundles by experiment and molecular simulation. Langmuir 21: 896-904. doi: 10.1021/la047662c
    [106] Benny TH, Bandosz TJ, Wong SS (2008) Effect of ozonolysis on the pore structure, surface chemistry, and bundling of single walled carbon nanotubes. J Colloid Interface Sci 317: 375-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2007.09.064
    [107] Chen Y, Liu C, Li F, et al. (2006) Pore structures of multi walled carbon nanotubes activated by air, CO2 and KOH. J Porous Mater 13: 141-146. doi: 10.1007/s10934-006-7017-6
    [108] Liao Q, Sun J, Gao L (2008) Adsorption of chlorophenols by multi walled carbon nanotubes treated with HNO3 and NH3. Carbon 46: 544-561. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2007.12.005
    [109] Mauter SM, Elimelech M (2008) Environmental applications of carbon based nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5843-5859. doi: 10.1021/es8006904
    [110] Niu JJ, Wang JN, Jiang Y, et al. (2007) An approach to carbon nanotubes with high surface area and large pore volume. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 100: 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2006.10.009
    [111] Deng S, Upadhyayula VKK, Smith GB, et al. (2008) Adsorption equilibrium and kinetics of microorganisms on single walled carbon nanotubes. IEEE Sens 8: 954-962. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2008.923929
    [112] Malhotra BD, Chaubey A, Singh SP (2006) Prospects of conducting polymers in biosensors. Anal Chim Acta 578: 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2006.04.055
    [113] Zou Y, Xiang C, Yang L, et al. (2008) A mediator less microbial fuel cell using polypyrrole coated carbon nanotubes composite as anode material. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33: 4856-4862. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.06.061
    [114] Sharma T, Mohana Reddy AL, Chandra TS, et al. (2008) Development of carbon nanotubes and nanofluids based microbial fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33: 6749-6754. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.05.112
    [115] Odaci D, Timur S, Telefoncu A (2009) A microbial biosensor based on bacterial cells immobilized on chitosan matrix. Bioelectrochemistry 75: 77-82. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2009.01.002
    [116] Qiao Y, Li CM, Bao SJ, et al. (2007) Carbon nanotube/polyaniline composite as anode material for microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 170: 79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.03.048
    [117] Nambiar S, Togo CA, Limson JL (2009) Application of multi-walled carbon nanotubes to enhance anodic performance of an Enterobacter cloacae based fuel cell. Afr J Biotechnol 8: 6927-6932.
    [118] Chen J, Yu Z, Sun J, et al. (2008) Preparation of biofilm electrode with Xanthomonas sp. and carbon nanotubes and the application to rapid biochemical oxygen demand analysis in high salt condition. Water Environ Res 80: 699-702.
    [119] Timur S, Anik U, Odaci D, et al. (2007) Development of microbial biosensor based on carbon nanotube (CNT) modified electrodes. Electrochem Commun 9: 1810-1815. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2007.04.012
    [120] Kanepalli S, Donna FE (2006) Enhancing the remediation of trichloroethane (TCE) using double-walled carbon nanotubes (DWNT): United States Geological Survey.
    [121] Pumera M (2007) Carbon nanotubes contain residual metal catalyst nanoparticles even after washing with nitric acid at elevated temperatures because these metal nanoparticles are sheathed by several graphene sheets. Langmuir 23: 6453-6458.
    [122] Logan BE, Hamelers B, Rozendal R, et al. (2006) Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology. Environ Sci Technol 40: 5181-5192. doi: 10.1021/es0605016
    [123] Tang X, Guo K, Li H, et al. (2011) Electrochemical treatment of graphite to enhance electron transfer from bacteria to electrodes. Bioresour Technol 102: 3558-3560. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.09.022
    [124] Cercado-Quezada B, Delia ML, Bergel A (2011) Electrochemical microstructuring of graphite felt electrodes for accelerated formation of electroactive biofilms on microbial anodes. Electrochem Commun 13: 440-443. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2011.02.015
    [125] Cheng S, Logan BE (2007) Ammonia treatment of carbon cloth anodes to enhance power generation of microbial fuel cells. Electrochem Commun 9: 492-496. doi: 10.1016/j.elecom.2006.10.023
    [126] Park DH, Zeikus JG (2003) Improved fuel cell and electrode designs for producing electricity from microbial degradation. Biotechnol Bioeng 81: 348-355. doi: 10.1002/bit.10501
    [127] Zhou M, Chi M, Wang H, et al. (2012) A new practical method to improve the performance of microbial fuel cells. Biochem Eng J 60: 151-155. doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2011.10.014
    [128] Jin T, Luo J, Yang J, et al. (2012) Coupling of anodic and cathodic modification for increased power generation in microbial fuel cells. J Power Sources 219: 358-363. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.07.066
    [129] Popov AL, Kim JR, Dinsdale RM, et al. (2012) The effect of physic-chemically immobilized methylene blue and neutral red on the anode of microbial fuel cell. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 17: 361-370. doi: 10.1007/s12257-011-0493-9
    [130] Guo K, Chen X, Freguia BC, et al. (2013) Spontaneous modification of carbon surface with neutral red from its diazonium salts for bioelectrochemical systems. Biosens Bioelectron 47: 184-189. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2013.02.051

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. W. K. Sexton, M. Fidero, J. C. Spain, L. Jiang, K. Bucalo, J. M. Cruse-Sanders, G. S. Pullman, Characterization of endophytic bacterial communities within greenhouse and field-grown rhizomes of three rare pitcher plant species (Sarracenia oreophila, S. leucophylla, and S. purpurea spp. venosa) with an emphasis on nitrogen-fixing bacteria, 2020, 447, 0032-079X, 257, 10.1007/s11104-019-04372-8
    2. Esther Menendez, Lorena Carro, 2019, Chapter 15, 978-3-030-18932-7, 333, 10.1007/978-3-030-18933-4_15
    3. Jocelyn T. Zarate, Genevieve Mae B. Aquino, Joana Marie C. Cruz, Neilyn O. Villa, Albert Remus R. Rosana, J. Cameron Thrash, Draft Genome Sequence of Enterobacter sp. Strain AD2-3, Isolated from a Postmining Site in Benguet, Philippines, 2019, 8, 2576-098X, 10.1128/MRA.00563-19
    4. Lorena Carro, Imen Nouioui, Vartul Sangal, Jan P. Meier-Kolthoff, Martha E. Trujillo, Maria del Carmen Montero-Calasanz, Nevzat Sahin, Darren Lee Smith, Kristi E. Kim, Paul Peluso, Shweta Deshpande, Tanja Woyke, Nicole Shapiro, Nikos C. Kyrpides, Hans-Peter Klenk, Markus Göker, Michael Goodfellow, Genome-based classification of micromonosporae with a focus on their biotechnological and ecological potential, 2018, 8, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-017-17392-0
    5. Lorena Carro, Esther Menéndez, 2020, 9780128184691, 169, 10.1016/B978-0-12-818469-1.00014-6
    6. Imen Nouioui, Carlos Cortés-albayay, Lorena Carro, Jean Franco Castro, Maher Gtari, Faten Ghodhbane-Gtari, Hans-Peter Klenk, Louis S. Tisa, Vartul Sangal, Michael Goodfellow, Genomic Insights Into Plant-Growth-Promoting Potentialities of the Genus Frankia, 2019, 10, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01457
    7. Rachael E. Antwis, Ellen L. Fry, Chloë E. James, Natalie Ferry, 2020, Chapter Nine, 9781108654418, 182, 10.1017/9781108654418.009
    8. Natalya Harutyunyan, Almagul Kushugulova, Narine Hovhannisyan, Astghik Pepoyan, One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 1334, 10.3390/plants11101334
    9. Imen Nouioui, Sung-min Ha, Inwoo Baek, Jongsik Chun, Michael Goodfellow, Genome insights into the pharmaceutical and plant growth promoting features of the novel species Nocardia alni sp. nov, 2022, 23, 1471-2164, 10.1186/s12864-021-08257-y
    10. Federica Massa, Roberto Defez, Carmen Bianco, Exploitation of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria for Sustainable Agriculture: Hierarchical Approach to Link Laboratory and Field Experiments, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 865, 10.3390/microorganisms10050865
    11. O.V. Ryabova, A.A. Gagarina, Actinomycetes as the basis of Probiotics for Plants, 2021, 37, 2500-2341, 3, 10.21519/0234-2758-2021-37-2-3-19
    12. Celia Alvarez-Sastre, Lorena Carro, 2022, Desert Actinobacterial Strains Increase Salt Stress Resilience in Crops, 17, 10.3390/environsciproc2022016017
    13. Noureddine Bouras, Amine Yekkour, Slim Smaoui, Lotfi Mellouli, Mustapha Barakate, 2021, Chapter 16, 978-981-16-5616-3, 337, 10.1007/978-981-16-5617-0_16
    14. Maria Tartaglia, Rosaria Sciarrillo, Daniela Zuzolo, Alessia Postiglione, Antonello Prigioniero, Pierpaolo Scarano, Valentino Ruggieri, Carmine Guarino, Exploring an enhanced rhizospheric phenomenon for pluricontaminated soil remediation: Insights from tripartite metatranscriptome analyses, 2022, 428, 03043894, 128246, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128246
    15. Lorena Carro, Álvaro Peix, Encarna Velázquez, 2021, Chapter 12, 978-3-030-77594-0, 289, 10.1007/978-3-030-77595-7_12
    16. Wei Zhao, Hong Jiang, Xiao-Wan Liu, Jian Zhou, Bin Wu, Polyene Macrolactams from Marine and Terrestrial Sources: Structure, Production Strategies, Biosynthesis and Bioactivities, 2022, 20, 1660-3397, 360, 10.3390/md20060360
    17. Sigita Jurkonienė, Rima Mockevičiu̅tė, Jurga Jankauskienė, Elžbieta Jankovska-Bortkevič, Gabija Armalytė, Virgilija Gavelienė, Application of Commercial Plant Probiotics Improves the Berry Yield and Quality of Field-Grown Blackcurrant, 2021, 1, 2692-1952, 615, 10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00115
    18. Saurabh Gangola, Samiksha Joshi, Divya Joshi, Jyoti Rajwar, Shilippreet Kour, Jyoti Singh, Saurabh Kumar, 2022, Chapter 18, 978-3-030-86168-1, 385, 10.1007/978-3-030-86169-8_18
    19. Martino Schillaci, Aida Raio, Fabiano Sillo, Elisa Zampieri, Shahid Mahmood, Muzammil Anjum, Azeem Khalid, Mauro Centritto, Pseudomonas and Curtobacterium Strains from Olive Rhizosphere Characterized and Evaluated for Plant Growth Promoting Traits, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 2245, 10.3390/plants11172245
    20. Juan Sanjuán, Maria Caridad Nápoles, Daniel Pérez-Mendoza, María J. Lorite, Dulce N. Rodríguez-Navarro, Microbials for Agriculture: Why Do They Call Them Biostimulants When They Mean Probiotics?, 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 153, 10.3390/microorganisms11010153
    21. O. V. Ryabova, A. A. Gagarina, Actinomycetes as the Basis of Probiotics for Plants, 2022, 58, 0003-6838, 827, 10.1134/S0003683822070055
    22. Tunjung Mahatmanto, Nabilah Rizka Estiningtyas, Syafira Kintan Maharani, Ahmad Sultan Shalahuddin, Muhammad Yuda Dwitama Agustian, Untung Murdiyatmo, Feather Waste Biorefinery using Chryseobacterium sp. A9.9 Adapted to Feathers as its Sole Carbon and Nitrogen Source, 2022, 13, 1877-2641, 4137, 10.1007/s12649-022-01766-1
    23. Nattakorn Kuncharoen, Masahiro Yuki, Takuji Kudo, Moriya Okuma, Auttaporn Booncharoen, Wuttichai Mhuantong, Somboon Tanasupawat, Comparative genomics and proposal of Streptomyces radicis sp. nov., an endophytic actinomycete from roots of plants in Thailand, 2022, 254, 09445013, 126889, 10.1016/j.micres.2021.126889
    24. Pooja Bhadrecha, Shilpy Singh, Vagish Dwibedi, ‘A plant’s major strength in rhizosphere’: the plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, 2023, 205, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-023-03502-2
    25. Viabhav Kumar Upadhayay, Manoj Kumar Chitara, Dhruv Mishra, Manindra Nath Jha, Aman Jaiswal, Geeta Kumari, Saipayan Ghosh, Vivek Kumar Patel, Mayur G. Naitam, Ashish Kumar Singh, Navneet Pareek, Gohar Taj, Damini Maithani, Ankit Kumar, Hemant Dasila, Adita Sharma, Synergistic impact of nanomaterials and plant probiotics in agriculture: A tale of two-way strategy for long-term sustainability, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1133968
    26. Rhydum Sharma, Richa Salwan, Vivek Sharma, 2023, 9780323917346, 271, 10.1016/B978-0-323-91734-6.00016-8
    27. Phumzile Mkhize, Josephine Malatji, Phetole Mangena, 2023, 2, 9789815165319, 37, 10.2174/9789815165319123020007
    28. Valeria Razmilic, Imen Nouioui, Andrey Karlyshev, Rana Jawad, Martha E. Trujillo, Jose M. Igual, Barbara A. Andrews, Juan A. Asenjo, Lorena Carro, Michael Goodfellow, Micromonospora parastrephiae sp. nov. and Micromonospora tarensis sp. nov., isolated from the rhizosphere of a Parastrephia quadrangularis plant growing in the Salar de Tara region of the Central Andes in Chile, 2023, 73, 1466-5026, 10.1099/ijsem.0.006189
    29. Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu, 2024, 978-1-83767-271-4, 481, 10.1039/BK9781837673131-00481
    30. Kavitha Komire, Mamta Tiwari, Prakash Chandra Gupta, Theeshan Bahorun, Nisha Sharma, 2024, Chapter 9, 978-3-031-68137-0, 197, 10.1007/978-3-031-68138-7_9
    31. Wuyu Liu, Guoqing Wang, Shiming Wen, Yiwen Zhao, Yuxin Ding, Baihui Yao, Zhelin Wang, Duntao Shu, Gehong Wei, Juan Chen, Zhouping Shangguan, Microbiome-Mediated Mechanisms Regulating Adaptability to Iron Deficiency in the Intercropping System of Soybean and Maize, 2025, 15, 2073-4395, 286, 10.3390/agronomy15020286
    32. Yifei Huang, Yuankun Zhou, Hengyi Xu, Unlocking Wellness: Probiotics as Key Drivers in Functional Food Innovation and Health Promotion, 2025, 15, 2076-3417, 6498, 10.3390/app15126498
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Bioengineering
1.2

Metrics

Article views(11823) PDF downloads(2084) Cited by(33)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline
Abstract
References

Figures and Tables

Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Copyright © AIMS Press

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog