Surfactin production is not essential for pellicle and root-associated biofilm development of Bacillus subtilis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary metabolites have an important impact on the biocontrol potential of soil-derived microbes. In addition, various microbe-produced chemicals have been suggested to impact the development and phenotypic differentiation of bacteria, including biofilms. The non-ribosomal synthesized lipopeptide of Bacillus subtilis, surfactin, has been described to impact the plant promoting capacity of the bacterium. Here, we investigated the impact of surfactin production on biofilm formation of B. subtilis using the laboratory model systems; pellicle formation at the air-medium interface and architecturally complex colony development, in addition to plant root-associated biofilms. We found that the production of surfactin by B. subtilis is not essential for pellicle biofilm formation neither in the well-studied strain, NCIB 3610, nor in the newly isolated environmental strains, but lack of surfactin reduces colony expansion. Further, plant root colonization was comparable both in the presence or absence of surfactin synthesis. Our results suggest that surfactin-related biocontrol and plant promotion in B. subtilis strains are independent of biofilm formation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".