Next Article in Journal
Gut Microbiota and Inflammation Modulation in a Rat Model for Ulcerative Colitis after the Intraperitoneal Administration of Apigenin, Luteolin, and Xanthohumol
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolic Composition of Methanolic Extract of the Balkan Endemic Species Micromeria frivaldszkyana (Degen) Velen and Its Anti-Inflammatory Effect on Male Wistar Rats
Previous Article in Journal
Morquio A Syndrome: Identification of Differential Patterns of Molecular Pathway Interactions in Bone Lesions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 25
Issue 6
10.3390/ijms25063235
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bacillus megaterium: Evaluation of Chemical Nature of Metabolites and Their Antioxidant and Agronomics Properties

by
Anna Hur
1,
Mohamed Marouane Saoudi
1,
Hicham Ferhout
2,
Laila Mzali
2,
Patricia Taillandier
1 and
Jalloul Bouajila
1,*
1
Laboratoire de Génie Chimique, UMR 5503, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INPT, UPS, 31062 Toulouse, France
2
Agronutrition, Rue Pierre et Marie Curie Immeuble, BIOSTEP, 31670 Labège, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(6), 3235; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25063235
Submission received: 28 January 2024 / Revised: 9 March 2024 / Accepted: 11 March 2024 / Published: 12 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Functions and Applications of Natural Products)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bacillus megaterium is particularly known for its abundance in soils and its plant growth promotion. To characterize the metabolites excreted by this specie, we performed successive liquid/liquid extractions from bacteria culture medium with different polarity solvents (cyclohexane, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and butanol) to separate the metabolites in different polarity groups. The extracts were characterized regarding their total phenolic content, the amount of reducing sugar, the concentration of primary amines and proteins, their chromatographic profile by HPLC-DAD-ELSD and their chemical identification by GC-MS. Among the 75 compounds which are produced by the bacteria, 19 identifications were for the first time found as metabolites of B. megaterium and 23 were described for the first time as metabolites in Bacillus genus. The different extracts containing B. megaterium metabolites showed interesting agronomic activity, with a global inhibition of seed germination rates of soya, sunflower, corn and ray grass, but not of corn, compared to culture medium alone. Our results suggest that B. megaterium can produce various metabolites, like butanediol, cyclic dipeptides, fatty acids, and hydrocarbons, with diverse effects and sometimes with opposite effects in order to modulate its response to plant growth and adapt to various environmental effects. These findings provide new insight into bioactive properties of this species for therapeutic uses on plants.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, new tools are required for the resolution of a massive need to feed a growing world population. Improving the production and quality of food is currently problematic, remaining too dependent on antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers or pesticides [1]. The intensive use of these compounds has led to the emergence of pathogen resistance and severe negative environmental impacts and has thus become an important issue of public health and environment pollution [2,3,4]. New biological alternatives are urgently needed to counter and reverse the spread of these issues.
Thus, natural organisms, especially microorganisms like bacteria, still remain the richest and biggest source for new biocontrol or antimicrobial agents and have emerged as a promising alternative to chemical compounds [5,6,7]. There is a large body of literature reporting the potential use of rhizosphere-associated bacteria with a positive effect on the growth, development or health of plants [8,9]. Under specific environment conditions, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can enhance the productivity of field crops, and some species are actually already commercialized for their direct inoculation in soil [10]. Among them, the Bacillus genus is one of the most extensively studied and is among the most beneficial bacteria, being mostly exploited as microbial biopesticides [11].
Several species belonging to the genus Bacillus have been reported effective for the biocontrol of multiple plant diseases [12]. These species, by colonizing root systems and the surrounding soil layer (rhizosphere), influence the plant through direct growth stimulation and/or by protecting it from infection by phytopathogens [13,14]. According to their localization, these bacteria can have beneficial protective effect by different mechanisms. The external presence of bacteria, in the surrounding soil layer, can improve soil nutrient availability such as solubilized phosphate, potassium, zinc, calcium and magnesium, or fixed nitrogen [15] and protect the plant against heavy metal toxicity [16]. In addition, while bacteria are internal to the plant root, they mitigate plant stress factors and secrete phytohormones [15]. The protection against pathogens is manifold and is also dependent on the localization of the bacteria. The internal mechanism corresponds to the activation of plant defense system by rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance (ISR) [12]. External mechanisms correspond to the secretion of antibiotics, the formation of biofilm on root, or the competition for space and nutrients [12,13,16]. However, the modification of the bio-balance of living organisms in soil is not yet well understood. Over the long term, it can have an effect on bio-pollution and can cause an imbalance in some ecosystems [12]. In addition, the direct inoculation of responsible metabolites, like the antibiotics iturin A, surfactin and fengycin, instead of the entire organism has been shown to deliver positive results in several studies [17]. In addition, the production of metabolites from Bacillus is already used in industries other than agriculture: medical, chemical, or food industries [18].
In addition to that, some species of Bacillus have been studied more extensively than others, probably depending on their discovery date and their abundance in soils. The most described production of Bacillus found in the literature relate to B. subtilis, B. thuringiensis, B. cereus, B. licheniformis, B. amyloliquefaciens and B. anthracis [17]. B. megaterium production has also been described but to a lesser extent, and the studies on it are more in relation to its utilization as a vector in recombinant protein production [19]. However, B. megaterium is known for its abundance in soils, its endophyte colonization of numerous plants and its plant growth promotion [17]. In this regard, B. megaterium has already been commercialized for agricultural applications through its inoculation as a living organism [17]. But few B. megaterium metabolites have been described so far (phytohormones [20], antibiotic lipopeptides [21], vitamin B12 [22], siderophores [23], biopolymer [18], carotenoids [23], exopolysaccharides [24]) and valuated through their direct utilization for agriculture industry. In the present work, in order to identify its secondary metabolites related to plant growth promotion, a composition and activity analysis of B. megaterium filtrated supernatant was achieved through extraction, chemical family quantification, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS), antioxidant analysis and seed germination.

2. Results

2.1. Chemical Family’s Quantification

To attest the quantity of several chemical families in each extract (reducing sugars, polyphenols, proteins and primary amines), spectrophotometric quantifications were performed (by DNS, Folin–Ciocalteu, Lowry and ninhydrin method, respectively), as reported in Table 1 in mg of eq per gram of extract, and in Table 2 in mg of eq per litter of medium. The metabolites produced by B. megaterium were analyzed by comparing the chemical composition of BC extracts with those of CS2 extracts (culture medium used as control).
B. megaterium decreases the concentration of reducing sugars in the culture medium. As expected, B. megaterium used sugars as an initial carbon source for the cells growing and the metabolites synthesis. In Table 1 (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 26.49, p < 0.0002), Dunn’s test confirms the diminution of reducing sugars for all type of extract from CS2 to BC (BuOH: 415.8 to 56.4 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0059; Water: 457.6 to 90.5 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0391; Raw: 507.7 to 65.3 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0006). The method was validated by comparing the initial concentration of dextrose in CS2 medium and this concentration in the CS2 Raw extract. In Table 2, the magnitude order of the reducing sugars quantity in the CS2 Raw extract, representing 15.1 g/L eq, is similar to the initial concentration of dextrose in CS2 medium, 20 g/L.
No conclusion on variation of polyphenols concentration in B. megaterium medium can be made. In Table 1 (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 253.1, p < 0.0001), Dunn’s test confirms the increase in polyphenols quantification after the production of B. megaterium from CS2 to BC, for the Cyclo extracts (1.7 to 28.7 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0488), and for the BuOH extracts (27.7 to 95.6 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0188). But a global diminution is observed in raw extracts from CS2 to BC (32.6 to 15.0 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0263). However, these slight variations cannot lead to a conclusion on the consumption or production of polyphenols by B. megaterium. Indeed, because of the interference of sugars and proteins with the Folin–Ciocalteu method [25], the important quantities of these components in the extracts (Table 1) can lead to a misinterpretation of the variation in polyphenols. This assumption can be confirmed by the comparison of the polyphenol’s concentration in CS2 raw extract, to the initial composition of CS2 medium. Indeed, the polyphenols for the CS2 raw extract represent 969.9 mg/L eq in the initial medium (Table 2). Yet, the unique source of polyphenols can be the yeast extract component (1 g/L) but polyphenols should not represent the entire portion of this component [26].
B. megaterium decreases the concentration of proteins in its medium. In Table 1 (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 21.95, p < 0.0005), Dunn’s test confirms the diminution of proteins after the production of B. megaterium for the Raw extract from CS2 to BC (219.3 to 165.4 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0014) but also for BuOH extract (207.0 to 105.2 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0019) and can indicate the consumption of these compounds by B. megaterium. The method was validated by comparing the initial concentration of proteins in the CS2 medium and this concentration in the CS2 Raw extract. In Table 2, the proteins for the CS2 Raw extract, representing 6.5 g/L eq, are close to the initial concentration of the peptone and yeast extract in CS2 medium (6 and 1 g/L, respectively).
Primary concentration of amines does not vary in the B. megaterium medium. In Table 1 (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 25.17, p < 0.0003), Dunn’s test cannot determine if there is a difference between CS2 and BC for the Raw extracts (18.4 mg/g and 24.5 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.3941). However, a significant augmentation for the Water extracts (13.5 to 29.5 mg/g, Dunn’s p = 0.0075) is observed, but could be influenced by the modifications of the proportion of reducing sugars, polyphenols or proteins of this extract and does not necessarily lead to the production of primary amines in the extract. The method can be validated by comparing the primary concentration of amines in CS2 Raw extract in mg/L (Table 2) to the initial concentration of the peptone and yeast extract. Indeed, the combination of this concentration (547.9 mg/L eq) to the proteins concentrations, is close to the combination of the initial concentration of the peptone and yeast extract (6 and 1 g/L, respectively).
The spectrophotometric quantifications (by Folin–Ciocalteu, DNS, ninhydrin and Lowry method, respectively) for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium were obtained. The reference is an equivalent of each family (gallic acid, glucose, glycine, standard proteins, respectively). The results are therefore expressed as an equivalent quantity (mg) in one gram of extract. For each quantification method, the Kruskal–Wallis test is performed. If Kruskal–Wallis test is significant for the assay (p < 0.05, represented by a star), Dunn’s test is performed for the 2-by-2 extract rank comparisons. Values in the same column that are labeled with different letters (a–f) differ significantly (p < 0.05). Not-analyzed extracts are denoted by na.
The spectrophotometric quantifications (by Folin–Ciocalteu, DNS, ninhydrin and Lowry method, respectively) use an equivalent of each family (gallic acid, glucose, glycine and standard proteins, respectively). The results of mass concentration are expressed as an extraction quantity of extract (mg) for one litter of medium and the chemical quantification are expressed as an equivalent quantity (mg) in one litter of initial liquid medium (corresponding to the combination of results of Table 1 to the mass of extract in one litter of medium). No repetition for the determination of mass concentration was performed, which obstructs the use of statistical tests.

2.2. Chemical Identification by GC-MS

In order to further elucidate the active compounds produced by B. megaterium, the different extracts of the inoculated medium (BC extracts) were subjected to GC-MS analysis and compared with the extracts of control medium (CS2 extracts).
A total of 75 compounds were found to be present in BC extracts and not present in CS2 extracts, as illustrated in Table 3 for analysis without derivatization, and in Table 4 for analysis with derivatization. Some of these identified compounds were strictly found in BC extracts, suggesting a probable production by B. megaterium: 10 fatty acids derivatives (23′, 32′, 34′, 39′, 42′, 44′, 46′, 47′, 36, 44), 5 linear hydrocarbons (4, 12, 20, 24, 25), 5 cyclic hydrocarbons with 3 isomers (5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18), 6 amino acids (10′, 12′, 15′, 18′, 20′, 22′), 2 dipeptides (29, 47), 2 cyclic dipeptides (46, 64), 6 aromatic hydrocarbons (1, 16, 26, 27, 31, 33), 2 phthalates (59, 61), 2 sugar acids with 1 isomer (9′, 24′, 41′), 4 polyols with 1 isomer (2′, 4′, 5′, 6′, 21′), 2 cyclitols (29′, 43′) and 17 others were identified (3, 7, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 32, 37, 43, 45, 48, 50, 62, 63, 17′, 38′).

2.3. HPLC Analysis

The extracts analysis by HPLC facilitated the definition of a chemical profile whose chromatograms are visible in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Sugars are apparent with ELSD in polar extracts. ELSD chromatograms (Figure 1) of polar extracts (BuOH, Water, Raw) for CS2 and BC, show the presence of compounds with high polarity (t = 2.109–3.129 min), which could correspond to sugars observed with the chemical quantification described above (Table 1), and GC-MS (Table 4: 25′, 26′, 27′, 28′, 30′, 31′, 33′, 35′, 36′, 37′, 40′, 45′, 48′). A decrease in these compounds is observed in BC BuOH and Raw extracts compared to CS2 extracts, confirming the consumption of sugars by B. megaterium observed with our previous quantifications. But this variation is not seen for BC Water extract with ELSD chromatograms contrary to what we had previously described with the spectrophotometric quantification in this extract. No peak is detected on the chromatogram of evaluated apolar extracts (BC Cyclo, BC Dichlo, BC EtAc, CS2 Cyclo, CS2 Dichlo), confirming the absence of sugars in these extracts and in accordance with our previous results with GC-MS (Table 4). However, this absence of peak means that main compounds detected with GC-MS in these extracts are not apparent with ELSD, like cyclic dipeptides (Table 3: 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 51, 54, 57, 64), polyols (Table 4: 4′, 5′, 6′, 13′) and fatty acids (Table 4: 23′, 32′, 34′, 39′, 42′, 44′, 46′, 47′). These results can show that principal compounds cannot be detected by ELSD, either because they are not volatile enough, their concentrations are under the detection limit of 50 mg/L, or their main compounds are not soluble in 20/80 acetonitrile/water.
Polyphenols, aromatic proteins and aromatic cyclic dipeptides are apparent with DAD. DAD chromatograms (Figure 2) of polar extracts for CS2 and BC, show several peaks from 2 min for the most intense and spreading until 20 min for the least intense. Polyphenols, quantified in CS2 and BC extracts as described above (Table 1) and including several phenols found in polar extracts by GC-MS (Table 3: 53, 55, 56, 58), are a family well known to be detected at 280 nm. Proteins detected in polar extracts (Table 1) could correspond to hydrophilic proteins with a relative presence of aromatic amino acids, that can also be detected at 280 nm. For the apolar extracts, the DAD chromatogram shows several peaks (except for the Cyclo extracts) and with different elution times between extracts, indicating different compounds for each extract. In addition BC Dichlo chromatogram exhibit only peak with important elution time (t = 43.40–45.88 min), the others (CS2 Dichlo and BC EtAc) present peaks, spreading from 1.872 to 49.054 min. Polyphenols, also quantified in CS2 and BC apolar extracts (Table 1) and detected by GC-MS (Table 3: 21, 22, 37, 43, 53, 55, 56, 58), compounds with aromatic amino acids detected by GC-MS (Table 3: 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 57; Table 4: 22′), and other aromatics detected by GC-MS (Table 3: 1, 7, 13, 14, 16, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 42, 48, 50, 59, 60, 61; Table 4: 17′) should correspond to these peaks.

2.4. Antioxidant Activity (DPPH)

The antioxidant activity of each extract was determined by DPPH method, allowing us to quantify the inhibition of a free radical, as shown in Figure 3. In order to elucidate if some compounds produced by B. megaterium present an antioxidant activity, the analysis between grouped BC extracts and grouped CS2 extracts was performed. The comparison of these two groups with the standard (DPPH test for the solvent of samples) is also performed.
The antioxidant activity of compounds in the supernatant do not significantly vary after B. megaterium culture. The Kruskal–Wallis (statistic = 5.29, p < 0.0652) test cannot determine if there is a difference between CS2 extracts, BC extracts, and the standard. Thus, no global difference is observed between BC extracts and CS2 extracts, regarding the antioxidant activity.

2.5. Agronomic Activity (Corn, Sunflower, Soya and Ray Grass)

The agronomic activity of extracts is evaluated by applying them on seeds and analyzing the augmentation or the inhibition of the germination rate compared to standard germination, as shown in Figure 4. For the control with water, the number of seeds that germinated at the maximum duration is 21 for corn, 17 for sunflower, 21 for soya and 21 for ray grass. The analysis between grouped BC extracts and grouped CS2 extracts was performed. The Kruskal–Wallis test was significant for all seed germination: corn (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 6.709, p = 0.0164), sunflower (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 9.147, p = 0.0015), soya (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 9.096, p = 0.0015) and ray grass (Kruskal–Wallis statistic = 8.550, p = 0.0032).
B. megaterium metabolites are inefficient on seed germination compared to the standard, but they seem to inhibit it compared to the culture medium CS2 alone. BC extracts do not present an obvious activity and seem quite inefficient: BC extracts is not significantly different from the standard for corn (Dunn’s p = 0.1481), sunflower (Dunn’s p = 0.8290), soya (Dunn’s p = 0.8294) and ray grass (Dunn’s p = 0.5587). However, a positive effect of CS2 medium on germination, excepted for corn, is observed. This beneficial activity of the CS2 extracts is quite apparent for three seeds: sunflower (Dunn’s p = 0.0578), soya (Dunn’s p = 0.0273) and ray grass (Dunn’s p = 0.1275). And then, when the activity of BC extracts is compared with CS2 extracts, a significant negative effect of BC extracts is observed on seed germination: BC extracts activity is lower for sunflower (Dunn’s p = 0.0043), soya (Dunn’s p = 0.0074) and ray grass (Dunn’s p = 0.5587).

2.6. Principal Components Analysis

The principal component analysis (PCA), shown in Figure 5, is performed with the 5 activity variables (germination rates and antioxidant activities), to complete a comparison of global activity between each extract. As the data are not normalized, this PCA aims at including the magnitude of each parameter. The horizontal axis represents 76.0% of the data variance, while the vertical axis represents 13.7% of the variance. Thus, the PCA displays almost 90% of the global information. The horizontal axis is relative to the germination increase in sunflower, soya and ray grass, and to the inhibition of corn and DPPH. The vertical axis is relative to the germination increase in sunflower, soya, ray grass and corn (antioxidant activity is negligible).
The inhibition of germination by B. megaterium metabolites: Unlike CS2 extracts, which have a global increasing effect on the germination rate (except for corn) (axis 1), BC extracts present a global inhibition effect on all seeds but with a smaller magnitude (axis 2).

3. Discussion

Little documentation exists about metabolite production of B. megaterium. To determine the nature of these compounds, quantitative and qualitative analyses have been performed. The quantification of sugars, polyphenols, proteins and primary amines, as well as the HPLC analysis and GC-MS analysis, have allowed us to determine their repartition, their nature and their transformation in different extracts. Thus, the main components of the initial culture medium, as sugars and proteins, have been mostly consumed by B. megaterium, as seen by chemical family quantification, GC-MS (25′, 26′, 27′, 28′, 30′, 31′, 33′, 35′, 36′, 37′, 40′, 45′, 48′) and ELSD in some polar extracts.
However, the production of other proteins and the polymerization of sugars by B. megaterium can be suspected. Indeed, the none-diminution in the sugar peak intensity on ELSD chromatograms in the Water extract could suggest the presence of exopolysaccharides. The fact that sugar reducing function in polysaccharides is not available for the DNS reaction [27] and that these compounds are not volatiles could explain why a diminution in sugars is seen via quantification and why it is not detected by GC-MS. These results are supported in the literature by the description of some exopolysaccharides secretions by B. megaterium [24]. Several studies have also described B. megaterium as a producer of extracellular proteins [19,28]. It could explain that proportion of proteins is still important in BC polar extracts with 10.5 to 19.4%. It could also explain that intensity and nature of cyclic dipeptides are changing from CS2 to BC (28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 51, 54, 57, 64) and that different peaks on DAD chromatogram suggesting different aromatic compounds from CS2.
A GC-MS analysis of the BC Cyclo extract allow us to highlight the presence of fatty acids (23, 32, 34, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47) and fatty aldehyde (36′, 44′). Despite the absence of a conclusion on the polyphenol production by B. megaterium through the Folin–Ciocalteu method, polyphenol profiles by GC-MS evolved after B. megaterium production (21, 22, 37, 43, 53, 58). These results confirm previous internals results which showed that B. megaterium produces several phenols [29]. A GC-MS analysis of BC Dichlo highlights the presence of cyclic dipeptides (28, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 49, 54, 57, 64) and butanediol (5′, 6′). Less information is available for BC EtAc and BuOH extracts, with the description of butanediol (5′, 6′) mostly being available.
However, this work is the first description of numerous compounds as B. megaterium metabolites: tridecanoic acid (23′), myristoleic acid (34′), methyl palmitate (C16:0) (36), undecane (4), dodecane (12), heptadecane (25), erucamide (62), squalene (63), cyclo(phe-phe) (64), cyclo(ala-phe) (46), pseudocumene (1), m-di-tert-butylbenzene (16), ethyl 4-ethoxybenzoate (23), 2,4-dimethylbenzaldehyde (14), ribonic acid (24′, 41′), ethylene glycol (2′) and propylene glycol (4′), 2,3-butanediol (5′, 6′) and L-threitol (21′). The description of 2,3-butanediol (5′, 6′) has already been provided in other laboratory work [30]. For other compounds, it is even the first description of metabolites in the Bacillus genus: methyl iso-stearate (iC18:0) (44), 2-methyl-trans-decalin (5, 6, 8), 2-methyl-cis-decalin (9, 10), 2,6-dimethyldecalin (11), hexylcyclohexane (15), 1,1′-bicyclohexyl (18), 9,17-octadecadienal (45), phenyl-alkanes (26, 27, 31, 33), di-2-propylpentyl-phthalate (59) and the di-2-ethylhexyl-isophthalate (61), di-t-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dione (37), 2,4,6-triisopropylphenol (43), 3,4-dimethylbenzamide (19), octinoxate (50) and dihydroisophorone (3), tert-octyldiphenylamine (48), n-butylbenzenesulfonamide (32), myo-inositol (43′) and D-pinitol (29′), and D-galactose oxime (38′). These metabolites identified for the first time provide a wealth of chemical families for varied applications.
Correlating the nature of each extract to their activity allows us to better understand the chemical mechanisms of B. megaterium effect on plants. It seems that the compounds produced by B. megaterium do not have an enough antioxidant activity to be detected. In fact, the antioxidant activity of DPPH is usually highly related to the presence of polyphenols in samples [31], thus supporting results on the polyphenol production by Bacillus.
On the other hand, agronomic results indicate that some extracts containing metabolites of B. megaterium showed interesting biological activities. Most of the extracts of B. megaterium seem to inhibit seed germination compared to initial medium extracts and compared to standard. This inhibition of seed germination is surprising given that it is widely known in the literature that Bacillus species are a predominant plant growth-promoting bacterium. In addition, compounds of initial medium in BC extracts also present plant growth benefices, like some cyclic dipeptides [32]. However, internal works in the laboratory have been previously conducted, describing the effect of B. megaterium medium extraction on maize and sunflower, and showing either an inhibition or an increase in germination [30]. The inhibition of seed germination by BC extracts could be explained by the present of several compounds involved in plant defense that negatively affect the plant growth to deviate their fundamental functions to ensure this purpose. Indeed, dodecane (12) and undecane (4) are elicitors of ISR [33], and the latter even seems to decrease plant biomass [34]. Despite the capacity of erucamide (63) to improve nitrogen metabolism, this compound is mainly produced when the plant is under important stress [35] and its production seems also to be correlated with a decrease in plant growth [36]. In addition, the 2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol (22) can induce systemic resistance against pathogenic fungi [37] and at high concentrations, it also limits plant growth [38]. In addition, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-P-benzoquinone (21) is part of p-benzoquinones, known to inhibit root development and elongation [39]. In the same way, 2,3-butanediol (5′, 6′), identified by GC-MS with derivatization in BC Dichlo, AcEt, BuOH and Water, seems to have a particular importance for defense in some plants and has been confirmed to be necessary for activating the ISR process [40,41]. The L-threitol (21′) seems involved in pathogens signaling [42,43] and 7,9-di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro (4,5) deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dione (37) is present in plants which are able to defend against parasites [44].
Thus, some compounds seem to deviate plant essential functions for enhance defense, resulting in diminution of plant growth. In addition, most of the research implies the presence of Bacillus directly in contact with the plant rhizosphere and can indicate that these beneficial effects require the presence of the bacterium during plant growth and explain the different results of its direct use as an inoculant in the field [45]. In addition, the main compounds of BC extracts have not been determined and some are suspected, like proteins, exopolysaccharides and polyphenols. In fact, the presence of numerous other compounds detected by GC-MS that could not be identified with the current library highlights the potential of B. megaterium to produce new unidentified compounds. Thus, further investigations are necessary to separate these compounds and to provide more accurate correlations between the activity and the nature of each compound.
This work helps us to better understand the nature of the metabolites of B. megaterium and their effects, and it is the first step to understand the mechanisms of action of this bacterium as a PGPR and finally value specific and restricted compounds, in order to simplify but mostly control the uses of agronomic products.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Strain and Culture Condition

B. megaterium has been isolated from agricultural soils used for barley and wheat and cultivated by Agronutrition (Agronutrition, Labège, France). A sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene after Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplification using the universal bacterial primers 27F and 1492R was then performed. To confirm the identity of the bacterium, a comparison was made between resulting sequences and the identity of B. megaterium (AGN01; reference Anses (France) Bc07-Bmeg (CECT9639)) in the BLASTn (nucleotides database by NCBI). B. megaterium was then cultivated in a liquid CS2 medium (peptone from soybean 6 g/L; yeast extract 1 g/L; dextrose 20 g/L; iron sulphate 0.05 g/L; manganese sulphate 0.05 g/L; antifoaming emulsion 0.28 mL/L; pH 7) at 30 °C during 24 h under agitation. The bacterial culture was centrifuged at 104× g for 20 min at 4 °C and filtered through a 0.22 µm filter, to obtain cell-free culture supernatant.

4.2. Extraction

The cell-free supernatant of B. megaterium culture (BC) was fractioned by successive liquid–liquid extractions [30]. Four solvents with different polarities were selected and used in the order of increasing polarity: cyclohexane (BC Cyclo), dichloromethane (BC Dichlo), ethyl acetate (BC EtAc) and butanol extracts (BC BuOH). The extractions were performed at room temperature with 1 L of solvent for 1 L of medium (1:1). Each organic phase and the residual water (BC Water) were then collected and dried by rotary evaporator at 35 °C (Heidolph, Schwabach, Germany) to generate the extracts. Distinctively, the culture filtrates supernatant without extraction was also dried to prepare another extract (BC Raw). The medium without bacteria culture (CS2 medium) was extracted by the same way, to generate control extracts (CS2 Cyclo, CS2 Dichlo, CS2 EtAc, CS2 BuOH, CS2 Water and CS2 Raw).

4.3. Reducing Sugars Quantification

The quantification of reducing sugars amount was performed by the 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) method [46]. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and then diluted at 2 mg/mL to fit the standard range concentrations. Each sample (150 µL) was added to 150 µL of prepared DNS solution (NaOH 2 M, Na2CO3 1.8 M, DNS 0.12 M). The mixture was incubated for 5 min at 100 °C and then cooled in ice to stop the reaction. After an addition of 750 µL of water, the absorption was read at 540 nm. The blank was performed by the subtraction of solvents absorption, reagent absorption and sample absorption. The results were expressed as mg of glucose equivalents (eq) per gram of extract (Table 1) and as mg of glucose eq per litter of supernatant (Table 2). Four repetitions were performed for each sample.

4.4. Polyphenols Quantification

The quantification of polyphenols amount was performed by the Folin–Ciocalteu method [47]. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in DMSO. Each sample (20 µL) was added to 100 µL of prepared Folin–Ciocalteu solution (0.2 N). The mixture equilibrated with an incubation of 5 min at room temperature and then mixed with 80 µL of 75 g/L sodium carbonate solution. After an incubation of 15 min at room temperature, the absorption was read at 765 nm. The blank was performed by the subtraction of solvents absorption, reagent absorption and sample absorption. The results were expressed as mg of gallic acid eq per gram of extract (Table 1) and then as mg of gallic acid eq per litter of supernatant (Table 2). Four repetitions were performed for each sample.

4.5. Proteins Quantification

The quantification of proteins amount was performed by using the Total Protein Kit TP0300 (Micro Lowry, Peterson’s Modification) of Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA) [48]. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in DMSO and then diluted at 0.25 mg/mL to fit in the standard range concentrations. Each sample (80 µL) was added to 80 µL of prepared Lowry Reagent solution. The mixture was incubated for 20 min at room temperature. After an addition of 40 µL of prepared Folin–Ciocalteu solution, the mixture was incubated for 30 min at room temperature. The blank was performed by the subtraction of solvent absorption, reagent absorption and sample absorption. The results were expressed as mg of Protein Standard per gram of extract (Table 1) and as mg of Protein Standard per litter of supernatant (Table 2). Four repetitions were performed for each sample.

4.6. Primary Amines Quantification

The quantification of primary amines amount was performed by the ninhydrin method [49]. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in 10% DMSO and then diluted at 0.5 mg/mL to fit in the standard range concentrations. Each sample (240 µL) was added to 120 µL of prepared ninhydrin solution (Na2HPO4 0.28 M, NaH2PO4 0.44 M, fructose 0.17 M, ninhydrin 0.28 M, pH = 6.7). The mixture was incubated for 15 min at 100 °C and then incubated at room temperature for 10 min. After an addition of 600 µL of water, the absorption was read at 570 nm. The blank was performed by the subtraction of solvents absorption, reagent absorption and sample absorption. The results were expressed as mg of glycine eq per gram of extract (Table 1) and as mg of glycine eq per litter of supernatant (Table 2). Four repetitions were performed for each sample.

4.7. HPLC Analysis (HPLC-DAD/ELSD)

The extracts analysis by HPLC (Figure 1 and Figure 2) allows the definition of a chemical profile including the detection of aromatic compounds by DAD (diode array detector) from 200 to 500 nm and the detection of main compounds through ELSD (evaporative light scattering detector) [47]. The wavelength was selected at 280 nm for the visualization of DAD detection. The analysis equipment comprised a liquid chromatography system equipped with an autosampler (SpectraSYSTEM AS3000 (San Jose, CA, USA)), a pump (Dionex P680 HPLC Pump (San Jose, CA, USA)), a degasser (ERMA ERC-3114 (San Jose, CA, USA)), a DAD detector (Waters 996 PDA Detector (Milford, MA, USA)), an ELSD detector (Teledyne Isco 340CF ELSD (Lincoln, NE, USA)) and Chromeleon software 6.8 (Thermofisher, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France). The stationary phase was a RP-C18 column (Phenomenex, Le Pecq, France), 25 cm × 4.6 mm with 5 μm particle size. The mobile phase was a solvent gradient at a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min, carried out by the variation of solvent A (water pH = 2.65) and solvent B (80/20 acetonitrile/water pH = 2.65). The elution method is as follows: 0–35 min, 12–30% B; 35–40 min, 30–50% B; 40–45 min, 50–100% B; 45–60 min, 100–12% B; 60–65 min, 12% B. The samples were prepared by solubilizing the extracts in 20/80 acetonitrile/water and injected at 20 μL. The Cyclo, Dichlo and EtAc extracts were analyzed at 2 mg/mL and the BuOH, Water and Raw extracts were analyzed at 20 mg/mL.

4.8. Chemical Composition (GC-MS and Derivatization Method)

The identification of chemical compounds in the extracts was performed by GC-MS analysis on non-derivatized and derivatized samples [47]. The derivatized samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in 1 mL of acetonitrile and 0.15 mL of BSTFA (N,O-Bistrimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide) with 1% TMCS (chlorotrimethylsilane). The humidity was removed by nitrogen circulation on solution for 20 s and the sample were then incubated at 40 °C for 15 min. The non-derivatized samples were prepared by solubilizing 5 mg/mL of extracts in their solvents of extraction, except for Water extracts, solubilized in methanol. The analysis equipment comprised a gas chromatography system (Varian CP-3800). The chromatographic column used was a silica capillary DB-5MS column (5% phenylmethylpolysiloxane, 30 × 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.25 μm), in constant flow mode at 1 mL/min. The samples were injected at 2 μL. The temperature gradient of the method was as follows: 0–5 min, 60 °C; 5–19 min, 60–270 °C; 19–25 min, 270 °C; 25–25.5 min, 270–300 °C; 25.5–30 min, 300 °C. The system was coupled to a mass spectrometer (Varian Saturn 2000 (Le Plessis-Robinson, France), operating with an electron ionization source and an ion trap analyzer. The trap temperature was 250 °C and that of the transfer line was 270 °C. Mass scanning was performed from 40 to 650 m/z. The processing software was Xcalibur Qual Browser (Thermofisher, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France). The commercial mass spectra database NIST08 was used for the chemical identification. The identified compounds are visible in Table 3 and Table 4.

4.9. Antioxidant Activity

The determination of antioxidant activity of extracts was performed by a chemical method with DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) [47]. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 0.5 mg/mL of extracts in DMSO. Each sample (20 µL) was added to 180 µL of prepared DPPH solution (DPPH 0.2 mM in methanol). After an incubation for 25 min at room temperature, the absorption was read at 524 nm. The blank was performed by the subtraction of solvents absorption and sample absorption. This result was linked to the absorption of DPPH solution to express a percentage of DPPH inhibition (Figure 3). Four repetitions were performed for each sample.

4.10. Agronomic Activity (Corn, Sunflower, Soya and Ray Grass)

The agronomic activity was determined by measuring the impact on germination rate. The seeds were sterilized with bleach for 5 min. The samples were prepared by solubilizing 0.25 mg/mL of extracts in 5% DMSO [30]. Each extract (5 µL) was applied on 24 seeds of corn, sunflower, soya or ray grass. A standard was operated by applying the same quantity of water on seeds. The culture was carried out in a specific chamber for the study of in vitro germination (80% humidity and at a temperature of 22 °C). For each batch, 24 seeds were used. The germinating seed was measured over time at 4 days for corn, 6 days for sunflower, 5 days for soya and 10 days for ray grass. The results were expressed in percentage of evolution of germinated seed from standard (Figure 4). Two repetitions were performed for CS2 extracts and three for BC extracts.

4.11. Statistical Analysis

Several statistical tests were performed for the results of chemical family quantification and the activity results. To determine the relevancy of results comparison, significance tests were chosen considering the number of repetitions and the distribution models of the measured variables. Thus, Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s nonparametric tests were performed with Prism GraphPad 8.2.1 software [50]. The Kruskal–Wallis indicator allows us to determine if there are one or more results deviating from the rank average of all results. If the Kruskal–Wallis test is significant for the assay (p < 0.05), Dunn’s test is performed for the 2-by-2 extract rank comparisons. If not, the results are considered as not significantly different.
For each chemical family quantification, Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests are used to compare the extracts individually, in order to evaluate the evolution of the chemicals repartition.
For each activity, Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s tests are used to compare the extracts by groups, in order to evaluate the global evolution of the activity.
In addition to appreciate the global efficiency of the extracts, a principal component analysis was performed by R coding, using ade4 and plotly libraries (Figure 5).

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our in-depth study of the secondary metabolites of B. megaterium and their impact on plant growth reveals significant consumption of components from the initial medium, suggesting the potential production of exopolysaccharides and cyclic dipeptides. Furthermore, the extracts obtained are rich in fatty acids, fatty aldehydes, cyclic dipeptides and butanediol.
Although B. megaterium compounds show no detectable antioxidant activity, there are some fascinating biological activities, including a surprising inhibition of seed germination. A number of derivatives of these compounds can also inhibit essential plant functions, leading to reduced growth. It is essential to keep the bacteria continuously present during plant growth if these beneficial effects are to be observed.
This study highlights the potential of B. megaterium to generate new compounds, opening up new prospects for its bioactive properties in agriculture. It also suggests a therapeutic potential by influencing seed germination and producing a variety of metabolites. With these results, there are many promising applications for this bacterium in agronomic approaches that aim to improve plant growth, and further research is needed to identify precisely which compounds are responsible for these effects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B. and H.F.; methodology, J.B., P.T., L.M. and H.F.; software, A.H.; validation, J.B., P.T. and H.F.; formal analysis, A.H., M.M.S., H.F., L.M., P.T. and J.B.; investigation, J.B., P.T. and H.F.; resources, J.B., P.T. and H.F.; data curation, A.H. and L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.H., M.M.S., H.F., L.M., P.T. and J.B.; visualization, J.B., P.T. and H.F.; supervision, J.B., P.T. and H.F.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, J.B. and H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the French National Agency for Research (ANR-17-CE20-0016 VAMAGPHAR).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author H.F. and L.M. were employed by the company Agronutrition. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zelalem, W.; Anteneh, W.; Mingist, M.; Kibret, M.; Adgo, E.; Erarto, F.; De Rop, J.; De Cock, A.; Spanoghe, P.; Goethals, P.L.M.; et al. Pesticide Concentration in Three Selected Fish Species and Human Health Risk in the Lake Tana Sub-Basin, Ethiopia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. He, J.; Li, J.; Gao, Y.; He, X.; Hao, G. Nano-Based Smart Formulations: A Potential Solution to the Hazardous Effects of Pesticide on the Environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 456, 131599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Selepe, T.N.; Akanbi, R.; Maliehe, T.S.; Moganedi, K.; Masoko, P. Flocculating Activity of a Bioflocculant from Bacillus megaterium BMBF in Treatment of Domestic and Coal Mine Wastewater. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ye, Q.; Zhong, Z.; Chao, S.; Liu, L.; Chen, M.; Feng, X.; Wu, H. Antifungal Effect of Bacillus velezensis ZN-S10 against Plant Pathogen Colletotrichum changpingense and Its Inhibition Mechanism. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 16694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Péter, B.; Szekacs, I.; Horvath, R. Label-Free Biomolecular and Cellular Methods in Small Molecule Epigallocatechin-Gallate Research. Int. J. Biosci. 2024, 21, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kalsoom, S.; Nasreen, Z.; Sharif, A.; Shaheen, U. The Use of Microbes as Biofertilizers. Int. J. Biosci. 2022, 21, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shuikan, A.M.; Hozzein, W.N.; Alshuwaykan, R.M.; Ibrahim, A.A. Enhancement and Identification of Microbial Secondary Metabolites. In Extremophilic Microbes and Metabolites—Diversity, Bioprospecting and Biotechnological Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, Y.; Dall’Agnol, R.F.; Bertani, I.; Bez, C.; Venturi, V. Identification of Synthetic Consortia from a Set of Plant-Beneficial Bacteria. Microb. Biotechnol. 2024, 17, e14330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kim, H.S.; Kim, J.S.; Suh, M.K.; Eom, M.K.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.S. A novel plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium, Rhizosphaericola mali gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from healthy apple tree soil. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Saghafi, D.; Delangiz, N.; Lajayer, B.A.; Ghorbanpour, M. An Overview on Improvement of Crop Productivity in Saline Soils by Halotolerant and Halophilic PGPRs. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kaze, M.; Brooks, L.; Sistrom, M. Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacillus-Based Biopesticide Products. Microbiology 2021, 167, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chen, K.; Tian, Z.; He, H.; Long, C.-A.; Jiang, F. Bacillus Species as Potential Biocontrol Agents against Citrus Diseases. Biol. Control 2020, 151, 104419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Selvakumar, G.; Bindu, G.H.; Panneerselvam, P.; Ganeshamurthy, A.N. Potential and Prospects of Aerobic Endospore-Forming Bacteria (AEFB) in Crop Production. In Bacilli and Agrobiotechnology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 213–236. [Google Scholar]
  14. Soliman, S.A.; Khaleil, M.M.; Metwally, R.A. Evaluation of the Antifungal Activity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and B. velezensis and Characterization of the Bioactive Secondary Metabolites Produced against Plant Pathogenic Fungi. Biology 2022, 11, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. El-Tahlawy, Y.; El-Sayed, S.; El-Egami, H. Performance of Priestia megaterium, Azolla Extract and Compost as P-Activators for the Cultivation of Faba Bean in Calcareous Soil. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2022, 62, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dame, Z.T.; Rahman, M.; Islam, T. Bacilli as Sources of Agrobiotechnology: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Green Chem. Lett. Rev. 2021, 14, 245–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zasada, A.A. Detection and Identification of Bacillus anthracis: From Conventional to Molecular Microbiology Methods. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Harirchi, S.; Sar, T.; Ramezani, M.; Aliyu, H.; Etemadifar, Z.; Nojoumi, S.A.; Yazdian, F.; Awasthi, M.K.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Bacillales: From Taxonomy to Biotechnological and Industrial Perspectives. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Palma, L.; de Escudero, I.R.; Mañeru-Oria, F.; Berry, C.; Caballero, P. Insecticidal Activity of Microencapsulated Vip3Ag4 Protein in Bacillus megaterium. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 24, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poveda, J.; González-Andrés, F. Bacillus as a Source of Phytohormones for Use in Agriculture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 105, 8629–8645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Penha, R.O.; Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Faulds, C.; Soccol, V.T.; Soccol, C.R. Bacillus Lipopeptides as Powerful Pest Control Agents for a More Sustainable and Healthy Agriculture: Recent Studies and Innovations. Planta 2020, 251, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kumar, R.; Singh, U.; Tiwari, A.; Tiwari, P.; Sahu, J.K.; Sharma, S. Vitamin B 12: Strategies for Enhanced Production, Fortified Functional Food Products and Health Benefits. Process Biochem. 2023, 127, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pishchik, V.N.; Filippova, P.S.; Mirskaya, G.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Vertebny, V.E.; Dubovitskaya, V.I.; Ostankova, Y.V.; Semenov, A.V.; Chakrabarty, D.; Zuev, E.V.; et al. Epiphytic Pgpb Bacillus megaterium Afi1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae Afi2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress. Plants 2021, 10, 2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Marimuthu, S.; Rajendran, K. Structural and Functional Characterization of Exopolysaccharide Produced by a Novel Isolate Bacillus sp. EPS003. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2023, 195, 4583–4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Merzić, S.; Šehanović, A.; Mušić, A.; Šarić, A.; Alić, M.; Avdić, A.; Huskić, A.; Yazici, B.; Bašić, M.; Pavić, I. Influence of Solvents on Polyphenol Content and Antioxidant Activity of Fig Leaf Extracts Obtained by Maceration and Ultrasonic Extraction. Int. J. Adv. Chem. 2021, 9, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Budianto, D.F.; Nia, H.; Rahmat, S.; Alif, G. Utilization of chicken bone waste be chicken broth agar (CBA) as a substitute for nutrient agar (NA). Int. J. Curr. Res. 2021, 13, 16113–16116. [Google Scholar]
  27. Azhar, B.; Gunawan, S.; Febriana Setyadi, E.R.; Majidah, L.; Taufany, F.; Atmaja, L.; Aparamarta, H.W. Purification and Separation of Glucomannan from Porang Tuber Flour (Amorphophallus muelleri) Using Microwave Assisted Extraction as an Innovative Gelatine Substituent. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Hing, J.N.; Jong, B.C.; Liew, P.W.Y.; Ellyna, R.E.; Shuhaimi, S. Gamma Radiation Dose-Response of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria. Malays. Appl. Biol. 2022, 51, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Koilybayeva, M.; Shynykul, Z.; Ustenova, G.; Waleron, K.; Jońca, J.; Mustafina, K.; Amirkhanova, A.; Koloskova, Y.; Bayaliyeva, R.; Akhayeva, T.; et al. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Profiling of Volatile Metabolites Produced by Some Bacillus spp. and Evaluation of Their Antibacterial and Antibiotic Activities. Molecules 2023, 28, 7556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rajasabapathy, R.; Ghadi, S.C.; Manikandan, B.; Mohandass, C.; Surendran, A.; Dastager, S.G.; Meena, R.M.; James, R.A. Antimicrobial Profiling of Coral Reef and Sponge Associated Bacteria from Southeast Coast of India. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 141, 103972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mwamatope, B.; Tembo, D.; Chikowe, I.; Kampira, E.; Nyirenda, C. Total Phenolic Contents and Antioxidant Activity of Senna singueana, Melia azedarach, Moringa oleifera and Lannea discolor Herbal Plants. Sci. Afr. 2020, 9, e00481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ortiz-Castro, R.; Campos-García, J.; López-Bucio, J. Pseudomonas putida and Pseudomonas fluorescens Influence Arabidopsis Root System Architecture through an Auxin Response Mediated by Bioactive Cyclodipeptides. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 39, 254–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bui, H.X.; Desaeger, J.A. Volatile Compounds as Potential Bio-Fumigants against Plant-Parasitic Nematodes—A Mini Review. J. Nematol. 2021, 53, e2021-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chalupowicz, L.; Manulis-Sasson, S.; Barash, I.; Elad, Y.; Rav-David, D.; Brandl, M.T.; Björkroth, J. Effect of Plant Systemic Resistance Elicited by Biological and Chemical Inducers on the Colonization of the Lettuce and Basil Leaf Apoplast by Salmonella enterica. Food Microb. 2021, 87, e01151-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Antunes, A.C.N.; Acunha, T.d.S.; Perin, E.C.; Rombaldi, C.V.; Galli, V.; Chaves, F.C. Untargeted Metabolomics of Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa ‘Camarosa’) Fruit from Plants Grown under Osmotic Stress Conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 6973–6980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, B.; Chen, L.; Jin, S.; Guo, Q.; Hou, J. The Influence of Plants on the Migration and Transformation of Nitrogen in Plant-Soil Systems: A Review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 4084–4102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zheng, F.; Chen, L.; Gao, J.; Niu, F.; Duan, X.; Yin, L.; Tian, W. Identification of Autotoxic Compounds from Atractylodes macrocephala Koidz and Preliminary Investigations of Their Influences on Immune System. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 230, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nascimento, F.X.; Hernández, A.G.; Glick, B.R.; Rossi, M.J. Plant Growth-Promoting Activities and Genomic Analysis of the Stress-Resistant Bacillus megaterium STB1, a Bacterium of Agricultural and Biotechnological Interest. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 25, e00406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. El-Demerdash, M.M.; El-Sayed, A.S.; Georg, N.M.; Abou-Elnour, A.; Nosier, H. Biosystematic Studies of Some Egyptian Species of Cestrum (Solanaceae). Mol. Biol. Rep. 2021, 48, 4497–4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wu, L.; Li, X.; Ma, L.; Borriss, R.; Wu, Z.; Gao, X. Acetoin and 2,3-Butanediol from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Induce Stomatal Closure in Arabidopsis thaliana and Nicotiana benthamiana. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 5625–5635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Xie, S.; Jiang, H.; Ding, T.; Xu, Q.; Chai, W.; Cheng, B. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 Represses Plant MiR846 to Induce Systemic Resistance via a Jasmonic Acid-Dependent Signalling Pathway. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 19, 1612–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jeon, J.S.; Etalo, D.W.; Carreno-Quintero, N.; de Vos, R.C.H.; Raaijmakers, J.M. Effects of Sulfur Assimilation in Pseudomonas fluorescens SS101 on Growth, Defense, and Metabolome of Different Brassicaceae. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sakurai, N.; Mardani-Korrani, H.; Nakayasu, M.; Matsuda, K.; Ochiai, K.; Kobayashi, M.; Tahara, Y.; Onodera, T.; Aoki, Y.; Motobayashi, T.; et al. Metabolome Analysis Identified Okaramines in the Soybean Rhizosphere as a Legacy of Hairy Vetch. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 490642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Arya, G.C.; Sarkar, S.; Manasherova, E.; Aharoni, A.; Cohen, H. The Plant Cuticle: An Ancient Guardian Barrier Set Against Long-Standing Rivals. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 663165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Shah, R.; Amaresan, N.; Patel, P.; Jinal, H.N.; Krishnamurthy, R. Isolation and Characterization of Bacillus spp. Endowed with Multifarious Plant Growth-Promoting Traits and Their Potential. Effect on Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Seedlings. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 4579–4587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ayadi, J.; Debouba, M.; Rahmani, R.; Bouajila, J. The Phytochemical Screening and Biological Properties of Brassica napus L. var. Napobrassica (Rutabaga) Seeds. Molecules 2023, 28, 6250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Saoudi, M.M.; Bouajila, J.; Rahmani, R.; Alouani, K. Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant, Antiacetylcholinesterase, and Cytotoxic Activities of Rumex crispus L. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 2021, 2021, 6675436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kaufmann Id, P.; Muenzner, M.; Kä Storf, M.; Santos, K.; Hartmann, T.; Dienelt, A.; Rehfeld, L.; Bergmannid, A. A Novel and Highly Efficient Purification Procedure for Native Human Dipeptidyl Peptidase 3 from Human Blood Cell Lysate. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alterman, M.A. Amino Acid Analysis: Methods and Protocols; Alterman, M.A., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2019; ISBN 9781493996384. [Google Scholar]
  50. Damo, E.; Rieder, P.; Coban, I.; Silva, R.L.; Kirchhoff, F.; Simonetti, M.; Agarwal, A. Glial Cells as Target for Antidepressants in Neuropathic Pain. Neuroforum 2022, 28, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 25 03235 g001
Figure 1. HPLC-ELSD acquisition for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. Apolar (Cyclo, Dichlo and EtAc) extracts are injected at 2 mg/mL and polar extracts (BuOH, Water, Raw) at 20 mg/mL.
Figure 1. HPLC-ELSD acquisition for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. Apolar (Cyclo, Dichlo and EtAc) extracts are injected at 2 mg/mL and polar extracts (BuOH, Water, Raw) at 20 mg/mL.
Ijms 25 03235 g001
Ijms 25 03235 g002
Figure 2. HPLC-DAD acquisition for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. Apolar (Cyclo, Dichlo and EtAc) extracts are injected at 2 mg/mL and polar extracts (BuOH, Water, Raw) at 20 mg/mL.
Figure 2. HPLC-DAD acquisition for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. Apolar (Cyclo, Dichlo and EtAc) extracts are injected at 2 mg/mL and polar extracts (BuOH, Water, Raw) at 20 mg/mL.
Ijms 25 03235 g002
Ijms 25 03235 g003
Figure 3. Antioxidant activity by the DPPH method, for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The results are therefore expressed as a percentage of inhibition of DPPH free radical. If the Kruskal–Wallis test is not significant (p > 0.05), groups are labeled with the same letters (a).
Figure 3. Antioxidant activity by the DPPH method, for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The results are therefore expressed as a percentage of inhibition of DPPH free radical. If the Kruskal–Wallis test is not significant (p > 0.05), groups are labeled with the same letters (a).
Ijms 25 03235 g003
Ijms 25 03235 g004
Figure 4. Agronomic activity on corn, sunflower, soya and ray grass, for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The results are therefore expressed as a percentage of evolution compared to standard gemination. For each seed, a Kruskal–Wallis test is performed. If the correlation is significant for the assay (p < 0.05, represented by a star), Dunn’s test is performed for the 2-by-2 extract rank comparisons: values that are labeled with different letters (a and b) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Agronomic activity on corn, sunflower, soya and ray grass, for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The results are therefore expressed as a percentage of evolution compared to standard gemination. For each seed, a Kruskal–Wallis test is performed. If the correlation is significant for the assay (p < 0.05, represented by a star), Dunn’s test is performed for the 2-by-2 extract rank comparisons: values that are labeled with different letters (a and b) differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Ijms 25 03235 g004
Ijms 25 03235 g005
Figure 5. Principal component analysis with the 5 activity variables (germination rates and antioxidant activities) for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The data are not normalized to include the magnitude of each parameter. The horizontal axis (76.0% of the data variance) corresponds to the following linear combination: 0.140 (antioxidant) − 0.786 (corn) + 0.359 (sunflower) + 0.454 (soya) + 0.166 (ray grass). The vertical axis (13.7% of the data variance) corresponds to the following linear combination: −0.002 (antioxidant) + 0.538 (corn) + 0.786 (sunflower) + 0.241 (soya) + 0.188 (ray grass).
Figure 5. Principal component analysis with the 5 activity variables (germination rates and antioxidant activities) for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium. The data are not normalized to include the magnitude of each parameter. The horizontal axis (76.0% of the data variance) corresponds to the following linear combination: 0.140 (antioxidant) − 0.786 (corn) + 0.359 (sunflower) + 0.454 (soya) + 0.166 (ray grass). The vertical axis (13.7% of the data variance) corresponds to the following linear combination: −0.002 (antioxidant) + 0.538 (corn) + 0.786 (sunflower) + 0.241 (soya) + 0.188 (ray grass).
Ijms 25 03235 g005
Table 1. Chemical family quantification (polyphenols, reducing sugars, primary amines and proteins).
Table 1. Chemical family quantification (polyphenols, reducing sugars, primary amines and proteins).
MediumExtractPolyphenols (mg/g) *Reducing Sugars (mg/g) *Primary Amines (mg/g) *Proteins (mg/g) *
CS2Cyclo1.7 ± 0.3 ana0.1 ± 0.5 ana
Dichlo82.2 ± 2.4 bcdnanana
EtAc82.3 ± 1.6 bcd384.1 ± 5.4 abcnana
BuOH27.7 ± 1.7 abef415.8 ± 2.9 abd18.1 ± 0.6 bc207.0 ± 3.2 ab
Water30.2 ± 1.4 bcef457.6 ± 3.0 ad13.5 ± 1.8 ab202.5 ± 3.4 abc
Raw32.6 ± 1.7 bcde507.7 ± 13.2 d18.4 ± 5.3 bc219.3 ± 4.6 a
BCCyclo28.7 ± 4.0 befnanana
Dichlo125.8 ± 8.7 dnanana
EtAc25.5 ± 4.2 abefnanana
BuOH95.6 ± 2.4 cd56.4 ± 2.5 e7.4 ± 0.7 ab105.2 ± 3.0 d
Water16.6 ± 0.8 aef90.5 ± 2.6 bce29.5 ± 2.1 c193.5 ± 4.8 bcd
Raw15.0 ± 1.1 a65.3 ± 1.7 ce24.5 ± 1.2 c165.4 ± 4.8 cd
na: not analyzed. Letters a–f mean both within rows and columns with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). * mg/g dry extract.
Table 2. Mass of extracts and chemical family quantification (polyphenols, reducing sugars, primary amines and proteins) in one litter of initial liquid medium for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
Table 2. Mass of extracts and chemical family quantification (polyphenols, reducing sugars, primary amines and proteins) in one litter of initial liquid medium for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
MediumExtractMass Concentration (mg/L)Polyphenols (mg/L)Reducing Sugars (g/L)Primary Amines (mg/L)Proteins (g/L)
CS2Cyclo22.70.0 ± 0.0na0.0 ± 0.0na
Dichlo58.34.8 ± 0.1nanana
EtAc154.812.7 ± 0.30.1 ± 0.0nana
BuOH3203.688.8 ± 5.31.3 ± 0.057.9 ± 1.90.7 ± 0.0
Water26,733.3808.7 ± 37.012.2 ± 0.1361.0 ± 47.95.4 ± 0.1
Raw29,786.7969.9 ± 52.015.1 ± 0.4547.9 ± 158.76.5 ± 0.1
BCCyclo8.20.2 ± 0.0nanana
Dichlo128.416.1 ± 1.1nanana
EtAc872.022.2 ± 3.7nanana
BuOH3221.9308.0 ± 7.60.2 ± 0.023.9 ± 2.10.3 ± 0.0
Water9795.6162.6 ± 8.10.9 ± 0.0288.6 ± 20.51.9 ± 0.0
Raw13,725.5205.9 ± 14.70.9 ± 0.0336.2 ± 16.92.3 ± 0.1
na: not analyzed.
Table 3. GC-MS analysis (area ×106) without derivatization for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
Table 3. GC-MS analysis (area ×106) without derivatization for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
N°RT (min)CompoundFormulaStructureCS2BC
CycloDichloEtAcBuOHWaterRawCycloDichloEtAcBuOHWaterRaw
17.56PseudocumeneC9H12Ijms 25 03235 i001NDNDNDNDNDND9.2NDNDNDNDND
28.14EucalyptolC10H18OIjms 25 03235 i0022.9NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
38.433,3,5-TrimethylcyclohexanoneC9H16OIjms 25 03235 i003NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.02.1NDNDND
49.03UndecaneC11H24Ijms 25 03235 i004NDNDNDNDNDND33.9NDNDNDNDND
59.402-Methyl-trans-decalin C11H20Ijms 25 03235 i005NDNDNDNDNDND24.2NDNDNDNDND
69.602-Methyl-trans-decalin, isomerC11H20Ijms 25 03235 i006NDNDNDNDNDND37.5NDNDNDNDND
79.612-Phenylethanol C8H10OIjms 25 03235 i007NDNDNDNDNDNDND1.2NDNDNDND
89.692-Methyl-trans-decalin, isomerC11H20Ijms 25 03235 i008NDNDNDNDNDND11.7NDNDNDNDND
99.892-Methyl-cis-decalinC11H20Ijms 25 03235 i009NDNDNDNDNDND18.4NDNDNDNDND
109.982-Methyl-cis-decalin isomerC11H20Ijms 25 03235 i010NDNDNDNDNDND10.4NDNDNDNDND
1110.092,6-Dimethyldecalin C12H22Ijms 25 03235 i011NDNDNDNDNDND19.2NDNDNDNDND
1210.27DodecaneC12H26Ijms 25 03235 i012NDNDNDNDNDND50.0NDNDNDNDND
1310.70CoumaranC8H8OIjms 25 03235 i013NDNDNDNDNDND90.0NDNDNDNDND
1410.752,4-Dimethylbenzaldehyde C9H10OIjms 25 03235 i014NDNDNDNDNDND155.41.2NDNDNDND
1510.81HexylcyclohexaneC12H24Ijms 25 03235 i015NDNDNDNDNDND30.9NDNDNDNDND
1610.90m-Di-tert-butylbenzene C14H22Ijms 25 03235 i016NDNDNDNDNDND46.8NDNDNDNDND
1711.391-Butoxy-1-isobutoxy-butaneC12H26O2Ijms 25 03235 i017NDNDND2.7NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
1811.651,1′-BicyclohexylC12H22Ijms 25 03235 i018NDNDNDNDNDND127.8NDNDNDNDND
1911.883,4-DimethylbenzamideC9H11NOIjms 25 03235 i019NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.2ND4.1
2012.31TetradecaneC14H30Ijms 25 03235 i020NDNDNDNDNDND73.8NDNDNDNDND
2113.052,6-Di-tert-butyl-P-benzoquinoneC14H20O2Ijms 25 03235 i021NDNDNDNDNDND110.7NDNDNDNDND
2213.392,4-Di-tert-butylphenol C14H22OIjms 25 03235 i022ND1.5NDNDNDND1297.713.03.4NDNDND
2313.60Ethyl 4-ethoxybenzoateC11H14O3Ijms 25 03235 i023NDNDNDNDNDND244.0NDNDNDNDND
2414.493-Methyl-heptadecane C18H38Ijms 25 03235 i024NDNDNDNDNDND283.1NDNDNDNDND
2514.81HeptadecaneC17H36Ijms 25 03235 i025NDNDNDNDNDND519.6NDNDNDNDND
2615.076-PhenyldodecaneC18H30Ijms 25 03235 i026NDNDNDNDNDND444.3NDNDNDNDND
2715.214-PhenyldodecaneC18H30Ijms 25 03235 i027NDNDNDNDNDND210.3NDNDNDNDND
2815.39Cyclo(prolyl-sarcosine) C8H12N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i028NDNDNDNDNDNDND33.8NDNDNDND
2915.50DL-Alanyl-L-leucine C9H18N2O3Ijms 25 03235 i029NDNDNDNDNDNDND22.43.1NDNDND
3015.48Cyclo(prolyl-sarcosine), isomerC8H12N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i030ND7.4NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
3115.702-Phenyldodecane C18H30Ijms 25 03235 i031NDNDNDNDNDND877.9NDNDNDNDND
3215.76n-Butylbenzenesulfonamide C10H15NO2SIjms 25 03235 i032NDNDNDNDNDND558.2NDNDNDNDND
3315.845-PhenyltridecaneC19H32Ijms 25 03235 i033NDNDNDNDNDND138.5NDNDNDNDND
3416.04Cyclo(L-prolyl-L-valine)C10H16N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i0342.0139.5NDNDNDND1653.6405.92.6NDND2.9
3516.31Cyclo(L-prolyl-L-valine), isomerC10H16N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i035NDNDNDNDNDNDND80.8NDNDNDND
3616.45Methyl palmitate (C16:0)C17H34O2Ijms 25 03235 i036NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.0ND4.1
3716.477,9-Di-t-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5)deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dioneC17H24O3Ijms 25 03235 i037NDNDNDNDNDND748.9NDNDNDNDND
3816.56Cyclo(prolyl-leucine)C11H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i0384.45.7NDNDNDNDND38.3NDNDNDND
3916.80Cyclo(prolyl-leucine), isomerC11H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i0390.9525.4NDNDNDNDND600.81.5NDND1.6
4016.91Cyclo(prolyl-leucine), isomerC11H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i0401.9801.2NDNDNDNDND667.52.2NDND1.0
4117.02Cyclo(prolyl-leucine), isomerC11H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i041ND115.2NDNDNDNDND390.2NDNDND0.5
4217.19Norhamane, N-EtAcylC13H10N2OIjms 25 03235 i0423.0NDNDNDNDNDtrNDNDNDNDND
4317.252,4,6-TriisopropylphenolC14H20O2Ijms 25 03235 i043NDNDNDNDNDND603.4NDNDNDNDND
4417.74Methyl iso-stearate (iC18:0) C19H38O2Ijms 25 03235 i044NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.0ND3.4
4518.119,17-OctadecadienalC18H32OIjms 25 03235 i045NDNDNDNDNDND15280.5NDNDNDNDND
4618.40Cyclo(alanyl-phenylalanine) C12H14N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i046NDNDNDNDNDNDND23.3NDNDNDND
4718.40DL-Alanyl-L-phenylalanine C12H16N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i047NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND3.9NDNDND
4818.92Tert-octyldephenylamineC20H27NIjms 25 03235 i048NDNDNDNDNDNDND9.6NDNDNDND
4918.97Cyclo(phenylalanyl-valine)C14H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i049NDNDNDNDNDND459.655.1NDNDNDND
5019.06OctinoxateC18H26O3Ijms 25 03235 i050NDNDNDNDNDND502.6NDNDNDNDND
5119.07Cyclo(phenylalanyl-valine), isomerC14H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i051ND6.1NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
5219.30Dioctyl adipateC22H42O4Ijms 25 03235 i052ND171.2NDNDNDND409.5109.7NDNDNDND
5319.452,2′-Methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-p-cresol) C23H32O2Ijms 25 03235 i053NDNDNDNDNDNDtrNDtrNDND3.2
5419.49Cyclo(prolyl-phenylalanine)C14H16N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i0545.8trNDNDNDND284.1224.2NDNDNDND
5519.512,2′-Methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-p-cresol), isomerC23H32O2Ijms 25 03235 i055NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND5.0
5619.612,2′-Methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-p-cresol), isomerC23H32O2Ijms 25 03235 i056NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND2.1NDND431.7
5719.78Cyclo(prolyl-phenylalanine), isomerC14H16N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i057NDNDNDNDNDND529.6406.0NDNDNDND
5820.252,2′-Methylenebis(6-tert-butyl-p-cresol), isomerC23H32O2Ijms 25 03235 i058NDND406.6328.839.14.9NDNDNDNDNDND
5920.35Di-2-propylpentyl-phthalateC24H38O4Ijms 25 03235 i059NDNDNDNDNDND468.0NDNDNDNDND
6021.192-Ethoxy-2′-ethyloxanilideC18H20N2O3Ijms 25 03235 i0605.8NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
6122.31Di-2-ethylhexyl-isophthalate C24H38O4Ijms 25 03235 i061NDNDNDNDNDND89.7NDNDNDNDND
6222.91ErucamideC22H43NOIjms 25 03235 i062NDNDNDNDNDND165.3NDNDNDNDND
6323.03SqualeneC30H50Ijms 25 03235 i063NDNDNDNDNDND168.7NDNDNDNDND
6424.01Cyclo(phenylalanyl-phenylalanine)C18H18N2O2Ijms 25 03235 i064NDNDNDNDNDNDND10.7NDNDNDND
tr indicates integration inferior to 0.1 × 106; “ND”: not detected.
Table 4. GC-MS analysis (area ×106) with derivatization for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
Table 4. GC-MS analysis (area ×106) with derivatization for BC extracts of B. megaterium culture and CS2 extracts of control medium.
N°RT (min)CompoundFormulaStructureCS2BC
CycloDichloEtAcBuOHWaterRawCycloDichloEtAcBuOHWaterRaw
1′6.87Carbonic acidC1H2O3Ijms 25 03235 i065NDNDNDND1.4ND1.4NDNDNDNDND
2′7.11Ethylene GlycolC2H6O2Ijms 25 03235 i066NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.4NDND
3′7.22Pyruvic acidC3H4O3Ijms 25 03235 i067ND1.53.42.01.90.43.92.83.0NDNDND
4′7.28Propylene glycolC3H8O2Ijms 25 03235 i068NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.81.00.3ND
5′7.812,3-ButanediolC4H10O2Ijms 25 03235 i069NDNDNDNDNDND5.6586.0981.31511.960.21.85
6′7.972,3-Butanediol, isomerC4H10O2Ijms 25 03235 i070NDNDNDNDNDNDND2.21.91.8NDND
7′8.33Lactic AcidC3H6O3Ijms 25 03235 i071NDND3.2NDNDND2.12.55.247.936.05.28
8′8.452-HydroperoxytetrafuranC4H8O3Ijms 25 03235 i072ND6.927.2ND2.40.250.750.636.6NDNDND
9′8.62Glycolic acidC2H4O3Ijms 25 03235 i073NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.30.30.6ND
10′8.94AlanineC3H7O2Ijms 25 03235 i074NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND2.6ND
11′8.982-Propyl-1-pentanolC8H18O1Ijms 25 03235 i075NDNDND1.5NDtrNDNDND0.2NDND
12′10.29L-NorvalineC5H11O2N2Ijms 25 03235 i076NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND2.6ND
13′10.87GlycerolC3H8O3Ijms 25 03235 i077NDND2.51.9NDND1.7ND0.3NDNDND
14′10.94Phosphoric acidPO4H3Ijms 25 03235 i078NDND1.21.41.5ND1.90.50.30.942.1ND
15′11.13L-IsoleucineC6H13O6N2Ijms 25 03235 i079NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.8ND
16′11.45Glyceric acidC3H6O4Ijms 25 03235 i080ND1.25.80.5NDNDNDND0.30.60.8ND
17′11.68UracilC4H4O2N2Ijms 25 03235 i081NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.20.6NDND
18′11.73SerineC3H7O3N3Ijms 25 03235 i082NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.4ND
19′11.801-MonoacetinC5H10O4Ijms 25 03235 i083ND3.62.5NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
20′11.96L-ThreonineC4H9O3N3Ijms 25 03235 i084NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.5ND
21′12.94L-ThreitolC4H10O4Ijms 25 03235 i085NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND5.71.0ND
22′14.15PhenylalanineC9H11O2N2Ijms 25 03235 i086NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.5ND
23′14.85Tridecanoic acidC13H26O2Ijms 25 03235 i087NDNDNDNDNDND0.8NDNDNDNDND
24′15.07Ribonic acidC5H10O6Ijms 25 03235 i088NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.6NDND
25′15.15AllofuranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i089NDND4.0NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
26′15.22SorbofuranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i090ND0.838.897.6ND5.2NDNDNDNDNDND
27′15.30FructofuranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i091ND3.5205.2413.558.322.2NDNDNDNDNDND
28′15.36FructopyranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i092NDND19.727.91.32.4NDNDNDNDNDND
29′15.40D-PinitolC7H14O6Ijms 25 03235 i093NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND1.0ND
30′15.43ArabinopyranoseC5H10O5Ijms 25 03235 i094NDND54.28.31.3NDNDNDNDNDNDND
31′15.52TalofuranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i095NDND7.272.45.42.3NDNDNDNDNDND
32′15.57Myristic acidC14H28O2Ijms 25 03235 i096NDNDNDNDNDND3.1NDNDNDNDND
33′15.63LyxopyranoseC5H10O5Ijms 25 03235 i097ND16.0866.3349.7229.752.5NDNDND0.61.4ND
34′15.65Myristoleic acidC14H26O2Ijms 25 03235 i098NDNDNDNDNDND7.2NDNDNDNDND
35′15.89MannopyranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i099NDND9.5999.0219.0146.5NDNDND3.2NDND
36′16.01TalopyranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i100NDND101.111.77.66.5NDNDNDNDNDND
37′16.07AllopyranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i101NDND169.3156.542.747.1NDNDNDNDNDND
38′16.09D-Galactose oximeC6H13O6N6Ijms 25 03235 i102NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.3ND
39′16.31Pentadecanoic acidC15H30O2Ijms 25 03235 i103NDNDNDNDNDND153.91.3NDNDNDND
40′16.43GlucopyranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i104ND2.27.92393.749.615.7NDNDND0.71.4ND
41′16.56Ribonic acid, isomerC5H10O6Ijms 25 03235 i105NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.5ND
42′17.15Palmitic acidC16H32O2Ijms 25 03235 i106NDNDNDNDNDND185.94.3NDNDNDND
43′17.16Myo-InositolC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i107NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDND0.5ND
44′17.58Margaric acidC17H34O2Ijms 25 03235 i108NDNDNDNDNDND6.80.4NDNDNDND
45′17.63PsicofuranoseC6H12O6Ijms 25 03235 i109NDNDND2.4NDNDNDNDND0.9NDND
46′18.24Oleic acidC18H34O2Ijms 25 03235 i110NDNDNDNDNDND1025.045.5NDNDNDND
47′18.35Stearic acidC18H36O2Ijms 25 03235 i111NDNDNDNDNDND19.21.0NDNDNDND
48′20.37TuranoseC12H22O11Ijms 25 03235 i112NDNDND3.6NDNDNDNDNDNDNDND
tr indicates integration inferior to 0.1 × 106; “ND”: not detected.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hur, A.; Saoudi, M.M.; Ferhout, H.; Mzali, L.; Taillandier, P.; Bouajila, J. Bacillus megaterium: Evaluation of Chemical Nature of Metabolites and Their Antioxidant and Agronomics Properties. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 3235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25063235

AMA Style

Hur A, Saoudi MM, Ferhout H, Mzali L, Taillandier P, Bouajila J. Bacillus megaterium: Evaluation of Chemical Nature of Metabolites and Their Antioxidant and Agronomics Properties. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024; 25(6):3235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25063235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hur, Anna, Mohamed Marouane Saoudi, Hicham Ferhout, Laila Mzali, Patricia Taillandier, and Jalloul Bouajila. 2024. "Bacillus megaterium: Evaluation of Chemical Nature of Metabolites and Their Antioxidant and Agronomics Properties" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, no. 6: 3235. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25063235

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop