Genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter

Genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter Deepti N. Chaudhari, Jayesh J. Ahire, Amit A. Kulthe, Sujata Ghodke This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In this study, we reported genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter . The strain was evaluated for probiotic properties, biofilm formation, and antimicrobial compound production. The phenotypic safety was determined by accessing the strain’s ability to produce enterotoxins, degrade mucin, and antibiotic sensitivity. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed to identify the strain and determine genetic safety by analyzing the presence of plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, and virulence factors. In the results, B. subtilis DC-11 showed 88.98% viability in gastric juice, and 98.60% viability in intestinal juice. It showed 18.33 ± 0.44% autoaggregation, 32.53 ± 3.11% adhesion to xylene, 0.98 ± 0.05 OD unit’s adhesion to mucin (crystal violet equivalence at 550 nm), 21.2 ± 2.3% adhesion to Caco-2 cells, and − 22.3 ± 0.65 mV zeta potential. The highest co-aggregation was recorded with Escherichia coli (23.62 ± 0.70%). The strain was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. It formed a good biofilm and capable of producing antimicrobial peptide subtilosin A with a molecular mass of 3400 Da. The peptide has inhibited the growth of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (18.6 ± 0.58 mm). In genetic safety, no plasmids, antibiotic-resistant genes, and virulence factors were detected. Moreover, the strain showed close similarity with B. subtilis ATCC 6051 and proteins involved in probiotic attributes. In conclusion, B. subtilis DC-11 is safe potential probiotic candidate. Bacillus subtilis DC-11 Probiotic Safety Idli Batter MRSA Subtilosin A Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Introduction Fermentation is a well-known traditional method of transforming food components to improve nutritional qualities, shelf life, safety, and food product diversity. In India, the diversity of fermented foods is huge due to its diverse ethnicity and biological resources [ 1 ]. Cereals and legumes are the major components of Indian fermented foods and the diet of the diverse Indian population [ 2 , 3 ]. Idli is one of the popular traditional fermented foods of cereal-legume. It is consumed widely as a major source of dietary nutrients (100 g portion: protein 12 g, total lipid 2 g, carbohydrate 72 g, and fiber 4 g) [ 4 ]. According to a recent metagenomic study, the phyla Firmicutes and Proteobacteria are predominant in fully fermented Idli batter, representing the genera Bacillus , Enterococcus , Enterobacter , Erwinia , Klebsiella , Lactococcus , Lactobacillus , Macrococcus , Serratia , Pseudoalteromonas , Vibrio , and Weissella [ 3 ]. These microbial communities collectively work to enhance the protein and nutrition values, and vitamin levels, and improve the digestibility, flavor, and texture of the final product Idli [ 5 ]. Overall, fermented food microorganisms have enormous potential as a future probiotic contender. Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host [ 6 ]. On commercial grounds, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are well-accepted around the world. However, spore-forming Bacillus species are still undergoing enormous food safety checks, although they are present in many fermented foods [ 7 ]. Until now, B. coagulans ( Heyndrickxia coagulans ), B. clausii ( Shouchella clausii ), and B. subtilis have been available on the market for various gastrointestinal complications and in the management of diseases in humans and animals [ 8 ]. As these probiotics are in spore form, they can withstand a variety of environmental factors and hold up to the claims made on the viability label for the duration of the product's shelf life. When compared to the vegetative forms of true lactic acid bacteria, they are inexpensive in numerous capacities [ 8 ]. Apart from probiotic properties, the safety of probiotics is one of the milestones laid out by the food safety authorities around the globe. According to their guidelines, candidate probiotics must be identified using the whole genome sequence (WGS) and checked for the presence of plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, and virulence factors [ 9 ]. Besides this, it can be phenotypically tested for pathogenic traits and antibiotic resistance [ 10 ]. In this study, we report on the isolation of Bacillus from traditionally fermented Idli Batter , probiotic properties, antimicrobial compound production and characterization, and phenotypic and genetic safety assessment. Materials and Methods Isolation of bacterial strain The traditionally fermented Idli Batter sample was collected from village Loni-Kalbhor (18.48799103 N 74.01815952 E), Pune, India, as per standard sampling protocol. The collected sample was transported under cold conditions (4 o C) to the Food Technology Laboratory, and diluted serially in PBS (NaCl, 8.0 g; KCl, 0.2 g; Na 2 HPO 4 , 1.42 g; KH 2 PO 4 , 0.24 g; and ultrapure water 1 L, pH 7.3). The appropriate dilutions were spread plated on nutrient agar (NA, HiMedia, India) plates and incubated at 37 o C for 24 h. After incubation, the colonies with different morphologies were separated, subjected to Gram staining, and catalase activity, and streaked further on HiCrome Bacillus agar (HiMedia) to differentiate Bacillus species. The selected isolate was imaged using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) EVO 18 (Carl Zeiss, Germany), and cell size was measured (ImageJ software, USA) as described by Ahire et al. [ 11 ]. The glycerol stocks (20%, v/v) were prepared and stored at – 20 o C. Probiotic characterization Gastric and intestinal juice tolerance Gastric juice tolerance was determined as per Pedersen et al. [ 12 ]. In brief, 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000×g for 10 min at 4°C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and resuspended in the same. To 1 mL of this suspension, 10 mL filter sterilized [0.2 µm cellulose acetate (CA), Minisart® NML, Sartorius, Germany] synthetic gastric juice (consisting: pepsin, 0.0133 gm; lysozyme, 0.1 g; glucose, 3.5 g; bile, 0.05 g; proteose peptone, 8.3 g; KCl, 0.37 g; NaCl, 2.05 g; CaCl 2 , 0.11 g; KH 2 PO 4 , 0.6 g; and ultrapure water 1 L, pH 2.5) was added and kept at 37 o C for 3 h. The bacterial viability was determined on NA (HiMedia) at the intervals of 0, 1, 2, and 3 h. The results were expressed as log 10 colony forming units (CFU)/mL. Intestinal juice tolerance was performed according to Ahire [ 13 ]. A 1 mL DC-11 suspension (prepared as described in gastric juice tolerance) was added to 10 mL filter sterilized intestinal juice [consisting :1 mg/mL pancreatin (protease 100 U/mg; amylase 100 U/mg; lipase 8 U/ mg), 0.3% (w/v) bile, and 0.85% (w/v) NaCl, pH 8.0] and kept at 37 o C for 6 h. The bacterial viability was determined on NA (HiMedia) at intervals of 0, 2, and 6 h. The results were expressed as log 10 CFU/mL. Adhesion potential Autoaggregation An 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000×g for 10 min at 4°C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and resuspended in the same to 0.5 OD 600 . The 5 mL suspension was vortexed (10 s) and kept at 37°C for 1 h [ 14 ]. After incubation, the upper layer was removed and optical density was measured at 600 nm. The percentage auto-aggregation was calculated as, (OD 0.5 – OD upper layer/ OD 0.5) × 100. Adhesion to xylene Bacterial adhesion to xylene was performed as per the method described by Rosenberg et al. [ 15 ]. In brief, 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000×g for 10 min at 4°C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and diluted to 0.5 OD 600 in 0.1 M KNO 3 (pH 6.2). To 3 mL bacteria, 1 mL xylene was gently added and kept at 37 o C for 10 min. Both phases were mixed by vortexing (5 s) and kept at 37 o C for 1 h to separate. The aqueous phase was removed and optical density was measured at 600 nm. The percentage of xylene adhesion was calculated using the following formula, (OD 0.5 – OD aqueous layer / OD 0.5) × 100. Adhesion to mucin The mucin (100 µg/mL, porcine stomach, Type II, Sigma- Aldrich, USA) was coated to the wells of a 96-well plate (ThermoFisher, USA) as described by Ahire et al. [ 16 ]. A 250 µL DC-11 suspension (0.5 OD 600 ) prepared in PBS (pH 7.3) containing 0.05% (w/v) Tween 20 was added to mucin-coated wells ( n = 15) and kept at 4 o C for 24 h. After incubation, the cells that did not adhere to the mucin were carefully decanted and washed with PBS + Tween 20 (0.05% w/v; pH 7.3). The wells were air-dried and bacterial adhesion was determined using the crystal violet staining method [ 17 ]. Adhesion to Caco-2 cells Human colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) cell adhesion was performed as per the method described by Tuomola and Salminen [ 18 ]. In brief, Caco-2 cells (1 × 10 5 / mL) were cultivated for 2 weeks on glass coverslips placed at the bottom of 24-well tissue culture plates (ThermoFisher) containing Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s minimal essential medium (DMEM) (ThermoFisher). During the 2-week cultivation phase, the DMEM was changed every 24 h and 1 h before the bacterial adhesion. A 400 µL, 8 h old DC-11 cells (10 9 cells per mL) diluted in PBS (pH 7.3) were added into Caco-2 cells. The plates were incubated at 37 o C for 2 h to facilitate bacterial adhesion. After incubation, the cells were washed thrice with PBS (pH 7.3) and adhered bacterial cells were enumerated under the microscope. Zeta potential An 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000×g for 10 min at 4°C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and suspended in the same to 0.5 OD 600 . This suspension was filled in a DTS1070 capillary cell and zeta potential was measured using a Nano-ZS Zetasizer (Malvern, UK) [ 11 ]. Phenotypic safety Detection of hemolytic and non-hemolytic enterotoxins A 100 µL, 18 h old DC-11 culture was inoculated in a circular sample port of Duopath® Cereus Enterotoxins immune-chromatographic rapid test kit (Merck, Germany) and observed for development of colored lines at C (control), HBL (hemolysin BL), and NHE (non-hemolytic enterotoxin) as instructed by the manufacturer. Bacillus cereus ATCC 10876 was used as a positive control. Gelatinase activity The gelatin-nutrient agar (0.8% gelatin (w/v) in 2.3% nutrient agar) plates were streaked with DC-11 cells and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. After incubation, 5% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) solution was gently poured on top of the agar surface and observed for clear zones surrounding the growth. Mucin degradation Mucin degradation was performed as per the method described by Ahire et al. [ 16 ]. In brief, minimal agarose medium (consisting: K 2 HPO 4 , 3.0 g; KH 2 PO 4 , 0.5 g; MgSO 4 , 0.5 g; NaCl, 5.0 g; meat extract, 5.0 g; yeast extract, 3.0 g; tryptone, 7.5 g; pancreatic enzymatic digest of casein, 7.5 g; cysteine HCl, 0.5 g; agarose, 15 g, and ultrapure water 1L; pH 7.2 ± 0.2) was prepared with or without 3% (w/v) glucose and supplemented with 0.3% (w/v) mucin (porcine stomach, Type II, Sigma- Aldrich). The plates were surface-dried and inoculated with 5 µL suspension of DC-11. All the plates were incubated at 37°C for 48–72 h and stained with coomassie blue (0.1%, w/v). The bacterial growth surrounded by a discolored halo indicates mucin lysis. Cytotoxicity Cytotoxicity analysis was performed as per the method described by Tjandrawinata et al. [ 19 ]. In brief, human hepatocarcinoma (HepG-2) and Caco-2 cells were each seeded separately (1 × 10 4 cells / well) in wells of a 96-well plate (ThermoFisher) and inoculated with 200 µL, 8 h old DC-11 cells (10 9 cells per mL) diluted in MEM-alpha and or MEM. The plates were incubated statically at 37 o C for 24 h and cell viability was determined using Cell Proliferation Kit-MTT based (Merck, USA). The viability (%) was calculated as, absorbance @570 nm treated cells /absorbance @570 nm untreated cells × 100. Antibiotic sensitivity Antibiotic sensitivity was determined according to the guidelines of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [ 20 ] and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [ 21 ]. In brief, 100 µL (~ 10 6 cells per mL) of 8 h old DC-11 cells were aseptically added into 20 mL molten NA, mixed to homogeneity, and poured into the plates. The plates were surface-dried, and standard antibiotic disks (Table 1, HiMedia) were placed and kept at 4 o C for 20 min. After radial diffusion of antibiotics at 4 o C, the plates were incubated at 37 o C for 24 h. The clear zones surrounding the antibiotic disks were measured in millimeters (mm). Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined as per the method described by Andrews [ 22 ]. The selected antibiotics (Table 2) were each diluted (0.06 to 128 mg/L) in molten NA and poured into the plates. The plates were allowed to solidify and surface-dried. A 5 µL suspension of DC-11 cells (10 6 cells/mL) was spot inoculated and plates were incubated at 37 o C for 24 h. The MIC was defined as the lowest antibiotic concentration in the agar medium that prevented the growth of DC-11 cells. The results were compared with European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) MIC cut-off values given for Bacillus spp. [ 23 ]. Antimicrobial activity Screening for antimicrobial activity An 18 h old colony of DC-11 was inoculated in 10 mL NB and incubated by shaking (120 rpm) for 8 h at 37 o C. After incubation, 1 mL culture was transferred to 100 mL fresh sterile NB and incubated as described above for 24 h. The cells were separated by centrifugation (8,000×g for 10 min at 4°C) and the supernatant was collected. The pH of the supernatant was adjusted to 7.0, filter sterilized using 0.2 µm CA filter (Sartorius), and checked for antimicrobial activity against Micrococcus luteus MTCC 106 T as described above. A100 µL M. luteus culture previously cultivated at 30 o C for 18 h (shaking 120 rpm) was inoculated in 20 mL molten Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar (HiMedia) and poured into a sterile Petri plate. The agar was allowed to solidify and 9 mm wells were created using a sterile 1 mL tip into the agar slab. A 25 µL supernatant was dispensed into the well and allowed to diffuse at 4 o C for 15 min. Later, the plates were incubated at 30 o C for 24 h. Sterile NB served as a control. The zone of growth clearance around the well was measured in mm [ 11 ]. Production and isolation of antimicrobial compounds (AMC) The production and isolation of AMC was performed as per the method described by Ahire et al. [ 24 ]. In brief, the Amberlite® XAD16N (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) beads required for NB clarification and AMC isolation were activated by immersing beads into 80% isopropanol (IPA) (ThermoFisher) containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (Sigma-Aldrich) (v/v/v) for 30 min shaking (120 rpm) at 28°C. The activated beads were rinsed 4 to 5 times with ultrapure water and collected. These beads were sterilized at 121 o C, 15 lbs pressure for 15 min, for their need in sterile applications [ 24 ]. The NB required for the cultivation of DC-11 was clarified using activated Amberlite® XAD16N (Sigma-Aldrich) beads (10 g activated beads to 1 L broth) to avoid interference of media ingredient (up to 40 kDa) during the purification process as described by Ahire et al. [ 11 ]. The strain DC-11 was cultivated as per the process described in ‘Screening for antimicrobial activity’, except NB, the clarified-NB was used. A 20 mL culture was mixed with 20 g activated (sterilized) XAD16N beads and distributed evenly on the surface of a sterile clarified-nutrient agar plate (200 mm × 30 mm, Borosil, India). All the plates were sealed with parafilm and incubated statically at 37 o C for 96 h. After incubation, beads were collected and attached bacteria were washed off with ultrapure water 5–6 times. The beads were then subjected to 30% (v/v) ethanol wash followed by 5–6 times ultrapure water wash. All the beads were collected and immersed in 80% isopropanol (IPA) (ThermoFisher) containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (Sigma-Aldrich) (v/v/v) for 30 min shaking (80 rpm) at 28°C to extract AMC. The extracted AMC was filtered through 0.2 µm CA membrane and tested against M. luteus MTCC 106 T in an agar well plate inhibition assay [ 11 ]. The AMC was further concentrated using Rotavapor (R-300, Buchi, Switzerland) and subjected for reversed-phase Sep-Pak® Vac 35 cc (10 g) C18 cartridge (Waters, USA) purification. Purification of AMC The reversed-phase C18 cartridge was preconditioned as per the manufacturer's instructions and loaded with AMC concentrate. The cartridge was washed with 5 column volumes of ultrapure water and AMC was eluted using IPA gradients (10–90%) containing 0.1% TFA (v/v/v) with 10% increments at a flow of 1 mL/ min [ 11 ]. The collected fractions were checked for antimicrobial activity against M. luteus MTCC 106 T . The fractions positive against M. luteus were mixed and concentrated using Rotavapor followed by freeze-drying (Vertis, USA). The freeze-dried AMC was stored at – 18 o C freezer until further use. Characterization of AMC The protein content in AMC was determined by using Pierce™ bicinchoninic acid (BCA) protein assay kit (Thermo Scientific, USA). The UV-visible spectra were obtained using a Thermo- spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis was performed on Bruker FTIR-spectrometer (Bruker, USA). Proton ( 1 H) and carbon ( 13 C) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were obtained using Bruker NMR-spectrometer (Bruker, USA). The deconvoluted mass and mass to charge ( m/z ) were determined using an Agilent quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) (Agilent Technologies, Inc., USA). The antimicrobial activity of purified AMC was performed as per the method described previously in the section "Screening for antimicrobial activity”. In brief, M. luteus , methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) ATCC BAA1720™, Staphylococcus aureus MTCC 737, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MTCC 1688, and Escherichia coli MTCC 1687 were each grown 18 h in their specified growth media and incubation conditions. A 100 µL culture was inoculated in 20 mL molten MH agar (HiMedia) and poured into a sterile Petri plate. The wells were created and 25 µL AMC (1 mg dissolved in 80% IPA containing 0.1%TFA) was dispensed into the well and allowed to diffuse at 4 o C for 15 min. All the plates were incubated at specified growth temperatures of test cultures for 24 h. An 80% IPA containing 0.1%TFA served as a control. The zone of growth clearance around the well was measured in mm. The strain DC-11 whole genome sequence (WGS) was analyzed for the presence of secondary metabolites gene clusters, bacteriocins, ribosomally synthesized post-translationally modified peptides using antiSMASH-DB 4.0 [ 25 ] and BAGEL 4 [ 26 ]. The physical and chemical properties of AMC were determined using Expasy ProtParam [ 27 ]. Co-aggregation with pathogens Co-aggregation with pathogens was determined as per the method described by Ahire et al. [ 16 ]. Bacterial cultures [probiotic: B. subtilis DC-11 (vegetative form); pathogens: Proteus mirabilis MTCC 425, E. coli MTCC 1687, and Candida albicans ATCC 14053) were each grown 18 h in their specified growth media at 37 o C. The cell pellets were harvested, washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and diluted to 0.5 OD 600 nm in PBS. A 2 mL probiotic suspension was mixed gently (10 s vortexing) with 2 mL pathogen and incubated statically for 1 h at 37 o C. After incubation, the upper layer was removed and OD 600 nm was measured. The optical density readings of the upper layer of individual culture suspension (4 mL) served as an individual aggregation density. The percentage co-aggregation was calculated using following formula, [(OD 600 x + OD 600 y ) / 2] – OD 600 [ x + y ] / OD 600 x + OD 600 y / 2 × 100. where OD 600 x and OD 600 y are individual aggregation densities of test cultures. OD 600 ( x + y ) are co-aggregation densities. Biofilm formation An 18 h old DC-11 colony was inoculated in 10 mL nutrient broth and incubated shaking (120 rpm) at 37 o C for 8 h. After incubation, cells were separated and diluted in 30 mL fresh sterile nutrient broth. Each 200 µL (2 × 10 4 CFU/mL) of this suspension was carefully transferred into 6 wells of 96-well plate (ThermoFisher). The plate was incubated statically at 37 o C for 24 h. The total biofilm mass, free cells, and viable biofilm cells were investigated as per the method described by Ahire and Dicks [ 17 ]. Complete genome sequence analysis DNA extraction An 18 h old colony of strain DC-11 was inoculated in 10 mL nutrient broth and incubated shaking (120 rpm) at 37 o C for 18 h. After incubation, the cells were separated and genomic DNA was extracted using MO BIO’s genomic DNA extraction kit (Carlsbad, CA, USA). The extracted DNA was subjected to 0.8% (w/v) agarose gel and the Qubit dsDNA HS assay kit (ThermoFisher) for quantitative and qualitative estimation. Library preparation and sequencing Nextera DNA Flex kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for DNA fragmentation and library preparation as instructed by the manufacturer. The library was further sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina Inc., USA) by using 2 × 250 bp chemistry. A 5% PhiX spike-in was used during library sequencing. NGS-QC tool was used to remove low-quality sequences ( http://www.nipgr.res.in/ngsqctoolkit.html ) [ 28 ]. Genome BLAST Distance Phylogeny (GBDP) analysis The genome sequence data were uploaded to the Type (Strain) Genome Server (TYGS), a free bioinformatics platform available at https://tygs.dsmz.de , for a whole genome-based taxonomic analysis [ 29 ]. The analysis also made use of recently introduced methodological updates and features [ 30 ]. Information on nomenclature, synonymy, and associated taxonomic literature was provided by TYGS's sister database, the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN, available at https://lpsn.dsmz.de ) [ 30 ]. Digital DNA-DNA Hybridization (dDDH) values and confidence intervals were calculated using the recommended settings of GGDC 4.0 [ 30 ]. The results were provided by the TYGS on 2024-08-02. Orthologus Average Nucleotide Identity (OrthoANI) was determined using the OrthoANIu tool (EzBioCloud, USA) [ 31 ]. Genome assembly, annotation, and safety DC-11 genome was assembled using SPAdes-3.11.1 assembler (St. Petersburg, Russia) and quality was determined using the Quality Assessment Tool. RNAmmer 1.2 (USA) was used to identify a number of rRNAs. The genome was annotated by Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology (RAST), UniProt/SwissProt, and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database. tRNA_scan-SE, and RNAmmer were used to predict genes for tRNA, and rRNA. Protein-coding genes were determined by using Glimmer version 3.02. SignalP finder was used to identify signal peptides. AntiSMASH was used to identify secondary metabolites [ 25 ], the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) for antibiotic resistance genes [ 32 ], Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) for virulence factors [ 33 ], IslandViewer [ 34 ], and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-Finder [ 35 ] for insertion and bacteriophage associated sequences. In silico assessment of genome features contributing to probiotic properties (dup: abstract ?) Bacillus subtilis DC-11 WGS was investigated using RAST (Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology) [ 36 ] and SEED [ 37 ] viewer comparative blast search tool along with NCBI standard protein BLAST to explore the genes or specific domains responsible for acid and bile tolerance, adhesion to the gut, and environmental stress resistance. Strain deposition and WGS accession number Bacillus subtilis strain DC-11 whole genome shotgun sequencing project is available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/2318375570 with accession number JAOWBV000000000. The strain has been deposited in culture collection at the National Centre for Microbial Resource, Pune, and is available under accession number MCC4788. Statistical analysis The data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism (Trial version 10, USA). The statistical significance was determined using Tukey’s multiple comparison test (one-way ANOVA) and t-test. The data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation. The p -value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results Isolation of bacterial strain Traditionally fermented Idli Batter sample produced two different dominant colony types on NA viz. white pin-pointed small colonies (1 − 2 mm) and fuzzy white larger colonies (2 − 3 mm). The bacteria that produced small colonies are Gram-positive, cocci-shaped, non-spore former, and catalase-negative. However, the bacteria that produced large colonies are Gram-positive, rod-shaped, spore former, and catalase-positive. In this study, we report on the probiotic characterization of bacteria that produced a large colony and were designated as DC-11. The DC-11 colony was circular, rough, opaque, fuzzy white, and 2–3 mm in diameter. On HiCrome Bacillus agar, DC-11 produced yellowish-green to green colonies (characteristic of Bacillus subtilis ). The rods occurred singly or in pairs, and measured about 1.4 ± 0.1 µm long and 0.6 ± 0.1 µm wide (Fig. 1a). The cells are capable of fermenting glucose, fructose, mannitol, starch, and glycogen. The indole, methyl red, and urease tests are negative, whereas Voges Proskauer and nitrate reduction were positive for B. subtilis . Probiotic characterization Gastric and intestinal juice tolerance In gastric juice, the viability of DC-11 was significantly ( p 0.0001) reduced from 7.99 ± 0.003 log 10 CFU/mL (0 h) to 7.58 ± 0.01 (1 h), 7.28 ± 0.003 (2 h) and 7.11 ± 0.001 log 10 CFU/mL at 3 h (Fig. 1b). The percentage of bacterial viability reduction from 0 h to 3 h was 11.01%. The viability of DC-11 was significantly ( p 0.0001) reduced in the intestinal juice. The initial 7.89 ± 0.001 log 10 CFU/mL cells of DC-11 were reduced to 7.83 ± 0.004 at 3 h and 7.78 ± 0.008 at 6 h (Fig. 1c). The percentage of bacterial viability reduction from 0 h to 6 h was 1.39%. Adhesion potential The strain DC-11 showed 18.33 ± 0.44% autoaggregation, 32.53 ± 3.11% adhesion to xylene, 0.98 ± 0.05 OD unit’s adhesion to mucin (crystal violet equivalence at 550 nm), and 21.2 ± 2.3% adhesion to Caco-2 cells (Fig. 2a, b). The zeta potential for 2 Billion CFU/mL DC-11 cells dissolved in PBS buffer (pH 7.3) was − 22.3 ± 0.65 mV. Phenotypic safety No colored lines were developed at HBL, and NHE when DC-11 culture broth was added in the sample port as compared to control B. cereus ATCC 10876 (Fig. 2c). On the gelatin-nutrient agar plate, the surrounding area of DC-11 growth showed a clear zone when treated with TCA (Fig. 2c). In mucin degradation, after coomassie blue treatment, no discolored halo was observed surrounding the bacterial growth (with or without glucose) (Fig. 2c). The Caco-2 and HepG-2 cells exhibited 64.0 ± 0.27% and 68.01 ± 0.31% viability in presence of DC-11 cells (Fig. 2d). The strain DC-11 was sensitive to most of the antibiotics tested, except cefdinir, rifampicin, and antifungal drugs nystatin, itraconazole, and fluconazole (Table 1). The MIC cut-off values for chloramphenicol, clindamycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, tetracycline, and vancomycin are below and within the limits of MIC cut-off values provided by EFSA for Bacillus spp., (Table 2). Antimicrobial activity, production, purification, and characterization of AMC A 24-hour-old cell-free supernatant of DC-11 inhibited the growth of M. luteus . The zone of inhibition measured for supernatant pH 7.0 (adjusted) was 10.33 ± 0.58 mm and pH 6.8 (as such) was 10.0 ± 1.0 mm ( p 0.6499). The rotavapor concentrate of AMC extracted from XADN16 beads with IPA (80% containing 0.1% TFA, v/v/v) showed 15.33 ± 0.58 mm inhibition of M. luteus . The C18 cartridge fractions eluted with 60 and 70% IPA containing 0.1% TFA (v/v/v) had an activity of 17.0 ± 1.0 mm and 19.0 ± 1.0 mm. The overall purification process yielded 152 mg (per 100 g XAD16 beads) of AMC. The estimated protein content in 1000 µg AMC was 402.1 ± 3.2 µg. In UV-visible spectroscopic analysis, the compound showed a broad peak in the range of 270 to 310 nm (Fig. 3a). In FTIR analysis, C-I stretching was recorded at wavenumber 522 /cm, C-C bending at 593/cm, C-H bending at 800/cm and stretching at 2700 and 2800/cm, C-O stretching at 1101/cm, O-H bending at 1345/cm and stretching at 3700/cm, N-O stretching at 1484/cm, C = C stretching at 1632/cm, C = O stretching at 1700/cm, C = C = C stretching at 1956/cm, C = C = N stretching at 2013/cm, C ≡ C stretching at 2104/cm, N = C = O stretching at 2248/cm, S-H stretching at 2591/cm, and N-H stretching at 3400/cm (Fig. 3b). The 1 H and 13 C NMR showed the signals at following ppm scale. 1 H (400 MHz, DMSO- d6 ): δ ppm range 0.9-1.0, 1.2–1.7, 1.5-2.0, 1–3, 2.3-3.0, 1–5, 3.7–6.5 (Fig. 4a), 5–9, 6.0-8.7, and 10–13 (Fig. 4b). 13 C NMR (100 MHz, DMSO- d6 ): δ ppm range 10–30, 35–45, 105–145, 155–165, and 165–175 (Fig. 4c). The deconvoluted mass spectra showed the intense peak of 3400 Da (Fig. 5a, b) and mass to charge ( m/z ) peaks at 1700.96 (2+), 1134.29 (3+), and 850.98 (4+) m/z (Fig. 5c). The purified AMC (1 mg/mL) showed significantly ( p 0.0001) highest growth inhibition zones against S. aureus (MRSA) (18.6 ± 0.58 mm), and S. aureus (17.6 ± 0.58 mm), as compared to M. luteus (11.0 ± 1.0 mm) (Fig. 5d). The activity difference recorded between MRSA and S. aureus was insignificant ( p 0.2789). No activity was recorded against P. aeruginosa and E. coli (Fig. 5d). WGS mining of DC-11 showed the presence of a biosynthetic gene for sactipeptide subtilosin A (cds118043_118175). It has an amino acid sequence of MKKAVIVENK (leader) GCATCSIGAACLVDGPIPDFEIAGATGLFGLWG (Core) and showed 100% similarity with NC_000964.3 BSU_37350_sactipeptide. The core peptide analysis by using Expasy ProtParam showed an instability index of 21.0, an aliphatic index of 94.85, and a grand average hydropathicity of 0.958. Co-aggregation A significantly ( p 0.0001) higher percentage of co-aggregation was recorded with E. coli (23.62 ± 0.70%) as compared to C. albicans (5.47 ± 2.06%) and P. mirabilis (3.89 ± 0.32%) (Fig. 6a). The difference between C. albicans and P. mirabilis co-aggregation was insignificant ( p 0.3417). Biofilm formation DC-11 biofilm formed after 24 h of incubation showed a total biofilm mass of 2.03 ± 0.05 OD units of crystal violet staining and 7.75 × 10 8 viable cells (per mL) (Fig. 6b). The free/planktonic cells determined were 4.48 × 10 8 cells per mL (Fig. 6b). No statically significant ( p 0.2371) difference was recorded between free and biofilm cells. Complete genome sequence analysis The strain DC-11 whole genome assembly contained 4,043,105 bp, 34 contigs, 4,003 proteins, 596078 N50, 3 L50, 334 subsystems, 4192 coding sequences, and 43.7% G + C. It showed 98.61% OrthoANIu and 91.8% dDDH with Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6051. Both GBDP trees (Fig. 7ab) indicated close similarity with B. subtilis ATCC 6051. The genome elements of DC-11 constituted genes for rRNA (17), tRNA (83), non-coding (101), putative (429), hypothetical/uncharacterized (1162), gene ontology (GO) term (1206), and pathway (4006) elements (Fig. 8a). The further characterization of coding sequences (CDS) revealed the genes for metabolic functions (Fig. 8b) and protein Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COGs) (Fig. 8c). The details of CDS, tRNA, rRNA, and tmRNA were given in circular genome map (Fig. 9). Nineteen antibiotic resistance genes that showed more than 60% identity matching using loose cut-off criteria were considered (Table S1 ), since no antibiotic resistance genes were determined using strict criteria. At around 40 insertion elements (Table S2 ), 1 CRISPR spacer gene was detected, however, there were no virulence factors and plasmids. AntiSMASH analysis showed the genes for bacillane, bacillibactin, bacilysin, subtilosin A, surfactin, plipastatin, and fengycin. In silico assessment of genome features contributing to probiotic properties The proteins involved in probiotic attributes of Bacillus subtilis DC-11 i.e. acid tolerance, bile salt tolerance, adhesion, and stress resistance are depicted in Table 3. Discussion In food fermentations, the number of microorganisms plays an important role in converting food components and improving nutritional and organoleptic properties [ 38 ]. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeast are explored extensively for their benefits and probiotic potential [ 39 ]. Despite its widespread presence in food fermentations, Bacillus subtilis has received little attention for its potential health advantages [ 40 ]. In this study, we investigated the genetic and phenotypic safety of probiotic Bacillus subtilis strain DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter . The beneficial effects of probiotic bacteria depended on their ability to withstand harsh gastrointestinal conditions and ability to adhere to gut epithelial cells. In this study, strain DC-11 retained 88.98% viability at the end of 3 h incubation in gastric juice, and 98.60% viability at 6 h in intestinal juice, indicating the strain's ability to survive under gastrointestinal transit. The viability recorded was comparatively higher than B. subtilis strain F24 (gastric juice, pH 2.5, 3 h- 42%; intestinal juice, pH 6.8, 6 h- 63%) reported by Dabiré et al. [ 41 ]. The in silico genomic analysis revealed the presence of F 0 F 1 ATP proton pumps, amino acid decarboxylase, acid stress-sensitive anti-sigma factor RsiO, and bile acid symporter, which could be one of the reasons for maintaining cytoplasmic pH, repair and necessary metabolic activities under acidic and alkaline conditions [ 42 ]. Adhesion is a key to inhibit colonization of pathogens, nutrient absorption, enhancement of gut transit time, and immunity [ 43 ]. In this study, the strain's autoaggregation, negative membrane potential, and adhesion to non-polar solvent xylene, mucin, and Caco-2 cells indicated hydrophobic cell surfaces. The presence of flagellin, which forms the filaments of bacterial flagella, sortases an extracellular trans-peptidases responsible for covalently attaching secreted proteins (pili) to the peptidoglycan cell wall [ 44 ] and membrane anchor proteins in DC-11 further validated strain’s inherent adhesion ability and colonization thereof. Moreover, these results were coordinated well with previous findings [ 45 ]. Despite regular inadvertent consumption of Bacillus strains in fermented foods, their safety is a primary concern to the regulatory authorities around the globe, as they cater to a serious risk of enterotoxin formation and the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes [ 7 ]. In this study, B. subtilis DC-11 was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. Strains MIC cut-off levels for clinically relevant antibiotics were in accordance with EFSA. Besides the aforementioned safety qualities, the strain's low cytotoxicity toward Caco-2 and HepG-2 cells further indicated the safety of B. subtilis DC-11. Overall, the results are well coordinated with the strain's genetic safety, as no antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factors, and plasmids were detected in WGS. The strain’s gelatinase production, which is one of the genetic properties of B. subtilis , could not be considered a safety threat, as several gelatinase-positive B. subtilis strains have been endorsed as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [ 46 ]. The DC-11 resistance to antifungal drugs could be useful for its application with antifungals. In antimicrobial evaluation, B. subtilis DC-11 showed the production of the antimicrobial compound sactipeptide subtilosin A. The broad absorption peak at 270–310 nm is attributed to conjugation compounds, aromatic rings of amino acids, and peptide bonds [ 47 ]. FTIR indicated the aliphatic link between C and H could be due to hydrophobic amino acids. C = O, N-O, C = C = N, N = C = O, and N-H for peptide bonds, amide groups, and S-H for Cysteine S–H bonds. Similarly, the proton NMR signals observed for aromatic amino acid (6.5–9.5 ppm), alkyl amines (3–5 ppm), and –CH 3 resonance and − C−CH 2 − C− (0.5–2 ppm), suggesting the polypeptide nature of AMC [ 48 ]. The results of carbon NMR showed carbon signals for aromatic, carboxylic acid, ester and amide compounds, and are in agreement with proton NMR. Furthermore, the mass and WGS analysis confirmed and validated the synthesis of sactipeptide subtilosin A from subtilosin biosynthetic gene. Subtilosin A was stable (computed from instability index), hydrophobic (computed from the aliphatic index and grand average of hydropathicity) in nature [ 27 ], and found active against Gram-positive bacteria including MRSA. Studies have suggested that subtilosin interacts with membrane-associated receptors to inhibit the growth of bacteria, similar to that seen with the lantibiotic, Nisin [ 49 ]. Co-aggregation has been shown to improve probiotic bacteria colonization efficiency, which may be important for managing microbiota communities [ 50 ]. In this study, B. subtilis DC-11 showed the highest co-aggregations with E. coli , compared to P. mirabilis , and C. albicans , indicating its ability to lower colonization of opportunistic pathogens like E. coil , P. mirabilis , and yeast. The results are well coordinated with B. subtilis P223 co-aggregation [ 51 ], however, the co-aggregation percentages were mostly dependent on strains and the time of the assay [ 50 ]. Besides this, B. subtilis DC-11 exhibited biofilm formation, which is one of the traits for efficient colonization of the gut. According to the food safety and regulatory standards, WGS is crucial to establish the safety of candidate probiotics [ 9 , 10 ]. In this study, strain DC-11 was identified as Bacillus subtilis , based on close similarity with Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6051 in GBDP and OrthoANIu and dDDH analysis. 31% of genes were observed to contribute amino acid/derivatives and carbohydrate metabolism, 11% for protein metabolism, 9% for cofactors and vitamins, 7% for dormancy and sporulation, and rest for other essential activities. The insertion elements identified (less than 50% scores) were not found in the vicinity of regions of concern such as antibiotic resistance genes. Besides this, no plasmid and virulence factor genes suggest stability and safe use of the strain. The presence of a CRISPR spacer in strain DC-11 ensured the immunity of the strain to combat future infections of mobile DNA elements. In AntiSMASH and BAGEL analysis, B. subtilis DC-11 strain showed the presence of different genes for secondary metabolites and antimicrobial compounds production. However, the in vitro production of subtilosin A confirmed the expression of the sactipeptide biosynthesis gene. The number of stress response genes mapped in the genome could be useful for strain's survival under harsh environmental conditions including human and animal gastrointestinal tract. Conclusion In conclusion, Bacillus subtilis strain DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter showed promising survival under gastrointestinal conditions, adhesion, biofilm formation, co-aggregation potential, and production of antimicrobial sactipeptide subtilosin A. In phenotypic safety assessment, B. subtilis DC-11 was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. The whole genome sequence analysis showed close similarity with B. subtilis ATCC 6051, absence of transmissible antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factor genes, and plasmids, which further confirmed the strain’s genotypic safety. Moreover, the presence of genes for proteins involved in probiotic attributes ensured the probiotic potential of the strain. Overall, B. subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter , could be a safe probiotic candidate for further applications. Declarations Funding The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. Competing Interests Ahire JJ was employed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories had no direct and indirect role in the design/analysis/writing/publication of this research article. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Data Availability Statement All data is included in the text, however, the raw data of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Methodology: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Formal analysis and investigation: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Writing - original draft preparation: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Review – Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ, Kulthe AA, Ghodke S. Resources: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ, Kulthe AA, Ghodke S; Supervision: Ahire JJ. Ethics approval This study does not contain any work related with participation of humans and/or animals. Informed consent Not applicable References Sekar S, Mariappan S (2007) Usage of traditional fermented products by Indian rural folks and IPR. Indian J Tradi Knowl 6:111–120 Das A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R (2012) Cereal based functional food of Indian subcontinent: a review. J Food Sci Technol 49(6):665–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0474-1 Kavitake D, Suryavanshi MV, Kandasamy S, Devi PB, Shouche Y, Shetty PH (2022) Bacterial diversity of traditional fermented food, Idli by high thorough-put sequencing. J Food Sci Technol 59(10):3918–3927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-022-05421-4 Ramalingam S, Kandasamy S, Bahuguna A, Kim M (2019) Nutritional and health benefits of Idli and Dosa . Fermented Food Products. CRC, pp 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429274787 . Ghosh D, Chattopadhyay P (2011) Preparation of idli batter, its properties and nutritional improvement during fermentation. J Food Sci Technol 48:610–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0148-4 Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders MA (2014) The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 Lee NK, Kim WS, Paik HD (2019) Bacillus strains as human probiotics: characterization, safety, microbiome, and probiotic carrier. Food Sci Biotechnol 28(5):1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-019-00691-9 Soares MB, Almada CN, Pereira EP, Ferreira BM, Balthazar CF, Khorshidian N, Rocha RS, Xavier-Santos D, Cruz AG, Ranadheera CS, Mortazavian AM (2023) Sporeforming probiotic bacteria: Characteristics, health benefits, and technological aspects for their applications in foods and beverages. Trends Food Sci Technol 138:453–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.06.029 Roe AL, Boyte ME, Elkins CA, Goldman VS, Heimbach J, Madden E, Oketch-Rabah H, Sanders ME, Sirois J, Smith A (2022) Considerations for determining safety of probiotics: A USP perspective. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 136:105266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105266 Ahire JJ, Rohilla A, Kumar V, Tiwari A (2024) Quality management of probiotics: Ensuring safety and maximizing health benefits. Curr Microbiol 81(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-023-03526-3 Ahire JJ, Kashikar MS, Lakshmi SG, Madempudi R (2020) Identification and characterization of antimicrobial peptide produced by indigenously isolated Bacillus paralicheniformis UBBLi30 strain. 3 Biotech 10:112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-2109-6 Pedersen C, Jonsson H, Lindberg JE, Roos S (2004) Microbiological characterization of wet wheat distillers grain, with focus on isolation of lactobacilli with potential as probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:1522–1527. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.3.1522-1527.2004 Ahire JJ (2012) Studies on probiotic microorganism(s) and its biogenic metabolite(s). Ph.D. Dissertation, North Maharashtra University, India Del Re B, Sgorbati B, Miglioli M, Palenzona D (2000) Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of Bifidobacterium longum . Lett Appl Microbiol 31:438–442. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00845.x Rosenberg M, Gutnick D, Rosenberg E (1980) Adherence of bacteria to hydrocarbons: a simple method for measuring cell-surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 9:29–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1980.tb05599.x Ahire JJ, Sahoo S, Kashikar MS, Heerekar A, Lakshmi SG, Madempudi RS (2023) In vitro assessment of Lactobacillus crispatus UBLCp01, Lactobacillus gasseri UBLG36, and Lactobacillus johnsonii UBLJ01 as a potential vaginal probiotic candidate. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 15(2):275 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09838-9 Ahire JJ, Dicks LM (2014) 2, 3-dihydroxybenzoic acid-containing nanofiber wound dressings inhibit biofilm formation by Pseudomonas aeruginosa . Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2098–2104. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02397-13 Tuomola EM, Salminen SJ (1998) Adhesion of some probiotic and dairy Lactobacillus strains to Caco-2 cell cultures. Int J Food Microbiol 41(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00033-6 Tjandrawinata RR, Kartawijaya M, Hartanti AW (2022) In vitro evaluation of the anti-hypercholesterolemic effect of Lactobacillus isolates from various sources. Front Microbiol 13:825251. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.825251 Matuschek E, Brown DF, Kahlmeter G (2014) Development of the EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing method and its implementation in routine microbiology laboratories. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:O255–O266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12373 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2020) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 30th ed. CSLI supplement M100.Wayne, PA. https://clsi.org/media/3481/m100e d30_sample.Pdf . Accessed 09 December 2023 Andrews JM (2001) Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 48:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5 EFSA-Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) (2012) Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance. EFSA J 10(6):2740. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2740 Ahire JJ, Kashikar MS, Madempudi RS (2020) Survival and germination of Bacillus clausii UBBC07 spores in in vitro human gastrointestinal tract simulation model and evaluation of clausin production. Front Microbiol 11:1010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01010 Blin K, Shaw S, Medema MH, Weber T (2024) The antiSMASH database version 4: additional genomes and BGCs, new sequence-based searches and more. Nucleic Acids Res 52(D1):D586–D589. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad984 van Heel AJ, de Jong A, Song C, Viel JH, Kok J, Kuipers OP (2018) BAGEL4: a user-friendly web server to thoroughly mine RiPPs and bacteriocins. Nucleic Acids Res 46(W1):W278–W281. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky383 Gasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker A, Duvaud S, Wilkins MR, Appel RD, Bairoch A (2005) Protein Identification and Analysis Tools on the Expasy Server, (In) Walker JM, (ed): The Proteomics Protocols Handbook, Humana Press. pp. 571–607 Patel RK, Jain M (2012) NGS QC Toolkit:a toolkit for quality control of next generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 7(2):e30619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030619 Meier-Kolthoff JP, Göker M (2019) TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genomebased taxonomy. Nat Commun 10:2182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3 Meier-Kolthoff JP, Sardà Carbasse J, Peinado-Olarte RL, Göker M (2022) TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res 50:D801–D807. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab902 Yoon SH, Ha SM, Lim JM, Kwon SJ, Chun J (2017) A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 110:1281–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-017-0844-4 Alcock BP et al (2023) CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 51(D1):D690–D699. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac920 Liu B, Zheng D, Zhou S, Chen L, Yang J (2022) VFDB 2022: a general classification scheme for bacterial virulence factors. Nucleic Acids Res 50(D1):D912–D917. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1107 Bertelli C, Laird MR, Williams KP, Simon Fraser University Research Computing Group, Lau BY, Hoad G, Winsor GL, Brinkman FS (2017) IslandViewer 4: expanded prediction of genomic islands for larger-scale datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 45(W1):W30–W35. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx343 Couvin D, Bernheim A, Toffano-Nioche C, Touchon M, Michalik J, Néron B, Rocha EP, Vergnaud G, Gautheret D, Pourcel C (2018) CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 46(W1):W246–W251. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky425 Brettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Overbeek R, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Shukla M (2015) RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 5(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08365 Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Parrello B, Shukla M, Vonstein V (2014) The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 42(D1):D206–D214. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1226 Valentino V, Magliulo R, Farsi D, Cotter PD, O'Sullivan O, Ercolini D, De Filippis F (2024) Fermented foods, their microbiome and its potential in boosting human health. Microb Biotechnol 17(2):e14428. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14428 Li Z, Zheng M, Zheng J, Gänzle MG (2023) Bacillus species in food fermentations: an underappreciated group of organisms for safe use in food fermentations. Curr Opin Food Sci 50:101007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101007 Liu S, Zhao L, Li M, Zhu Y, Liang D, Ma Y, Sun L, Zhao G, Tu Q (2024) Probiotic Bacillus as fermentation agents: Status, potential insights, and future perspectives. Food Chem X 22:101465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101465 Dabiré Y, Somda NS, Somda MK, Compaoré CB, Mogmenga I, Ezeogu LI, Traoré AS, Ugwuanyi JO, Dicko MH (2022) Assessment of probiotic and technological properties of Bacillus spp. isolated from Burkinabe Soumbala . BMC Microbiol 22(1):228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02642-7 Wilks JC, Kitko RD, Cleeton SH, Lee GE, Ugwu CS, Jones BD, BonDurant SS, Slonczewski JL (2009) Acid and base stress and transcriptomic responses in Bacillus subtilis . Appl Environ Microbiol 75. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01652-08 Monteagudo-Mera A, Rastall RA, Gibson GR, Charalampopoulos D, Chatzifragkou A (2019) Adhesion mechanisms mediated by probiotics and prebiotics and their potential impact on human health. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103(16):6463–6472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09978-7 Titz B, Rajagopala SV, Ester C, Häuser R, Uetz P (2006) Novel conserved assembly factor of the bacterial flagellum. J Bacteriol 188. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00820-06 Golnari M, Bahrami N, Milanian Z, Rabbani Khorasgani M, Asadollahi MA, Shafiei R, Fatemi SS (2024) Isolation and characterization of novel Bacillus strains with superior probiotic potential: comparative analysis and safety evaluation. Sci Rep 14(1):1457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51823-z United States Food & Drug Administration (US-FDA) Generally Recognised as Safe (GRAS)-notice-inventory (2024) ( https://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/recently-published-gras-notices-and-fda-letters ) Accessed 15th August 2024 Aitken A, Learmonth MP (2009) Protein determination by UV absorption. In: Walker J (ed) The protein protocols handbook. Humana, Totowa, pp 3–6 Field LD, Sternhell S, Kalman JR (2007) Organic structures from spectra, 4 edn. Wiley, New York Shelburne CE, An FY, Dholpe V, Ramamoorthy A, Lopatin DE, Lantz MS (2007) The spectrum of antimicrobial activity of the bacteriocin subtilosin A. J Antimicrob Chemother 59(2):297–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl495 Collado MC, Meriluoto J, Salminen S (2008) Adhesion and aggregation properties of probiotic and pathogen strains. Eur Food Res Technol 226:1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0632-x Jeon HL, Lee NK, Yang SJ, Kim WS, Paik HD (2017) Probiotic characterization of Bacillus subtilis P223 isolated from kimchi. Food Sci Biotechnol 26:1641–1648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-017-0148-5 Lefort V, Desper R, Gascuel O (2015) FastME 2.0: A comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol Biol Evol 32:2798–2800. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv150 Farris JS (1972) Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am Nat 106(951):645–668 Tables Table 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Ahire JJ was employed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories had no direct and indirect role in the design/analysis/writing/publication of this research article. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Supplementary Files Table1.docx Table2.docx Table3.docx TableS1.docx TableS2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4957452","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":353092738,"identity":"c3273ca3-c4ac-477f-8beb-9d1a953454c7","order_by":0,"name":"Deepti N. Chaudhari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT School of Food Technology, MIT-ADT University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Deepti","middleName":"N.","lastName":"Chaudhari","suffix":""},{"id":353092739,"identity":"46660dfa-1fd8-40bd-ba3e-175d0631451e","order_by":1,"name":"Jayesh J. Ahire","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jayesh","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Ahire","suffix":""},{"id":353092740,"identity":"26a8e302-7684-4775-bbf6-10fc685d30c7","order_by":2,"name":"Amit A. Kulthe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT School of Food Technology, MIT-ADT University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amit","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Kulthe","suffix":""},{"id":353092741,"identity":"e17da772-f6e2-444b-b5c7-469c718637a7","order_by":3,"name":"Sujata Ghodke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MIT School of Food Technology, MIT-ADT University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sujata","middleName":"","lastName":"Ghodke","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-22 10:56:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":65197702,"identity":"1f7a778e-9b54-4880-9b7f-ff11ac532f48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:43:33","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":340887,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScanning electron micrograph (SEM) (inset shows the high magnification image) (a), gastric juice tolerance (b), intestinal juice tolerance (b) of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis \u003c/em\u003eDC-11. Data are represented as mean ± SD. ****\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001, and ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/7a8eedabb56f8f74a523f160.jpg"},{"id":65198014,"identity":"3eaf9aa5-e63b-4781-85c7-903316a49ccb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:51:33","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":659277,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAutoaggregation and adhesion to xylene (a), adhesion to mucin and Caco-2 cells (b), enterotoxin test, gelatinase and mucin degradation activities (c), and cytotoxicity against HepG-2 and Caco-2 cells (d), of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis \u003c/em\u003eDC-11. Data are represented as mean ± SD. ****\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/9d7220c0345efda4a8a8f4da.jpg"},{"id":65198749,"identity":"8e3bcc94-08cc-45e5-88d9-2ada7a6f8996","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:59:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":267119,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eUV-visible spectra (a), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) images of antimicrobial compound produced by \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/0adff634196ddb350b38c470.png"},{"id":65197691,"identity":"6176f9d9-739e-4333-a785-13e1267754dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:43:33","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79455,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProton nuclear magnetic resonance (\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eH-NMR) (a, b) and carbon (\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003eC)- NMR of antimicrobial compound produced by \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/71e76e8a728dde1972c01554.png"},{"id":65197699,"identity":"1dfa7986-7187-49bf-9b78-1ba20c413f23","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:43:33","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100773,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eQuadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) of deconvoluted mass (a, b), mass to charge (\u003cem\u003em/z\u003c/em\u003e) spectra (c), and antimicrobial activity of purified antimicrobial compound subtilosin A. Data are represented as mean ± SD. ****\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.0001, and ns \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/419761bfb58c70eaa0f23a6c.png"},{"id":65199930,"identity":"4bba7c82-d67f-4ce8-80ce-b5948fa21f4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 16:15:33","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63564,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCo-aggregation of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 with pathogens (a), and free cells, biofilm viable cells and total biofilm formation (inset shows total biofilm after CV straining (b) of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11. \u0026nbsp;Data are represented as mean ± SD. ****\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001, ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, and ns \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/29cfbe3de547a9d3019a81d1.png"},{"id":65198019,"identity":"344c1c30-b5d1-4357-b3e4-aaa321e646a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:51:33","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66547,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGenome BLAST Distance Phylogeny (GBDP) tree, (a) 16S rDNA gene sequence-based, (b) whole-genome sequence-based. \u003cem\u003eNote:\u003c/em\u003eTree inferred with FastME 2.1.6.1 [52] from GBDP distances calculated from 16S rDNA gene sequences for tree (a) and from genome sequences for tree (b). The branch lengths are scaled in terms of the GBDP distance formula d5. The numbers above branches are GBDP pseudo-bootstrap support values \u0026gt; 60 % from 100 replications, with an average branch support of 31.0 % (for tree a) and 80.3% (for tree b). The tree was rooted at the midpoint [53].\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/823b91dffb5f400277d3a3ff.png"},{"id":65198750,"identity":"89159914-4d2f-4b05-80d6-9471dfbdad20","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:59:33","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":85689,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDifferent types of genomic elements predicted from the assembly genome (a), major metabolic pathways in the genome (b), and cluster of orthologous groups (COG) distribution of the genes (c) of\u003cem\u003e Bacillus subtilis \u003c/em\u003eDC-11. GO: Gene Ontology. Capital alphabets indicate COG category.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/ea29acd91fc9317c9e864f35.png"},{"id":65198015,"identity":"46347327-3676-4318-b950-47ef1e9690d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:51:33","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51059,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCircular genome map of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis \u003c/em\u003eDC-11.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"OnlineFig.9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/b431a5e5cab1f14e420820d1.png"},{"id":65993638,"identity":"0057e5b3-9985-4120-9093-c837142404bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-05 21:31:24","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2909435,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/e9fb8bfa-1ca2-473a-a361-faa146db9972.pdf"},{"id":65198012,"identity":"77b53ae8-5b59-4b12-8bdc-0ee82fac744a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:51:33","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":26885,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/68fdba401698dd6c5912e925.docx"},{"id":65197689,"identity":"ba526a65-ec97-48c5-870f-4d36e23c43c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:43:33","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":21250,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/01aba8e77b0f82c4dffd6f9a.docx"},{"id":65197695,"identity":"98604ce8-084b-4ec4-a0cd-dd60fe7e2855","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:43:33","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":26929,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/be6a0af79df6b645c1efa4bf.docx"},{"id":65198017,"identity":"81a41431-25c2-4166-8aec-4f6fe013ee04","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 15:51:33","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":27225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/f00f033afa8c59270a032cec.docx"},{"id":65199078,"identity":"c2768d9a-bb5b-4131-8103-f965f667f9c6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-24 16:07:33","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":33426,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4957452/v1/e0d5db185d907c2fbac4153f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Ahire JJ was employed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories had no direct and indirect role in the design/analysis/writing/publication of this research article. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.","formattedTitle":"Genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFermentation is a well-known traditional method of transforming food components to improve nutritional qualities, shelf life, safety, and food product diversity. In India, the diversity of fermented foods is huge due to its diverse ethnicity and biological resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Cereals and legumes are the major components of Indian fermented foods and the diet of the diverse Indian population [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eIdli\u003c/em\u003e is one of the popular traditional fermented foods of cereal-legume. It is consumed widely as a major source of dietary nutrients (100 g portion: protein 12 g, total lipid 2 g, carbohydrate 72 g, and fiber 4 g) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. According to a recent metagenomic study, the phyla \u003cem\u003eFirmicutes\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eProteobacteria\u003c/em\u003e are predominant in fully fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli\u003c/em\u003e batter, representing the genera \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEnterococcus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEnterobacter\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eErwinia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eKlebsiella\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactococcus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eMacrococcus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSerratia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePseudoalteromonas\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eVibrio\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eWeissella\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. These microbial communities collectively work to enhance the protein and nutrition values, and vitamin levels, and improve the digestibility, flavor, and texture of the final product \u003cem\u003eIdli\u003c/em\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, fermented food microorganisms have enormous potential as a future probiotic contender.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbiotics are defined as live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. On commercial grounds, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacteria\u003c/em\u003e are well-accepted around the world. However, spore-forming \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e species are still undergoing enormous food safety checks, although they are present in many fermented foods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Until now, \u003cem\u003eB. coagulans\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eHeyndrickxia coagulans\u003c/em\u003e), \u003cem\u003eB. clausii\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eShouchella clausii\u003c/em\u003e), and \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e have been available on the market for various gastrointestinal complications and in the management of diseases in humans and animals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. As these probiotics are in spore form, they can withstand a variety of environmental factors and hold up to the claims made on the viability label for the duration of the product's shelf life. When compared to the vegetative forms of true lactic acid bacteria, they are inexpensive in numerous capacities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApart from probiotic properties, the safety of probiotics is one of the milestones laid out by the food safety authorities around the globe. According to their guidelines, candidate probiotics must be identified using the whole genome sequence (WGS) and checked for the presence of plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, and virulence factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Besides this, it can be phenotypically tested for pathogenic traits and antibiotic resistance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, we report on the isolation of \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e from traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e, probiotic properties, antimicrobial compound production and characterization, and phenotypic and genetic safety assessment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIsolation of bacterial strain\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e sample was collected from village Loni-Kalbhor (18.48799103 N 74.01815952 E), Pune, India, as per standard sampling protocol. The collected sample was transported under cold conditions (4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC) to the Food Technology Laboratory, and diluted serially in PBS (NaCl, 8.0 g; KCl, 0.2 g; Na\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eHPO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 1.42 g; KH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.24 g; and ultrapure water 1 L, pH 7.3). The appropriate dilutions were spread plated on nutrient agar (NA, HiMedia, India) plates and incubated at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. After incubation, the colonies with different morphologies were separated, subjected to Gram staining, and catalase activity, and streaked further on HiCrome Bacillus agar (HiMedia) to differentiate \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e species. The selected isolate was imaged using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) EVO 18 (Carl Zeiss, Germany), and cell size was measured (ImageJ software, USA) as described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The glycerol stocks (20%, v/v) were prepared and stored at \u0026ndash; 20 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProbiotic characterization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGastric and intestinal juice tolerance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGastric juice tolerance was determined as per Pedersen et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000\u0026times;g for 10 min at 4\u0026deg;C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and resuspended in the same. To 1 mL of this suspension, 10 mL filter sterilized [0.2 \u0026micro;m cellulose acetate (CA), Minisart\u0026reg; NML, Sartorius, Germany] synthetic gastric juice (consisting: pepsin, 0.0133 gm; lysozyme, 0.1 g; glucose, 3.5 g; bile, 0.05 g; proteose peptone, 8.3 g; KCl, 0.37 g; NaCl, 2.05 g; CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.11 g; KH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.6 g; and ultrapure water 1 L, pH 2.5) was added and kept at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 3 h. The bacterial viability was determined on NA (HiMedia) at the intervals of 0, 1, 2, and 3 h. The results were expressed as log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e colony forming units (CFU)/mL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntestinal juice tolerance was performed according to Ahire [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. A 1 mL DC-11 suspension (prepared as described in gastric juice tolerance) was added to 10 mL filter sterilized intestinal juice [consisting :1 mg/mL pancreatin (protease 100 U/mg; amylase 100 U/mg; lipase 8 U/ mg), 0.3% (w/v) bile, and 0.85% (w/v) NaCl, pH 8.0] and kept at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 6 h. The bacterial viability was determined on NA (HiMedia) at intervals of 0, 2, and 6 h. The results were expressed as log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e CFU/mL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdhesion potential\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAutoaggregation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000\u0026times;g for 10 min at 4\u0026deg;C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and resuspended in the same to 0.5 OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e. The 5 mL suspension was vortexed (10 s) and kept at 37\u0026deg;C for 1 h [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. After incubation, the upper layer was removed and optical density was measured at 600 nm. The percentage auto-aggregation was calculated as, (OD 0.5 \u0026ndash; OD upper layer/ OD 0.5) \u0026times; 100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdhesion to xylene\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBacterial adhesion to xylene was performed as per the method described by Rosenberg et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000\u0026times;g for 10 min at 4\u0026deg;C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and diluted to 0.5 OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e in 0.1 M KNO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e (pH 6.2). To 3 mL bacteria, 1 mL xylene was gently added and kept at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 10 min. Both phases were mixed by vortexing (5 s) and kept at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 1 h to separate. The aqueous phase was removed and optical density was measured at 600 nm. The percentage of xylene adhesion was calculated using the following formula, (OD 0.5 \u0026ndash; OD aqueous layer / OD 0.5) \u0026times; 100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdhesion to mucin\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mucin (100 \u0026micro;g/mL, porcine stomach, Type II, Sigma- Aldrich, USA) was coated to the wells of a 96-well plate (ThermoFisher, USA) as described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. A 250 \u0026micro;L DC-11 suspension (0.5 OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e) prepared in PBS (pH 7.3) containing 0.05% (w/v) Tween 20 was added to mucin-coated wells (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15) and kept at 4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. After incubation, the cells that did not adhere to the mucin were carefully decanted and washed with PBS\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Tween 20 (0.05% w/v; pH 7.3). The wells were air-dried and bacterial adhesion was determined using the crystal violet staining method [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdhesion to Caco-2 cells\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHuman colorectal adenocarcinoma (Caco-2) cell adhesion was performed as per the method described by Tuomola and Salminen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, Caco-2 cells (1 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e / mL) were cultivated for 2 weeks on glass coverslips placed at the bottom of 24-well tissue culture plates (ThermoFisher) containing Dulbecco\u0026rsquo;s modified Eagle\u0026rsquo;s minimal essential medium (DMEM) (ThermoFisher). During the 2-week cultivation phase, the DMEM was changed every 24 h and 1 h before the bacterial adhesion. A 400 \u0026micro;L, 8 h old DC-11 cells (10\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e cells per mL) diluted in PBS (pH 7.3) were added into Caco-2 cells. The plates were incubated at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 2 h to facilitate bacterial adhesion. After incubation, the cells were washed thrice with PBS (pH 7.3) and adhered bacterial cells were enumerated under the microscope.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eZeta potential\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn 8 h old DC-11 cells were pelleted (8,000\u0026times;g for 10 min at 4\u0026deg;C), washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and suspended in the same to 0.5 OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e. This suspension was filled in a DTS1070 capillary cell and zeta potential was measured using a Nano-ZS Zetasizer (Malvern, UK) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePhenotypic safety\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDetection of hemolytic and non-hemolytic enterotoxins\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 100 \u0026micro;L, 18 h old DC-11 culture was inoculated in a circular sample port of Duopath\u0026reg; Cereus Enterotoxins immune-chromatographic rapid test kit (Merck, Germany) and observed for development of colored lines at C (control), HBL (hemolysin BL), and NHE (non-hemolytic enterotoxin) as instructed by the manufacturer. \u003cem\u003eBacillus cereus\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 10876 was used as a positive control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGelatinase activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gelatin-nutrient agar (0.8% gelatin (w/v) in 2.3% nutrient agar) plates were streaked with DC-11 cells and incubated at 37\u0026deg;C for 24 h. After incubation, 5% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) solution was gently poured on top of the agar surface and observed for clear zones surrounding the growth.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMucin degradation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMucin degradation was performed as per the method described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, minimal agarose medium (consisting: K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eHPO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 3.0 g; KH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.5 g; MgSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.5 g; NaCl, 5.0 g; meat extract, 5.0 g; yeast extract, 3.0 g; tryptone, 7.5 g; pancreatic enzymatic digest of casein, 7.5 g; cysteine HCl, 0.5 g; agarose, 15 g, and ultrapure water 1L; pH 7.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.2) was prepared with or without 3% (w/v) glucose and supplemented with 0.3% (w/v) mucin (porcine stomach, Type II, Sigma- Aldrich). The plates were surface-dried and inoculated with 5 \u0026micro;L suspension of DC-11. All the plates were incubated at 37\u0026deg;C for 48\u0026ndash;72 h and stained with coomassie blue (0.1%, w/v). The bacterial growth surrounded by a discolored halo indicates mucin lysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCytotoxicity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCytotoxicity analysis was performed as per the method described by Tjandrawinata et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, human hepatocarcinoma (HepG-2) and Caco-2 cells were each seeded separately (1 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e cells / well) in wells of a 96-well plate (ThermoFisher) and inoculated with 200 \u0026micro;L, 8 h old DC-11 cells (10\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e cells per mL) diluted in MEM-alpha and or MEM. The plates were incubated statically at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h and cell viability was determined using Cell Proliferation Kit-MTT based (Merck, USA). The viability (%) was calculated as, absorbance @570 nm \u003csub\u003etreated cells\u003c/sub\u003e/absorbance @570 nm \u003csub\u003euntreated cells\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026times; 100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAntibiotic sensitivity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAntibiotic sensitivity was determined according to the guidelines of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, 100 \u0026micro;L (~\u0026thinsp;10\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e cells per mL) of 8 h old DC-11 cells were aseptically added into 20 mL molten NA, mixed to homogeneity, and poured into the plates. The plates were surface-dried, and standard antibiotic disks (Table\u0026nbsp;1, HiMedia) were placed and kept at 4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 20 min. After radial diffusion of antibiotics at 4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC, the plates were incubated at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. The clear zones surrounding the antibiotic disks were measured in millimeters (mm).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined as per the method described by Andrews [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The selected antibiotics (Table\u0026nbsp;2) were each diluted (0.06 to 128 mg/L) in molten NA and poured into the plates. The plates were allowed to solidify and surface-dried. A 5 \u0026micro;L suspension of DC-11 cells (10\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e cells/mL) was spot inoculated and plates were incubated at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. The MIC was defined as the lowest antibiotic concentration in the agar medium that prevented the growth of DC-11 cells. The results were compared with European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) MIC cut-off values given for \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAntimicrobial activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eScreening for antimicrobial activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn 18 h old colony of DC-11 was inoculated in 10 mL NB and incubated by shaking (120 rpm) for 8 h at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. After incubation, 1 mL culture was transferred to 100 mL fresh sterile NB and incubated as described above for 24 h. The cells were separated by centrifugation (8,000\u0026times;g for 10 min at 4\u0026deg;C) and the supernatant was collected. The pH of the supernatant was adjusted to 7.0, filter sterilized using 0.2 \u0026micro;m CA filter (Sartorius), and checked for antimicrobial activity against \u003cem\u003eMicrococcus luteus\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 106\u003csup\u003eT\u003c/sup\u003e as described above. A100 \u0026micro;L \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e culture previously cultivated at 30 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 18 h (shaking 120 rpm) was inoculated in 20 mL molten Mueller-Hinton (MH) agar (HiMedia) and poured into a sterile Petri plate. The agar was allowed to solidify and 9 mm wells were created using a sterile 1 mL tip into the agar slab. A 25 \u0026micro;L supernatant was dispensed into the well and allowed to diffuse at 4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 15 min. Later, the plates were incubated at 30 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. Sterile NB served as a control. The zone of growth clearance around the well was measured in mm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProduction and isolation of antimicrobial compounds (AMC)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe production and isolation of AMC was performed as per the method described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. In brief, the Amberlite\u0026reg; XAD16N (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) beads required for NB clarification and AMC isolation were activated by immersing beads into 80% isopropanol (IPA) (ThermoFisher) containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (Sigma-Aldrich) (v/v/v) for 30 min shaking (120 rpm) at 28\u0026deg;C. The activated beads were rinsed 4 to 5 times with ultrapure water and collected. These beads were sterilized at 121 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC, 15 lbs pressure for 15 min, for their need in sterile applications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. The NB required for the cultivation of DC-11 was clarified using activated Amberlite\u0026reg; XAD16N (Sigma-Aldrich) beads (10 g activated beads to 1 L broth) to avoid interference of media ingredient (up to 40 kDa) during the purification process as described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strain DC-11 was cultivated as per the process described in \u0026lsquo;Screening for antimicrobial activity\u0026rsquo;, except NB, the clarified-NB was used. A 20 mL culture was mixed with 20 g activated (sterilized) XAD16N beads and distributed evenly on the surface of a sterile clarified-nutrient agar plate (200 mm \u0026times; 30 mm, Borosil, India). All the plates were sealed with parafilm and incubated statically at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 96 h. After incubation, beads were collected and attached bacteria were washed off with ultrapure water 5\u0026ndash;6 times. The beads were then subjected to 30% (v/v) ethanol wash followed by 5\u0026ndash;6 times ultrapure water wash. All the beads were collected and immersed in 80% isopropanol (IPA) (ThermoFisher) containing 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) (Sigma-Aldrich) (v/v/v) for 30 min shaking (80 rpm) at 28\u0026deg;C to extract AMC. The extracted AMC was filtered through 0.2 \u0026micro;m CA membrane and tested against \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 106\u003csup\u003eT\u003c/sup\u003e in an agar well plate inhibition assay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The AMC was further concentrated using Rotavapor (R-300, Buchi, Switzerland) and subjected for reversed-phase Sep-Pak\u0026reg; Vac 35 cc (10 g) C18 cartridge (Waters, USA) purification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePurification of AMC\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reversed-phase C18 cartridge was preconditioned as per the manufacturer's instructions and loaded with AMC concentrate. The cartridge was washed with 5 column volumes of ultrapure water and AMC was eluted using IPA gradients (10\u0026ndash;90%) containing 0.1% TFA (v/v/v) with 10% increments at a flow of 1 mL/ min [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The collected fractions were checked for antimicrobial activity against \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 106\u003csup\u003eT\u003c/sup\u003e. The fractions positive against \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e were mixed and concentrated using Rotavapor followed by freeze-drying (Vertis, USA). The freeze-dried AMC was stored at \u0026ndash; 18 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC freezer until further use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCharacterization of AMC\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe protein content in AMC was determined by using Pierce\u0026trade; bicinchoninic acid (BCA) protein assay kit (Thermo Scientific, USA). The UV-visible spectra were obtained using a Thermo- spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific). Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis was performed on Bruker FTIR-spectrometer (Bruker, USA). Proton (\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eH) and carbon (\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003eC) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were obtained using Bruker NMR-spectrometer (Bruker, USA). The deconvoluted mass and mass to charge (\u003cem\u003em/z\u003c/em\u003e) were determined using an Agilent quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) (Agilent Technologies, Inc., USA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe antimicrobial activity of purified AMC was performed as per the method described previously in the section \"Screening for antimicrobial activity\u0026rdquo;. In brief, \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e, methicillin-resistant \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus aureus\u003c/em\u003e (MRSA) ATCC BAA1720\u0026trade;, \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus aureus\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 737, \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas aeruginosa\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 1688, and \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 1687 were each grown 18 h in their specified growth media and incubation conditions. A 100 \u0026micro;L culture was inoculated in 20 mL molten MH agar (HiMedia) and poured into a sterile Petri plate. The wells were created and 25 \u0026micro;L AMC (1 mg dissolved in 80% IPA containing 0.1%TFA) was dispensed into the well and allowed to diffuse at 4 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 15 min. All the plates were incubated at specified growth temperatures of test cultures for 24 h. An 80% IPA containing 0.1%TFA served as a control. The zone of growth clearance around the well was measured in mm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strain DC-11 whole genome sequence (WGS) was analyzed for the presence of secondary metabolites gene clusters, bacteriocins, ribosomally synthesized post-translationally modified peptides using antiSMASH-DB 4.0 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] and BAGEL 4 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The physical and chemical properties of AMC were determined using Expasy ProtParam [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCo-aggregation with pathogens\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-aggregation with pathogens was determined as per the method described by Ahire et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Bacterial cultures [probiotic: \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 (vegetative form); pathogens: \u003cem\u003eProteus mirabilis\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 425, \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e MTCC 1687, and \u003cem\u003eCandida albicans\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 14053) were each grown 18 h in their specified growth media at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. The cell pellets were harvested, washed twice with PBS (pH 7.3), and diluted to 0.5 OD\u003csub\u003e600 nm\u003c/sub\u003e in PBS. A 2 mL probiotic suspension was mixed gently (10 s vortexing) with 2 mL pathogen and incubated statically for 1 h at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC. After incubation, the upper layer was removed and OD\u003csub\u003e600 nm\u003c/sub\u003e was measured. The optical density readings of the upper layer of individual culture suspension (4 mL) served as an individual aggregation density. The percentage co-aggregation was calculated using following formula, [(OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e) / 2] \u0026ndash; OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e [\u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e] / OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e / 2 \u0026times; 100.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewhere OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e and OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e are individual aggregation densities of test cultures. OD\u003csub\u003e600\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003ey\u003c/em\u003e) are co-aggregation densities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBiofilm formation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn 18 h old DC-11 colony was inoculated in 10 mL nutrient broth and incubated shaking (120 rpm) at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 8 h. After incubation, cells were separated and diluted in 30 mL fresh sterile nutrient broth. Each 200 \u0026micro;L (2 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e CFU/mL) of this suspension was carefully transferred into 6 wells of 96-well plate (ThermoFisher). The plate was incubated statically at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 24 h. The total biofilm mass, free cells, and viable biofilm cells were investigated as per the method described by Ahire and Dicks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComplete genome sequence analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDNA extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn 18 h old colony of strain DC-11 was inoculated in 10 mL nutrient broth and incubated shaking (120 rpm) at 37 \u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003eC for 18 h. After incubation, the cells were separated and genomic DNA was extracted using MO BIO\u0026rsquo;s genomic DNA extraction kit (Carlsbad, CA, USA). The extracted DNA was subjected to 0.8% (w/v) agarose gel and the Qubit dsDNA HS assay kit (ThermoFisher) for quantitative and qualitative estimation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLibrary preparation and sequencing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNextera DNA Flex kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) was used for DNA fragmentation and library preparation as instructed by the manufacturer. The library was further sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina Inc., USA) by using 2 \u0026times; 250 bp chemistry. A 5% PhiX spike-in was used during library sequencing. NGS-QC tool was used to remove low-quality sequences (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.nipgr.res.in/ngsqctoolkit.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.nipgr.res.in/ngsqctoolkit.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGenome BLAST Distance Phylogeny (GBDP) analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe genome sequence data were uploaded to the Type (Strain) Genome Server (TYGS), a free bioinformatics platform available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://tygs.dsmz.de\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://tygs.dsmz.de\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, for a whole genome-based taxonomic analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. The analysis also made use of recently introduced methodological updates and features [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Information on nomenclature, synonymy, and associated taxonomic literature was provided by TYGS's sister database, the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN, available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://lpsn.dsmz.de\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://lpsn.dsmz.de\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Digital DNA-DNA Hybridization (dDDH) values and confidence intervals were calculated using the recommended settings of GGDC 4.0 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. The results were provided by the TYGS on 2024-08-02. Orthologus Average Nucleotide Identity (OrthoANI) was determined using the OrthoANIu tool (EzBioCloud, USA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGenome assembly, annotation, and safety\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDC-11 genome was assembled using SPAdes-3.11.1 assembler (St. Petersburg, Russia) and quality was determined using the Quality Assessment Tool. RNAmmer 1.2 (USA) was used to identify a number of rRNAs. The genome was annotated by Rapid Annotations using Subsystems Technology (RAST), UniProt/SwissProt, and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database. tRNA_scan-SE, and RNAmmer were used to predict genes for tRNA, and rRNA. Protein-coding genes were determined by using Glimmer version 3.02. SignalP finder was used to identify signal peptides. AntiSMASH was used to identify secondary metabolites [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) for antibiotic resistance genes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e], Virulence Factor Database (VFDB) for virulence factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e], IslandViewer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-Finder [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] for insertion and bacteriophage associated sequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIn silico assessment of genome features contributing to probiotic properties (dup: abstract ?)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 WGS was investigated using RAST (Rapid Annotation using Subsystem Technology) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] and SEED [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] viewer comparative blast search tool along with NCBI standard protein BLAST to explore the genes or specific domains responsible for acid and bile tolerance, adhesion to the gut, and environmental stress resistance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrain deposition and WGS accession number\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e strain DC-11 whole genome shotgun sequencing project is available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/2318375570\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/2318375570\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e with accession number JAOWBV000000000. The strain has been deposited in culture collection at the National Centre for Microbial Resource, Pune, and is available under accession number MCC4788.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism (Trial version 10, USA). The statistical significance was determined using Tukey\u0026rsquo;s multiple comparison test (one-way ANOVA) and t-test. The data were presented as the mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation. The \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIsolation of bacterial strain\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e sample produced two different dominant colony types on NA \u003cem\u003eviz.\u003c/em\u003e white pin-pointed small colonies (1\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2 mm) and fuzzy white larger colonies (2\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3 mm). The bacteria that produced small colonies are Gram-positive, cocci-shaped, non-spore former, and catalase-negative. However, the bacteria that produced large colonies are Gram-positive, rod-shaped, spore former, and catalase-positive. In this study, we report on the probiotic characterization of bacteria that produced a large colony and were designated as DC-11. The DC-11 colony was circular, rough, opaque, fuzzy white, and 2\u0026ndash;3 mm in diameter. On HiCrome Bacillus agar, DC-11 produced yellowish-green to green colonies (characteristic of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e). The rods occurred singly or in pairs, and measured about 1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u0026micro;m long and 0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u0026micro;m wide (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1a). The cells are capable of fermenting glucose, fructose, mannitol, starch, and glycogen. The indole, methyl red, and urease tests are negative, whereas Voges Proskauer and nitrate reduction were positive for \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProbiotic characterization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGastric and intestinal juice tolerance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn gastric juice, the viability of DC-11 was significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.0001) reduced from 7.99\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.003 log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e CFU/mL (0 h) to 7.58\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.01 (1 h), 7.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.003 (2 h) and 7.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e CFU/mL at 3 h (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1b). The percentage of bacterial viability reduction from 0 h to 3 h was 11.01%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe viability of DC-11 was significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.0001) reduced in the intestinal juice. The initial 7.89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003e CFU/mL cells of DC-11 were reduced to 7.83\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.004 at 3 h and 7.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.008 at 6 h (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1c). The percentage of bacterial viability reduction from 0 h to 6 h was 1.39%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdhesion potential\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strain DC-11 showed 18.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44% autoaggregation, 32.53\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.11% adhesion to xylene, 0.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 OD unit\u0026rsquo;s adhesion to mucin (crystal violet equivalence at 550 nm), and 21.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.3% adhesion to Caco-2 cells (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2a, b). The zeta potential for 2\u0026nbsp;Billion CFU/mL DC-11 cells dissolved in PBS buffer (pH 7.3) was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.65 mV.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePhenotypic safety\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo colored lines were developed at HBL, and NHE when DC-11 culture broth was added in the sample port as compared to control \u003cem\u003eB. cereus\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 10876 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2c). On the gelatin-nutrient agar plate, the surrounding area of DC-11 growth showed a clear zone when treated with TCA (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2c). In mucin degradation, after coomassie blue treatment, no discolored halo was observed surrounding the bacterial growth (with or without glucose) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2c). The Caco-2 and HepG-2 cells exhibited 64.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.27% and 68.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.31% viability in presence of DC-11 cells (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2d).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strain DC-11 was sensitive to most of the antibiotics tested, except cefdinir, rifampicin, and antifungal drugs nystatin, itraconazole, and fluconazole (Table\u0026nbsp;1). The MIC cut-off values for chloramphenicol, clindamycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, kanamycin, tetracycline, and vancomycin are below and within the limits of MIC cut-off values provided by EFSA for \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp., (Table\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAntimicrobial activity, production, purification, and characterization of AMC\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 24-hour-old cell-free supernatant of DC-11 inhibited the growth of \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e. The zone of inhibition measured for supernatant pH 7.0 (adjusted) was 10.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.58 mm and pH 6.8 (as such) was 10.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 mm (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.6499). The rotavapor concentrate of AMC extracted from XADN16 beads with IPA (80% containing 0.1% TFA, v/v/v) showed 15.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.58 mm inhibition of \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e. The C18 cartridge fractions eluted with 60 and 70% IPA containing 0.1% TFA (v/v/v) had an activity of 17.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 mm and 19.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 mm. The overall purification process yielded 152 mg (per 100 g XAD16 beads) of AMC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe estimated protein content in 1000 \u0026micro;g AMC was 402.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.2 \u0026micro;g. In UV-visible spectroscopic analysis, the compound showed a broad peak in the range of 270 to 310 nm (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3a). In FTIR analysis, C-I stretching was recorded at wavenumber 522 /cm, C-C bending at 593/cm, C-H bending at 800/cm and stretching at 2700 and 2800/cm, C-O stretching at 1101/cm, O-H bending at 1345/cm and stretching at 3700/cm, N-O stretching at 1484/cm, C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C stretching at 1632/cm, C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;O stretching at 1700/cm, C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C stretching at 1956/cm, C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;N stretching at 2013/cm, C\u0026thinsp;\u0026equiv;\u0026thinsp;C stretching at 2104/cm, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;O stretching at 2248/cm, S-H stretching at 2591/cm, and N-H stretching at 3400/cm (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3b). The \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eH and \u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003eC NMR showed the signals at following ppm scale. \u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eH (400 MHz, DMSO-\u003cem\u003ed6\u003c/em\u003e): δ ppm range 0.9-1.0, 1.2\u0026ndash;1.7, 1.5-2.0, 1\u0026ndash;3, 2.3-3.0, 1\u0026ndash;5, 3.7\u0026ndash;6.5 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4a), 5\u0026ndash;9, 6.0-8.7, and 10\u0026ndash;13 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4b). \u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003eC NMR (100 MHz, DMSO-\u003cem\u003ed6\u003c/em\u003e): δ ppm range 10\u0026ndash;30, 35\u0026ndash;45, 105\u0026ndash;145, 155\u0026ndash;165, and 165\u0026ndash;175 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;4c). The deconvoluted mass spectra showed the intense peak of 3400 Da (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5a, b) and mass to charge (\u003cem\u003em/z\u003c/em\u003e) peaks at 1700.96 (2+), 1134.29 (3+), and 850.98 (4+) \u003cem\u003em/z\u003c/em\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5c).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purified AMC (1 mg/mL) showed significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.0001) highest growth inhibition zones against \u003cem\u003eS. aureus\u003c/em\u003e (MRSA) (18.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.58 mm), and \u003cem\u003eS. aureus\u003c/em\u003e (17.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.58 mm), as compared to \u003cem\u003eM. luteus\u003c/em\u003e (11.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.0 mm) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5d). The activity difference recorded between MRSA and \u003cem\u003eS. aureus\u003c/em\u003e was insignificant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.2789). No activity was recorded against \u003cem\u003eP. aeruginosa\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;5d).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWGS mining of DC-11 showed the presence of a biosynthetic gene for sactipeptide subtilosin A (cds118043_118175). It has an amino acid sequence of MKKAVIVENK (leader) GCATCSIGAACLVDGPIPDFEIAGATGLFGLWG (Core) and showed 100% similarity with NC_000964.3 BSU_37350_sactipeptide. The core peptide analysis by using Expasy ProtParam showed an instability index of 21.0, an aliphatic index of 94.85, and a grand average hydropathicity of 0.958.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCo-aggregation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significantly (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.0001) higher percentage of co-aggregation was recorded with \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e (23.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.70%) as compared to \u003cem\u003eC. albicans\u003c/em\u003e (5.47\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.06%) and \u003cem\u003eP. mirabilis\u003c/em\u003e (3.89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.32%) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6a). The difference between \u003cem\u003eC. albicans\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eP. mirabilis\u003c/em\u003e co-aggregation was insignificant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.3417).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBiofilm formation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDC-11 biofilm formed after 24 h of incubation showed a total biofilm mass of 2.03\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 OD units of crystal violet staining and 7.75 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e viable cells (per mL) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6b). The free/planktonic cells determined were 4.48 \u0026times; 10\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e cells per mL (Fig.\u0026nbsp;6b). No statically significant (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e 0.2371) difference was recorded between free and biofilm cells.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComplete genome sequence analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strain DC-11 whole genome assembly contained 4,043,105 bp, 34 contigs, 4,003 proteins, 596078 N50, 3 L50, 334 subsystems, 4192 coding sequences, and 43.7% G\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;C. It showed 98.61% OrthoANIu and 91.8% dDDH with \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 6051. Both GBDP trees (Fig.\u0026nbsp;7ab) indicated close similarity with \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 6051.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe genome elements of DC-11 constituted genes for rRNA (17), tRNA (83), non-coding (101), putative (429), hypothetical/uncharacterized (1162), gene ontology (GO) term (1206), and pathway (4006) elements (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8a). The further characterization of coding sequences (CDS) revealed the genes for metabolic functions (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8b) and protein Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COGs) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;8c). The details of CDS, tRNA, rRNA, and tmRNA were given in circular genome map (Fig.\u0026nbsp;9).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNineteen antibiotic resistance genes that showed more than 60% identity matching using loose cut-off criteria were considered (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e), since no antibiotic resistance genes were determined using strict criteria. At around 40 insertion elements (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e), 1 CRISPR spacer gene was detected, however, there were no virulence factors and plasmids. AntiSMASH analysis showed the genes for bacillane, bacillibactin, bacilysin, subtilosin A, surfactin, plipastatin, and fengycin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIn silico assessment of genome features contributing to probiotic properties\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe proteins involved in probiotic attributes of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 i.e. acid tolerance, bile salt tolerance, adhesion, and stress resistance are depicted in Table\u0026nbsp;3.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn food fermentations, the number of microorganisms plays an important role in converting food components and improving nutritional and organoleptic properties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeast are explored extensively for their benefits and probiotic potential [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite its widespread presence in food fermentations, \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e has received little attention for its potential health advantages [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, we investigated the genetic and phenotypic safety of probiotic \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e strain DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe beneficial effects of probiotic bacteria depended on their ability to withstand harsh gastrointestinal conditions and ability to adhere to gut epithelial cells. In this study, strain DC-11 retained 88.98% viability at the end of 3 h incubation in gastric juice, and 98.60% viability at 6 h in intestinal juice, indicating the strain's ability to survive under gastrointestinal transit. The viability recorded was comparatively higher than \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e strain F24 (gastric juice, pH 2.5, 3 h- 42%; intestinal juice, pH 6.8, 6 h- 63%) reported by Dabir\u0026eacute; et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. The \u003cem\u003ein silico\u003c/em\u003e genomic analysis revealed the presence of F\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003eF\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e ATP proton pumps, amino acid decarboxylase, acid stress-sensitive anti-sigma factor RsiO, and bile acid symporter, which could be one of the reasons for maintaining cytoplasmic pH, repair and necessary metabolic activities under acidic and alkaline conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdhesion is a key to inhibit colonization of pathogens, nutrient absorption, enhancement of gut transit time, and immunity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, the strain's autoaggregation, negative membrane potential, and adhesion to non-polar solvent xylene, mucin, and Caco-2 cells indicated hydrophobic cell surfaces. The presence of flagellin, which forms the filaments of bacterial flagella, sortases an extracellular trans-peptidases responsible for covalently attaching secreted proteins (pili) to the peptidoglycan cell wall [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] and membrane anchor proteins in DC-11 further validated strain\u0026rsquo;s inherent adhesion ability and colonization thereof. Moreover, these results were coordinated well with previous findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite regular inadvertent consumption of \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e strains in fermented foods, their safety is a primary concern to the regulatory authorities around the globe, as they cater to a serious risk of enterotoxin formation and the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. Strains MIC cut-off levels for clinically relevant antibiotics were in accordance with EFSA. Besides the aforementioned safety qualities, the strain's low cytotoxicity toward Caco-2 and HepG-2 cells further indicated the safety of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11. Overall, the results are well coordinated with the strain's genetic safety, as no antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factors, and plasmids were detected in WGS. The strain\u0026rsquo;s gelatinase production, which is one of the genetic properties of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e, could not be considered a safety threat, as several gelatinase-positive \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e strains have been endorsed as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. The DC-11 resistance to antifungal drugs could be useful for its application with antifungals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn antimicrobial evaluation, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 showed the production of the antimicrobial compound sactipeptide subtilosin A. The broad absorption peak at 270\u0026ndash;310 nm is attributed to conjugation compounds, aromatic rings of amino acids, and peptide bonds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. FTIR indicated the aliphatic link between C and H could be due to hydrophobic amino acids. C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;O, N-O, C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;N, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;O, and N-H for peptide bonds, amide groups, and S-H for Cysteine S\u0026ndash;H bonds. Similarly, the proton NMR signals observed for aromatic amino acid (6.5\u0026ndash;9.5 ppm), alkyl amines (3\u0026ndash;5 ppm), and \u0026ndash;CH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e resonance and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;C\u0026minus;CH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;C\u0026minus; (0.5\u0026ndash;2 ppm), suggesting the polypeptide nature of AMC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. The results of carbon NMR showed carbon signals for aromatic, carboxylic acid, ester and amide compounds, and are in agreement with proton NMR. Furthermore, the mass and WGS analysis confirmed and validated the synthesis of sactipeptide subtilosin A from subtilosin biosynthetic gene. Subtilosin A was stable (computed from instability index), hydrophobic (computed from the aliphatic index and grand average of hydropathicity) in nature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], and found active against Gram-positive bacteria including MRSA. Studies have suggested that subtilosin interacts with membrane-associated receptors to inhibit the growth of bacteria, similar to that seen with the lantibiotic, Nisin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCo-aggregation has been shown to improve probiotic bacteria colonization efficiency, which may be important for managing microbiota communities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 showed the highest co-aggregations with \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e, compared to \u003cem\u003eP. mirabilis\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eC. albicans\u003c/em\u003e, indicating its ability to lower colonization of opportunistic pathogens like \u003cem\u003eE. coil\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eP. mirabilis\u003c/em\u003e, and yeast. The results are well coordinated with \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e P223 co-aggregation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], however, the co-aggregation percentages were mostly dependent on strains and the time of the assay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Besides this, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 exhibited biofilm formation, which is one of the traits for efficient colonization of the gut.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the food safety and regulatory standards, WGS is crucial to establish the safety of candidate probiotics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, strain DC-11 was identified as \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e, based on close similarity with \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 6051 in GBDP and OrthoANIu and dDDH analysis. 31% of genes were observed to contribute amino acid/derivatives and carbohydrate metabolism, 11% for protein metabolism, 9% for cofactors and vitamins, 7% for dormancy and sporulation, and rest for other essential activities. The insertion elements identified (less than 50% scores) were not found in the vicinity of regions of concern such as antibiotic resistance genes. Besides this, no plasmid and virulence factor genes suggest stability and safe use of the strain. The presence of a CRISPR spacer in strain DC-11 ensured the immunity of the strain to combat future infections of mobile DNA elements. In AntiSMASH and BAGEL analysis, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 strain showed the presence of different genes for secondary metabolites and antimicrobial compounds production. However, the \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e production of subtilosin A confirmed the expression of the sactipeptide biosynthesis gene. The number of stress response genes mapped in the genome could be useful for strain's survival under harsh environmental conditions including human and animal gastrointestinal tract.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e strain DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e showed promising survival under gastrointestinal conditions, adhesion, biofilm formation, co-aggregation potential, and production of antimicrobial sactipeptide subtilosin A. In phenotypic safety assessment, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. The whole genome sequence analysis showed close similarity with \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 6051, absence of transmissible antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factor genes, and plasmids, which further confirmed the strain\u0026rsquo;s genotypic safety. Moreover, the presence of genes for proteins involved in probiotic attributes ensured the probiotic potential of the strain. Overall, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e, could be a safe probiotic candidate for further applications.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhire JJ was employed by Dr. Reddy\u0026rsquo;s Laboratories Limited. Dr. Reddy\u0026rsquo;s Laboratories had no direct and indirect role in the design/analysis/writing/publication of this research article. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data is included in the text, however, the raw data of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Methodology: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Formal analysis and investigation: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Writing - original draft preparation: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ; Review \u0026ndash; Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ, Kulthe AA, Ghodke S. Resources: Chaudhari DN, Ahire JJ, Kulthe AA, Ghodke S; Supervision: Ahire JJ.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study does not contain any work related with participation of humans and/or animals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSekar S, Mariappan S (2007) Usage of traditional fermented products by Indian rural folks and IPR. Indian J Tradi Knowl 6:111\u0026ndash;120\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDas A, Raychaudhuri U, Chakraborty R (2012) Cereal based functional food of Indian subcontinent: a review. J Food Sci Technol 49(6):665\u0026ndash;672. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0474-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13197-011-0474-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKavitake D, Suryavanshi MV, Kandasamy S, Devi PB, Shouche Y, Shetty PH (2022) Bacterial diversity of traditional fermented food, \u003cem\u003eIdli\u003c/em\u003e by high thorough-put sequencing. J Food Sci Technol 59(10):3918\u0026ndash;3927. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-022-05421-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13197-022-05421-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamalingam S, Kandasamy S, Bahuguna A, Kim M (2019) Nutritional and health benefits of \u003cem\u003eIdli\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eDosa\u003c/em\u003e. Fermented Food Products. CRC, pp 181\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1201/9780429274787\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1201/9780429274787\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhosh D, Chattopadhyay P (2011) Preparation of \u003cem\u003eidli\u003c/em\u003e batter, its properties and nutritional improvement during fermentation. J Food Sci Technol 48:610\u0026ndash;615. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0148-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13197-010-0148-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, Morelli L, Canani RB, Flint HJ, Salminen S, Calder PC, Sanders MA (2014) The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:506\u0026ndash;514. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee NK, Kim WS, Paik HD (2019) \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e strains as human probiotics: characterization, safety, microbiome, and probiotic carrier. Food Sci Biotechnol 28(5):1297\u0026ndash;1305. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-019-00691-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10068-019-00691-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSoares MB, Almada CN, Pereira EP, Ferreira BM, Balthazar CF, Khorshidian N, Rocha RS, Xavier-Santos D, Cruz AG, Ranadheera CS, Mortazavian AM (2023) Sporeforming probiotic bacteria: Characteristics, health benefits, and technological aspects for their applications in foods and beverages. Trends Food Sci Technol 138:453\u0026ndash;469. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.06.029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tifs.2023.06.029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoe AL, Boyte ME, Elkins CA, Goldman VS, Heimbach J, Madden E, Oketch-Rabah H, Sanders ME, Sirois J, Smith A (2022) Considerations for determining safety of probiotics: A USP perspective. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 136:105266. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105266\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105266\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ, Rohilla A, Kumar V, Tiwari A (2024) Quality management of probiotics: Ensuring safety and maximizing health benefits. Curr Microbiol 81(1):1. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-023-03526-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00284-023-03526-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ, Kashikar MS, Lakshmi SG, Madempudi R (2020) Identification and characterization of antimicrobial peptide produced by indigenously isolated \u003cem\u003eBacillus paralicheniformis\u003c/em\u003e UBBLi30 strain. 3 Biotech 10:112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-2109-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s13205-020-2109-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePedersen C, Jonsson H, Lindberg JE, Roos S (2004) Microbiological characterization of wet wheat distillers grain, with focus on isolation of lactobacilli with potential as probiotics. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:1522\u0026ndash;1527. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.3.1522-1527.2004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1128/AEM.70.3.1522-1527.2004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ (2012) Studies on probiotic microorganism(s) and its biogenic metabolite(s). Ph.D. Dissertation, North Maharashtra University, India\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDel Re B, Sgorbati B, Miglioli M, Palenzona D (2000) Adhesion, autoaggregation and hydrophobicity of 13 strains of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium longum\u003c/em\u003e. Lett Appl Microbiol 31:438\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00845.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00845.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg M, Gutnick D, Rosenberg E (1980) Adherence of bacteria to hydrocarbons: a simple method for measuring cell-surface hydrophobicity. FEMS Microbiol Lett 9:29\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1980.tb05599.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1574-6968.1980.tb05599.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ, Sahoo S, Kashikar MS, Heerekar A, Lakshmi SG, Madempudi RS (2023) \u003cem\u003eIn vitro\u003c/em\u003e assessment of \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus crispatus\u003c/em\u003e UBLCp01, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus gasseri\u003c/em\u003e UBLG36, and \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus johnsonii\u003c/em\u003e UBLJ01 as a potential vaginal probiotic candidate. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 15(2):275\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;286. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09838-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12602-021-09838-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ, Dicks LM (2014) 2, 3-dihydroxybenzoic acid-containing nanofiber wound dressings inhibit biofilm formation by \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas aeruginosa\u003c/em\u003e. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:2098\u0026ndash;2104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02397-13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1128/AAC.02397-13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuomola EM, Salminen SJ (1998) Adhesion of some probiotic and dairy Lactobacillus strains to Caco-2 cell cultures. Int J Food Microbiol 41(1):45\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00033-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0168-1605(98)00033-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTjandrawinata RR, Kartawijaya M, Hartanti AW (2022) \u003cem\u003eIn vitro\u003c/em\u003e evaluation of the anti-hypercholesterolemic effect of \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e isolates from various sources. Front Microbiol 13:825251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.825251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmicb.2022.825251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatuschek E, Brown DF, Kahlmeter G (2014) Development of the EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing method and its implementation in routine microbiology laboratories. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:O255\u0026ndash;O266. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12373\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1469-0691.12373\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2020) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 30th ed. CSLI supplement M100.Wayne, PA. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://clsi.org/media/3481/m100e d30_sample.Pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://clsi.org/media/3481/m100e d30_sample.Pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Accessed 09 December 2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndrews JM (2001) Determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother 48:5\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jac/48.suppl_1.5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEFSA-Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) (2012) Guidance on the assessment of bacterial susceptibility to antimicrobials of human and veterinary importance. EFSA J 10(6):2740. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2740\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2740\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhire JJ, Kashikar MS, Madempudi RS (2020) Survival and germination of \u003cem\u003eBacillus clausii\u003c/em\u003e UBBC07 spores in in vitro human gastrointestinal tract simulation model and evaluation of clausin production. Front Microbiol 11:1010. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmicb.2020.01010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlin K, Shaw S, Medema MH, Weber T (2024) The antiSMASH database version 4: additional genomes and BGCs, new sequence-based searches and more. Nucleic Acids Res 52(D1):D586\u0026ndash;D589. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad984\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkad984\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Heel AJ, de Jong A, Song C, Viel JH, Kok J, Kuipers OP (2018) BAGEL4: a user-friendly web server to thoroughly mine RiPPs and bacteriocins. Nucleic Acids Res 46(W1):W278\u0026ndash;W281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky383\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gky383\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGasteiger E, Hoogland C, Gattiker A, Duvaud S, Wilkins MR, Appel RD, Bairoch A (2005) Protein Identification and Analysis Tools on the Expasy Server, (In) Walker JM, (ed): The Proteomics Protocols Handbook, Humana Press. pp. 571\u0026ndash;607\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatel RK, Jain M (2012) NGS QC Toolkit:a toolkit for quality control of next generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 7(2):e30619. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030619\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0030619\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeier-Kolthoff JP, G\u0026ouml;ker M (2019) TYGS is an automated high-throughput platform for state-of-the-art genomebased taxonomy. Nat Commun 10:2182. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-019-10210-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeier-Kolthoff JP, Sard\u0026agrave; Carbasse J, Peinado-Olarte RL, G\u0026ouml;ker M (2022) TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res 50:D801\u0026ndash;D807. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab902\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkab902\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoon SH, Ha SM, Lim JM, Kwon SJ, Chun J (2017) A large-scale evaluation of algorithms to calculate average nucleotide identity. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 110:1281\u0026ndash;1286. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-017-0844-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10482-017-0844-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlcock BP et al (2023) CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 51(D1):D690\u0026ndash;D699. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac920\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkac920\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu B, Zheng D, Zhou S, Chen L, Yang J (2022) VFDB 2022: a general classification scheme for bacterial virulence factors. Nucleic Acids Res 50(D1):D912\u0026ndash;D917. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkab1107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertelli C, Laird MR, Williams KP, Simon Fraser University Research Computing Group, Lau BY, Hoad G, Winsor GL, Brinkman FS (2017) IslandViewer 4: expanded prediction of genomic islands for larger-scale datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 45(W1):W30\u0026ndash;W35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx343\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkx343\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouvin D, Bernheim A, Toffano-Nioche C, Touchon M, Michalik J, N\u0026eacute;ron B, Rocha EP, Vergnaud G, Gautheret D, Pourcel C (2018) CRISPRCasFinder, an update of CRISRFinder, includes a portable version, enhanced performance and integrates search for Cas proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 46(W1):W246\u0026ndash;W251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky425\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gky425\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrettin T, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Olsen GJ, Olson R, Overbeek R, Parrello B, Pusch GD, Shukla M (2015) RASTtk: a modular and extensible implementation of the RAST algorithm for building custom annotation pipelines and annotating batches of genomes. Sci Rep 5(1):1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/srep08365\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/srep08365\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOverbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, Edwards RA, Gerdes S, Parrello B, Shukla M, Vonstein V (2014) The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res 42(D1):D206\u0026ndash;D214. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1226\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkt1226\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValentino V, Magliulo R, Farsi D, Cotter PD, O'Sullivan O, Ercolini D, De Filippis F (2024) Fermented foods, their microbiome and its potential in boosting human health. Microb Biotechnol 17(2):e14428. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1751-7915.14428\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi Z, Zheng M, Zheng J, G\u0026auml;nzle MG (2023) \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e species in food fermentations: an underappreciated group of organisms for safe use in food fermentations. Curr Opin Food Sci 50:101007. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cofs.2023.101007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Zhao L, Li M, Zhu Y, Liang D, Ma Y, Sun L, Zhao G, Tu Q (2024) Probiotic \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e as fermentation agents: Status, potential insights, and future perspectives. Food Chem X 22:101465. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101465\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101465\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDabir\u0026eacute; Y, Somda NS, Somda MK, Compaor\u0026eacute; CB, Mogmenga I, Ezeogu LI, Traor\u0026eacute; AS, Ugwuanyi JO, Dicko MH (2022) Assessment of probiotic and technological properties of \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp. isolated from \u003cem\u003eBurkinabe Soumbala\u003c/em\u003e. BMC Microbiol 22(1):228. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-022-02642-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12866-022-02642-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilks JC, Kitko RD, Cleeton SH, Lee GE, Ugwu CS, Jones BD, BonDurant SS, Slonczewski JL (2009) Acid and base stress and transcriptomic responses in \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e. Appl Environ Microbiol 75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01652-08\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1128/AEM.01652-08\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMonteagudo-Mera A, Rastall RA, Gibson GR, Charalampopoulos D, Chatzifragkou A (2019) Adhesion mechanisms mediated by probiotics and prebiotics and their potential impact on human health. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103(16):6463\u0026ndash;6472. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09978-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00253-019-09978-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTitz B, Rajagopala SV, Ester C, H\u0026auml;user R, Uetz P (2006) Novel conserved assembly factor of the bacterial flagellum. J Bacteriol 188. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00820-06\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1128/jb.00820-06\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolnari M, Bahrami N, Milanian Z, Rabbani Khorasgani M, Asadollahi MA, Shafiei R, Fatemi SS (2024) Isolation and characterization of novel \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e strains with superior probiotic potential: comparative analysis and safety evaluation. Sci Rep 14(1):1457. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51823-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-024-51823-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited States Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration (US-FDA) Generally Recognised as Safe (GRAS)-notice-inventory (2024) (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/recently-published-gras-notices-and-fda-letters\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/recently-published-gras-notices-and-fda-letters\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) Accessed 15th August 2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAitken A, Learmonth MP (2009) Protein determination by UV absorption. In: Walker J (ed) The protein protocols handbook. Humana, Totowa, pp 3\u0026ndash;6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eField LD, Sternhell S, Kalman JR (2007) Organic structures from spectra, 4 edn. Wiley, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShelburne CE, An FY, Dholpe V, Ramamoorthy A, Lopatin DE, Lantz MS (2007) The spectrum of antimicrobial activity of the bacteriocin subtilosin A. J Antimicrob Chemother 59(2):297\u0026ndash;300. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkl495\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jac/dkl495\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollado MC, Meriluoto J, Salminen S (2008) Adhesion and aggregation properties of probiotic and pathogen strains. Eur Food Res Technol 226:1065\u0026ndash;1073. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0632-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00217-007-0632-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeon HL, Lee NK, Yang SJ, Kim WS, Paik HD (2017) Probiotic characterization of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e P223 isolated from kimchi. Food Sci Biotechnol 26:1641\u0026ndash;1648. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-017-0148-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10068-017-0148-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLefort V, Desper R, Gascuel O (2015) FastME 2.0: A comprehensive, accurate, and fast distance-based phylogeny inference program. Mol Biol Evol 32:2798\u0026ndash;2800. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv150\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/molbev/msv150\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarris JS (1972) Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices. Am Nat 106(951):645\u0026ndash;668\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Bacillus subtilis DC-11, Probiotic, Safety, Idli Batter, MRSA, Subtilosin A","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we reported genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented \u003cem\u003eIdli Batter\u003c/em\u003e. The strain was evaluated for probiotic properties, biofilm formation, and antimicrobial compound production. The phenotypic safety was determined by accessing the strain\u0026rsquo;s ability to produce enterotoxins, degrade mucin, and antibiotic sensitivity. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed to identify the strain and determine genetic safety by analyzing the presence of plasmids, antibiotic resistance genes, and virulence factors. In the results, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 showed 88.98% viability in gastric juice, and 98.60% viability in intestinal juice. It showed 18.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44% autoaggregation, 32.53\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.11% adhesion to xylene, 0.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05 OD unit\u0026rsquo;s adhesion to mucin (crystal violet equivalence at 550 nm), 21.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.3% adhesion to Caco-2 cells, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;22.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.65 mV zeta potential. The highest co-aggregation was recorded with \u003cem\u003eEscherichia coli\u003c/em\u003e (23.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.70%). The strain was found negative for enterotoxin production, mucin degradation, and antibiotic resistance to the commonly used therapeutic antibiotics. It formed a good biofilm and capable of producing antimicrobial peptide subtilosin A with a molecular mass of 3400 Da. The peptide has inhibited the growth of methicillin-resistant \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus aureus\u003c/em\u003e (18.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.58 mm). In genetic safety, no plasmids, antibiotic-resistant genes, and virulence factors were detected. Moreover, the strain showed close similarity with \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e ATCC 6051 and proteins involved in probiotic attributes. In conclusion, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e DC-11 is safe potential probiotic candidate.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Genomic and phenotypic safety assessment of probiotic Bacillus subtilis DC-11 isolated from traditionally fermented Idli Batter","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-09-24 15:43:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957452/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"23033a38-15fd-43ca-8d23-a745d20beeca","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 24th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-05T21:23:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-09-24 15:43:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4957452","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4957452","identity":"rs-4957452","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}