MutL significantly regulates the formation of biofilms in B. subtilis YT1

MutL significantly regulates the formation of biofilms in B. subtilis YT1 | 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 Article MutL significantly regulates the formation of biofilms in B. subtilis YT1 Huafei Zhou, Baoyan Li, Min Chen, Haining Chen, Hongtao Wang, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/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 As a crucial and integral adaptation for thriving in diverse habitats, whether for survival or disease prevention and control, biofilm plays a vital role for most biocontrol bacteria, such as B. subtilis , Bacillus amyloliquefaciens , and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). However, the process of biofilm formation is intricate, and its regulatory mechanism remains unclear. In this study, we discovered that the regulatory protein MutL significantly influenced biofilm formation and exhibited a diminished colonization effectiveness on rice leaves. The mutant, lacking protein MutL expression, was unable to form biofilm with normal morphology and yielded only a quarter of the biofilm weight observed in the wild type B.subtilis YT1. In a petri dish confrontation assay examining the inhibitory effects on Rhizoctonia solani , no significant differences were observed between the mutant strain and the wild type YT1. Furthermore, through GFP fluorescent labeling technology, we conducted additional colonization tests, which demonstrated that the mutant failed to colonize rice stems effectively in the presence of R. solani . We hypothesize that the negative impact on biofilm formation resulted in inadequate colonization of rice stems, this combination accounts for the poor biocontrol efficacy against rice sheath blight, but it does not affect the normal growth of the strain or other biological phenotypes. Biological sciences/Cell biology Biological sciences/Microbiology B. subtilis biofilm formation colonization biological control Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 INTRODUCTION Bacillus spp. have the ability to form intricate and cell-aggregated communities called biofilms (Haggag and Timmusk, 2008 ). The presence of biofilm morphology enables Bacillus spp. to effectively resist pathogen infections (Stewart and Franklin, 2008 ; Vlamakis et al., 2013 ). Additionally, successful biofilm formation enhances the colonization of Bacillus spp. on plant surfaces (Weng et al., 2013 ). For example, PGPR PaeniBacillus polymyxa can colonize the root tips of Arabidopsis thaliana , enhancing the biocontrol effect against pathogens (Goswami et al., 2016 ). In B. subtilis 6051, biofilm formation, colonization, and surfactin secretion collectively contribute to biocontrol effects against Pseudomonas syringae (Bais et al., 2004 ). However, the regulatory mechanisms of biofilm formation are complex. Previous studies have shown that the protein TasA and an exopolysaccharide (EPS) are the main components of biofilms. The protein TasA forms amyloid fibers that serve as the basic framework of the biofilm, while the EPS fills this framework (Ostrowski et al., 2011 ; Pintoet al., 2020 ). The eps operon, which is responsible for EPS biosynthesis, plays a crucial role in the regulatory mechanisms of biofilms in B. subtilis (Guttenplan et al., 2010 ). Defects in the protein EpsB and the PtkA gene lead to complete loss of biofilm formation in B. subtilis (Marvasi et al., 2010 ; Gerwig et al., 2014 ). The tapA-sipW-tasA operon is directly involved in biofilm synthesis and formation (Romero et al., 2011 ; Vlamakis et al., 2013 ). The DNA-binding protein SinR acts as the master regulator of biofilm formation, suppressing the expression of both operons (Stowe et al., 2014 ; Milton et al., 2020 ). Conversely, the protein RemA activates the expression of these operons (Prabhawathi et al., 2014 ;Bremer et al., 2022 ). The abrB gene also functions as a negative regulator of biofilm formation, and the AbrB-regulated genes sipW and yoaW are essential for normal biofilm formation (Weng et al., 2013 ). Here, we present findings on a novel biofilm regulatory gene, mutL . We observed that the mutant with a defective mutL gene exhibited poor biofilm formation compared to the WT B. subtilis YT1. Previously, we successfully constructed a random mutant library of B. subtilis YT1 using the TnYLB-1 transposon (Zhou et al., 2013 ). Through biofilm phenotype screening, we identified a MutL mutant carrying the TnYLB-1 transposon that displayed significant defects in biofilm formation. We further disrupted the mutL gene in B. subtilis YT1 through homologous recombination, which resulted in a severe loss of biofilm. The biofilm network of the MutL mutant was less than one-tenth of that observed in the WT B. subtilis YT1. However, when observing colonization of the MutL mutant and the wild type B. subtilis YT1 on rice stems, we noted a significant reduction in the number of bacteria in the MutL mutant. These results indicate that the mutL gene plays a crucial role in the biofilm formation of B. subtilis YT1. The poor biofilm formation in the MutL mutant likely resulted in a significant reduction in its ability to colonize rice stems. MATERIALS AND METHODS Strains and culture conditions The strains and plasmids utilized in this study are outlined in Table 1 (Zhou et al., 2016 ). The WT B. subtilis YT1 and the MutL mutant were cultured in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth medium (Kesel et al., 2017 ), which consisted of 10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, and 10 g/L NaCl. The cultures were incubated at 37℃ with shaking at 200 rpm. Escherichia coli DH5α was cultured in LB broth medium and used for vector preparation to disrupt the mutL gene in the wild type B. subtilis YT1. Rhizoctonia solani was cultured at 28℃ on potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium containing 200 g/L potato infusion, 20 g/L glucose, and 20 g/L agar at pH 7.0. Table 1 Bacterial strains and plasmids used in this study Strain/plasmid Description Source or reference B. subtilis YT1 Wild type strain CGMCC NO.29889 ΔmutL ΔmutL::Spec r , YT1 derivative This study ΔYT1-gfp ΔYT1-gfp::Cm r , YT1 tagged with green fluorescent protein This study ΔmutL-gfp ΔmutL:: Spec r , ΔmutL tagged with green fluorescent protein This study Plasmids pUC19 Cloning vector, Ap r TakaRa U07650 pDG1728 Cloning vector, Amp r Spec r BGSC No. ECE114 pUCSpec pUC19 carrying spectinomycin cassette from pDG1728 This study pUCSpec-MutL pUCSpec carrying 741 bp fragment MutL This study pRp22-gfp This study * Amp r : ampicillin resistance, Spec r : spectinomycin resistance, CGMCC : China General Microbiological Culture Collection Centre, Beijing, China For biofilm formation assays, B. subtilis YT1 and the MutL mutant were grown in MSgg medium (Liu et al., 2022 ) consisting of 5 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7), 100 mM Mops (pH 7), 2 mM MgCl 2 , 700 µM CaCl 2 , 50 µM MnCl 2 , 50 µM FeCl 3 , 1 µM ZnCl 2 , 2 µM thiamine, 0.5% glycerol, 0.5% glutamate, 50 µg/mL tryptophan, and 50 µg/mL phenylalanine. Antibiotics were added when necessary at the following concentrations: 100 µg/mL ampicillin, 100 µg/mL spectinomycin, 20 µg/mL neomycin, and 5 µg/mL chloramphenicol (Kantiwal and Pandey, 2022). Construction of the WT B. subtilis YT1 mutant libraries and the mutL gene obtained This study was conducted and completed previously in our laboratory, and the research methods have been published in Scientia Agricultura Sinica (Zhou et al., 2013 ). We constructed a random mutant library of B. subtilis YT1 using the plasmid pMarA carrying the transposon TnYLB-1, which demonstrated good randomness in the insertion of chromosomal loci. Several single colonies from this mutant library were inoculated into 4 mL of LB medium with spectinomycin for the mutants and incubated at 37℃ with shaking for 12 h. A control strain of B. subtilis YT1 single colony was also cultured without spectinomycin. Next, 200 µL of each culture was inoculated into 4 mL of MSgg medium and incubated statically at 37℃ for 24 h (Zhou et al., 2016 ). By visually inspecting the biofilm formation, we were able to observe any significant changes in the mutants compared to the WT strain B. subtilis YT1. Each sample was repeated three times to ensure accuracy. After screening thousands of mutants, we identified the MutL mutant as having significant deficiencies, and we confirmed that it had only one insertion site through Southern Blot analysis. Construction of the ΔmutL mutant and tagging strains with GFP. To obtain a spectinomycin resistance gene and its promoter, we used the primers SpecF (5'-TTT GGATCC CTGCAGCCCTGGCGAATG-3') and SpecR (5'-TTT GAATTC AGATCCCCCTATGCAAGG-3') (Zhou et al., 2016 ) (BamHI and EcoRI restriction sites are underlined) from plasmid pDG1728. The complete spectinomycin cassette, digested with the BamHI and EcoRI restriction enzymes, was cloned into the plasmid pUC19, resulting in the construction of pUCSpec. We then obtained a PCR product of mutL (741 bp) from the genomic DNA of the WT B. subtilis YT1 using the primers MutLF (5'-TTT AAGCTT ATTTACGGGACGGCGGTTGC-3') and MutLR (5'-TTT GGATCC GCTGGGCGCTCGGAATAAGC-3') (HindIII and BamHI restriction sites are underlined). The plasmid pUCSpec-MutL was created by inserting this digestion product into pUCSpec. The ΔmutL mutant was generated by transforming the pUCSpec-MutL plasmid into B. subtilis YT1 through the process of genetic transformation. Additionally, we successfully constructed the positive emission green fluorescent protein (GFP) strains ΔYT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp by transforming the plasmid pRp22-gfp into the WT B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant, respectively. Antifungal activity of WT B. subtilis YT1 and ΔmutL mutant against R. solani The mycelial plugs of R. solani , measuring 7 mm in diameter, were cultivated in PDA medium for three days and then centered on LB plates. Two microliters of the B. subtilis BsYT1 WT strain and the ser mutant culture were carefully placed onto a 6 mm circular filter paper disk, uniformly distributed around the mycelial plugs. The plates were subsequently sealed with parafilm and incubated at 28℃. The antib zone of inhibition was determined after 24 to 72 h of incubation (Zhou et al., 2016 ). This experiment was conducted three times to ensure reproducibility. Colonization detection in rice plants using confocal microscopy and assessment of biocontrol efficacy against rice sheath blight The R. solani bacterial cakes, with a diameter of 6 mm, were cultured for 3 days in solid PDA medium. These cakes were then inoculated into 100 mL of liquid PDA medium with 200 matchsticks without Commelina. The cakes were incubated in a 500 mL flask without shaking at 28℃ for one week. Thirty seeds of a rice cultivar were soaked in water for 24 h and then sown in a nursery containing sterile organic soil. Five days before rice heading, 10 matchsticks of R. solani were inoculated into 2–3 cm rice leaves of each rice plant. Approximately 20 mL of broth, cultured for 48 h, from the WT B. subtilis YT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp mutant strains were evenly sprayed onto the rice plants marked by the matchsticks. From 0 to 12 days after the initial inoculation, the rice leaves marked by the matchsticks were observed and captured using a confocal microscope equipped with a 40x objective lens (Carl Zeiss LSM710, Germany). The lesion area length of the WT B. subtilis YT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp mutant strains was measured as the primary criterion for assessing the biocontrol effects against rice sheath blight.Each treatment group consisted of eight individual pots (Zhou et al., 2016 ). Genomic transcript levels analyzed between WT B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant using the Illumina HiSeqTM2500 platform. Total biofilm RNA from both the WT B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant, cultured in a static MSgg medium (4 mL in 12-well microtiter plates) at 37℃ for 24 h, was extracted using an RNAprep pure Cell/Bacteria Kit. The extracted RNA was qualified using the 2100 Bioanalyzer test. Subsequently, 10 µg of total RNA was treated with 5U DNaseI (Takara, Japan) for 30 minutes at 37℃, followed by purification using an RNeasy MinElute Cleanup Kit (Qiagen, Germany) and elution with 15 µL of RNase-free water. Ribo-Zero™Magnetic Kit (Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria; Epicentre, USA) was utilized to eliminate all rRNA by conducting a reaction at 68℃ for 10 minutes and room temperature for 5 minutes. Next, a cDNA library was constructed using a NEB Next ® Ultra TM Directional RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (NEB, USA), followed by cluster generation and sequencing on an Illumina HiseqTM2500 platform. Linker sequences containing low-quality clean reads were removed using fastx_clipper. Unwanted, low-quality reads (> 20 bases) from 3’to 5’end were eliminated using a FASTQ Quality filter (FASTX-Toolkit, v0.0.13). Clean reads less than 50 bp were excluded. Quality assessment of the sequencing data was performed with Fastqc software (v0.10.0). Differential gene expression analysis was carried out by mapping clean reads (Bowtie 2, v2.1.0) and utilizing the MA-plot-based method with the random sampling model. Gene expression levels in both the WT YT1 and ΔmutL mutant strains were determined. Genes showing significant differential expression with fold change > 2, FDR(q value) 20 were selected for further analysis. RESULTS The acquisition of the mutL gene Through biofilm phenotype testing and bioinformatic analysis of a random insertion mutant library of WT B. subtilis YT1, the mutL gene, which is associated with decreased biofilm phenotype, was identified. By employing homologous recombination, a single-gene knockout mutant with a MutL deficiency was successfully generated and characterized. This MutL mutant showed a significant reduction in biofilm formation, and its structure was barely visible, with only subtle projections distinguishing it from the well-defined three-dimensional architecture and intricate patterns of WT B. subtilis YT1 (Fig. 1). Analysis of the biofilm network width (NW) for the MutL mutant revealed that its density was merely one-tenth that of the wild type. In terms of colony morphology, the MutL mutant lacked a continuous edge and clear projections, presenting an incomplete and planar structure in contrast to the robust three-dimensional growth of WT B. subtilis YT1 (Fig. 2 ). However, the mutant strain can grow and reproduce normally, without significant differences compared to the WT YT1 strain (Fig. 2 ). These findings indicate that the mutL gene plays a significant role in B. subtilis YT1's biofilm development. No significant difference in the antibacterial activity On Petri dishes effectively inoculated with R. solani , both the WT YT1 and the mutant ΔmutL were able to consistently form normal and relatively fixed antibacterial zones after 24–72 h of confrontation cultivation. The fungal mycelium of the pathogen was unable to cross this antibacterial zone and continue its expansion, exhibiting an upward growth pattern of the mycelium. No significant difference in the size of the antibacterial zones was observed between the two strains (Fig. 3 ). Significant decrease in colonization ability of the mutant ΔmutL This study utilized GFP labeling to observe the colonization patterns of the ΔmutL mutant and WT B. subtilis YT1 on rice stems infected with R. solani over a period of 12 days. Both the number of bacteria and the apparent green fluorescence increased in both strains in the initial 8 days, with the maximum number of bacteria observed on the eighth day (Fig. 4). However, significant clustering was observed only in the WT B. subtilis YT1 as the amount of bacteria increased. Although the maximum number of bacteria was similar between the two strains on the eighth day, the bacterial quantity was noticeably higher in the WT B. subtilis YT1. The amount of bacteria decreased from day nine to day twelve, but clustering continued in the WT B. subtilis YT1, while the ΔmutL mutant did not exhibit any clustering until the twelfth day, indicating a substantial reduction in its colonization ability(Fig. 4). These results suggest that the colonization of the ΔmutL mutant was significantly reduced compared to the WT B. subtilis YT1, with no cluster movement observed. Significant reduction in the biocontrol efficacy of the ΔmutL mutant against rice sheath blight Between the first and twelfth day of observation, the B. subtilis YT1 strain exhibited peak biocontrol efficacy of 63.2% on the fourth day, after which it progressively decreased to 42.9% by the twelfth day (Table 2 ). This decline may be attributed to the initial onset of R. solani spread on the fourth day. In contrast, the mutL mutant strain demonstrated a biocontrol efficiency of 15.8%, significantly inferior to that of the WT B. subtilis YT1. As the disease progressed rapidly, the biocontrol efficacies of both the WT B. subtilis YT1 and the mutL mutant substantially declined. Nonetheless, at any given time point, the biocontrol effects of the B. subtilis YT1 were consistently superior to those of the ΔmutL mutant. Particularly on the twelfth day, the biocontrol efficiency of the ΔmutL mutant was only about 24.9% of the WT B. subtilis YT1 (Table 2 ). These findings indicate that the absence of regulation by the mutL gene led to a significant decrease in the biocontrol efficacy of the MutL mutant over time. Table 2 Biocontrol of rice sheath blight in pot cultures of the WT B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL Treatment 4 d 8 d 12 d Lesion size (cm 2 ) Control efficiency (%) Lesion size (cm 2 ) Control efficiency (%) Lesion size (cm 2 ) Control efficiency (%) YT1 1.4(0.1) b 63.2 a 7.8(0.3) c 50.6 a 16.5(0.7) c 42.9 a ΔmutL 3.2(0.2) a 15.8 b 13.7(0.4) ab 13.3 b 25.8(0.9) ab 10.7 b CK 3.8(0.2) a 15.8(0.4) a 28.9(0.9) a *Data are the average of eight pots ± the standard deviation of three independent experiments with eight pots. Differential genes expression in B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant The identification of differentially expressed genes was achieved through the analysis of gene transcription (Table 3 ). This table lists the key regulatory genes that have been reported in recent years to directly and significantly control the formation of biofilms. In this study, compared to the control YT1, some reported and confirmed signaling pathway regulatory factors in the mutant ΔmutL strain showed significant abnormal expression. For example, there was a notable decrease in the expression of genes senN , capB , and the appA family, as well as abnormal increases in the expression of genes spo0A , sinR , and abrB . The transcriptional expression levels of tasA, a protein involved in biofilm matrix formation, and the eps family proteins, which are also components of the biofilm skeleton, were also found to be decreased, although not significantly. Table 3 Analysis of differentially expressed genes in wild type B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant Gene Relative expression level Function B. subtilis YT1 ΔmutL senN 1 0.41 SenN transcriptional regulator capB 1 0.44 γ-PGA synthesis appA -D 1 0.44 Periplasmic oligopeptide-binding protein nprE 1 0.52 Extracellular neutral metalloprotease epsA-B 1 0.6 Substrate for biofilm formation tasA 1 0.87 Substrate for biofilm formation sipW-yqxM 1 1.37 Type I signal peptidase protein for biofilm kinA-D 1 1.58 Two-component sensor histidine kinase spo0A 1 1.8 Response regulator degQ 1 1.96 Pleiotropic regulator sinR 1 2.09 Master regulator of biofilm formation abrB 1 2.5 Transcriptional regulator for transition state DISCUSSION B. subtilis , as a model organism strain, is extensively studied. Due to varying environmental conditions, B. subtilis exists in multiple forms in nature, including free-living, motile, and dormant cell (Steinberg and Kolodkin-Gal, 2018; Kantiwal and Pandey, 2023). As an outstanding biocontrol agent, B. subtilis is commonly employed to manage fungal diseases in crops such as rice and wheat. Diseases like wheat take-all, wheat stripe rust, and wheat powdery mildew can be efficiently inhibited by B. subtilis E1R-J (Liu et al. 2009; Li et al. 2013; Gao et al. 2015). Additionally, rice sheath blight, a prevalent fungal disease in rice crops that causes over 15% yield loss, can be effectively controlled by B. subtilis MBI 600 (Kumar et al. 2012, 2013). Biofilms are highly organized communities of microorganisms composed of amyloid fibers (TasA) and exopolysaccharides (EPS), which adhere to the surfaces of cells (Branda et al. 2006; Romero D et al. 2010; López et al. 2010). As an effective adaptation strategy for survival in diverse environments, biofilms are crucial for the prevention and treatment of diseases (Stewart and Franklin, 2008; López et al. 2010; Vlamakis et al. 2013). In Bacillus amyloliquefac SQR9, the formation of biofilms can significantly enhance the colonization capacity and biocontrol efficacy against cucumber and watermelon wilt diseases (Weng et al. 2013). MutL, as a highly conserved protein, is widely present in bacterial genomes and its main reported function is an important part of DNA mismatch repair (MMR)(Guarné, 2012). MMR is a conservative pathway that protects genome integrity by correcting replication errors to achieve repair. This process requires the coordinated action of two proteins (MutS and MutL) to initiate the mismatch repair response, and the basic steps include recognizing mismatches, distinguishing newly synthesized strands from parental strands, removing and re-synthesizing erroneous strands(Liu, et al. 2016). B. subtilis YT1, being an effective biocontrol bacteria, has been utilized in rice fields for a long time, and has shown significant effectiveness between 63.9% to 84.6% against rice sheath blight and rice false smut (unpublished data). The random mutant library of B. subtilis YT1 was effectively created using TnYLB-1 transposon in prior studies (Zhou et al. 2013). The ΔmutL mutant, identified through transposon mutagenesis and confirmed via Southern Blot, exhibited significant deficiencies in biofilm formation. Following this, we successfully generated a single knockout mutant, ΔmutL, through homologous recombination in B. subtilis YT1. However, the biofilm formed by this mutant was minimal and lacked distinct structures. Biofilm dry weight analysis revealed that the ΔmutL mutant only weighed one-tenth of the WT B. subtilis YT1. The agar plate confrontation test showed that the antibacterial activity was not significantly affected, but the colonization capacity exhibited a significant decrease, with the loss of the community aggregation effect. This ultimately led to a significant decrease in the control effectiveness against rice sheath blight disease, indicating that mutL is a key node gene that directly affects biofilm formation as a single factor. Transcriptome data has shown that these different genes reported are all expressed to varying degrees, with one important gene, capB , being significantly down-regulated. The main mechanism of action of capB is to regulate the assembly and utilization of glutamate in the process of biofilm formation. The resulting polyglutamic acid γ-PGA is an important filler in the structure of biofilms and is indispensable. In this study, the transcription of this gene was significantly down-regulated. Therefore, our research may achieve global regulation of biofilm formation through the glutamate-γ-PGA signaling pathway. we confirmed the significant positive regulatory role of the MutL protein in the biofilm formation process of strain YT1 ultimately. After multiple confirmations, the experimental results were stable and reliable, which fully demonstrates that the MutL protein plays a key role in the biofilm formation process and even the growth and development process of Bacillus species. This provides a new research area for the study of biofilm mechanisms. Furthermore, subsequent work in this study will aim to reveal the detailed mechanism of its action, contributing to the study of biofilm regulatory pathways and laying a solid theoretical foundation for the improvement of microbial pesticides by Bacillus species. Declarations Conflict of Interest All authors report no conflict of interest. Author Contribution Authorship contribution statement：1. Huafei and Baoyou，Conceived and designed the experiments,Performed the experiments, Implemented methods, Analyzed the data, Wrote the paper.2. Baoyan, Min and Haining, Performed the experiments, Implemented methods.3. Hongtao, Shaoli and Binghui, Analyzed the data. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Project of Shandong Natural Science Foundation (ZR2020KC026); the Shandong Province Fruit Industry Technology System (SDAIT-06-11); the Shandong Province Key R&D Program (2021CXGC010602, 2021CXGC010802); the Monitoring and Control Project of Crop Diseases, Pests and Rodents Epidemic in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (152307026); the Science and Technology Planning Project of Yantai (2021NYNC015, 2022XCZX094); the Shandong Province Science and Technology Small and Medium Enterprises Innovation Ability Enhancement Project (2023TSGC0829, 2023TSGC0894). Data Availability Data Availability Statements：The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Bais, H.P., Fall, R. and Vivanco, J.M. (2004) Biocontrol of B. subtilis against infection of Arabidopsis roots by Pseudomonas syringae is facilitated by biofilm formation and surfactin production. Plant Physiol 134, 307-319. Branda, S.S., Chu, F., Kearns, D.B., Losick, R. and Kolter, R., (2006). A major protein component of the Bacillus subtilis biofilm matrix. Molecular microbiology, 59 (4), pp.1229-1238. Bremer, E., Hoffmann, T., Dempwolff, F., Bedrunka, P. and Bange, G., (2022）. The many faces of the unusual biofilm activator RemA. BioEssays, 44 (5), p.2200009. Gao, X., Gong, Y., Huo, Y., Han, Q., Kang, Z. and Huang, L. (2015) Endophytic B. subtilis strain E1R-J is a promising biocontrol agent for wheat powdery mildew. BioMed Res Int 2015, 462645. Gerwig, J., Kiley, T. B., Gunka, K., Stanley-Wall, N., and Stülke, J. (2014). The protein tyrosine kinases EpsB and PtkA differentially affect biofilm formation in B. subtilis . Microbiology , 160, 682-691. Goswami, D., Thakker, J.N. and Dhandhukia, P.C., 2016. Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): a review. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2 (1), p.1127500. Guarné, A., (2012). The functions of MutL in mismatch repair: the power of multitasking. P rogress in molecular biology and translational science , 110, pp.41-70. Guttenplan, S.B., Blair, K.M. and Kearns, D.B. (2010) The EpsE flagellar clutch is bifunctional and synergizes with EPS biosynthesis to promote B. subtilis biofilm formation. PLOS Genet 6, e1001243. Haggag, W.M. and Timmusk, S. (2008) Colonization of peanut roots by biofilm-forming PaeniBacillus polymyxa initiates biocontrol against crown rot disease. J Appl Microbiol 104, 961-969. Kantiwal, U. and Pandey, J., (2023). Efficient Inhibition of Bacterial Biofilm Through Interference of Protein–Protein Interaction of Master Regulator Proteins: a Proof of Concept Study with SinR-SinI Complex of Bacillus subtilis . Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 195 (3), pp.1947-1967. Kesel, S., von Bronk, B., García, C.F., Götz, A., Lieleg, O. and Opitz, M., (2017). Matrix composition determines the dimensions of Bacillus subtilis NCIB 3610 biofilm colonies grown on LB agar. RSC advances, 7 (51), pp.31886-31898. Kumar, K., K.V., Yellareddygari, S.K., Reddy, M.S., Kloepper, J.W., Lawrence, K.S., Miller, M.E. and Groth, D.E. (2013) Ultrastructural studies on the interaction between B. subtilis MBI 600 ( Integral ®) and the rice sheath blight pathogen, Rhizoctonia solani . Afr J Microbiol Res 7, 2078-2086. Kumar, V.K.K., Yellareddygari, S.K., Reddy, M.S., Kloepper, J.W., Lawrence, K.S., Zhou, X.G., Sudini, H., Groth, D.E., Krishnam Raju, S. and Miller, M.E. (2012) Efficacy of B. subtilis MBI 600 against sheath blight caused by rhizoctonia solani and on growth and yield of Rice. Rice Sci 19, 55-63. Li, H., Zhao, J., Feng, H., Huang, L. and Kang, Z. (2013) Biological control of wheat stripe rust by an endophytic B. subtilis strain E1R-j in greenhouse and field trials. Crop Protect 43, 201-206. Liu, B., Qiao, H., Huang, L., Buchenauer, H., Han, Q., Kang, Z. and Gong, Y. (2009) Biological control of take-all in wheat by endophytic B. subtilis E1R-j and potential mode of action. Biol Contr 49, 277-285. Liu, J., Hanne, J., Britton, B.M., Bennett, J., Kim, D., Lee, J.B. and Fishel, R., (2016). Cascading MutS and MutL sliding clamps control DNA diffusion to activate mismatch repair. Nature, 539 (7630), pp.583-587. Liu, S., Huang, J., Zhang, C., Wang, L., Fan, C. and Zhong, C., (2022). Probing the growth and mechanical properties of Bacillus subtilis biofilms through genetic mutation strategies. Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology, 7 (3), pp.965-971. Lopez, D., Vlamakis, H. and Kolter, R. (2010) Biofilms. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2, a000398. Marvasi, M., Visscher, P. T., and Martinez, L. C. (2010). Exopolymeric substances (EPS) from B. subtilis : polymers and genes encoding their synthesis. FEMS microbiology letters , 313, 1-9. Milton, M.E., Draughn, G.L., Bobay, B.G., Stowe, S.D., Olson, A.L., Feldmann, E.A., Thompson, R.J., Myers, K.H., Santoro, M.T., Kearns, D.B. and Cavanagh, J., (2020). The solution structures and interaction of SinR and SinI: elucidating the mechanism of action of the master regulator switch for biofilm formation in Bacillus subtilis . Journal of molecular biology, 432 (2), pp.343-357. Ostrowski, A., Mehert, A., Prescott, A., Kiley, T. B., and Stanley-Wall, N. R. (2011). YuaB functions synergistically with the exopolysaccharide and TasA amyloid fibers to allow biofilm formation by B. subtilis . Journal of bacteriology , 193, 4821-4831. Pinto, R.M., Soares, F.A., Reis, S., Nunes, C. and Van Dijck, P., (2020). Innovative strategies toward the disassembly of the EPS matrix in bacterial biofilms. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, p.535344. Prabhawathi, V., Thirunavukarasu, K., and Doble, M. (2014). A study on the long term effect of biofilm produced by biosurfactant producing microbe on medical implant. Materials Science and Engineering: C , 40, 212-218. Romero, D., Vlamakis, H., Losick, R., and Kolter, R. (2011). An accessory protein required for anchoring and assembly of amyloid fibres in B. subtilis biofilms. Molecular microbiology , 80, 1155-1168. Steinberg, N. and Kolodkin-Gal, I., (2018). Collective vortex-like movement of Bacillus subtilis facilitates the generation of floating biofilms. Frontiers in Microbiology , 9, p.320610. Stewart, P.S. and Franklin, M.J. (2008) Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol 6, 199-210. Stowe, S.D., Olson, A.L., Losick, R. and Cavanagh, J. (2014) Chemical shift assignments and secondary structure prediction of the master biofilm regulator, SinR, from B. subtilis . Biomol NMR Assign 8, 155-158. Vlamakis, H., Chai, Y., Beauregard, P., Losick, R. and Kolter, R. (2013) Sticking together: building a biofilm the B. subtilis way. Nat Rev Microbiol 11, 157-168. Weng, J., Wang, Y., Li, J., Shen, Q. and Zhang, R. (2013) Enhanced root colonization and biocontrol activity of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 by abrB gene disruption. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97, 8823-8830. Zhou, H., Luo, C., Wang, X., Zhang, R., Chen, Z. and Y. (2013) Construction of B. subtilis YT1 mutant libraries by transposon tagging and cloning the genes to the organism’s anti-bacterial activities. Sci Agric Sin 46, 2232-2239. Zhou, H., Luo, C., Fang, X., Xiang, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, R. and Chen, Z. (2016) Loss of GltB inhibits biofilm formation and biocontrol efficiency of Bacillus subtilis Bs916 by altering the production of γ-polyglutamate and three lipopeptides. PLoS One , 11 (5), p.e0156247. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. 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-4156921","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":290535630,"identity":"90488b81-2e7b-4143-a14b-4e07ea204085","order_by":0,"name":"Huafei Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huafei","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":290535631,"identity":"9da54c5f-c34d-443b-afa1-216157e8000c","order_by":1,"name":"Baoyan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Baoyan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":290535632,"identity":"199eb6a4-5c13-435c-99da-9265879b9062","order_by":2,"name":"Min Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":290535633,"identity":"2df0599d-df5f-42a4-bb14-02db0ad52f03","order_by":3,"name":"Haining Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haining","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":290535635,"identity":"213b6626-9b21-4e25-9f70-da1cd9dc9db5","order_by":4,"name":"Hongtao Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hongtao","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":290535637,"identity":"b38d1c62-8126-40c6-aec6-299d3526babe","order_by":5,"name":"Shaoli Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shaoli","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":290535639,"identity":"6f3458c2-d1e6-4929-8b97-ace7b55d9cbb","order_by":6,"name":"Binghui Luan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Binghui","middleName":"","lastName":"Luan","suffix":""},{"id":290535641,"identity":"480b7427-6b33-442a-b195-0fa7cfa87af5","order_by":7,"name":"Baoyou Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yantai Academy of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Baoyou","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-24 07:44:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":54787033,"identity":"bbfce306-76cf-42f5-a409-e43690db4999","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-16 18:55:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25823,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChanges in biofilm formation due to the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and ΔmutL mutants in MSgg culture medium with 20 µg/mL Congo Red and 10 µg/mL Coomassie brilliant blue.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4156921/v1/9c9040f66e1507b020ed2235.jpg"},{"id":54787034,"identity":"f6d6f2d6-00df-48b6-828a-8b3f85460a69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-16 18:55:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChanges in colony architecture of the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003eYT1 and the ΔmutL mutant in MSgg culture medium with 20 µg/mL Congo Red and 10 µg/mL Coomassie brilliant blue.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4156921/v1/5b83aa676ad04daabc3926c3.jpg"},{"id":54787035,"identity":"9a85e41e-9e92-4fb7-9321-4c6c3014d7aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-16 18:55:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25621,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNo significant difference in the antibacterial activity.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4156921/v1/5d37c4768476d32354c9254f.jpg"},{"id":54787036,"identity":"dcb30809-6a85-4d70-a442-1aa28789cf28","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-04-16 18:55:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38997,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe colonization of the rice plant by \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003eYT1 against rice sheath blight.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4156921/v1/29c8870f5ddaea9349dd89de.jpg"},{"id":56773880,"identity":"27eba1fb-3f63-4f69-964f-acab1c20b21c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-20 09:59:20","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":805311,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4156921/v1/352d6236-7650-4ac7-81db-45cc140db16c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"MutL significantly regulates the formation of biofilms in B. subtilis YT1","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp. have the ability to form intricate and cell-aggregated communities called biofilms (Haggag and Timmusk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of biofilm morphology enables \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp. to effectively resist pathogen infections (Stewart and Franklin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Vlamakis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, successful biofilm formation enhances the colonization of \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e spp. on plant surfaces (Weng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). For example, PGPR \u003cem\u003ePaeniBacillus polymyxa\u003c/em\u003e can colonize the root tips of \u003cem\u003eArabidopsis thaliana\u003c/em\u003e, enhancing the biocontrol effect against pathogens (Goswami et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e 6051, biofilm formation, colonization, and surfactin secretion collectively contribute to biocontrol effects against \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas syringae\u003c/em\u003e (Bais et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the regulatory mechanisms of biofilm formation are complex. Previous studies have shown that the protein TasA and an exopolysaccharide (EPS) are the main components of biofilms. The protein TasA forms amyloid fibers that serve as the basic framework of the biofilm, while the EPS fills this framework (Ostrowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Pintoet al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The \u003cem\u003eeps\u003c/em\u003e operon, which is responsible for EPS biosynthesis, plays a crucial role in the regulatory mechanisms of biofilms in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e (Guttenplan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Defects in the protein EpsB and the PtkA gene lead to complete loss of biofilm formation in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e (Marvasi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Gerwig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The \u003cem\u003etapA-sipW-tasA\u003c/em\u003e operon is directly involved in biofilm synthesis and formation (Romero et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Vlamakis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The DNA-binding protein SinR acts as the master regulator of biofilm formation, suppressing the expression of both operons (Stowe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Milton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, the protein RemA activates the expression of these operons (Prabhawathi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e;Bremer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The \u003cem\u003eabrB\u003c/em\u003e gene also functions as a negative regulator of biofilm formation, and the AbrB-regulated genes \u003cem\u003esipW\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eyoaW\u003c/em\u003e are essential for normal biofilm formation (Weng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, we present findings on a novel biofilm regulatory gene, \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e. We observed that the mutant with a defective \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene exhibited poor biofilm formation compared to the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. Previously, we successfully constructed a random mutant library of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 using the TnYLB-1 transposon (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Through biofilm phenotype screening, we identified a MutL mutant carrying the TnYLB-1 transposon that displayed significant defects in biofilm formation. We further disrupted the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 through homologous recombination, which resulted in a severe loss of biofilm. The biofilm network of the MutL mutant was less than one-tenth of that observed in the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. However, when observing colonization of the MutL mutant and the wild type \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 on rice stems, we noted a significant reduction in the number of bacteria in the MutL mutant. These results indicate that the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene plays a crucial role in the biofilm formation of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. The poor biofilm formation in the MutL mutant likely resulted in a significant reduction in its ability to colonize rice stems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrains and culture conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strains and plasmids utilized in this study are outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e(Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and the MutL mutant were cultured in Luria-Bertani (LB) broth medium (Kesel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), which consisted of 10 g/L tryptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, and 10 g/L NaCl. The cultures were incubated at 37℃ with shaking at 200 rpm. Escherichia coli DH5α was cultured in LB broth medium and used for vector preparation to disrupt the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene in the wild type \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. \u003cem\u003eRhizoctonia solani\u003c/em\u003e was cultured at 28℃ on potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium containing 200 g/L potato infusion, 20 g/L glucose, and 20 g/L agar at pH 7.0.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBacterial strains and plasmids used in this study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrain/plasmid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource or reference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWild type strain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCGMCC NO.29889\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔmutL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔmutL::Spec\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e, YT1 derivative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔYT1-gfp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔYT1-gfp::Cm\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e, YT1 tagged with green fluorescent protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔmutL-gfp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔmutL:: Spec\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e, ΔmutL tagged with green fluorescent protein\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlasmids\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epUC19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCloning vector, Ap\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTakaRa U07650\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epDG1728\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCloning vector, Amp\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e Spec\u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBGSC No. ECE114\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epUCSpec\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epUC19 carrying spectinomycin cassette from pDG1728\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epUCSpec-MutL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epUCSpec carrying 741 bp fragment \u003cem\u003eMutL\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epRp22-gfp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmp\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: ampicillin resistance, \u003cem\u003eSpec\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e: spectinomycin resistance, \u003cem\u003eCGMCC\u003c/em\u003e: China General Microbiological Culture Collection Centre, Beijing, China\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor biofilm formation assays, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and the MutL mutant were grown in MSgg medium (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) consisting of 5 mM potassium phosphate (pH 7), 100 mM Mops (pH 7), 2 mM MgCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 700 \u0026micro;M CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 50 \u0026micro;M MnCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 50 \u0026micro;M FeCl\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, 1 \u0026micro;M ZnCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 2 \u0026micro;M thiamine, 0.5% glycerol, 0.5% glutamate, 50 \u0026micro;g/mL tryptophan, and 50 \u0026micro;g/mL phenylalanine. Antibiotics were added when necessary at the following concentrations: 100 \u0026micro;g/mL ampicillin, 100 \u0026micro;g/mL spectinomycin, 20 \u0026micro;g/mL neomycin, and 5 \u0026micro;g/mL chloramphenicol (Kantiwal and Pandey, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eConstruction of the WT\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eYT1 mutant libraries and the\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003emutL\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003egene obtained\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted and completed previously in our laboratory, and the research methods have been published in Scientia Agricultura Sinica (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). We constructed a random mutant library of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 using the plasmid pMarA carrying the transposon TnYLB-1, which demonstrated good randomness in the insertion of chromosomal loci. Several single colonies from this mutant library were inoculated into 4 mL of LB medium with spectinomycin for the mutants and incubated at 37℃ with shaking for 12 h. A control strain of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 single colony was also cultured without spectinomycin. Next, 200 \u0026micro;L of each culture was inoculated into 4 mL of MSgg medium and incubated statically at 37℃ for 24 h (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). By visually inspecting the biofilm formation, we were able to observe any significant changes in the mutants compared to the WT strain \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. Each sample was repeated three times to ensure accuracy. After screening thousands of mutants, we identified the MutL mutant as having significant deficiencies, and we confirmed that it had only one insertion site through Southern Blot analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eConstruction of the ΔmutL mutant and tagging strains with GFP.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo obtain a spectinomycin resistance gene and its promoter, we used the primers SpecF (5'-TTT\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eGGATCC\u003c/span\u003eCTGCAGCCCTGGCGAATG-3') and SpecR (5'-TTT\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eGAATTC\u003c/span\u003eAGATCCCCCTATGCAAGG-3') (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) (BamHI and EcoRI restriction sites are underlined) from plasmid pDG1728. The complete spectinomycin cassette, digested with the BamHI and EcoRI restriction enzymes, was cloned into the plasmid pUC19, resulting in the construction of pUCSpec. We then obtained a PCR product of \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e (741 bp) from the genomic DNA of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 using the primers MutLF (5'-TTT\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eAAGCTT\u003c/span\u003eATTTACGGGACGGCGGTTGC-3') and MutLR (5'-TTT\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eGGATCC\u003c/span\u003eGCTGGGCGCTCGGAATAAGC-3') (HindIII and BamHI restriction sites are underlined). The plasmid pUCSpec-MutL was created by inserting this digestion product into pUCSpec. The ΔmutL mutant was generated by transforming the pUCSpec-MutL plasmid into \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 through the process of genetic transformation. Additionally, we successfully constructed the positive emission green fluorescent protein (GFP) strains ΔYT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp by transforming the plasmid pRp22-gfp into the WT B. subtilis YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAntifungal activity of WT\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eYT1 and ΔmutL mutant against\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eR. solani\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mycelial plugs of \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e, measuring 7 mm in diameter, were cultivated in PDA medium for three days and then centered on LB plates. Two microliters of the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e BsYT1 WT strain and the ser mutant culture were carefully placed onto a 6 mm circular filter paper disk, uniformly distributed around the mycelial plugs. The plates were subsequently sealed with parafilm and incubated at 28℃. The antib zone of inhibition was determined after 24 to 72 h of incubation (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This experiment was conducted three times to ensure reproducibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eColonization detection in rice plants using confocal microscopy and assessment of biocontrol efficacy against rice sheath blight\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e bacterial cakes, with a diameter of 6 mm, were cultured for 3 days in solid PDA medium. These cakes were then inoculated into 100 mL of liquid PDA medium with 200 matchsticks without Commelina. The cakes were incubated in a 500 mL flask without shaking at 28℃ for one week. Thirty seeds of a rice cultivar were soaked in water for 24 h and then sown in a nursery containing sterile organic soil. Five days before rice heading, 10 matchsticks of \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e were inoculated into 2\u0026ndash;3 cm rice leaves of each rice plant. Approximately 20 mL of broth, cultured for 48 h, from the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp mutant strains were evenly sprayed onto the rice plants marked by the matchsticks. From 0 to 12 days after the initial inoculation, the rice leaves marked by the matchsticks were observed and captured using a confocal microscope equipped with a 40x objective lens (Carl Zeiss LSM710, Germany). The lesion area length of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1-gfp and ΔmutL-gfp mutant strains was measured as the primary criterion for assessing the biocontrol effects against rice sheath blight.Each treatment group consisted of eight individual pots (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGenomic transcript levels analyzed between WT\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eYT1 and the ΔmutL mutant using the Illumina HiSeqTM2500 platform.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal biofilm RNA from both the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and the ΔmutL mutant, cultured in a static MSgg medium (4 mL in 12-well microtiter plates) at 37℃ for 24 h, was extracted using an RNAprep pure Cell/Bacteria Kit. The extracted RNA was qualified using the 2100 Bioanalyzer test. Subsequently, 10 \u0026micro;g of total RNA was treated with 5U DNaseI (Takara, Japan) for 30 minutes at 37℃, followed by purification using an RNeasy MinElute Cleanup Kit (Qiagen, Germany) and elution with 15 \u0026micro;L of RNase-free water. Ribo-Zero\u0026trade;Magnetic Kit (Gram-negative or Gram-positive bacteria; Epicentre, USA) was utilized to eliminate all rRNA by conducting a reaction at 68℃ for 10 minutes and room temperature for 5 minutes. Next, a cDNA library was constructed using a NEB Next \u0026reg; Ultra TM Directional RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (NEB, USA), followed by cluster generation and sequencing on an Illumina HiseqTM2500 platform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinker sequences containing low-quality clean reads were removed using fastx_clipper. Unwanted, low-quality reads (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 bases) from 3\u0026rsquo;to 5\u0026rsquo;end were eliminated using a FASTQ Quality filter (FASTX-Toolkit, v0.0.13). Clean reads less than 50 bp were excluded. Quality assessment of the sequencing data was performed with Fastqc software (v0.10.0). Differential gene expression analysis was carried out by mapping clean reads (Bowtie 2, v2.1.0) and utilizing the MA-plot-based method with the random sampling model. Gene expression levels in both the WT YT1 and ΔmutL mutant strains were determined. Genes showing significant differential expression with fold change\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;2, FDR(q value)\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, and at least one sample with an RPKM\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 were selected for further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe acquisition of the\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003emutL\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003egene\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough biofilm phenotype testing and bioinformatic analysis of a random insertion mutant library of WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1, the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene, which is associated with decreased biofilm phenotype, was identified. By employing homologous recombination, a single-gene knockout mutant with a MutL deficiency was successfully generated and characterized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis MutL mutant showed a significant reduction in biofilm formation, and its structure was barely visible, with only subtle projections distinguishing it from the well-defined three-dimensional architecture and intricate patterns of WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 (Fig. 1). Analysis of the biofilm network width (NW) for the MutL mutant revealed that its density was merely one-tenth that of the wild type. In terms of colony morphology, the MutL mutant lacked a continuous edge and clear projections, presenting an incomplete and planar structure in contrast to the robust three-dimensional growth of WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). However, the mutant strain can grow and reproduce normally, without significant differences compared to the WT YT1 strain (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). These findings indicate that the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene plays a significant role in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1\u0026apos;s biofilm development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eNo significant difference in the antibacterial activity\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn Petri dishes effectively inoculated with \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e, both the WT YT1 and the mutant \u0026Delta;mutL were able to consistently form normal and relatively fixed antibacterial zones after 24\u0026ndash;72 h of confrontation cultivation. The fungal mycelium of the pathogen was unable to cross this antibacterial zone and continue its expansion, exhibiting an upward growth pattern of the mycelium. No significant difference in the size of the antibacterial zones was observed between the two strains (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSignificant decrease in colonization ability of the mutant \u0026Delta;mutL\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study utilized GFP labeling to observe the colonization patterns of the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant and WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 on rice stems infected with \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e over a period of 12 days. Both the number of bacteria and the apparent green fluorescence increased in both strains in the initial 8 days, with the maximum number of bacteria observed on the eighth day (Fig. 4). However, significant clustering was observed only in the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 as the amount of bacteria increased. Although the maximum number of bacteria was similar between the two strains on the eighth day, the bacterial quantity was noticeably higher in the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. The amount of bacteria decreased from day nine to day twelve, but clustering continued in the WT B. subtilis YT1, while the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant did not exhibit any clustering until the twelfth day, indicating a substantial reduction in its colonization ability(Fig. 4). These results suggest that the colonization of the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant was significantly reduced compared to the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1, with no cluster movement observed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSignificant reduction in the biocontrol efficacy of the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant against rice sheath blight\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBetween the first and twelfth day of observation, the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 strain exhibited peak biocontrol efficacy of 63.2% on the fourth day, after which it progressively decreased to 42.9% by the twelfth day (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). This decline may be attributed to the initial onset of \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e spread on the fourth day. In contrast, the mutL mutant strain demonstrated a biocontrol efficiency of 15.8%, significantly inferior to that of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1. As the disease progressed rapidly, the biocontrol efficacies of both the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and the mutL mutant substantially declined. Nonetheless, at any given time point, the biocontrol effects of the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 were consistently superior to those of the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant. Particularly on the twelfth day, the biocontrol efficiency of the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant was only about 24.9% of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). These findings indicate that the absence of regulation by the \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e gene led to a significant decrease in the biocontrol efficacy of the MutL mutant over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBiocontrol of rice sheath blight in pot cultures of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1 and the \u0026Delta;mutL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u0026nbsp;d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u0026nbsp;d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u0026nbsp;d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesion size (cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eefficiency (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesion size (cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eefficiency (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesion size (cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eefficiency (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYT1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4(0.1)\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.2\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.8(0.3)\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.6\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.5(0.7)\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.9\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Delta;mutL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2(0.2)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.7(0.4)\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.3\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.8(0.9)\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.7\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCK\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.8(0.2)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8(0.4)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.9(0.9)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*Data are the average of eight pots\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;the standard deviation of three independent experiments with eight pots.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferential genes expression in\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eYT1 and the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe identification of differentially expressed genes was achieved through the analysis of gene transcription (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This table lists the key regulatory genes that have been reported in recent years to directly and significantly control the formation of biofilms. In this study, compared to the control YT1, some reported and confirmed signaling pathway regulatory factors in the mutant \u0026Delta;mutL strain showed significant abnormal expression. For example, there was a notable decrease in the expression of genes \u003cem\u003esenN\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ecapB\u003c/em\u003e, and the \u003cem\u003eappA\u003c/em\u003e family, as well as abnormal increases in the expression of genes \u003cem\u003espo0A\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esinR\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eabrB\u003c/em\u003e. The transcriptional expression levels of tasA, a protein involved in biofilm matrix formation, and the eps family proteins, which are also components of the biofilm skeleton, were also found to be decreased, although not significantly.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of differentially expressed genes in wild type B. subtilis YT1 and the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGene\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelative expression level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFunction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Delta;mutL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esenN\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSenN transcriptional regulator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ecapB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gamma;-PGA synthesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eappA -D\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeriplasmic oligopeptide-binding protein\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003enprE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExtracellular neutral metalloprotease\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eepsA-B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstrate for biofilm formation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003etasA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstrate for biofilm formation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esipW-yqxM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eType I signal peptidase protein for biofilm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ekinA-D\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo-component sensor histidine kinase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003espo0A\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResponse regulator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edegQ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePleiotropic regulator\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003esinR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster regulator of biofilm formation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eabrB\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTranscriptional regulator for transition state\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, as a model organism strain, is extensively studied. Due to varying environmental conditions, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eexists in multiple forms in nature, including free-living, motile, and dormant cell (Steinberg and Kolodkin-Gal, 2018; Kantiwal and Pandey, 2023). As an outstanding biocontrol agent, \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eis commonly employed to manage fungal diseases in crops such as rice and wheat. Diseases like wheat take-all, wheat stripe rust, and wheat powdery mildew can be efficiently inhibited by \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eE1R-J (Liu et al. 2009; Li et al. 2013; Gao et al. 2015). Additionally, rice sheath blight, a prevalent fungal disease in rice crops that causes over 15% yield loss, can be effectively controlled by \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eMBI 600 (Kumar et al. 2012, 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBiofilms are highly organized communities of microorganisms composed of amyloid fibers (TasA) and exopolysaccharides (EPS), which adhere to the surfaces of cells (Branda et al. 2006; Romero D et al. 2010; L\u0026oacute;pez et al. 2010). As an effective adaptation strategy for survival in diverse environments, biofilms are crucial for the prevention and treatment of diseases (Stewart and Franklin, 2008; L\u0026oacute;pez et al. 2010; Vlamakis et al. 2013). In \u003cem\u003eBacillus amyloliquefac\u003c/em\u003e SQR9, the formation of biofilms can significantly enhance the colonization capacity and biocontrol efficacy against cucumber and watermelon wilt diseases (Weng et al. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMutL, as a highly conserved protein, is widely present in bacterial genomes and its main reported function is an important part of DNA mismatch repair (MMR)(Guarn\u0026eacute;, 2012). MMR is a conservative pathway that protects genome integrity by correcting replication errors to achieve repair. This process requires the coordinated action of two proteins (MutS and MutL) to initiate the mismatch repair response, and the basic steps include recognizing mismatches, distinguishing newly synthesized strands from parental strands, removing and re-synthesizing erroneous strands(Liu, et al. 2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u003c/em\u003e YT1, being an effective biocontrol bacteria, has been utilized in rice fields for a long time, and has shown significant effectiveness between 63.9% to 84.6% against rice sheath blight and rice false smut (unpublished data). The random mutant library of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eYT1 was effectively created using TnYLB-1 transposon in prior studies (Zhou et al. 2013). The \u0026Delta;mutL mutant, identified through transposon mutagenesis and confirmed via Southern Blot, exhibited significant deficiencies in biofilm formation. Following this, we successfully generated a single knockout mutant, \u0026Delta;mutL, through homologous recombination in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eYT1. However, the biofilm formed by this mutant was minimal and lacked distinct structures. Biofilm dry weight analysis revealed that the \u0026Delta;mutL mutant only weighed one-tenth of the WT \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eYT1. The agar plate confrontation test showed that the antibacterial activity was not significantly affected, but the colonization capacity exhibited a significant decrease, with the loss of the community aggregation effect. This ultimately led to a significant decrease in the control effectiveness against rice sheath blight disease, indicating that \u003cem\u003emutL\u003c/em\u003e is a key node gene that directly affects biofilm formation as a single factor. Transcriptome data has shown that these different genes reported are all expressed to varying degrees, with one important gene,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;capB\u003c/em\u003e, being significantly down-regulated. The main mechanism of action of \u003cem\u003ecapB\u003c/em\u003e is to regulate the assembly and utilization of glutamate in the process of biofilm formation. The resulting polyglutamic acid \u0026gamma;-PGA is an important filler in the structure of biofilms and is indispensable. In this study, the transcription of this gene was significantly down-regulated. Therefore, our research may achieve global regulation of biofilm formation through the glutamate-\u0026gamma;-PGA signaling pathway.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewe confirmed the significant positive regulatory role of the MutL protein in the biofilm formation process of strain YT1 ultimately. After multiple confirmations, the experimental results were stable and reliable, which fully demonstrates that the MutL protein plays a key role in the biofilm formation process and even the growth and development process of \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e species. This provides a new research area for the study of biofilm mechanisms. Furthermore, subsequent work in this study will aim to reveal the detailed mechanism of its action, contributing to the study of biofilm regulatory pathways and laying a solid theoretical foundation for the improvement of microbial pesticides by \u003cem\u003eBacillus\u003c/em\u003e species.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll authors report no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthorship contribution statement：1. Huafei and Baoyou，Conceived and designed the experiments,Performed the experiments, Implemented methods, Analyzed the data, Wrote the paper.2. Baoyan, Min and Haining, Performed the experiments, Implemented methods.3. Hongtao, Shaoli and Binghui, Analyzed the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Project of Shandong Natural Science Foundation (ZR2020KC026); the Shandong Province Fruit Industry Technology System (SDAIT-06-11); the Shandong Province Key R\u0026amp;D Program (2021CXGC010602, 2021CXGC010802); the Monitoring and Control Project of Crop Diseases, Pests and Rodents Epidemic in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (152307026); the Science and Technology Planning Project of Yantai (2021NYNC015, 2022XCZX094); the Shandong Province Science and Technology Small and Medium Enterprises Innovation Ability Enhancement Project (2023TSGC0829, 2023TSGC0894).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData Availability Statements：The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBais, H.P., Fall, R. and Vivanco, J.M. (2004) Biocontrol of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e against infection of Arabidopsis roots by \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas syringae\u003c/em\u003e is facilitated by biofilm formation and surfactin production. \u003cem\u003ePlant Physiol\u003c/em\u003e 134, 307-319.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBranda, S.S., Chu, F., Kearns, D.B., Losick, R. and Kolter, R., (2006). A major protein component of the \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e biofilm matrix.\u003cem\u003e Molecular microbiology, 59\u003c/em\u003e(4), pp.1229-1238.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBremer, E., Hoffmann, T., Dempwolff, F., Bedrunka, P. and Bange, G., (2022）. The many faces of the unusual biofilm activator RemA. \u003cem\u003eBioEssays, 44\u003c/em\u003e(5), p.2200009.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGao, X., Gong, Y., Huo, Y., Han, Q., Kang, Z. and Huang, L. (2015) Endophytic \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e strain E1R-J is a promising biocontrol agent for wheat powdery mildew. \u003cem\u003eBioMed Res Int\u003c/em\u003e 2015, 462645.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerwig, J., Kiley, T. B., Gunka, K., Stanley-Wall, N., and St\u0026uuml;lke, J. (2014). The protein tyrosine kinases EpsB and PtkA differentially affect biofilm formation in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eMicrobiology\u003c/em\u003e, 160, 682-691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoswami, D., Thakker, J.N. and Dhandhukia, P.C., 2016. Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): a review. Cogent Food \u0026amp; \u003cem\u003eAgriculture, 2\u003c/em\u003e(1), p.1127500.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuarn\u0026eacute;, A., (2012). The functions of MutL in mismatch repair: the power of multitasking. P\u003cem\u003erogress in molecular biology and translational science\u003c/em\u003e, 110, pp.41-70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuttenplan, S.B., Blair, K.M. and Kearns, D.B. (2010) The EpsE flagellar clutch is bifunctional and synergizes with EPS biosynthesis to promote \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e biofilm formation. \u003cem\u003ePLOS Genet\u003c/em\u003e 6, e1001243.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaggag, W.M. and Timmusk, S. (2008) Colonization of peanut roots by biofilm-forming \u003cem\u003ePaeniBacillus polymyxa\u003c/em\u003e initiates biocontrol against crown rot disease. \u003cem\u003eJ Appl Microbiol\u003c/em\u003e 104, 961-969.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKantiwal, U. and Pandey, J., (2023). Efficient Inhibition of Bacterial Biofilm Through Interference of Protein\u0026ndash;Protein Interaction of Master Regulator Proteins: a Proof of Concept Study with SinR-SinI Complex of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eApplied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 195\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp.1947-1967.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKesel, S., von Bronk, B., Garc\u0026iacute;a, C.F., G\u0026ouml;tz, A., Lieleg, O. and Opitz, M., (2017). Matrix composition determines the dimensions of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e NCIB 3610 biofilm colonies grown on LB agar. \u003cem\u003eRSC advances, 7\u003c/em\u003e(51), pp.31886-31898.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, K., K.V., Yellareddygari, S.K., Reddy, M.S., Kloepper, J.W., Lawrence, K.S., Miller, M.E. and Groth, D.E. (2013) Ultrastructural studies on the interaction between \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e MBI 600 (\u003cem\u003eIntegral\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg;) and the rice sheath blight pathogen, \u003cem\u003eRhizoctonia solani\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eAfr J Microbiol Res \u003c/em\u003e7, 2078-2086.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, V.K.K., Yellareddygari, S.K., Reddy, M.S., Kloepper, J.W., Lawrence, K.S., Zhou, X.G., Sudini, H., Groth, D.E., Krishnam Raju, S. and Miller, M.E. (2012) Efficacy of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e MBI 600 against sheath blight caused by \u003cem\u003erhizoctonia solani\u003c/em\u003e and on growth and yield of Rice. \u003cem\u003eRice Sci\u003c/em\u003e 19, 55-63.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, H., Zhao, J., Feng, H., Huang, L. and Kang, Z. (2013) Biological control of wheat stripe rust by an endophytic \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e strain E1R-j in greenhouse and field trials. \u003cem\u003eCrop Protect\u003c/em\u003e 43, 201-206.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, B., Qiao, H., Huang, L., Buchenauer, H., Han, Q., Kang, Z. and Gong, Y. (2009) Biological control of take-all in wheat by endophytic \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e E1R-j and potential mode of action. \u003cem\u003eBiol Contr\u003c/em\u003e 49, 277-285.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, J., Hanne, J., Britton, B.M., Bennett, J., Kim, D., Lee, J.B. and Fishel, R., (2016). Cascading MutS and MutL sliding clamps control DNA diffusion to activate mismatch repair. \u003cem\u003eNature, 539\u003c/em\u003e(7630), pp.583-587.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, S., Huang, J., Zhang, C., Wang, L., Fan, C. and Zhong, C., (2022). Probing the growth and mechanical properties of\u003cem\u003e Bacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e biofilms through genetic mutation strategies. \u003cem\u003eSynthetic and Systems Biotechnology, 7\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp.965-971.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLopez, D., Vlamakis, H. and Kolter, R. (2010) Biofilms. \u003cem\u003eCold Spring Harb Perspect Biol\u003c/em\u003e 2, a000398.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarvasi, M., Visscher, P. T., and Martinez, L. C. (2010). Exopolymeric substances (EPS) from \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e: polymers and genes encoding their synthesis. \u003cem\u003eFEMS microbiology letters\u003c/em\u003e, 313, 1-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilton, M.E., Draughn, G.L., Bobay, B.G., Stowe, S.D., Olson, A.L., Feldmann, E.A., Thompson, R.J., Myers, K.H., Santoro, M.T., Kearns, D.B. and Cavanagh, J., (2020). The solution structures and interaction of SinR and SinI: elucidating the mechanism of action of the master regulator switch for biofilm formation in \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJournal of molecular biology, 432\u003c/em\u003e(2), pp.343-357.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrowski, A., Mehert, A., Prescott, A., Kiley, T. B., and Stanley-Wall, N. R. (2011). YuaB functions synergistically with the exopolysaccharide and TasA amyloid fibers to allow biofilm formation by \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJournal of bacteriology\u003c/em\u003e, 193, 4821-4831.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinto, R.M., Soares, F.A., Reis, S., Nunes, C. and Van Dijck, P., (2020). Innovative strategies toward the disassembly of the EPS matrix in bacterial biofilms. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Microbiology, \u003c/em\u003e11, p.535344.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrabhawathi, V., Thirunavukarasu, K., and Doble, M. (2014). A study on the long term effect of biofilm produced by biosurfactant producing microbe on medical implant. \u003cem\u003eMaterials Science and Engineering: C\u003c/em\u003e, 40, 212-218.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomero, D., Vlamakis, H., Losick, R., and Kolter, R. (2011). An accessory protein required for anchoring and assembly of amyloid fibres in \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003ebiofilms. \u003cem\u003eMolecular microbiology\u003c/em\u003e, 80, 1155-1168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteinberg, N. and Kolodkin-Gal, I., (2018). Collective vortex-like movement of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis \u003c/em\u003efacilitates the generation of floating biofilms. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e, 9, p.320610.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStewart, P.S. and Franklin, M.J. (2008) Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. \u003cem\u003eNat Rev Microbiol\u003c/em\u003e 6, 199-210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStowe, S.D., Olson, A.L., Losick, R. and Cavanagh, J. (2014) Chemical shift assignments and secondary structure prediction of the master biofilm regulator, SinR, from \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eBiomol NMR Assign\u003c/em\u003e 8, 155-158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVlamakis, H., Chai, Y., Beauregard, P., Losick, R. and Kolter, R. (2013) Sticking together: building a biofilm the \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e way. \u003cem\u003eNat Rev Microbiol\u003c/em\u003e 11, 157-168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeng, J., Wang, Y., Li, J., Shen, Q. and Zhang, R. (2013) Enhanced root colonization and biocontrol activity of \u003cem\u003eBacillus amyloliquefaciens\u003c/em\u003e SQR9 by \u003cem\u003eabrB\u003c/em\u003e gene disruption. \u003cem\u003eAppl Microbiol Biotechnol\u003c/em\u003e 97, 8823-8830.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, H., Luo, C., Wang, X., Zhang, R., Chen, Z. and Y. (2013) Construction of \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e YT1 mutant libraries by transposon tagging and cloning the genes to the organism\u0026rsquo;s anti-bacterial activities. \u003cem\u003eSci Agric Sin\u003c/em\u003e 46, 2232-2239. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, H., Luo, C., Fang, X., Xiang, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, R. and Chen, Z. (2016) Loss of GltB inhibits biofilm formation and biocontrol efficiency of \u003cem\u003eBacillus subtilis\u003c/em\u003e Bs916 by altering the production of \u0026gamma;-polyglutamate and three lipopeptides. \u003cem\u003ePLoS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(5), p.e0156247.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\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":"B. subtilis , biofilm formation, colonization, biological control ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAs a crucial and integral adaptation for thriving in diverse habitats, whether for survival or disease prevention and control, biofilm plays a vital role for most biocontrol bacteria, such as \u003cem\u003eB. subtilis \u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eBacillus amyloliquefaciens\u003c/em\u003e, and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). However, the process of biofilm formation is intricate, and its regulatory mechanism remains unclear. In this study, we discovered that the regulatory protein MutL significantly influenced biofilm formation and exhibited a diminished colonization effectiveness on rice leaves. The mutant, lacking protein MutL expression, was unable to form biofilm with normal morphology and yielded only a quarter of the biofilm weight observed in the wild type \u003cem\u003eB.subtilis \u003c/em\u003eYT1. In a petri dish confrontation assay examining the inhibitory effects on \u003cem\u003eRhizoctonia solani\u003c/em\u003e, no significant differences were observed between the mutant strain and the wild type YT1. Furthermore, through GFP fluorescent labeling technology, we conducted additional colonization tests, which demonstrated that the mutant failed to colonize rice stems effectively in the presence of \u003cem\u003eR. solani\u003c/em\u003e. We hypothesize that the negative impact on biofilm formation resulted in inadequate colonization of rice stems, this combination accounts for the poor biocontrol efficacy against rice sheath blight, but it does not affect the normal growth of the strain or other biological phenotypes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"MutL significantly regulates the formation of biofilms in B. subtilis YT1","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-04-16 18:55:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4156921/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":"bdba7fb3-61c5-4479-807f-db08f4f25dd8","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 16th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":30605374,"name":"Biological sciences/Cell biology"},{"id":30605375,"name":"Biological sciences/Microbiology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-20T09:51:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-04-16 18:55:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4156921","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4156921","identity":"rs-4156921","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}