Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Microbes and Sustainable Living: Focus on Electric and Magnetic Fields

Submitted:

21 May 2024

Posted:

21 May 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Among earth’s microbial populations are the genes, functional capacities, generational memory and sentient cognition that enable microorganisms to adapt and thrive in the full range of ecological conditions found on planet earth. In prior sequential publications, we considered fundamental properties (e.g., use of and responses to sound, light, vibrations) and features of microorganisms that cause them to be critical co-partners of human and other holobionts as well as the potential benefits for humanity that can be gained by fully applying quantum-related and novel capacities of microbial life. In this narrative review we: 1) discuss key concepts concerning a microbially-enhanced and sustainable future, and 2) focus on electric- and magnetic- based features of microorganisms that make them pivotal for myriad benefits ranging from beyond pharma-based health and wellness to free- and/or renewable energy and restorative agriculture to improved human networking. While the benefits are many, the risks posed by hazardous electric or magnetic field exposures to both holobionts and microbial communities are significant. This review concludes that microbes and their remarkable capacities offer both humanity and the planet a much brighter future if we reverse the demonization of microbes and wanton microbiome degradation that has predominated much of the past century.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Life on earth is dominated by microorganisms existing both as communities living in even the harshest conditions and as co-partners for more complex lifeforms (holobionts). The relationships of microbes partnering with holobionts have existed for millennia [1], and are essential for the wellbeing of higher eukaryotic organisms including humans [2]. Microbes associated with the human microbiome have many roles, some of which are: 1) They drive key developmental changes during critical windows of human developmental vulnerability [3]. 2) They provide key vitamins and metabolites [4]. 3) They regulate fear and risk of mental health issues [5]. 4) They affect circadian rhythm and sleep [6]. 5) They have the capacity to facilitate longevity [7]. and 6) They have the capacity to reduce the risk of both infectious (via colonization resistance) and chronic diseases [8,9].
The critical role of microbes in holobiont health and survival extends well beyond humans to affect animal, plant and insect life. An example is the significant role of the microbiome of honeybees in their health [10], social group membership [11], behavior [12] and queen bee ovarian metabolism [13]. For humans to have a sustainable future, we must ensure that the symbiotic relationship with microbes continues and thrives. For healthy human and other holobionts, we need health and protection for microbial populations [14].
The fundamental yet novel properties exhibited by microbes, such as the capacity to capture, transfer, communicate with and generate electricity [15,16] as well as magnetism [17] makes them prime candidates for restoring ecological environments as well as improving human, animal, and plant holobiont health [18,19]. However, the same features also make microbes potentially sensitive targets for adverse effects of electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and/or transmissions. When unintended consequences arise from exposure to a physical field among microbial ecological communities or holobiont microbiomes, the outcomes can be devastating. If we are to have a sustainable life here on earth, we will need to be effective stewards of earth’s microbial life within and beyond holobionts.
In a series of recent articles, we reviewed the effects of various overt and subtle physical fields [20] on microbes including the key factors of sound, light, and vibrations [21]. In this present narrative review, we extend this consideration to examine two of the most fundamental features of microbes that are critical for the functioning of society, earth’s ecology, and human holobiont wellness: the electrical and magnetic properties of microbes and their responses to changes in electric and magnetic fields. In this paper, we explore 1) fundamental concepts important for microbial communications and a microbially-enhanced, sustainable future, 2) the electric and magnetic nature of microorganisms and 3) the potentially beneficial and detrimental effects of electric and magnetic fields on microorganisms.
While we stress the wide range of electric and magnetic field applications that can benefit the environment and society, we also caution that the misapplication of these magnetic fields can be devastating. Beyond electric and magnetic fields, the topic of EMFs is massive in scope covering the entirety of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. We introduce this subject but do not attempt to comprehensively review EMF within the present narrative review.

2. Microbial-Driven Capacities and a More Sustainable Future

We begin this review with a glimpse of key microbe-driven concepts and interactions that drive a microbially-enhanced, sustainable future. If part of human holobiont history on Earth was one where separation from Earth’s most predominant lifeforms, microorganisms, was encouraged [22,23] and microbes could be seen as evil [24], then the key concepts shown in Table 1 [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] reverse this pattern and envision a future where microbial life is an integral part of future, sustainable living. This Table sets a broader microbial landscape for the subsequent consideration of electric, magnetic effects.
The examples shown in Table 1 emphasize the importance of adopting a core view of humans not as a single species, but rather as a composite, human holobiont form. The key concepts of Table 1 illustrate the importance of discarding the dogma where microbes are seen predominately as germ theory-based threats to our existence. It is important to replace germ theory misapplication with a holobiont-centric view where microbiomes are embraced as the facilitators of maximized human holobiont consciousness, functional capacities, improved healthcare and wellness, sustainable living, and being better prepared to fully engage the biocivilizations described by Slijepcevic [49]. Part of this process is to retire the idea that we are on a mission to destroy life via the Antibiocene [28].
Increased sustainability is gained when the boundary between microbes associated with the human holobiont and other holobionts as well as environmental communities is softened and interconnectivity is fully embraced. For example, benefits can be found within precision medicine where bacterial motors offer new avenues in treatments and healthcare [50]. Similarly, in the environment, microbes represent ready solutions for both the restoration of damaged, polluted ecosystems [34] and sustainable food production systems [48].
Finally, aspects such as the social brain, microbial interactions aiding peace, and enlarged views of the “human image” and spirituality can offer us new pathways to a more holistic way of living. One of the intriguing aspects of the social brain and the question of where the human mind begins and ends concerns the role of the Internet of Microbes. Microbial networks are within but not bounded by the human body. While we go within to tap the mind, we are unlikely to remain solely within as we process information. Relatively recent findings that the bioelectric and biomagnetic state of microbes is significant in communication across the Internet of Microbes and that bacteria, themselves, respond to neurotransmitters with their own bacteria signaling is shifting our understanding of human-microbial connectivity [52].
From the foundation provided in Table 1, the remainder of this review examines the electric and magnetic nature of microbes, their holobionts and importantly, the sensitive responses of microbes to electric and magnetic fields. Holobiont integrity, health wellness and safety are all important considerations when it comes to the exposure to and various applications of these fields.

3. Bioelectrical and Biomagnetic Processes in Human Cellular Life

The human body itself generates electricity and research has suggested that human electricity/energy can be harvested when useful [53]. Depending upon frequency, strength, duration, and the nature of the externally applied fields (e.g., static. vs. pulsed), these factors can lead to beneficial or detrimental effects on holobionts and their microbial partners [54,55]. These factors have been used to increase the efficiency of medical and industrial applications such as bacterial fuel cells [56], bacteria-driven bioremediation [57] and wound healing [58].

4. Early Examples of Electrical and Magnetic Applications in Human Medicine

According to Luderitz [59] and Ma et al. [60], ideas around electrotherapy (antiarrhythmic) date back at least to the 280 BCE China where a series of ten texts titled “The Pulse Classic” and authored by Wang Shuhe discuss the significance of the pulse forming what would later become core to traditional Chinese medicine [60]. Modern applications of electrotherapy to treat arrhythmia can be found in the 1950s with major developments since that time [reviewed in 59]. As described by Markov [61] magnetic therapeutic centers began to emerge in Europe during the 1960s, while clinical applications in the U.S. can be found in the mid-1970s. One of the major applications of magnetic field therapy pertains to the reduction of inflammation. This specific medical application can be traced back to the 1980s [62,63]. Rumbaut and Mirkovic [64] also discuss earlier historic references concerning the use of magnetism to reduce edema.

6. Electric Microbes and Electrical Field Effects

While this narrative review focuses on electrical field effects on microorganisms, it is important to recognize that many microorganisms are electrically active in nature and large groups of microorganisms have the capacity to produce electrical current [65]. They have the capacity to transfer electrons to anodes within various electrochemical systems and have been termed “Living Electronics” by Thomasy [66]. Observations of bacteria as electrical beings date back to at least 1911 via the research of Potter [67]. Additionally, the application of generating electricity through microbial action was reviewed more than sixty years ago [68]. Additional recent research into the prevalence of microorganisms as electrical beings able to carry out the capacity of many prokaryotes to interact with charged electrodes led to a new field of study called Electromicrobiology [69]. As described by Nealson [69], bacteria are inherently electrically-powered organisms in which electron transport within bacteria lead to electrochemical gradients that power many processes via what has been termed proton motive force (an electrochemical gradient of protons across a membrane). This “force” can drive energy requiring processes and allows the bacterial cell to act much like a micro-battery.
Another group of bacteria go beyond comparatively weak electrical generation constituting a category known as Extracellular Electron Transport (EET) microorgansims. These have the capability to interact with a variety of insoluble electron acceptors and donors. EET microorganisms have opened a vast array of electrically-based technical applications and contributed to new ideas surrounding sustainability (e.g., biobatteries, pollution remediation, electrosynthesis and water reclamation) [69,70].
A final significant aspect of the inherently electrical nature of bacteria is the fact that EET organisms like Geobacter and Shewanella have created a natural global electrical grid via the production of nanowires [71,72]. Metabolic cross-feeding among microbial species is a process known as syntrophy or mutualistic symbiosis [73]. But microbes like EETs can go through a form of electrical syntrophy as recently reviewed by Rotaru et el. [74]. These researchers discuss the direct interspecies electron transfers between alcohol-utilizing Geobacter metallireducens and Methanosarcinales [74]. Remarkably, Geobacter EETs can even draw upon remnant activity in illuminated dead microalgae to boost their own electrical activity [75]. Hence, even dead microorganisms can contribute to what constitutes microbial electrical grids. As a result, the Internet of Microbes is not just about information exchange across a grid but also involves the flow of electrical current.
As with sound, light and magnetism, electrical fields can have divergent effects on microbial populations depending upon the nature and strength of the field and the specific responding microbial populations. Pulsed electrical fields and a rapidly-acting variation of this called locally enhanced electrical fields are used for microbial inactivation/germicidal outcomes [76,77]. Pulsed electrical fields have also been used to extract desirable compounds from disrupted microorganisms [78].
In contrast to the cell disruptive/germicidal effects of pulsed electric fields, other forms of electric field exposures can aid microbial growth, movement, and/or functional activity. Electric field effects on microorganisms include alteration of microbial populations within holobionts and among environmental microbial populations. Examples of these are illustrated in Table 2 [77,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92].
Electrical technological applications using microbes have shown significant progress in recent years. Examples of these are the use of microbes in renewable fuel cells [93], conversion of waste organic material into sustainable energy [94], microbial environmental remediation [95], enhanced energy and functionality via nanowire technologies [96], and microbial sensing technologies [97].
Electroculture is an applied agricultural use to enhance plant growth via, at least in part, low electric fields producing rhizosphere microbe-plant enhancement. Not surprisingly, the “technology” associated with directed low level electric field into soil existed well before the delineation of soil-plant rhizosphere. Recent studies have demonstrated that electric field applications affect the status of rhizosphere microbe communities [98]. The history of electroculture dates back at least to the 18th century and was revisited/extended during the intervening years [99,100,101]. Nineteenth century scientific reports were presented [102]. By the 20th century, it was sufficiently vested in agricultural history that a publication titled “New Methods in Electro-Culture” appeared in a 1934 issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Arts [103].

7. Microbes and Various Types of Magnetic Fields

Microorganisms and particularly certain kinds of bacteria and archaea have a variety of ways in which they interact with magnetism, both natural and artificial magnetic fields. These interactions can range for the capacity to: 1) acquire magnetism themselves through their own gene expression capability (e.g., MTB) and to use this to their functional advantage, 2) detect existing magnetic fields with great precision and sensitivity, 3) thrive or be killed by exposure to certain types and strengths of natural or artificial magnetic fields. In fact, magnetosomes have been described as a form of prokaryotic organelle that in conjunction with magnetosome-associated proteins control bacterial geomagnetic sensing [104].
These properties of microbes have implications for both earth’s ecosystems as well as for holobionts. For example, the idea that symbiotic magnetic sensing as a collaboration between MTB and host adaptations has gained increasing support [105]. In fact, magnetoreceptive bacteria have been found to be capable of transferring their capacities by producing a collective magnetic field-assisted motility guided by a chemoaerotaxis system in the holobiont [106].
This same sensitivity of microbes to magnetic fields means that magnetic field interactions can alter the compositions and distribution of microbial populations affecting ecosystems and holobiont health. Therefore, different types and strengths of natural and artificial magnetic fields become a significant tool through which microbial populations can be managed for better outcomes. They also become a significant health risk for holobiont humans, plants, and animals when field-induced microbiome damage occurs.
Microbial populations are known to be affected by both natural and artificial magnetic fields [107,108]. This has implications not only for the Internet of Microbes across planetary media ecosystems but also the microbiome of holobionts including those connected to humans. Humans and other holobiont microbiomes contain groups of highly specialized and in some cases extremophile archaea and bacteria. MTB are one example of highly specialized bacteria. These bacteria appear to be important in several functions including magnetic field detection and navigation via the production of magnetosomes containing magnetite crystals [109]. Simon et al. [110] recently found that several different species of MTB present within the human gut microbiome and their presence appears to be related to the presence of magnetite crystals in brain regions connected with navigation and orientation functions. Are the presence of these specialized bacteria in the human gut microbiome mere happenstance? If not, are they contributing to a much-underutilized human holobiont capacity?
Table 3 provides select examples of reviews and research studies focused on the importance of magnetic fields and microbes. Rather than being a comprehensive survey, these examples are presented to illustrate 1) unanticipated effects of magnetic fields on microbial populations producing potential hazards, 2) designed magnetic field alterations to enhance microbial functions, and 3) the potential origins and significance of magnetoreceptive microbes. Examples of the effects of magnetic fields on microbial populations via review articles and research studies are provided in Table 3 [105,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119].

8. Electromagnetic Waves and Microbes

The effects of electromagnetic (EMF) waves (the vibrational interactions of electric and magnetic fields) is a massive, complex subject of its own. While it is beyond the focus of the the current review, it is clearly related to both considerations of electric and maganetic fields and present day exposures. For this reason we: 1) introduce the significance of this topic, 2) indicate the massive range of environmental conditions that it encompasses, and 3) point to the differential sensitivities and responses among microbes to varying forms and strengths of electromagnetic waves. Electromagentic waves include infrared (IR) waves, radio frequency waves, ultraviolet, microwaves (MWs), visible light, X-rays, and gamma rays within the designations of both non-ionizing and ionizing radiation [120,121,122]. Electromagnetic waves have many industrial applications [123,124], and under certain circumstances they can be a source of potential health benefits via alterations in the gut microbiome and microbe-directed metabolism [125]. However, there is also evidence that they can be health hazards spanning cells, microbes, and holobionts [126,127]. For this reason, relevant exposure-outcome information is important. This is a topic that deserves both more attention in the literature and more research particularly when it comes to microbiomes, holobionts, and safety.

9. Perspectives on Sustainble Living and Conclusions

The consideration of sustainable living covers virtually every aspect of life on Earth running the gauntlet of levels from planetary to the biosphere and finally, to individual humans, plants, animals, insects, and microorganisms. At the planetary level, microbes are viewed as Earth’s ancient lifeforms capable of residing in virtually every location and condition on the planet. Importantly, microbes have not only adapted to these various conditions but have also played a critical role in earth’s biogeochemical cycles [128,129,130]. Obviously, this historic interconnection between microbial life and planetary level “health” leads to a conclusion that microbial life needs to be protected and sustained if other life on earth is to persist. It is intriguing to consider that ancient indigenous cultures emphasizing shamanic guidance and healing gave microbes a proper respect and role in their societies [43]. Much of the 20th century and its scientific dogmas emphasized the demonizing of microbes and the overkilling of bacteria [25,131,132,133]. Ancient wisdom is worth remembering.
At the level of the human holobiont, acceptance of humans as a composite of the human mammal and thousands of different microbial species has been slow to be reflected in medicine and public health. This has led to calls for microbiome first approaches to medicine and public health that approach the human body as majority microbial [134,135]. Most aspects of human development and function are significantly regulated by the human microbiomes [3,136,137]. Strategies of health maintenance, disease prevention, and disease treatment need to place our microbes first.
Another aspect of human sustainable life concerns the decades-long erosion of human health and functionality brought about by increasing disease burden. Rather than applauding a reasonable lifespan that is filled with ever increasely co-morbid chronic diseases and polypharmacy, we should be evaluating our progress toward sustainability with a different yardstick: by the length of our healthspan (days, week, months, or years spent in health) [6,138,139] not via a disease-ridden existence. An increasing number of prescription drugs consumed on a daily basis is not a sign of sustainable progress.
Finally, the focus of this paper is on microbes and particularly bacteria as premier producers, communicators, transferers, and collaborators when it comes to electricity and magnetism. Because electricity and magnetism are so important to microbes, natural and artificial electric and/or magnetic fields can either be beneficial or detrimental to microbial health and function. This extends not only to microbial communities in the environment but also to human, and other microbiomes. If electric and magnetic fields are particularly important for microbe community status, these are not the only physical fields to consider. In prior reviews, we considered the microbe-modifying effects of sound, light, and vibrations [21] as well as subtle energies associated with ancient and alternative health practices [20]. There is a broad spectrum of tools at our disposal to protect microbes as well as holobionts.
Beyond safety, the present narrative review illustrated examples of technological benefits by using electric and/or magnetic fields in conjunction with microbes. Advancement in medical applications and treatments as well as industrial applications (e.g., microbial fuel cells, bioremediation) will be a major part of our sustainable living. In this way, our progress to a sustainable future should be bright and it should be microbial.

Author Contributions

R.R.D. contributed to all sections of the manuscript and produced the first draft. J.M.D. drafted sections of the introduction and conclusions and edited the entire manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data within this review article can be found in the reference citations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bosch, T.C.; Miller, DJ. The Holobiont Imperative. 2016 Springer-Verlag Wien, 155pp. [CrossRef]
  2. Simon, JC.; Marchesi, J.R.; Mougel, C.; Selosse, M.A. Host-microbiota interactions: from holobiont theory to analysis. Microbiome 2019, 7, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dominguez-Bello, M.G.; Godoy-Vitorino, F.; Knight, R.; Blaser, M.J. Role of the microbiome in human development. Gut 2019, 68, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bhushan, B.; Singh, B.P.; Saini, K.; Kumari, M.; Tomar, S.K.; Mishra, V. Role of microbes, metabolites and effector compounds in host–microbiota interaction: a pharmacological outlook. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 1801–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. The Human Superorganism: Using Microbes for Freedom vs. Fear. App. Microbiol. 2023, 3, 883–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Using Microbiome-Based Approaches to Deprogram Chronic Disorders and Extend the Healthspan following Adverse Childhood Experiences. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pang, S.; Chen, X.; Lu, Z.; Meng, L.; Huang, Y.; Yu, X.; Huang, L.; Ye, P.; Chen, X.; Liang, J.; Peng, T. Longevity of centenarians is reflected by the gut microbiome with youth-associated signatures. Nature Aging 2023, 3, 436–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Caballero-Flores, G.; Pickard, J.M.; Núñez, G. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance: mechanisms and regulation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 21, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, Y.; Zhang, G.; Wang, Y.; Wei, X.; Liu, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L. A Review on Maternal and Infant Microbiota and Their Implications for the Prevention and Treatment of Allergic Diseases. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Dosch, C.; Manigk, A.; Streicher, T.; Tehel, A.; Paxton, R.J.; Tragust, S. The Gut Microbiota Can Provide Viral Tolerance in the Honey Bee. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Vernier, C.L.; Nguyen, L.A.; Gernat, T.; Ahmed, A.C.; Chen, Z.; Robinson, G.E. Gut microbiota contribute to variations in honey bee foraging intensity. The ISME J. [CrossRef]
  12. Nguyen, J.B.; Marshall, C.W.; Cook, C.N. The buzz within: the role of the gut microbiome in honeybee social behavior. J. Exp. Biol. 2024, 227, p–jeb246400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, W.L.; Huang, Q.; Li, J.L.; Wu, P.; Wei, B.; Li, X.J.; Tang, Q.H.; Dong, Z.X.; Xiong, J.; Tang, H.; Zhang, J. Gut microbiota-driven regulation of queen bee ovarian metabolism. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e02145–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Carthey, A.J.; Blumstein, D.T.; Gallagher, R.V.; Tetu, S.G.; Gillings, M.R. 2020. Conserving the holobiont. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 764–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manchon, C.; Muniesa-Merino, F.; Llorente, M.; Esteve-Núñez, A. Microbial photoelectrosynthesis: Feeding purple phototrophic bacteria electricity to produce bacterial biomass. Microb. Biotech. 2023, 16, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ganzorig, B.; Zayabaatar, E.; Pham, M.T.; Marito, S.; Huang, C.-M.; Lee, Y.-H. Lactobacillus plantarum Generate Electricity through Flavin Mononucleotide-Mediated Extracellular Electron Transfer to Upregulate Epithelial Type I Collagen Expression and Thereby Promote Microbial Adhesion to Intestine. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Byrne, J.M.; Amor, M. Biomagnetism: Insights Into Magnetic Minerals Produced by Microorganisms. Elements 2023, 19, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Singh Rawat, V.; Kaur, J.; Bhagwat, S.; Arora Pandit, M.; Dogra Rawat, C. Deploying microbes as drivers and indicators in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2023, 31, e13688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hahn, J.; Ding, S.; Im, J.; Harimoto, T.; Leong, K.W.; Danino, T. Bacterial therapies at the interface of synthetic biology and nanomedicine. Nat. Rev. Bioeng. 2024, 2, 120–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dietert, J.M.; Dietert, R.R. Ancient and Alternative Healing Tools for Microbe Management. Amer. J. Biomed.Sci. Res. 2024, 21, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Examining Sound, Light, and Vibrations as Tools to Manage Microbes and Support Holobionts, Ecosystems, and Technologies. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sariola, S.; Gilbert, S.F. Toward a Symbiotic Perspective on Public Health: Recognizing the Ambivalence of Microbes in the Anthropocene. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kirchhelle, C.; Roberts, A.P. Embracing the monsters: moving from infection control to microbial management. The Lancet Microbe, 2022, 3, e806–e807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Spirituality in the Realm of the Microbes. Amer. J. Biomed.Res. Sci. 2024, 22, 142–147. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moore, E.R.; Mihaylova, S.A.; Vandamme, P.; Krichevsky, M.I.; Dijkshoorn, L. Microbial systematics and taxonomy: relevance for a microbial commons. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dedeurwaerdere, T. Global microbial commons: institutional challenges for the global exchange and distribution of microorganisms in the life sciences. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rowland, A.L. The Human Microbiome as Visceral Commons: Resisting Rhetorical Enclosure. Rhetoric Soc. Quart. 2023, 53, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kirchhelle, C. The Antibiocene–towards an eco-social analysis of humanity’s antimicrobial footprint. Humanities and Social Sci. Comm. 2023, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kato, S.; Hashimoto, K.; Watanabe, K. Microbial interspecies electron transfer via electric currents through conductive minerals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012, 109, 10042–10046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Li, C.; Lesnik, K.L.; Liu, H. Stay connected: Electrical conductivity of microbial aggregates. Biotech. Adv. 2017, 35, 669–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rossi, M.; Iannaci, A.; Tosato, P.; Brunelli, D. Let the microbes power your sensing display. 2017 IEEE SENSORS. [CrossRef]
  32. Atkinson, J.T.; Su, L.; Zhang, X.; Bennett, G.N.; Silberg, J.J.; Ajo-Franklin, C.M. Real-time bioelectronic sensing of environmental contaminants. Nature 2022, 611, 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Armstrong, R. Towards the microbial home: an overview of developments in next-generation sustainable architecture. Microb. Biotech. 2023, 16, 1112–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh Rawat, V.; Kaur, J.; Bhagwat, S.; Arora Pandit, M.; Dogra Rawat, C. 2023. Deploying microbes as drivers and indicators in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecol. 2023, 31, e13688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. 2023. Regenerative agriculture—A literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Slijepcevic, P.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. An internet of microbes straddling the cosmos. Adv. Genet. 2020, 106, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Using the Internet of Microbes to Survive the Assault on the Human Microbiome. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 19, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Buono, A; Burnidge, A. 2020. Dancing Our Microbiome at the Science Museum: A Dance/STEAM Collaboration. J. Dance Educ. 2020, 22, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ke, S.; Guimond, A.J.; Tworoger, S.S.; Huang, T.; Chan, A.T.; Liu, Y.Y.; Kubzansky, L.D. Gut feelings: associations of emotions and emotion regulation with the gut microbiome in women. Psycholog. Med. 2023, 53, 7151–7160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. The Embodied Microbiome. Amer. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2023, 20(3), 324–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sherwin, E.; Bordenstein, S.R.; Quinn, J.L.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. 2019. Microbiota and the social brain. Science 2019, 366, eaar2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kunnen, M.; Carlson, C. 2017. Deeply connected to God's good world, the human microbiome. Christian Scholar's Rev. 2017, 46, 113–125. [Google Scholar]
  43. Giraldo Herrera, C.E. Microbes and other shamanic beings. Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; 274pp. ISBN 978-3-030-10041-4 (Accessed , 2017). 25 April.
  44. Al-Attas Bradford, A. 2020. Symbiotic Grace: Holobiont Theology in the Age of the Microbe. Duke University  Duke University. ProQuest Dissertation, s Publishing, 2020. 28415181. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2531159392?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses (Accessed May 17.
  45. Al-Attas Bradford, A. , 2022. Religion, Animals, and the Theological Anthropology of Microbes in the Pandemicene. Religions 2022, 13, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dietert, R.R.; Dietert, J.M. Spirituality in the Realm of the Microbes. Am. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2024, 22, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Anand, S.; Hallsworth, J.E.; Timmis, J.; Verstraete, W.; Casadevall, A.; Ramos, J.L.; Sood, U.; Kumar, R.; Hira, P.; Dogra Rawat, C.; Kumar, A. Weaponising microbes for peace. Microb. Biotech. 2023, 16, 1091–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Graham, A.E.; Ledesma-Amaro, R. The microbial food revolution. Nat. Comm. 2023, 14, 2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Slijepcevic, P. Biocivilisations: a new look at the science of life. Chelsea Green Publishing UK. 2023. 272pp. 9: ISBN-13 ‏, 1645. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, B.; Qin, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Li, W.; Pu, G.; Yuanhe, Z.; Gui, X.; Chu, M. Magnetotactic Bacteria-Based Drug-Loaded Micromotors for Highly Efficient Magnetic and Biological Double-Targeted Tumor Therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 2747–2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Mishra, R.; Gollakota, A.R.; Shu, C.M. Cultivating Eco-Advantages: Unleashing the Distinctive Potential of Biochar in Microbial Fuel Cells. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 2024, 185, 614–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Quillin, S.J.; Tran, P.; Prindle, A. Potential roles for gamma-aminobutyric acid signaling in bacterial communities. Bioelectricity 2021, 3, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zou, Y.; Bo, L.; Li, Z. 2021. Recent progress in human body energy harvesting for smart bioelectronic system. Fundam. Res. 2021, 1, 364–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Verma, A.; Asivatham, S.J.; Deneke, T.; Castellvi, Q.; Neal, R.E. Primer on pulsed electrical field ablation: understanding the benefits and limitations. Circ. Arrhythm.Electrophysiol. 2021, 14, e010086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Liu, D.; Huang, Q.; Gu, W.; Zeng, X.A. 2022. A review of bacterial biofilm control by physical strategies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3453–3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, H.; Chen, T.; Li, J. Exogenous electric field as a biochemical driving factor for extracellular electron transfer: Increasing power output of microbial fuel cell. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024, 301, 118050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Beretta, G.; Mastorgio, A.F.; Pedrali, L.; Saponaro, S.; and Sezenna, E. The effects of electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields on microorganisms in the perspective of bioremediation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2019, 18, 29–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Luo, R.; Liang, Y.; Yang, J.; Feng, H.; Chen, Y.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Bai, Y.; Xue, J.; Chao, S. Reshaping the endogenous electric field to boost wound repair via electrogenerative dressing. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2208395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lüderitz, Berndt. We have come a long way with device therapy: historical perspectives on antiarrhythmic electrotherapy. J. Cardiovasc. Electrophysiol. 2002, 13, S2–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ma, D.; Wang, S.; Shi, Y.; Ni, S.; Tang, M.; Xu, A. The development of traditional Chinese medicine. J. Traditional Chinese Med. Sci. 2021, 8, S1–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Markov, M.S. Magnetic field therapy: a review. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 2007, 26, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ross, C.L.; Harrison, B.S. The Use of Magnetic Field for the Reduction of Inflammation: A Review of the History and Therapeutic Results. Altern. Therap. Health Med. 2013, 19, 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ross, C.L.; Ang, D.C.; Almeida-Porada, G. Targeting mesenchymal stromal cells/pericytes (MSCs) with pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) has the potential to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 421274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rumbaut, R.E.; Mirkovic, D. Magnetic therapy for edema in inflammation: a physiological assessment. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2008, 294, H19–H20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Logan, B.E.; Rossi, R.; Ragab, A.A.; Saikaly, P.E. 2019. Electroactive microorganisms in bioelectrochemical systems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 17, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Thomasy, H. Electric Bacteria: Out of the Darkness and into the Light. The Scientist, 17 May 7168. [Google Scholar]
  67. Potter, M.C. Electrical effects accompanying the decomposition of organic compounds. Proc. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 1911, 84, 260–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Davis, J.B. 1963. Generation of electricity by microbial action. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 1963, 5, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nealson, K.H. 2017. Bioelectricity (electromicrobiology) and sustainability. Microbial Biotech. 2017, 10, 1114–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Garbini, G.L.; Barra Caracciolo, A.; Grenni, P. Electroactive Bacteria in Natural Ecosystems and Their Applications in Microbial Fuel Cells for Bioremediation: A Review. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. El-Naggar, M.Y.; Wanger, G.; Leung, K.M.; Yuzvinsky, T.D.; Southam, G.; Yang, J.; Lau, W.M.; Nealson, K.H.; Gorby, Y.A. 2010. Electrical transport along bacterial nanowires from Shewanella oneidensis MR-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2010, 107, 18127–18131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Portela, P.C.; Shipps, C.C.; Shen, C.; Srikanth, V.; Salgueiro, C.A.; Malvankar, N.S. Widespread extracellular electron transfer pathways for charging microbial cytochrome OmcS nanowires via periplasmic cytochromes PpcABCDE. Nat. Comm. 2024, 15, 2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Boza, G.; Barabás, G.; Scheuring, I.; and Zachar, I. Eco-evolutionary modelling of microbial syntrophy indicates the robustness of cross-feeding over cross-facilitation. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rotaru, A.E.; Yee, M.O.; Musat, F. Microbes trading electricity in consortia of environmental and biotechnological significance. Curr. Opin. in Biotech. 2021, 67, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Chen, S.; Chen, J.; Zhang, L.; Huang, S.; Liu, X.; Yang, Y.; Luan, T.; Zhou, S.; Nealson, K.H.; Rensing, C. Biophotoelectrochemical process co-driven by dead microalgae and live bacteria. ISME J. 2023, 17, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cavalcanti, R.N.; Balthazar, C.F.; Margalho, L.P.; Freitas, M.Q.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Cruz, A.G. Pulsed electric field-based technology for microbial inactivation in milk and dairy products. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 54, 101087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wang, T.; Xie, X. Nanosecond bacteria inactivation realized by locally enhanced electric field treatment. Nat. Water 2023, 1, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, C.; Lyu, X.; Arshad, R.N.; Aadil, R.M.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, W.; Yang, R. Pulsed electric field as a promising technology for solid foods processing: A review. Food Chem. 2023, 403, 134367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Adamatzky, A.; Tarabella, G.; Phillips, N.; Chiolerio, A.; D’Angelo, P.; Nikolaidou, A.; Sirakoulis, G.C. 2023. Kombucha electronics: electronic circuits on kombucha mats. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 9367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Adamatzky, A. Electrical potential spiking of kombucha zoogleal mats: A symbiotic community of bacteria and yeasts. Bioelectricity 2023, 5, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Esaker, M.; Hamza, O.; Elliott, D. Monitoring the bio-self-healing performance of cement mortar incubated within soil and water using electrical resistivity. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 393, 132109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Muñoz-Rodríguez, D.; Bourqqia-Ramzi, M.; García-Esteban, M.T.; Murciano-Cespedosa, A.; Vian, A.; Lombardo-Hernández, J.; García-Pérez, P.; Conejero, F.; Mateos González, Á.; Geuna, S.; Herrera-Rincon, C. Bioelectrical State of Bacteria Is Linked to Growth Dynamics and Response to Neurotransmitters: Perspectives for the Investigation of the Microbiota–Brain Axis. Int. J. of Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 13394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Peng, K.; Koubaa, M.; Bals, O.; Vorobiev, E. Recent insights in the impact of emerging technologies on lactic acid bacteria: A review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ganzorig, B.; Zayabaatar, E.; Pham, M.T.; Marito, S.; Huang, C.-M.; Lee, Y.-H. Lactobacillus plantarum Generate Electricity through Flavin Mononucleotide-Mediated Extracellular Electron Transfer to Upregulate Epithelial Type I Collagen Expression and Thereby Promote Microbial Adhesion to Intestine. Biomedicines 2023, 11, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Moysidou, C.M.; van Niekerk, D.C.; Stoeger, V.; Pitsalidis, C.; Draper, L.A.; Withers, A.M.; Hughes, K.; McCoy, R.; Acharya, R.; Hill, C.; and Owens, R.M. Modelling Human Gut-Microbiome Interactions in a 3D Bioelectronic Platform. Small Sci. 2024, 2300349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Li, M.; Yu, X.L.; Li, Y.W.; Han, W.; Yu, P.F.; Yeung, K.L.; Mo, C.H.; Zhou, S.Q. Investigating the electron shuttling characteristics of resazurin in enhancing bio-electricity generation in microbial fuel cell. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 428, 130924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, L.; Mao, L.; Qi, F.; Li, X.; Ullah, M.W.; Zhao, M.; Shi, Z.; Yang, G. Synergistic effect of highly aligned bacterial cellulose/gelatin membranes and electrical stimulation on directional cell migration for accelerated wound healing. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 424, 130563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yalcin, S.E.; O’Brien, J.P.; Gu, Y.; Reiss, K.; Yi, S.M.; Jain, R.; Srikanth, V.; Dahl, P.J.; Huynh, W.; Vu, D.; Acharya, A. Electric field stimulates production of highly conductive microbial OmcZ nanowires. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16, 1136–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Elhadad, A.; Liu, L.; Choi, S. Plug-and-play modular biobatteries with microbial consortia. J. Power Sources 2022, 535, 231487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhao, F.; Su, Y.; Wang, J.; Romanova, S.; DiMaio, D.J.; Xie, J.; Zhao, S. A highly efficacious electrical biofilm treatment system for combating chronic wound bacterial infections. Adv. Mater. 2023, 35, 2208069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Taira, H.; Yaga, M.; Nakasone, S.; Nishida, K.; Yamashiro, T. Significant removal of bacterial biofilm induced by multiple-Short ranges of electric interventions. J. Orthop. Sci. 2024, 29, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Emanuel, E.; Dubrovin, I.; Hanya, E.; Pinhasi, G.A.; Pogreb, R.; Cahan, R. Eradication of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Pulsed Electric Field Treatments. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Obileke, K.; Onyeaka, H.; Meyer, E.L.; Nwokolo, N. Microbial fuel cells, a renewable energy technology for bio-electricity generation: A mini-review. Electrochem. Comm. 2021, 125, 107003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Srivastava, R.K.; Shetti, N.P.; Reddy, K.R.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Sustainable energy from waste organic matters via efficient microbial processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ławniczak, Ł.; Woźniak-Karczewska, M.; Loibner, A.P.; Heipieper, H.J.; Chrzanowski, Ł. Microbial Degradation of Hydrocarbons—Basic Principles for Bioremediation: A Review. Molecules 2020, 25, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Song, L.; Wu, C.; Zhi, Q.; Zhang, F.; Song, B.; Guan, L.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, R.; Fan, B. 2023. Multifunctional SiC aerogel reinforced with nanofibers and nanowires for high-efficiency electromagnetic wave absorption. Chem. Engineer. J. 2023, 467, 143518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Simoska, O.; Gaffney, E.M.; Minteer, S.D.; Franzetti, A.; Cristiani, P.; Grattieri, M.; Santoro, C. Recent trends and advances in microbial electrochemical sensing technologies: An overview. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2021, 30, 100762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhang, X.; Song, J.; Yan, W.; Li, T.; Li, R.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Q. Regulation of rhizospheric microbial network to enhance plant growth and resist pollutants: Unignorable weak electric field. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 855, 158888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lee, S.; Oh, M.M. Electric field: a new environmental factor for controlling plant growth and development in agriculture. Hort. Environ. Biotech. 2023, 64, 955–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. England, S.J.; Robert, D. The ecology of electricity and electroreception. Biol. Rev. 2022, 97, 383–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Kim, D.; Oh, M.M. Vertical and horizontal electric fields stimulate growth and physiological responses in lettuce. Hort. Environ. Biotech. 2023, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sturgeon, W. An Account of Some Experiments on the Electro-Culture of Farm Crops. Abstracts of the Papers Communicated to the Royal Society of London 1846, 5 (1843 - 1850), 600. https://www.jstor. 18 May 1109. [Google Scholar]
  103. Nehru, S.S. New Methods in Electro-Culture. J. R. Soc. Arts 1934, 82, 231–257. [Google Scholar]
  104. Taoka, A.; Eguchi, Y.; Shimoshige, R.; Fukumori, Y. Recent advances in studies on magnetosome-associated proteins composing the bacterial geomagnetic sensor organelle. Microbiol. Immunol. 2023, 67, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Natan, E.; Fitak, R.R.; Werber, Y.; Vortman, Y. Symbiotic magnetic sensing: raising evidence and beyond. Philos. Trans, R. Soc. B 2020, 375, 20190595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Chevrier, D.M.; Juhin, A.; Menguy, N.; Bolzoni, R.; Soto-Rodriguez, P.E.; Kojadinovic-Sirinelli, M.; Paterson, G.A.; Belkhou, R.; Williams, W.; Skouri-Panet, F.; Kosta, A. Collective magnetotaxis of microbial holobionts is optimized by the three-dimensional organization and magnetic properties of ectosymbionts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2023, 120, e2216975120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Lin, W.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Xiao, T.; Wu, L.F.; Pan, Y. Life with compass: diversity and biogeography of magnetotactic bacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16, 2646–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zieliński, M.; Zielińska, M.; Cydzik-Kwiatkowska, A.; Rusanowska, P.; Dębowski, M. Effect of static magnetic field on microbial community during anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Müller, F.D.; Schüler, D.; Pfeiffer, D. A compass to boost navigation: cell biology of bacterial magnetotaxis. J. Bacteriol. 2020, 202, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Simon, R.A.; Ranasinghe, P.D.; Barazanji, N.; Jungeström, M.B.; Xu, J.; Bednarska, O.; Serrander, L.; Engström, M.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Keita, Å.V.; and Walter, S. Magnetotactic bacteria from the human gut microbiome associated with orientation and navigation regions of the brain. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 2021, 39, 2044–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Lin, W.; Kirschvink, J.L.; Paterson, G.A.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Pan, Y. On the origin of microbial magnetoreception. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2020, 7, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Lin, W.; Zhang, W.; Paterson, G.A.; Zhu, Q.; Zhao, X.; Knight, R.; Bazylinski, D.A.; Roberts, A.P.; Pan, Y. 2020. Expanding magnetic organelle biogenesis in the domain Bacteria. Microbiome 2020, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Zhao, W.; Han, Y.; Shao, D.; Han, C.; Tian, Y.; Huang, Q. Effects of ultra-strong static magnetic field on the gut microbiota of humans and mice. Bioelectromagnetics 2023, 44, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Chen, S.; Jin, Y.; Yang, N.; Wei, L.; Xu, D.; Xu, X. Improving microbial production of value-added products through the intervention of magnetic fields. Bioresour. Tech. 2024, 393, 130087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Al-Mayyahi, R.B.; Park, S.G.; Jadhav, D.A.; Hussien, M.; Mohamed, H.O.; Castaño, P.; Al-Qaradawi, S.Y.; Chae, K.J. Unraveling the influence of magnetic field on microbial and electrogenic activities in bioelectrochemical systems: A comprehensive review. Fuel 2023, 331, 125889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Guo, L.; Azam, S.R.; Guo, Y.; Liu, D.; Ma, H. Germicidal efficacy of the pulsed magnetic field against pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in food processing: An overview. Food Control 2022, 136, 108496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Liu, P.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, R.; Bai, J.; Zhu, K.; Benzerara, K.; Menguy, N.; Zhao, X.; Roberts, A.P.; Pan, Y.; Li, J. Key gene networks that control magnetosome biomineralization in magnetotactic bacteria. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2023, 10, nwac238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhang, G.; Liu, T.; Zhao, D.; Sun, X.; Xing, W.; Zhang, S.; Yan, L. External magnetic field have significant effects on diversity of magnetotactic bacteria in sediments from Yangtze River, Chagan Lake and Zhalong Wetland in China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 266, 115604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wenhao, H.; Nianzhao, W.; Jihuai, H.; Kun, Y.; Fengyun, M.; Huimei, T.; Yanping, W. The rhizosphere soil properties and bacteria community of poplar are affected by magnetic field under salt condition. Rhizosphere 2023, 27, 100747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gandhi, O.P. Electromagnetic fields: human safety issues. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2002, 4, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Singh, S.; Kapoor, N. Health implications of electromagnetic fields, mechanisms of action, and research needs. Adv. Biol. 2014, 2014, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hamedani, B.G.; Goliaei, B.; Shariatpanahi, S.P.; Nezamtaheri, M. An overview of the biological effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields combined with ionizing radiation. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2022, 172, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Xiao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Ma, C.; Muhammad, T.; Zhou, B.; Zhou, Y.; Song, P.; Li, Y. Using electromagnetic fields to inhibit biofouling and scaling in biogas slurry drip irrigation emitters. J.Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Costa, J.M.; Marra, F. Advances in Food Processing Through Radio Frequency Technology: Applications in Pest Control, Microbial and Enzymatic Inactivation. Food Eng. Rev. 2024, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Tai, Y.K.; Ng, C.; Purnamawati, K.; Lye Yee Yap, J.; Yin, J.N.; Wong, C.; Patel, B.K.; Soong, P.L.; Pelczar, P.; Fröhlich, J.; Beyer, C. Magnetic fields modulate metabolism and gut microbiome in correlation withPgc-1 alpha expression: Follow-up to an in vitro magnetic mitohormetic study. FASEB J. 2020, 34, 11143–11167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Schuermann, D.; Mevissen, M. Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress—Biological Effects and Consequences for Health. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Wang, X.; Zhou, G.; Lin, J.; Qin, T.; Du, J.; Guo, L.; Lai, P.; Jing, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Ding, G. Effects of radiofrequency field from 5G communication on fecal microbiome and metabolome profiles in mice. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Falkowski, P.G.; Fenchel, T.; Delong, E.F. The microbial engines that drive Earth's biogeochemical cycles. Science 2008, 320, 1034–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rousk, J.; Bengtson, P. Microbial regulation of global biogeochemical cycles. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 86415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Sánchez-Baracaldo, P.; Bianchini, G.; Wilson, J.D.; Knoll, A.H. Cyanobacteria and biogeochemical cycles through Earth history. Trends Microbiol. 2022, 30, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hamilton, D. Why we need germs. The Ecologist 2001, 31, S46. [Google Scholar]
  132. Blaser, M. Missing microbes: how killing bacteria creates modern plagues. 2014 Henry Holt and Co. 288pp.
  133. Finlay, B.B.; Amato, K.R.; Azad, M.; Blaser, M.J.; Bosch, T.C.G.; Chu, H.; Dominguez-Bello, M.G.; Ehrlich, S.D.; Elinav, E.; Geva-Zatorsky, N.; et al. The hygiene hypothesis, the COVID pandemic, and consequences for the human microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2021, 118, e2010217118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Dietert, R.R. Microbiome First Medicine in Health and Safety. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Dietert, R.R. Microbiome First Approaches to Rescue Public Health and Reduce Human Suffering. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Guzzetta, K.E.; Cryan, J.F.; and O’Leary, O.F. 2022. Microbiota-gut-brain axis regulation of adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Brain Plast. 2022, 8, 97–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Fujisaka, S.; Watanabe, Y.; Tobe, K. 2023. The gut microbiome: A core regulator of metabolism. J. Endocrinol. 2023, 256, e220111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wickramasinghe, K.; Mathers, J.C.; Wopereis, S. ; Marsman. D.S.; Griffiths, J.C. From lifespan to healthspan: the role of nutrition in healthy ageing. J. Nutr. Sci. 2020, 9, e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Dietert, R.R. Dietary Approaches from Moms, Farms, and Nature to Overcome Chronic Diseases and the Pharmacracy. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Key Concepts for a Microbially-Driven, Sustainable Future.
Table 1. Key Concepts for a Microbially-Driven, Sustainable Future.
Inherent Microbial Properties for a Sustainble Future
[Citations]
Description
The Microbiome Commons
[25,26,27]
The extensive diversity of Earth’s prokaryotes has presented challenges particularly as emerging technologies have afforded different ways of exchanging, researching, analyzing and classifying microbes. Numerous investigators stressed the significance of a microbial commons approach to future microbiology and the need for greater attention and focus to protect our microbial resources.
Moving Beyond the Antibiocene
[28]
The researcher draws upon the microbial commons concepts and eight decades of antimicrobial-fueled living (the Antibiocene) to avocate for a strategies to: 1) preserve the microbial commons and 2) envision “eubiotic governance.“
Electrified Micobial Communities
[29,30]
The researchers describe how specific microbes can use their inherent electrical and magenetic capabilities to both create and then share electricity among different microbial species. In effect, electrified communities relying on minerals and fundamental microbial properties are sufficient for naturally electrified communities.
Living Electronics
[31,32]
The researchers review the ultilization of and importance of microbes in bioelectronics, synthetic biology and electromicrobiology to produce biohybrid devices. Researchers also suggest that bacteria can power all sensing displays with sustainability.
Regenerative Architecture
[33]
The researcher extends the “microbial commons“ concept to argue the importance of moving beyond controlling microbes for new technology and, instead, restoring microbial ecology within sustainable cities and architechture.
Restorative Ecology
[34]
This review stresses that soil microbial community health is both a driver of and a critical indicator of ecological community status. The take home message is that a focus on microbial communities and their metabolism and interaction with plants is necessary to repair degraded ecosystems.
Regenerative Agriculture
[35]
This review posits that microbial function is critical to increase soil biodiversity as a key component of regenerative agriculture. The author also cites the benefits of microbial diversity as a driver of increased soil resistance and resiliency to disturbances.
The Internet of Microbes
[36,37]
Researchers have focused on the novel communication and sharing functions of microbes spread across virtually all of Earth’s ecological niches to illustrate that human and other holobionts tap this network to gain information originating from not only inside but also outside of the human body. Capacities such as communicating at-a-distance is connected to the internet of microbes.
Embodying the Microbiome
[38,39,40]
Various researchers explored the embodiment of the human microbiome via the practice of dance, meditation, and other contemplative exercises. A variety of outcomes were seen among the studies: shifts in awareness including informational insights, shifts in psychological/ emotional states, and specific physical experiences. These contemplative and other practices can serve as tools to connect with the microbial part of the human holobiont.
Microbes Provide Our
Social Brain
[41]
These researchers describe the fundamental significance of microbes as the conduit through which human and other holobionts embody a social brain and display social behaviors.
Microbes and Spirituality
[42,43,44,45,46]
Several researchers have emphasized the importance of microbes
in a wide range of spiritual practices. Human holobiont spirituality is microbe-inclusive and sometimes, microbe-centered.
Promotion of Peace
[47]
These researchers describe the benefits when microbes are used for the promotion of goods and services contributing to peace as opposed to bioweapons contributing to war.
Food Revolution
[48]
These researchers present a comprehensive view of how and why microbes are the solution to converting unsustainable food production to a fully-sustainble future.
Biocivilizations
[49]
The “Biocivilizations“ view of lifeforms on Earth turns many historic views on their head. It presents compelling evidence that humans were preceeded by and will long be followed by micobes. It also argues that as communicators, we have thus far functioned primarily as “supporting actors“across the theater of life.
Magnetotactic Bacteria (MTB)-Based Micromotors
[50]
Drug delivery including cancer therapy using magnetic bacteria is one of the many technologies drawing upon the array of special bacterial functions to benefit precision medicine.
Biochar as an
Ecological Asset
[51]
Beneficial circular economy and sustainable environment are discussed as major benefits arising from microbial fuel cell waste known as biochar. Biochar offers significant opportunities for restorative ecology as a result of energy production.
Table 2. Examples of Electrical Fields, Bioelectric States, and Functions of Microbes.
Table 2. Examples of Electrical Fields, Bioelectric States, and Functions of Microbes.
Experimental Studies
and Reviews
[Citations(s)]
Experimental Approach
[not applicable (NA) for
Reviews]
Key Experimental Findings/
Review Conclusions
Studies on Kombucha
mats as electronic
and/or computing
devices
[79,80]

The researchers demonstrated that Kombucha
mats have special
properties that allow
them to be converted
into wearable electronics
by exploring different
technologies for
manufacturing
kombucha based
PCBs: aerosol jet
printing of
PODOT:PSS as well as
3D printing of TPU
and metal-polymer
composite, adding ink
with conductive filler
and laser cutting.
The researchers demonstrated the feasibility of constructing electrical circuits within cured mats. They concluded that the Kombucha-based approaches offered advantages in being lighter, less expensive, and more flexible than conventional electronic systems. They also discussed the benefits regarding sustainability, biocompatibility, customizability, breathability and moisture management.
Study of electrical
resistivity as a measure
of effective bacterial
self-healing concrete
[Esaker et al. 2023 81]
To find effective
in situ measures
of effectiveness
of bacterial
self-healing concrete
Concrete status beneath soil can be challenging to easily evaluate. Electrical resistivity was found to be a useful measure of the effectiveness of bacterial (Bacillus subtilis) driven self-healing in concrete beneath soil level.
Gut-brain axis regulation
[82]
Bioelectric state
alterations of
specific microbiota
during response to
neurotransmitters were
examined in Bacillus
subtilis Marburg ATCC
6051 and
Limosilactobacillus reuteri
F275 ATCC 23272.
Glutamate and GABA
were used as neurotransmitters with growth rate,
depolarization, and
Vmem (a fluorescent reporter gene) evaluated during the exponential growth phase.
The study found that: 1) when cells are less energized (membrane depolarization), cell proliferation can increase and 2) bidirectional communication occurs between the bacteria and the brain. Using B. subtilis, depolarization (quantitated with the Vmem reporter gene) increased as did cell proliferation. Both bacteria responded to the two neurotransmitters with Vmem changes. Since L. reuteri is a psychoactive bacteria, this could have functional gut-brain implications.
Review of the impact of
technologies including
electrical fields on
lactic acid bacteria
[83]
NA An emphasis is placed on the capacity of the technology to either enhance growth and/or functions of the bacteria or destroy the bacteria depending upon field strength/conditions.
Review of GABA and
bacterial signaling
[52]
NA This review covers the range of GABA-driven signaling not only connecting bacteria within their own communities but also the regulation of neurological function in humans via interkingdom signaling.
Investigation of the
electrogenic mechanisms through which
Lactobacillus plantarum
affects intestinal
epithelium and
promotes intestinal
adhesion
[84]
Lactobacillus plantarum
from Mongolian
fermented Airag
(designated L.
planetarium MA) was
investigated for
gene expression changes, electrical generation,
and cecal adhesion
properties.
Key findings were: 1) electrical activity of L. plantarum MA was dependent on type II NADH-quinone oxidoreductase and 2) was found to be conducted through flavin mononucleotide (FMN)-based extracellular electron transfer. 3) A significant effect was increased adherence by causing increased type 1 collagen expression among intestinal epithelial cells.
Study using a 3-D
bioelectric platform
(the e-transmembrane)
to model host
intestine-microbe
cross-talk
[85]
A 3-D stratified tissue
human intestine
model was
used in conjunction
with electrochemical
impedance spectroscopy
to monitor the effects
of various postbiotics
and live bacteria on
integrity of the intestinal
barrier. The electrical readout was an
effective measure of
gut barrier status.
The electronic transmembrane model facilitated real-time, in-line sensing of microbe-host barrier interactions. Impedance data could provide a clear evaluation of tissue integrity and changes in barrier function in response to postbiotics and live bacteria with different pro- or anti-inflammation-promoting properties.
Chemically-elevated
bioelectric production
from bacteria
[86]
The phenoxazine
electron-shuttling
mediator, resazurin,
was evaluated for its
capacity to enhance
electron transport at
the anode electrode
of a microbial fuel cell.
The major findings were that resazurin: 1) increased the microbial fuel cell power density fourfold, 2) increased electron conduction with a reduction in electrode resistance and 3) favored growth of electro-active microbial biofilm through increased biocompatibility.
Study using electric
fields and highly aligned
bacterial cellulose/gelatin membranes to guide
cell migration.
[87]


The focus was on
establishing a
highly-aligned
bacterial cellulose/gelatin membrane that was
combined with electrical
stimulation to better
recruit cells to an area in need of wound healing. In vivo wound healing was
examined in mice.
A key finding was that wound healing was facilitated by accelerating wound closure, increasing granulation tissue
thickness, collagen deposition, angiogenesis, and by upregulating specific gene expression.
Study of electric field
stimulation of bacterial
production of cytochrome OmcZ nanowires with
higher conductivity
[88]
Enhancing
bacterial electrical
conductivity of
Geobacter sulfurreducens
via nanowires was
studied using a
protocol to evaluate
the difference in nanowire type, confirmation
changes and electrical
carrying capacity under
different conditions.

Key finding: electrical stimulation of biofilms under specific pH ranges resulted in a change in nanowires (OmcZ instead of OmcS nanowires) with a 1,000 fold greater conductivity and increased nanowire stiffness than are generally found in nature.
Three bacteria consortium
plug-and-play biobatteries
[89]
Comparisons of single,
double and tripled
multilayer consortiums
of biobatteries were
constructed using
Shewanella
oneidensis MR1,
Bacillus subtilis, and
Synechocystis sp.
PCC 6803)
The 3-D consortium of bacteria had excellent self-sustaining properties and was able to power supply for real-world wireless sensor network applications such as powering a
telemetry system.
Optimization of an
electrical field
methodology to
eliminate bacterial
biofilm inhibition of
wound healing.
[90]
The study examined
the effects of a new
high-intensity current
application (hydrogel
circuit related) compared
to conventional devices
targeting methicillin-resistant S. aureus
(MRSA) in a diabetic mice wound healing model.
The safer high intensity current produced two primary beneficial effects: enhanced bacterial debridement and greater antibiotic effectiveness.
The study examined
more effective removal
of biofilms on titanium
structures as an
orthopedic application.
[91]
The study examined the
effects of multiple
short range, one-minute
duration electrical fields
on Staphylococcus aureus
biofilms on titanium rings.
Multiple short duration electric applications proved effective in biofilm removal and would help to avoid what previously was necessary prolonged electrical field exposures.
Study using local
electric fields to treat
bacterial contamination
of drinking water
[77]
The researchers used
Staphylococcus epidermidis
as a model to test the
effectiveness of locally
enhanced electric field
treatment employing
nanosecond electric
pulses. Different
intensities and number
of pulses were
compared for effectiveness.
The study found that one 20 nanosecond pulse at 55 kV cm−1 resulted in a 26.6% inactivation of bacteria by electroporation while ten pulses at 40 kV cm−1 produced 95.1% inactivation of bacteria. The study has relevance for drinking water safety
Study demonstrating
the utility of using
pulsed electric field
treatments for the
eradication of
Saccharomyces cerevisia
[92]
The study examined the
effects of up to four
cycles of pulsed electric
field (PEF) treatments
under a variety of
conditions such
as with different media
and with or without
preservatives. Cell
eradication and
membrane resealing
were the major
endpoints evaluated.
Major findings were that: 1) the type of media and its electrical conductivity influenced yeast destruction vs. recovery and 2) specific preservatives affected the relationship between media electrical conductivity and yeast total destruction (damage without membrane repair).
Table 3. Examples of Magnetic Field, Detection, States, and Effects Among Microbes.
Table 3. Examples of Magnetic Field, Detection, States, and Effects Among Microbes.
Experimental Studies
and Reviews
[Citation]
Experimental Approach
[not applicable (NA) for
Reviews]
Key Experimental Findings/
Review Conclusions
Review article
considering the
likely origins of
magnetoreception
among microbes
[111]
NA The researchers present an exaptation model (where features acquire new functions) for early life magnetosome (MTB) development. They conclude that production of magnetosomes was a response for the need of an iron-oxide nanozyme with peroxidase activity to protect against oxidative damage.

Research study
on the extent
of MTB
distribution
[112]
The study used
metagenomic
analysis plus the
reconstruction of
metagenome-assembled MTB genomes from
across highly divergent
environments to
examine the extent of
MTB occurrence
among bacteria.

The study found that MTBs were far more common among bacterial phyla than previously thought. Thirteen bacterial phyla were found to include MTB genomes with six phyla not previously known to possess MTBs.
Research article on the
effects of ultra strong
static magnetic fields
on human and mouse
gut microbiota
[113]
A 16 T static magnetic field was used to examine the changes in the structure
and composition of
human and mouse
gut microbiota.
Exposure to the ultra strong magnetic field was found to significantly reduce the prevalence of six mouse gut microbiome bacterial genera and four human bacterial genera (Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, Romboutsia, and Streptococcus). Mice and humans differed in their response. Given the increasing prevalence of potential exposure to these fields, the researchers stressed the need to protect the microbiome.

Review article suggesting that magnetic fields can alter biochemical processes in microbial populations affecting a range of processes (e.g., nutrient transport across membranes, electron transfer during photosynthesis and respiration, enzyme activity and gene expression) and functions (e.g., increased fermentation, growth rate, biomass)
[114]
NA The focus of this review is on magnetic field-assisted fermentation processes and the more efficient production of value-added products. A major finding was that device configuration could impact the magnetic field benefits and that needed to be part of the overall design considerations.
Review article emphasizing the impact of magnetic fields on microbial fuel cells and wastewater treatment application and the variables that can influence effective
management
[115]
NA Magnetic fields affect the growth and functional activity of microbes in microbial fuel cells. These researchers focused on the mechanisms through which these effects occur. Changes in enzymatic activity and management of radical pairs were identified as key factors connected to functional status and potential benefits.
This review covers the germicidal capacities of pulsed magnetic fields. In this case, the applications are considered relative to food preservation.
[116]
NA The review emphasizes the benefits of non-thermal pulsed magnetic field treatment of food as an effective sterilization technique while retaining food quality.
Research study
involving the
identification of
specific genes and
gene networks that
are important for
MTB crystal formation
and biomineralization.
[117]
The protocol involved
the identification
of specific genes
encoding and/or
regulating each step
in MTB crystal formation
and biomineralization among several phyla.
The research paper is important in associating genes with individual features such as crystal morphology, MTB chain assembly, and each step in the biomineralization process.
Research study showing
that human gut
microbiota include
magnetotactic bacteria
[110]
Metagenomic analysis of
the gut microbiota from
34 healthy female adults
was used to test for MTB.
MRI was used for brain
imaging in the subjects.
Researchers found seven MTB bacteria among the human gut microbiome (Magnetococcus marinus, Magnetospira sp. QH-2, Magnetospirillum magneticum , Magnetospirillum sp. ME-1, Magnetospirillum sp. XM-1, Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense ,
and Desulfovibrio magneticus. The presence of the MTB in the gut was found to be associated with grey matter volume in magnetite-rich brain regions related to orientation and navigation.
Research study
investigating the
effects of external
magnetic fields on
MTB in China
river sediments
[118]
This research study examined the contribution of the external magnetostatic
field to the diversity of
MTB in various
freshwater sediments in China.
Because MTB can rapidly relocate to optimal habitats by magnetotaxis, this can influence iron biogeochemical cycling. These researchers found significant changes in richness and diversity related to magnetic field intensity and/or duration of exposure. However, the changes in MTB populations were not necessarily the same across the three freshwater sampling locations.
Research study examining the effects of eternal magnetic fields on rhizosphere bacteria
[119]
Popular seedling growth,
the rhizosphere and soil
microbes were
evaluated under
conditions of a
static magnetic field.
The field was created
using framing ferrite
permanent magnets
Exposure was
~15 mT. Saline (3%)
conditions were
included in some trials.
Magnetic field exposures had several reported beneficial effects. They increased dominant bacteria phyla (Actinobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, and Proteobacteria), rhizosphere soil contents of extracellular polymeric substances, the ammonium
nitrogen (NH4+-N), amorphous iron oxide (Feo) and available phosphorus (AP) contents in the soil, as well as soil urease and acid phosphatase activity.

Review of the symbiotic magnetic sensing hypothesis
[105]
NA This review considers the pros and cons to the concept that MTB provide the underlying basis for magnetic sensing in animals.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated