Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-vgfm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T12:57:28.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bacteria–fungi interaction for material formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2024

A response to the following question: Bio-calibrated: tools and techniques of biodesign practices

Lynn H. Kieffer*
Affiliation:
Aarhus School of Architecture, Aarhus, Denmark
*
Corresponding author: Lynn H. Kieffer; Email: lhk@aarch.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes an early-stage research and experiments exploring methods of co-cultivation of the fungal strain Ganoderma lucidum and the bacterial strain Sporosarcina pasteurii within the field of architecture. Co-cultivating these species within a bio-based compound, forming a living material, shows that the binding abilities of both microbial partners can be harnessed through multistep production techniques. As the mycelial network of the fungus spreads through the inoculated wood substrate, bacterial cells disperse and multiply on this same network and release the enzyme urease throughout the now-forming compound bound by the fungus. The enzyme is one of the key actors in the biocementation process, which is activated with the addition of a calcium source to the material. Calcium carbonate minerals form and attach on the hyphae, as well as in between the network, inside the wood sawdust pieces and around void spaces within the composite. While additional data collection is required, the current state of this research suggests that properties of both living materials can be expanded, for example, fire resistance and compressive strength compared to traditional mycelium-based composites, as well as the increased ability of the bacteria to homogeneously distribute and exist in unfavorable environments compared to mono-cultured bacterial communities.

Information

Type
Results
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. S. pasteurii cells found within mycelium sample, light microscope 1000× magnification.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Different sized accumulations of CaCO3 in between and attached to mycelium, light microscope 1000× magnification.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Calcite formation on the exterior of an MBBC sample, magnification approx. 150×, digital microscope, after 5 days of cementation solution submersion and multiple days of drying.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Mycelium with bacterially precipitated CaCO3 formations, a sample from the exterior of MBBC sample, light microscope, 250× magnification.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Calcite formation on mycelium network interior of an MBBC sample, magnification approx. 800 with a digital microscope, after 5 days of cementation solution submersion and multiple days of drying.

Figure 5

Figure 6. CaCO3 formations on and around mycelium and wood substrate, light microscope, 1000× magnification.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Co-cultivation of G. lucidum and S. pasteurii.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Experiment 1 sections.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Left: Set up of dish with three areas; right: microbial growth after 9 days of inoculation.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Experiment 2 composition.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Four days after inoculation of GL and SP on MEA.

Figure 11

Figure 12. Four days after inoculation of GL on MEA.

Figure 12

Figure 13. SP inoculation on MEA.

Figure 13

Figure 14. 3 × 3 × 3 cm cubes of MBBC after biocementation and drying at room temperature.

Author comment: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R0/PR2

Comments

This paper discusses the bacterial-fungi interaction for material formation. The main contribution of the paper is the exploration of the cohabitation between bacteria and fungi as a building method. I recommend that this paper be accepted because, in terms of experimental technique, this paper demonstrates how it is possible to increase material properties and develop new symbiotic relationships using a DIY approach. However, it would be a valuable addition to have some comments related to the final output by highlighting its material properties and how these could change according to different dimensions, thickness and shapes.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Review: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R0/PR3

Comments

This is a very interesting article that sheds light on the formation of a new biomaterial material for construction. Given the DIY nature of the experiment, the results are fascinating, and the science behind the methodological approach is well explained. However, the author could have explained in more detail if the results were the same across replicates. Additionally, the author could provide more information about the sample preparation. Other study limitations could have also been discussed, like the lack of controls and standardisation of the protocols. Finally, it will be good to have the results in separate sections and clearly state the objectives and hypotheses

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Recommendation: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Bacteria-Fungi Interaction for Material Formation — R1/PR6

Comments

Happy with the amendments to this paper