| Literature DB >> 31248040 |
Imran Khan1, Muhammad Ali Raza2, Muhammad Hayder Bin Khalid3, Samrah Afzal Awan4, Naveed Iqbal Raja5, Xinquan Zhang6, Sun Min7, Bing Chao Wu8, Muhammad Jawad Hassan9, Linkai Huang10.
Abstract
: A rapid and continuous growth of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) via their precursor "silver nitrate" (AgNO3) has increased their environmental risk because of their unsafe discharge into the surrounding environment. Both have damaging effects on plants and induce oxidative stress. In the present study, differential responses in the morpho-physiological and biochemical profiles of P. glaucum (L.) seedlings exposed to various doses of AgNPs and AgNO3 were studied. Both have forms of Ag accelerated the reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, which adversely affected the membrane stability as a result of their enhanced accumulation, and resulted in a significant reduction in growth, that is, root length, shoot length, fresh and dry biomass, and relative water content. AgNO3 possessed a higher degree of toxicity owing to its higher accumulation than AgNPs, and induced changes in the antioxidants' enzyme activity: superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalases (CAT), guaiacol peroxidase (GPX), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), and glutathione reductase (GR) activity, as well as proline content, total phenolic, and total flavonoids contents (TFCs) under all tested treatments (mM). A decline in photosynthetic pigments such as total chlorophyll content and carotenoid content and alterations in quantum yield (Fv/Fm), photochemical (qP), and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) indicated the blockage of the electron transport chain (ETC), which led to a significant inhibition of photosynthesis. Interestingly, seedlings exposed to AgNPs showed less damaging effects on P. glaucum (L.) seedlings, resulting in relatively lower oxidative stress in contrast to AgNO3. Our results revealed that AgNO3 and AgNPs possessed differential phytotoxic effects on P. glaucum (L.) seedlings, including their mechanism of uptake, translocation, and action. The present findings may be useful in phytotoxic research to design strategies that minimize the adverse effects of AgNPs and AgNO3 on crops, especially in the agriculture sector.Entities:
Keywords: accumulation; antioxidants; comprehensive; photosynthesis; phytotoxic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31248040 PMCID: PMC6651700 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132261
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1A possible mechanism of uptake and distribution of AgNPs in plants.
Figure 2An overview of damaging effects due silver nitrate (AgNO3) and synthesized metallic silver nanoparticles (AgNPs).
Figure 3Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) of synthesized metallic Silver nanoparticles AgNPs.
Effect of AgNPs and AgNO3 on root length (RL) (cm), shoot length (SL) (cm), fresh weight (FW) (g), dry weight (DW) (g), and relative water contents (RWC) (%) of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) seedlings. Each experiment was performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one-way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05.
| Treatments | AgNPs | AgNO3 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth Parameters | ||||||||||
| RL | SL | FW | DW | RWC | RL | SL | FW | DW | RWC | |
| Control | 12.37 ± 0.96 c | 7.47 ± 0.23 c | 0.131 ± 0.006 c | 0.020 ± 0.0005 d | 95.17 ± 0.79 d | 12.37 ± 0.96 c | 7.47 ± 0.23 c | 0.131 ± 0.006 c | 0.020 ± 0.0005 d | 95.17 ± 0.79 d |
| 2 mM | 8.87 ± 0.99 (28) b | 6.33 ± 0.26 (15) b | 0.112 ± 0.003 (14) b | 0.018 ± 0.0001(10) c | 90.01 ± 1.47 (10) c | 7.27 ± 0.62 (41) b | 5.87 ± 0.22 c (21) b | 0.081 ± 0.003 (38) b | 0.0164 ± 0.0001 (20) c | 83.02 ± 1.68 (13) c |
| 4 mM | 7.20 ± 0.45 (41) bc | 5.90 ± 0.23 (21) b | 0.075 ± 0.002 (43) a | 0.016 ± 0.0002 (20) b | 80.54 ± 1.83 (15) b | 5.17 ± 0.33 (58) a | 5.10 ± 0.20c (32) a | 0.068 ± 0.001 (48) ab | 0.0143 ± 0.0002 c (30) b | 72.04 ± 2.16 (24) b |
| 6 Mm | 4.80 ± 0.35 (61) a | 5.13 ± 0.18 (31) a | 0.069 ± 0.002 (47) a | 0.0132 ± 0.0002 (35)a | 70.28 ± 1.59 (26) a | 3.90 ± 0.21 (68) a | 4.77 ± 0.14 c (36) a | 0.058 ± 0.002(55) a | 0.0114 ± 0.0003 c (45)a | 63.10 ± 1.49 (28) a |
Similar superscript letters such as (a, b, c and d) within a column indicate that means were not significantly differe between treatments p < 0.05.
Figure 4Total chlorophyll content (a), carotenoids content (b) and total protein content (c) contents in the seedlings of P. glaucum L. exposed to AgNPs and AgNO3. The Experiment was performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at p < 0.05.
Figure 5Photochemical quenching (a), NPQ, non-photochemical quenching (b) and Fv/Fm values (c) of P. glaucum L. seedlings exposed to AgNPs and AgNO3. The Experiment was performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one way). And the A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at p < 0.05.
Figure 6Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (a) lipid peroxidation (b) as melondialdehyd (MDA) content in the seedlings of P. glaucum L. exposed to AgNPs and AgNO3. Experiments were performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one-way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05.
Figure 7Activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) (a), catalase (CAT) (b), peroxidase (POD) (c), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) (d) in P. glaucum L. seedlings exposed to AgNPs and AgNO3. Experiments were performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one-way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05.
Figure 8Glutathione reductase activity (a) and guaiacole peroxidase activity (b) in the P. glaucum L. seedlings exposed to AgNPs and AgNO3. Experiments were performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05.
Effect of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and silver nitrate (AgNO3) on non-enzymatic antioxidants such as proline content (µg/mg fresh weight), total flavonoid content (µg/mg fresh weight), and total phenolic content (µg/mg fresh weight) of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) seedlings. Experiments were performed twice with three replicates (n = 6). Means and standard errors (±) were calculated by analysis of variance (one-way). A comparison of the means (control + treatments) was confirmed by Duncan’s multiple range test at p < 0.05.
| Treatment | AgNPs | AgNO3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-Enzymatic Antioxidants | ||||||
| Proline | TFCs | TPCs | Proline | TFCs | TPCs | |
| Control | 1.22 ± 0.037 a | 2.06 ± 0.043 (41) d | 1.56 ± 0.032 a | 1.22 ± 0.037 a | 0.59 ± 0.023 a | 1.22 ± 0.023 (52) d |
| 2 mM | 1.59 ± 0.027 (23) b | 0.71 ± 0.022 (17) b | 1.75 ± 0.021 (11) b | 1.72 ± 0.032 (29) b | 0.84 ± 0.015 (30) b | 1.84 ± 0.021(15) b |
| 4 Mm | 1.83 ± 0.026 (33) c | 0.85 ± 0.020 (30) c | 1.92 ± 0.024 (19) c | 1.93 ± 0.026 (37) c | 0.94 ± 0.017 (37) c | 2.00 ± 0.055 (22) c |
| 6 Mm | 2.06 ± 0.043 (41) d | 1.13 ± 0.023 (48) d | 2.32 ± 0.028 (33) d | 2.16 ± 0.023 (44) d | 1.22 ± 0.023 (52) d | 2.53 ± 0.026 (38) d |
Similar superscript letters such as (a, b, c and d) within a column indicate that means were not significantly differe between treatments p < 0.05