| Literature DB >> 32456282 |
Sozan E El-Abeid1, Yosra Ahmed1, José-Antonio Daròs2, Mohamed A Mohamed1,2,3.
Abstract
Sustainable use of nanotechnology in crop protection requires an understanding of the plant's life cycle, potential toxicological impacts of nanomaterials and their mechanism of action against the target pathogens. Herein, we show some properties of a candidate antifungal nanocomposite made from copper oxide (Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium root rot; Fusarium wilt; agro-nanotechnology; antifungal nanomaterials; copper oxide nanoparticles; reduced graphene oxide; solanaceous plants
Year: 2020 PMID: 32456282 PMCID: PMC7281300 DOI: 10.3390/nano10051001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Figure 1TEM images of (A) rGO and (B) rGO-CuO NPs. (C) EDS pattern of rGO-CuO NPs.
Figure 2Characterization of rGO-CuO NPs. (A) XRD patterns and (B) FT-IR spectra of rGO and rGO-CuO NPs, as indicated.
Figure 3Antifungal activity of rGO-CuO NPs against F. oxysporum strains. Plot of fungal growth rate versus CuO NP size and rGO-CuO NP concentration at different time points, as indicated, for FOR) (A), FOC1 (B), and FOC2 (C).
Mean of inhibitory growth rate (%) of the pathogenic three F. oxysporum isolates with the smaller size (5 nm) of the rGO-CuO NPs.
| Pathogen | Treatment | Concentration | Inhibition Rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 Days | 6 Days | 8 Days | ||||
| rGO-CuO nanocomposite | 1 mg/L | 92.35 ± 2.047 | 93.15 ± 1.09 | 92.37 ± 1.35 | ||
| 10 mg/L | 92.90 ± 1.1 | 93.153 ± 1.09 | 93.7 ± 1.28 | |||
| 100 mg/L | 92.89 ± 1.13 | 93.17 ± 1.08 | 94.44 ± 0.0 | |||
| Controls | rGO | 1 g/L | 5.55 ± 0.0 | 8.33 ± 1.1 | 11.11 ± 0.0 | |
| CuO NPs | 1 g/L | 19.22 ± 0.0 | 22.22 ± 0.0 | 33.33 ± 1.1 | ||
| Kocide 2000 | 2.5 g/L | 65.3 ± 0.2 | 67.2 ± 0.4 | 6 | ||
| rGO-CuO nanocomposite | 1 mg/L | 89.06 ± 0.31 | 92.35 ± 0.30 | 92.80 ± 0.3 | ||
| 10 mg/L | 89.06 ± 0.31 | 92.36 ± 0.35 | 92.80 ± 0.33 | |||
| 100 mg/L | 89.08 ± 0.27 | 92.35 ± 0.35 | 92.80 ± 0.33 | |||
| Controls | rGO | 1 g/L | 2.27 ± 0.0 | 5.55 ± 1.1 | 8.33 ± 0.20 | |
| CuO NPs | 1 g/L | 25.00 ± 1.0 | 33.33 ± 1.1 | 38.88 ± 1.1 | ||
| Kocide 2000 | 2.5 g/L | 64.5 ± 0.5 | 69.2 ± 0.2 | 6 | ||
| rGO-CuO nanocomposite | 1 mg/L | 85.95 ± 6.30 | 81.24 ± 7.1 | 83.34 ± | ||
| 10 mg/L | 87.13 ± | 82.07 ± | 82.13 ± | |||
| 100 mg/L | 87.72 ± | 88.77 ± 2.8 | 87.8 ± 2.5 | |||
| Controls | rGO | 1 g/L | 5.55 ± 0.0 | 8.33 ± 1.1 | 11.11 ± 0.0 | |
| CuO NPs | 1 g/L | 19.22 ± 0.0 | 22.22 ± 0.0 | 30.55 ± 0.0 | ||
| Kocide 2000 | 2.5 g/L | 63.3 ± 0.5 | 65.2 ± 0.4 | 70.5 ± 1.0 | ||
Figure 4Analysis of fungal cell viability by fluorescence microscopy. F. oxysporum spores (A) non-treated or (B) treated with rGO-CuO NPs were stained with DAPI (stains live spores in blue) and PI (stains dead spores in red) and visualized.
Figure 5Effect of rGO-CuO NPs at 1 mg/L concentration on (A) FORL, (B) FOC1 and (C) FOC2. SEM images of mock-treated (upper rows) and NP-treated (lower row) fungi. Pictures in the different columns correspond to fungal mycelia, macroconidia, microconidia, and chlamydospores, as indicated.
Figure 6Ultra structural images obtained by TEM of (A,C) untreated and (B,D,E) rGO CuO NP-treated FORL cells. (E) Magnified view for treated fungal cell wall layers showing the internalization of NPs and their distribution. Red arrows point successful penetration of the rGO-CuO NPs in the fungal cells.
Figure 7Disease severity index in % of tomato and pepper plants non-treated, treated with rGO-CuO NPs or the conventional fungicide Kocide and, then, challenged with F. oxysporum. Average and standard error of nine biological replicates are shown.
Figure 8In vivo treatments of tomato and pepper plants with rGO-CuO NPs. (A) Pepper plant showing Fusarium wilt symptoms. (B) Infected control of tomato plant. (C,D) Pepper (C) and tomato (D) plants non-treated (1) or treated with 1 mg/L (2) or 100 mg/L rGO-CuO NPs (3), or treated with Kocide (4). Pictures were taken at 60 dpi.
Figure 9Effect of rGO-CuO NP treatments, as indicated, on flower increment in tomato and pepper plants (nine biological replicates). Two independent experiments with pepper plants are plotted. Letters on bars mean statistically significant differences between the mean of the respective control and the nanocomposite at the same concentration (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 10Effect of rGO-CuO NP treatments, as indicated, on plant height of tomato and pepper plants (nine biological replicates). Two independent experiments with pepper plants are plotted. Letters on bars mean statistically significant differences between the mean of the respective control and the nanocomposite at the same concentration (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 11Effect of rGO-CuO NP treatments, as indicated, on dry weight of tomato and pepper plants (nine biological replicates). Two independent experiments with pepper plants are plotted. Letters on bars mean statistically significant differences between the mean of the respective control and the nanocomposite at the same concentration (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 12Effect of rGO-CuO NP treatments on photosynthetic pigments of treated (A) tomato and (B,C) pepper plants (nine biological replicates). Two independent experiments with pepper plants are plotted. Letters on bars mean statistically significant differences between the mean of the respective control and the nanocomposite at the same concentration (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 13TEM micrographs showing internalization and translocation of rGO-CuO NPs (NP) in tomato root cells upon exposure to 100 mg/L of NP aqueous suspensions for 1 h. (A) Control (untreated) tomato root cells showing normal architecture of cell wall (Cw), nucleus (N), integrated mitochondria (M), and vacuoles (V). (B) Tomato treated root cells showing normal cell organelles after translocation of NPs inside cellular tissue. (C) Magnified view of mitochondrion (M), microtubules (Mt), and cellular matrix of tomato treated cells. (D) Magnified view of mitochondrion (M) and cellular matrix of pepper treated. B-D panels show internalization of NPs at various sites of root cells.