| Literature DB >> 36135636 |
Said M Kamel1, Samah F Elgobashy1, Reda I Omara1, Aly S Derbalah2, Mahmoud Abdelfatah3, Abdelhamed El-Shaer3, Abdulaziz A Al-Askar4, Ahmed Abdelkhalek5, Kamel A Abd-Elsalam1, Tarek Essa1, Muhammad Kamran6, Mohsen Mohamed Elsharkawy7.
Abstract
Metal oxide nanoparticles have recently garnered interest as potentially valuable substances for the management of plant diseases. Copper oxide nanoparticles (Cu2ONPs) were chemically fabricated to control root rot disease in cucumbers. A scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and photoluminescence (PL) were employed to characterize the produced nanoparticles. Moreover, the direct antifungal activity of Cu2ONPs against Fusarium solani under laboratory, greenhouse, and field conditions were also evaluated. In addition, the induction of host-plant resistance by Cu2ONPs was confirmed by the results of enzyme activities (catalase, peroxidase, and polyphenoloxidase) and gene expression (PR-1 and LOX-1). Finally, the effect of Cu2ONPs on the growth and productivity characteristics of the treated cucumber plants was investigated. The average particle size from all the peaks was found to be around 25.54 and 25.83 nm for 0.30 and 0.35 Cu2O, respectively. Under laboratory conditions, the study found that Cu2ONPs had a greater inhibitory effect on the growth of Fusarium solani than the untreated control. Cu2ONP treatment considerably reduced the disease incidence of the root rot pathogen in cucumber plants in both greenhouse and field environments. Defense enzyme activity and defense genes (PR1 and LOX1) transcription levels were higher in cucumber plants treated with Cu2ONPs and fungicide than in the untreated control. SEM analysis revealed irregularities, changes, twisting, and plasmolysis in the mycelia, as well as spore shrinking and collapsing in F. solani treated with Cu2ONPs, compared to the untreated control. The anatomical analysis revealed that cucumber plants treated with Cu2ONPs had thicker cell walls, root cortex, and mesophyll tissue (MT) than untreated plants. Cucumber growth and yield characteristics were greatly improved after treatment with Cu2ONPs and fungicide. To the best of our knowledge, employing Cu2ONPs to treat cucumber rot root disease is a novel strategy that has not yet been reported.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium solani; anatomical structure; control; defense genes; enzymes; metal oxide nanoparticles; resistance; scanning electron microscope
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135636 PMCID: PMC9505343 DOI: 10.3390/jof8090911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Forward and reverse primers sequence for PR-1, LOX-1 and actin genes.
| Gene | Forward Primer | Reverse Primer |
|---|---|---|
|
| TGCTCAACAATATGCGAACC | TCATCCACCCACAACTGAAC |
|
| CTCTTGGGTGGTGGTGTTTC | TGGTGGGATTGAAGTTAGCC |
|
| TGCTGGTCGTGACCTTACTG | GAATCTCTCAGCTCCGATGG |
Figure 1XRD patterns of the fabricated Cu2O nanoparticles (A,B). Top view of SEM image of surface morphologies of fabricated Cu2ONPs (C,D).
Figure 2Average grain size distribution of 0.30 and 0.35 of Cu2O NPs (A) and room temperature PL spectra of fabricated Cu2ONPs (B,C).
Radial growth and inhibition percentage of the Cu2ONPs and fungicide against F. solani in vitro with regression equation and degree of correlation.
| Treatment | Conc. | Radial Growth (mm) | Inhibition % | Regression Equation | R² |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 10 | 7.0 b ±0.54 * | 22.22 f ± 0.56 | Y = 1.7611x − 33.49 | 0.99 |
| 25 | 5.8 c ± 0.66 | 35.56 e ± 0.76 | |||
| 50 | 4.6 d ±0.48 | 48.89 d ±0.73 | |||
| 100 | 2.3 d ± 0.52 | 74.44 b± 0.86 | |||
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 10 | 6.8 c ± 0.64 | 24.44 d± 0.78 | Y = 1.6779x − 36.244 | 0.981 |
| 25 | 5.4 e± 0.57 | 38.89 c ± 0.91 | |||
| 50 | 4.1 f ± 0.43 | 54.44 b ±0.93 | |||
| 100 | 1.9 f ± 0.39 | 78.89 a± 1.12 | |||
| Fungicide | 10 | 6.3 d ± 0.67 | 30.0 d ± 0.71 | Y = 1.627x − 43.269 | 0.983 |
| 25 | 5.1 e ± 0.55 | 43.33 c ± 0.89 | |||
| 50 | 3.5 f ± 0.45 | 61.11 b± 1.07 | |||
| 100 | 1.3 f ± 0.41 | 85.56 a± 1.14 | |||
| Control | 0 | 9.0 a ± 0.69 | 0.0 g ± 0.19 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Each mean value came from three replicates.
Figure 3Effect of Cu2ONPs and chemical fungicide on the radial growth of Fusarium solani (A) = control, (B) = fungicide, (C) = Cu2ONPs (0.35 M) at a concentration of 50 µg/L, (D) = Cu2ONPs (0.35 M) at a concentration of 100 µg/L, (E) = Cu2ONPs (0.30 M) at a concentration of 50 µg/L and (F) = Cu2ONPs (0.30 M) at a concentration of 100 µg/L.
Effect of Cu2ONPs compared to the chemical fungicide on the percentages of damping-off and root rot disease incidence of F. solani in cucumber plants under greenhouse conditions.
| Treatment | Damping-Off % | Disease Incidence% | % Efficacy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Emergence | Post-Emergence | Survival | |||
| Cu2ONPs (0. 30) | 13.3 c ± 0.68 * | 6.0 c ± 0.26 | 80.7 a ±1.35 | 26.9 c ± 0.57 | 50.0 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 30.0 a ± 0.89 | 0.0 d ± 0.02 | 70.0 c ± 1.23 | 28.6 b ± 0.63 | 46.8 |
| Fungicide | 13.3 c ± 0.63 | 13.3 b ± 0.46 | 73.4 b ± 1.41 | 20.0 d ± 0.48 | 62.8 |
| Control | 17.5 b ± 0.47 | 17.5 a ± 0.53 | 65.0 d ± 1.12 | 53.8 a ± 0.63 | 0.0 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Each mean value came from three replicates.
Effect of Cu2ONPs compared to the chemical fungicide on enzyme activities in treated cucumber plants.
| Treatments | Enzyme Activity | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAT (Catalase) | POX (Peroxidase) | PPO (Polyphenol Oxidase) | |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 23.3 a ± 0.63 * | 1.397 a ± 0.23 | 0.127 a ± 0.52 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 22.1 b ± 0.61 | 1.239 a ± 0.28 | 0.098 b ± 0.43 |
| Fungicide | 19.7 c ± 0.46 | 0.741 b ± 0.25 | 0.054 c ± 0.35 |
| Control | 12.8 d ± 0.42 | 0.329 c ± 0.21 | 0.034 d ± 0.22 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Each mean value came from three replicates.
Figure 4Expression of defense-related genes, such as PR-1 (A) and LOX-1 (B), in leaves of cucumber plants treated with Cu2ONPs before challenge inoculation with F. solani.
Figure 5Light microscope observation of spores of F. solani showing (A): untreated control with normal spores and mycelium (yellow arrows). (B): Treated with Cu2ONPs (0.35M), showing collapsed spores (yellow arrows) and (C): treated with Cu2ONPs (0.30M), showing collapsed spores (yellow arrows).
Figure 6Scanning electron microscope observations of spores and mycelia of F. solani taken from growth medium on potato dextrose agar, with two sizes of nano copper showing. (A): Untreated control with normal spores and mycelium (yellow arrows). (B): Treated with Cu2ONPs, showing collapsed mycelia and spores (yellow arrows).
Figure 7Effect of Cu2ONPs on the anatomical structure of cucumber root infection with F. solani. (A): infected control with F. solani, (B): Cu2ONPs (0.35 M), (C): Cu2ONPs (0.30 M) and (D): uninfected.
Effect of Cu2ONPs compared to the fungicide on the percentages of damping-off and root rot disease incidence of F. solani in cucumber plants under field conditions in Menoufia and Giza Governorates.
| Treatments | Menoufia Governorate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damping-Off % | Disease Incidence % | % Efficacy | |||
| Pre-Emergence | Post-Emergence | Survival | |||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 12.0 b ± 0.65 | 18.7 c ± 0.68 | 69.3 b ± 1.23 | 24.7 b ± 0.54 | 63.8 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 9.3 c ± 0.56 | 10.3 b ± 0.54 | 80.4 a ± 1.41 | 21.9 c ± 0.46 | 67.9 |
| Fungicide | 7.3 c ± 0.51 | 11.3 b ± 0.57 | 81.4 a ± 1.46 | 18.0 d ± 0.44 | 73.6 |
| Control | 14.5a ± 0.72 | 29.2 a ± 0.81 | 56.3 c ± 1.27 | 68.3 a ± 1.75 | 0.0 |
| Giza Governorate | |||||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 9.7 b ± 0.58 | 12.7 c ± 0.59 | 77.6 c ± 1.34 | 21.3 b ± 0.58 | 70.17 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 7.4 c ± 0.51 | 11.3 b ± 0.56 | 81.6 b ± 1.42 | 20.4 b ± 0.66 | 71.43 |
| Fungicide | 5.7 c ± 0.47 | 10.3 b ± 0.51 | 84.0 a ± 1.44 | 17.3 c ± 0.51 | 75.77 |
| Control | 13.5 a ± 0.62 | 31.7 a ± 0.74 | 54.8 d ± 1.04 | 71.4 a ± 1.42 | 0.0 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Each mean value came from three replicates.
Effect of Cu2ONPs compared to the chemical fungicide on total chlorophyll and growth parameters of cucumber plants under field conditions in Menoufia and Giza Governorates.
| Treatment | Total Chlorophyll (SPAD) | Shoot Length (cm) | Root Length (cm) | Fresh Weight (g) | Dry Weight (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Menoufia Governorate | |||||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 32.1 b ± 0.74 | 176.4 a ± 1.21 | 30.8 b ± 0.85 | 45.2 a ± 0.67 | 4.8 b ± 0.23 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 33.7 b ± 0.77 | 177.2 a ± 1.24 | 31.1 b ± 0.82 | 47.7 b ± 0.86 | 5.2 b ± 0.23 |
| Fungicide | 35.5 a ± 0.71 | 178.8 a ± 1.32 | 32.9 a ± 0.79 | 47.3 a ± 0.90 | 6.7 a ± 0.31 |
| Control | 23.4 c ± 0.59 | 130.3 b ± 1.21 | 23.2 c ± 0.98 | 29.3 c ± 0.47 | 3.3 c ± 0.22 |
| Giza Governorate | |||||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 35.7 a ± 0.73 | 181.3 b ± 1.34 | 31.2 b ± 0.79 | 48.9 a ± 0.76 | 6.1 a ± 0.43 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 36.1 a ± 0.74 | 182.4 a ± 1.43 | 33.2 a ± 0.88 | 49.3 a ± 0.56 | 6.4 a ± 0.46 |
| Fungicide | 36.5 a ± 0.68 | 179.3 b ± 1.44 | 33.9 a ± 0.81 | 50.7 a ± 0.67 | 6.3 a ± 0.42 |
| Control | 24.4 b ± 0.42 | 131.8 c ± 1.07 | 25.1 c ± 0.57 | 28.1 b ± 0.37 | 3.5 c ± 0.32 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. * Each mean value came from three replicates.
Effect of Cu2ONPs compared to the chemical fungicide on yield parameters of cucumber plants under field conditions in Menoufia and Giza Governorates.
| Treatments | No. of Fruits | Mean Weight of Fruits (g) | Fruits Weight/Plant (kg) | % Rate of Yield Increase ** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Menoufia Governorate | ||||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 27.7 b ± 0.78 * | 73.4 b ± 0.99 | 2.033 b ± 0.34 | 96.4 c ± 1.03 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 28.3 a ± 0.76 | 74.2 a ± 0.95 | 2.099 b ± 0.37 | 102.8 b ± 1.11 |
| Fungicide | 29.4 a ± 0.79 | 74.8 a ± 0.97 | 2.199 a ± 0.29 | 112.5 a ±1.14 |
| Control | 14.3 c ± 0.49 | 72.4 c ± 0.93 | 1.035 c ± 0.19 | 0.00 d ± 0.78 |
| Giza Governorate | ||||
| Cu2ONPs (0.35) | 28.3 b ± 0.89 | 74.1 a ± 0.94 | 2.097 b ± 0.37 | 89.7 c ± 0.99 |
| Cu2ONPs (0.30) | 29.4 a ± 0.87 | 74.9 a ± 0.98 | 2.202 a ± 0.43 | 99.3 b ± 0.94 |
| Fungicide | 29.7 a ± 0.84 | 75.2 a ± 1.04 | 2.233 a ± 0.34 | 102.1a ± 1.05 |
| Control | 15.4 c ± 0.53 | 71.8 c ± 0.97 | 1.105 c ± 0.29 | 0.0 d ± 1.01 |
Statistical comparisons were made among treatments within a single column. * The different letters represent significant differences using Fisher’s LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Each mean value came from three replicates. ** Rate of yield increase = (fruit weight/plant (treatment) − fruit weight/plant (control))/(fruit weight/plant (control)) × 100.
Pearson correlations between efficacy and total chlorophyll and growth parameters and yield parameters.
| Efficacy | Total Chlorophyll | Shoot Length | Root Length | Fresh Weight | Dry Weight | No. of Fruits | Mean Weight of Fruits | Fruits Weight/Plant | Rate of Yield Increase | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 1 | 0.978 ** | 0.995 ** | 0.972 ** | 0.989 ** | 0.914 ** | 0.998 ** | 0.923 ** | 0.998 ** | 0.991 ** |
| Total chlorophyll | 1 | 0.976 ** | 0.978 ** | 0.987 ** | 0.965 ** | 0.978 ** | 0.921 ** | 0.980 ** | 0.952 ** | |
| Shoot length | 1 | 0.961 ** | 0.988 ** | 0.904 ** | 0.995 ** | 0.896 ** | 0.993 ** | 0.983 ** | ||
| Root length | 1 | 0.963 ** | 0.943 ** | 0.979 ** | 0.941 ** | 0.983 ** | 0.960 ** | |||
| Fresh weight | 1 | 0.917 ** | 0.986 ** | 0.911 ** | 0.986 ** | 0.968 ** | ||||
| Dry weight | 1 | 0.914 ** | 0.922 ** | 0.920 ** | 0.888 ** | |||||
| No. of fruits | 1 | 0.916 ** | 1.000 ** | 0.992 ** | ||||||
| Mean weight of fruits | 1 | 0.927 ** | 0.904 ** | |||||||
| Fruits weight/plant | 1 | 0.991 ** | ||||||||
| Rate of yield increase | 1 |
** = highly significant.