Nanomaterials‘ effects on Plants under Salt Stress: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jason Zhu and Version 1 by Zainul Abideen.

Plant salinity resistance results from a combination of responses at the physiological, molecular, cellular, and metabolic levels. Nanoparticles are used as an emerging tool to stimulate specific biochemical reactions related to plant ecophysiological output because of their small size, increased surface area and absorption rate, efficient catalysis of reactions, and adequate reactive sites. Regulated ecophysiological control in saline environments could play a crucial role in plant growth promotion and survival of plants under suboptimal conditions. Plant biologists are seeking to develop a broad profile of genes and proteins that contribute to plant salt resistance. These plant metabolic profiles can be developed due to advancements in genomic, proteomic, metabolomic, and transcriptomic techniques.

  • salinity
  • ecophysiology
  • salt tolerance
  • Nanoparticles

1. Introduction

Soil salinization of land poses a serious threat and harms the environment, agriculture, and the economy. Salinity stress in plants may cause changes at the molecular as well as the physiological level [1]. Some plants contain salt tolerance genes while many have a salt-sensitive genetic makeup. Various complex mechanisms may alter the genetic responses in plants under abiotic conditions. Modifications in the expression of salt-responsive genes make the plants more resistant to salinity stress. Ecophysiological traits of plants and their importance for biomass production in response to variable climate change are critical for sustainable agricultural productivity [2,3,4][2][3][4]. Plants can change their ecophysiological mechanism in five known constraints including growth, water dynamics, mineral nutrition, photosynthesis rate, and oxidative stability [5,6][5][6].
The adaptation of a plant to a stressful environment is a complex and sensitive phenomenon [7,8][7][8]. This acclimation is governed by multiple genes and regulatory pathways [9]. Once the plant detects a stress, it first senses and then transduces a stress signal. Plants utilize various components for signal transduction including transcription factors, ion transporters, kinases, calcium, and hormones [10]. During abiotic stress, many physical modifications occur such as alteration in protein and other metabolites along with changes in the cellular matrix and segregation of nucleic acid strands [11]. All these alterations may result in altered regulation of abiotic stress-responsive genes. It was observed by Tang [12] that superoxide dismutase is responsible for oxidative stress tolerance. Enhanced salt resistance in plants is due in part to the overexpression of chloroplast protein-increasing stress tolerance (CEST) [13]. The assimilation of methylglyoxal in a saline stressed potato plant was inhibited by glyoxalase activity [14]. Hasanuzzaman et al. [15] reported that selenium protects plants from damaging free radicals, improves the antioxidant defense system, and methylglyoxal detoxification. It was observed that the use of selenium nanoparticles with bitter melon induced alterations in the methylation of cytosine in DNA resulting in epigenetic modifications. The up-regulation of the WRKY1 transcription factor was induced by a high dose of selenium nanoparticles. The transcription of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) and 4-CoA-ligase (4CL) genes have also been affected by selenium nanoparticles [10].
The application of nanoparticles to plants helps to mitigate salinity stress. Nanoparticles can be used to alter plant genetic makeup to become resistant to salt stress. Nanoparticles are identified as particles that have a size of less than 100 nm in diameter [16]. They are found naturally in various resources such as minerals or as a product of bacteria and clays. Nanoparticles have been used historically for coloring metals and other purposes, with new applications over the past several years [17]. Nanoparticles that are engineered have some significant specific properties. These nanoparticles have different sizes and shapes and their composition also varies, and they differ widely from naturally occurring nanoparticles [18]. Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles reveal various physiochemical properties such as high density and possess microscopic edges on their surface. The sizes of nanoparticles vary due to differences in composition, such as Cu+2O, Zn+2O−2, Sn+4O−22, Al+32O−23, Mg+2O−2, Ti+4O−22, and Ce+4O−22. Due to the changes in nanoparticles size, many properties including magnetic, electronic, and chemical properties are altered. Magnetic nanoparticles have achieved significant importance due to their variations in size and shape [19]. Surface, optical, thermal, and electrical properties can also be incorporated into these nanoparticles. The process of metal/metal oxide nanoparticle synthesis includes the reduction as well as oxidation of respective metal salts [20]. There are many different factors that contribute to nanoparticle reactivity with desired biomaterials. These factors are the size, dimension, and stability of the nanoparticles [21]. In the past few decades, synthesized nanoparticles have been used for various industrial and household purposes. There is continuing effort to synthesize new nanomaterials to enhance quality products. However, the environment can be contaminated due to the excess use of nanoparticles due to improper disposal of industrial wastes and other by-products [22].
Nanoparticles can be adapted for environmental conditions and their aggregation and oxidation state can be engineered [23]. The stability and behavior of nanoparticles can be affected by chemicals in the environment and by physical parameters. The properties of nanoparticles depend on their composition. The composition of nanoparticles also affects their rate of reaction, penetration ability, and translocation inside the plant. Hence, the same nanoparticles may show different responses in plants under different conditions. For instance, it was observed by Barrios et al. [24] that plant responses were influenced by citric acid-coated nanoparticles compared to bare nanoparticles. Plants constantly interact with the surrounding medium, such as water, air, and soil. The engineered nanoparticles can cause different effects caused by quantum dots, carbon-based and metal-based effects on plant growth variations, physiological and biochemical traits, food production, and quality of food. Thorough interaction studies between engineered nanoparticles and plants are needed to analyze the toxicity levels and the remediation scheme to build a sustainable environment for agriculture [25]. Plants play a significant part in the ecosystem and in the food chain. However, the effects of nanoparticles on plants are not well known. The study of nanoparticles is difficult due to a lack of detection methods in plants [26]. The most suitable technique for the identification of nanoparticles in plants is inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). Due to the size, shape, composition, and stability of nanoparticles, the plant may show positive or negative impacts due to nanoparticle application. Several reported studies showed that some nanoparticles have a negative impact on plants such as declines in plant growth, production rate, and pigments [27]. Conversely, some nanoparticles may be beneficial for plants. In order to maintain their stability in agricultural crop production, synthetic nanoparticles are mostly used. These nanoparticles are used as biofertilizers, growth stimulators, soil-improving agents, and are also used as sensors [28].

2. Engineered Nanoparticles and their Effect on Plant Salt Tolerance Genes: Enzymatic Expression

Engineered nanoparticles can interact chemically and mechanically with plants. These interactions are based on their properties such as size, surface area, and catalytic interactions. Few studies have been reported regarding the effect of nanoparticles at the molecular level [29,30,31][29][30][31]. Various plant species are highly affected by ZnO nanoparticles. Nanoparticles penetrate the plant leaf and accumulate in the edible parts while some assimilate into the soil in the surrounding area of the plant. Some metal and metal oxide nanoparticles are toxic to the environment, such as Ag+1, Fe+3, Zn+2, Al+3, and Ti+4 [32]. It was observed that when Brassica juncea was treated with silver nanoparticles it resulted in increased levels of antioxidant enzymes, for instance, guaiacol peroxidase, catalase, and ascorbate peroxidase, which resulted in decreased levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) activity [33]. The activity of enzymes such as super oxide dismutase, catalase, guaiacol peroxidase, ascorbate peroxidase, and glutathione reductase increased after the treatment of Brassica juncea with gold nanoparticles [34]. It was found that H2O2 and proline content increases in gold nanoparticle-treated plants. The activity of ascorbate peroxidase, glutathione reductase, and guaiacol peroxidase is stimulated in the presence of up to 400 ppm of gold nanoparticles, while on the other hand, the activity of guaiacol peroxidase increases with 200 ppm gold nanoparticles. Plant molecular responses to silver nanoparticle treatment were analyzed in Aradidopsis by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [35]. A whole-genome cDNA expression microarray was also used for the transcriptional response analysis of Arabidopsis plants subjected to silver nanoparticles. This resulted in the identification of 286 upregulated genes, including those involved with metal and oxidative stress responses such as the vacuolar proton exchanger, SOD, cytochrome P450-dependent oxidase, and peroxidase. It also identified about 81 downregulated genes along with genes that help in the plant defense system. These included auxin-regulated genes, ethylene signaling pathway, and SAR against pathogens.
A proteomic analysis of rice treated with silver nanoparticles was carried out. It was found that silver nanoparticle-responsive proteins were associated with various metabolic functions such as transcription and protein degradation, the oxidative stress response pathway, and the calcium signaling pathway [36]. Treatment with zinc oxide nanoparticles in Arabidopsis thaliana identified 660 up- and 826 down-regulated genes. Seedling growth and seed germination of tomato was enhanced by the up-regulation of stress-related gene expression employing multi-walled carbon nanotube-based treatment [37].
Iron (Fe) is considered to be essential for plant growth and development as it plays a significant role in enzymatic reactions, helps in photosynthesis, and aids to improve the performance of photosystems. In plants, Fe is present in the insoluble form, i.e., Fe3+. The increase in pH and aerobic conditions leads to a decreased concentration of Fe in the soil. The use of iron nanoparticles helps to improve plant resistance to different environmental abiotic stresses. The application of iron nanoparticles reacts at the molecular level of plants, which helps to enhance the nutrient uptake ability [38]. Toxicity in plants may be caused by an excess concentration of iron nanoparticles. A higher amount of free Fe ions such as Fe2+ and Fe3+ leads to the production of ROS in plants. It was reported by Rodríguez et al. [39] that in some plants, down-regulation of detoxifying proteins such as CAT2 (CATALASE 2; AT4G35090) protein and AP2 (PEROXIDASE 2; AT5G06720) protein has been observed. A deficiency of Fe in the roots of M. truncatula, P. dulcis, and P. persica was correlated with superoxide dismutase expression, i.e., ATMSD1 (ARABIDOPSIS-SIS-MANGANESE SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE 1; AT3G10920) [39]. Fe deficiency may cause the production of non-enzymatic ROS. Under Fe deficiency in A. thaliana, two enzymes have been reported to be expressed: GST1 (ARABIDOPSIS GLUTATHIONE S-TRANSFERASE 1; AT1G02930) and MDAR1 (MONODEHYDROASCORBATE REDUCTASE 1; AT3G52880) [40]. The ROS-eliminating enzyme aids in the stimulation of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle from GPX3 (GLUTATHIONE PEROXIDASE 3; AT2G43350) [40]. Due to the magnetic properties of superparamagnetic iron oxides, Fe2O3 (maghemite) and Fe3O4 (magnetite) nanoparticles are widely used in various applications including the mitigation of salinity effects of plants. High Fe3O4 nanoparticle concentration has a high impact on seed germination and root elongation of cucumber [41]. In cucurbits, the Fe3O4 nanoparticle aggregation occurred in the stem and roots [42]. The toxicity of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles has been tested in Lemna gibba [43]. It has been observed that plant chlorophyll content decreased while the photosynthetic activity and growth were also highly affected. The size and stability of nanoparticles are responsible for their toxicity level. The effect of Fe3O4 nanoparticles has been investigated in Cucumis sativus, and it was observed that seed germination and root elongation were highly affected [41]. It has been shown that Fe3O4 nanoparticles are translocated towards the foliage, stem, and below-ground root. Aggregation of Fe3O4 nanoparticles in plants may decrease the root hydraulic movement and water transport. The growth parameters of S. lycopersicum were studied by the application of Fe2O3 nanoparticles. It has been observed that these nanoparticles were clogged in root hairs, root tips, and the nodal portion of plants. Increases in Fe2O3 nanoparticle concentration improved iron content in plants [44]. In Arachis hypogaea, root length and plant height increased due to the use of Fe2O3 nanoparticles in saline conditions [45].
While a number of genes with the potential for the engineering of salt tolerance have been identified and tested, additional genes and regulatory pathways need to be identified. Work in many labs is ongoing to develop genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic resources.

3. Plant Metabolomics and the Linkage of Molecular Functions to Nanomaterial Application

The by-products of cellular regulatory mechanisms are metabolites. These metabolites are secreted in response to the external stimuli faced by the organism. More than 200,000 metabolites are secreted by plants and these metabolites are divided into two classes; these are primary and secondary metabolites for plant growth and development [46]. Primary metabolites are essential and include carbohydrates, fatty acids, vitamins, amino acids, and organic acids [47]. Polyketides, alkaloids, terpenoids, glucosinolates, and phenylpropanoids are secondary metabolites synthesized from primary metabolites and are required by plants for adaptation and defense responses [48]. Throughout the plant kingdom, primary metabolites are common in all plants and conserved in their structure, while on the other hand, plant secondary compounds may vary in their chemical composition and are species-specific. Figure 1 shows the metabolomics analysis of plants exposed to engineered nanomaterials. In xenobiotic plants, the modifications in plant physiology induced by engineered nanoparticles are monitored by molecular events. These molecular events also reflect the metabolites that participate in biological pathways, for instance, the citric acid cycle, glycolysis, gluconeogenesis, and amino acid and secondary metabolite biosynthesis, nitrogen, and fatty acid metabolism. In order to defend against or adapt to various abiotic stresses, plant roots excrete metabolites as signaling molecules. Plants also alter soil chemistry and biochemical pathways to enhance nutrient bioavailability [49].
/media/item_content/202203/622aab34eaed2plants-11-00691-g002.png
Figure 1. Metabolomics analysis in plants exposed to engineered nanomaterials.

References

  1. Abideen, Z.; Qasim, M.; Hussain, T.; Rasheed, A.; Gul, B.; Koyro, H.W.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M.A. Salinity improves growth, photosynthesis and bioenergy characteristics of Phragmites karka. Crop Pasture Sci. 2018, 69, 944–953.
  2. Ehsen, S.; Abideen, Z.; Rizvi, R.F.; Gulzar, S.; Aziz, I.; Gul, B.; Khan, M.A.; Ansari, R. Ecophysiological adaptations and anti-nutritive status of sustainable cattle feed Haloxylon stocksii under saline conditions. Flora 2019, 257, 151425.
  3. Shoukat, E.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Abideen, Z.; Azeem, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Gul, B.; Khan, M.A. Short and long term salinity induced differences in growth and tissue specific ion regulation of Phragmites karka. Flora 2020, 263, 151550.
  4. Hussain, M.I.; Abideen, Z.; Qureshi, A.S. Soil degradation, resilience, restoration and sustainable use. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 52, pp. 335–365.
  5. Abideen, Z.; Koyro, H.W.; Huchzermeyer, B.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Gul, B.; Khan, M.A. Moderate salinity stimulates growth and photosynthesis of Phragmites karka by water relations and tissue specific ion regulation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 105, 70–76.
  6. Shoukat, E.; Abideen, Z.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Gulzar, S.; Nielsen, B.L. Changes in growth and photosynthesis linked with intensity and duration of salinity in Phragmites karka. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 162, 504–514.
  7. Munir, N.; Hasnain, M.; Roessner, U.; Abideen, Z. Strategies in improving plant salinity resistance and use of salinity resistant plants for economic sustainability. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 1–47.
  8. Abideen, Z.; Koyro, H.W.; Huchzermeyer, B.; Ahmed, M.; Zulfiqar, F.; Egan, T.; Khan, M.A. Phragmites karka plants adopt different strategies to regulate photosynthesis and ion flux in saline and water deficit conditions. Plant Biosyst.-An Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2021, 155, 524–534.
  9. Lohani, N.; Jain, D.; Singh, M.B.; Bhalla, P.L. Engineering multiple abiotic stress tolerance in Canola, Brassica napus. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 3–11.
  10. Rajaee, B.S.; Iranbakhsh, A.; Ebadi, M.; Majd, A.; Ardebili, Z.O. Red elemental selenium nanoparticles mediated substantial variations in growth, tissue differentiation, metabolism, gene transcription, epigenetic cytosine DNA methylation, and callogenesis in Bittermelon (Momordica charantia); an In vitro experiment. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235556.
  11. Derbali, W.; Manaa, A.; Spengler, B.; Goussi, R.; Abideen, Z.; Ghezellou, P.; Abdelly, C.; Forreiter, C.; Koyro, H.W. Comparative proteomic approach to study the salinity effect on the growth of two contrasting quinoa genotypes. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 163, 215–229.
  12. Tang, W. Heterologous expression of transcription factor ATWRKY57 alleviates salt stress-induced oxidative damage. Open Biotechnol. J. 2018, 12, 204–218.
  13. Yokotani, N.; Higuchi, M.; Kondou, Y.; Ichikawa, T.; Iwabuchi, M.; Hirochika, H.; Matsui, M.; Oda, K. A novel chloroplast protein, CEST induces tolerance to multiple environmental stresses and reduces photooxidative damage in transgenic Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 557–569.
  14. Upadhyaya, C.P.; Venkatesh, J.; Gururani, M.A.; Asnin, L.; Sharma, K.; Ajappala, H.; Park, S.W. Transgenic potato overproducing l-ascorbic acid resisted an increase in methylglyoxal under salinity stress via maintaining higher reduced glutathione level and glyoxalase enzyme activity. Biotechnol. Lett. 2011, 33, 2297–2307.
  15. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Hossain, M.A.; Fujita, M. Selenium-induced up-regulation of the antioxidant defense and methylglyoxal detoxification system reduces salinity-induced damage in Rapeseed seedlings. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 143, 1704–1721.
  16. Auffan, M.; Rose, J.; Bottero, J.Y.; Lowry, G.V.; Jolivet, J.P.; Wiesner, M.R. Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4, 634–641.
  17. Maurer-Jones, M.A.; Gunsolus, I.L.; Murphy, C.J.; Haynes, C.L. Toxicity of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 3036–3049.
  18. Radad, K.; Al-Shraim, M.; Moldzio, R.; Rausch, W.D. Recent advances in benefits and hazards of engineered nanoparticles. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2012, 34, 661–672.
  19. Chavali, M.S.; Nikolova, M.P. Metal oxide nanoparticles and their applications in nanotechnology. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 3199.
  20. Sanchez-Dominguez, M.; Boutonnet, M.; Solans, C. A novel approach to metal and metal oxide nanoparticle synthesis: The oil-in-water microemulsion reaction method. J. Nanopart. Res. 2009, 11, 1823–1829.
  21. Rana, A.; Yadav, K.; Jagadevan, S. A comprehensive review on green synthesis of nature-inspired metal nanoparticles: Mechanism, application and toxicity. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122880.
  22. Dumont, E.; Johnson, A.C.; Keller, V.D.; Williams, R.J. Nano silver and nano zinc-oxide in surface waters–exposure estimation for europe at high spatial and temporal resolution. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 196, 341–349.
  23. Levard, C.; Hotze, E.M.; Lowry, G.V.; Brown, G.E., Jr. Environmental transformations of silver nanoparticles: Impact on stability and toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 6900–6914.
  24. Barrios, A.C.; Rico, C.M.; Trujillo-Reyes, J.; Medina-Velo, I.A.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Effects of uncoated and citric acid coated cerium oxide nanoparticles, bulk cerium oxide, cerium acetate, and citric acid on Tomato plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 563, 956–964.
  25. Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; Rico, C.M.; White, J.C. Trophic transfer, transformation, and impact of engineered nanomaterials in terrestrial environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 2526–2540.
  26. Mahdi, K.N.; Peters, R.J.; Klumpp, E.; Bohme, S.; Van der Ploeg, M.; Ritsema, C.; Geissen, V. Silver nanoparticles in soil: Aqueous extraction combined with single-particle ICP-MS for detection and characterization. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2017, 7, 24–33.
  27. Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Srivastava, P.K.; Singh, V.P.; Singh, S.; Prasad, S.M.; Singh, P.K.; Dubey, N.K.; Pandey, A.C. Nitric oxide alleviates silver nanoparticles (Ag-NPs)-induced phytotoxicity in Pisum sativum seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 167–177.
  28. Wang, P.; Lombi, E.; Zhao, F.J.; Kopittke, P.M. Nanotechnology: A new opportunity in plant sciences. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 699–712.
  29. Rao, S.; Shekhawat, G.S. Phytotoxicity and oxidative stress perspective of two selected nanoparticles in Brassica juncea. 3 Biotech 2016, 6, 244.
  30. Taran, N.; Batsmanova, L.; Kovalenko, M.; Okanenko, A. Impact of metal nanoform colloidal solution on the adaptive potential of plants. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2016, 1, 11–89.
  31. Zohra, E.; Ikram, M.; Omar, A.A.; Hussain, M.; Satti, S.H.; Raja, N.I.; Ehsan, M. Potential applications of biogenic selenium nanoparticles in alleviating biotic and abiotic stresses in plants: A comprehensive insight on the mechanistic approach and future perspectives. Green Process. Synth. 2021, 10, 456–475.
  32. Munir, N.; Hanif, M.; Dias, D.A.; Abideen, A. The role of halophytic nanoparticles towards the remediation of degraded and saline agricultural lands. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 60383–60405.
  33. Sharma, P.; Bhatt, D.; Zaidi, M.; Saradhi, P.P.; Khanna, P.; Arora, S. Silver nanoparticle-mediated enhancement in growth and antioxidant status of Brassica juncea. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 167, 2225–2233.
  34. Gunjan, B.; Zaidi, M. Impact of gold nanoparticles on physiological and biochemical characteristics of Brassica juncea. J. Plant Biochem. Physiol. 2014, 2, 67–73.
  35. Mazumdar, H.; Ahmed, G. Phytotoxicity effect of silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa. Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2011, 3, 1494–1500.
  36. Mirzajani, F.; Askari, H.; Hamzelou, S.; Schober, Y.; Römpp, A.; Ghassempour, A.; Spengler, B. Proteomics study of silver nanoparticles toxicity on Oryza sativa L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 108, 335–339.
  37. Khodakovskaya, M.; Dervishi, E.; Mahmood, M.; Xu, Y.; Li, Z.; Watanabe, F.; Biris, A.S. Carbon nanotubes are able to penetrate plant seed coat and dramatically affect seed germination and plant growth. ACS Nano 2009, 3, 3221–3227.
  38. Tawfik, M.; Mohamed, M.H.; Sadak, M.S.; Thalooth, A.T. Iron oxide nanoparticles effect on growth, physiological traits and nutritional contents of Moringa oleifera grown in saline environment. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2021, 45, 177.
  39. Rodríguez-Celma, J.; Lattanzio, G.; Grusak, M.A.; Abadía, A.; Abadía, J.; López-Millán, A.F. Root responses of Medicago truncatula plants grown in two different iron deficiency conditions: Changes in root protein profile and riboflavin biosynthesis. J. Proteome Res. 2011, 10, 2590–2601.
  40. Mai, H.J.; Lindermayr, C.; Toerne, C.; Fink-Straube, C.; Durner, J.; Bauer, P. Iron and fer-like iron deficiency-induced transcription factor-dependent regulation of proteins and genes in Arabidopsis thaliana roots. Proteomics 2015, 15, 3030–3047.
  41. Mushtaq, Y.K. Effect of nanoscale Fe3O4, TiO2 and carbon particles on cucumber seed germination. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2011, 46, 1732–1735.
  42. Zhu, H.; Han, J.; Xiao, J.Q.; Jin, Y. Uptake, translocation, and accumulation of manufactured iron oxide nanoparticles by Pumpkin plants. J. Environ. Monit. 2008, 10, 713–717.
  43. Barhoumi, L.; Oukarroum, A.; Taher, L.B.; Smiri, L.S.; Abdelmelek, H.; Dewez, D. Effects of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on photosynthesis and growth of the aquatic plant Lemna gibba. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2015, 68, 510–520.
  44. Shankramma, K.; Yallappa, S.; Shivanna, M.B.; Manjanna, J. Fe2O3 magnetic nanoparticles to enhance S. lycopersicum (tomato) plant growth and their biomineralization. Appl. Nanosci. 2016, 6, 983–990.
  45. Rui, M.; Ma, C.; Hao, Y.; Guo, J.; Rui, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Fan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, T.; et al. Iron oxide nanoparticles as a potential iron fertilizer for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Fron. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 815.
  46. Dixon, R.A. Natural products and plant disease resistance. Nature 2001, 411, 843–847.
  47. Fiehn, O. Metabolomics—The link between genotypes and phenotypes. Funct. Gen. 2002, 48, 155–171.
  48. Hounsome, N.; Hounsome, B.; Tomos, D.; Edwards, J.G. Plant metabolites and nutritional quality of vegetables. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, R48–R65.
  49. Mhlongo, M.I.; Piater, L.A.; Madala, N.E.; Labuschagne, N.; Dubery, I.A. The chemistry of plant–microbe interactions in the rhizosphere and the potential for metabolomics to reveal signaling related to defense priming and induced systemic resistance. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 112–121.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback