Nanoparticles in Eliminating Contamination and Seed Germination: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ashutosh Pathak
,
Shamshadul Haq
,
Neelam Meena
,
Pratibha Dwivedi
,
Shanker Lal Kothari
,
Sumita Kachhwaha

Owing to their minuscule size, nanoparticles (NPs) acquire novel and unique properties that differ from their bulkier counterparts, giving rise to breakthrough technology with application-based solutions in many sectors of agriculture and plant biotechnology. 

  • crops
  • genetic engineering
  • in vitro cultures
  • nanoparticles
  • regeneration
  • seedlings
  • secondary metabolites

1. Introduction

The release of nanoparticles (NPs) into the environment has raised concern because of their toxic effects on the environment and human health [1]. Moreover, the release of NPs into the environment could result in their entry and accumulation in agricultural soils from bio-solids impregnated with NPs through the application of sewage sludge for agricultural purposes [2]. Thus, the application of NPs in plant tissue cultures is promising, as this technique is used to screen different aspects of plants’ growth and development, as well as to engage in genetic manipulation, bioactive compound production and plant improvement [3]. It has been noted that NPs have a positive impact because of their reduced size, elevated reactivity, mass-to-area ratio and other physico-chemical properties, but the negative effects of NPs have also been noted, which mainly depend on the type of metal, dissolution power and plant species [4][5].

2. Efficiency of Nanoparticles in Eliminating Contamination

The production of healthy plantlets is a prime concern behind the technique of plant tissue culture but microbial contamination is a common problem faced during this procedure. Conventionally, antibiotics are employed to eliminate microbes, but their frequent application can negatively affect plant tissue growth, e.g., antibiotics like carbenicillin and cefotaxime inhibit plant cell growth, organogenesis and embryogenesis [6][7]. Reports suggest that streptomycin and chloramphenicol interact with protein synthesis, rifampicin hinders nucleic acid synthesis and penicillin inhibits cell-wall membrane synthesis [8][9]. There is also the risk of a decreased genetic stability and lower regeneration capability of plants when a high level of antibiotics is used [10]. Nanomaterials are an alternative because of their distinctive features, which have been shown to possess antifungal and antibacterial properties that restrict microbial growth in in vitro cultures resulting in the successful mass propagation of selected species [11]. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have been considered one of the better options, as the anchoring and penetration of Ag ions into microbes alter the cellular signals, via dephosphorylation, of key peptide substrates on tyrosine [12][13]. Another study suggested that Ag+ ions cause a reduction in DNA replication, as well as inactivate the thiol group in proteins, that ultimately reduces microbial growth [14]. Similarly, Min et al. [15] reported that AgNPs restrict the growth of sclerotium-forming phytopathogenic fungi and, hence, can become an alternative to pesticides. AgNPs have been employed to reduce contamination during in vitro cultures of Olea europaea L. [16], Nicotiana tabacum L. [17][18], Gerbera jamesonii Bolus ex Hook.f. [19], Solanum tuberosum L. [11], almond x peach (G x N15) hybrid rootstock [20], Rosa hybrida L. [21], Vitis vinifera L. [22], Vanilla planifolia Jacks. ex Andrews [23], and Phoenix dactylifera L. cv. Sewi and Medjool [24]. In addition, combined treatment with nanosilver and nano-iron particles was reported to have a significant effect on decreasing the contamination rate in Fragaria × ananassa L. cv. Roby Gem [25]. Similarly, biosynthesized silver, chitosan, and selenium NPs were tested for their antimicrobial potential for the in vitro multiplication of three olive cultivars (Koroneiki, Picual, and Manzanillo). Of all the three NPs, AgNPs showed the best antimicrobial properties in all cultivars [26]. However, some studies have also suggested that the concentrations of AgNPs played a crucial role in culture growth as higher concentrations might induce adverse effects on explant response [2][11]. The phytotoxic effect of higher AgNPs has been observed in crop plants of Phaseolus radiatus L. and Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench [27]. Whereas in tomato and potato plants, it has been reported that lower concentrations of AgNPs with longer exposure time effectively reduced the contamination without hampering explant viability [28].
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is another NP that has gained attention due to its antimicrobial potential, as it has photocatalytic properties to eliminate contamination from various sources, but its toxicity against microbial growth depends on the intensity and wavelength of light with concentration and particle size [9]. TiO2 reacts with water molecules and forms free radicals like OH, HO2, and H2O2 which in turn results in the oxidation of bacterial cells, suggesting that the photo-activation of TiO2 via UV irradiation retards the bacterial growth [29][30]. It has been evaluated that the addition of TiO2NPs in the Murashige and Skoog (MS) [31] medium enhanced the microbial resistance during the micropropagation of tobacco [17], S. tuberosum [9], and Hordeum vulgare L. [32]. Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) have eliminated nine strains of bacteria (Bacillus megaterium, Cellulomonas uda, C. flarigena, Corynebacterium panrometabolum, Erwinia cypripedii, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas spp., Proteus spp., and Staphylococcus spp.) and four fungal species (Aspergillus spp., Candida spp., Fusarium spp., and Penicillium spp.) which increased difficulties during banana micropropagation [33]. Thus, it can be observed that although nanomaterials at higher concentrations have been proven as toxic for plant growth, they can be employed as disinfectant agents for the in vitro multiplication of various economically important crops. The majority of the reports used Ag, TiO2, and Zn-based NPs for the inhibition of microbial growth during in vitro propagation, but new types of NPs should also be assessed. In this regard, various kinds of advanced nanomaterials like graphene, graphite, quantum dots, carbon nanotubes, polymer dendrimers, and atomic clusters will provide enough scope for the study; along with this, evaluations of concentrations, sizes, and types of NPs on various crop species and type of explant are also needed [34].

3. Influence of Nanoparticles on Seed Germination

Seed germination is a crucial stage for crop development since young seedlings are more vulnerable to biotic and abiotic stresses [35]. Therefore, lots of efforts to improve the efficiency of seed germination are published from time to time with new technological interventions. Studies to analyze the effect of NPs have been conducted during the last few years, and it was observed that genotype, variety, seed age, and environmental conditions determined the response to NPs [36]. Yasur and Rani [37] and Hatami [38] suggested that the water uptake during seed germination is critical because seeds are relatively dry and requires a substantial amount of water to initiate cellular metabolism and growth. The positive effects of NPs on germination begin with the high capability of NPs to penetrate the seed coat and promote water uptake along with the absorption of nutrients in the seed [39]. Mehrian et al. [40] documented that NP treatment accelerated seed germination from better water uptake by the seeds during the initial days, whereas a decrease in germination efficiency was noted as time passed because of the breakdown of stored nutrients or alternations in permeability properties of the cell membrane. Similarly, Rizwan et al. [41] noted that NPs can penetrate through the seed coat and affect the development processes of embryos through stimulation of the enzymes of metabolic processes. During the radicle appearance stage of seed germination, root apex tissues come in contact with NPs, which then move into the rhizodermis through the apoplast with endocytosis. In the root, they flow towards the plant secretory tissue using symplastic pathways and translocate to other plant organs. However, it has been noted that NPs at a high concentration result in a perforation of the cell wall and penetrate the protoplast and damage the root cell vacuoles. This triggers more production of reactive oxygenspecies (ROS) and it causes a blockage of electron transfer which induces oxidative stress. NPs also up-regulate the genes involved in cell division and carbon/nitrogen metabolism, and the negative effects observed in seedling growth are due to chromosomal aberrations and mitotic abnormalities. This leads to a decrease in cell division of the root meristem, hormonal imbalance, ROS over-production, and increased levels of lipid peroxidation [42]. The increased oxidative stress, in turn, increases hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) contents, activities of malondialdehyde (MDA), catalases (CAT), peroxidases (POD), and superoxide dismutase (SOD), as well as the production of compounds having antioxidant activities like phenolics and flavonoids [43]. Many studies have documented that NPs exert positive or negative influences on seed germination, seedling biomass as well as biochemical and metabolite contents. In the present research, researchers have taken only those examples where NPs were added into the media and not where seeds were placed on filter paper or water agar media after sonication treatment with NPs.

3.1. Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs)

In the majority of the studies, NPs’ effect has been evaluated under in vivo conditions [44], but few were tested under in vitro conditions on the culture media. It is also observed that most reports suggested the usage of AgNPs (Table 1), e.g., Lee et al. [27] recorded a negative effect of AgNPs on P. radiates and S. bicolour seedling growth. Similarly, the growth of Physalis peruviana L. seedlings also decreased along with chlorophyll content, but biomass in terms of fresh (FW) and dry weights (DW) was increased. It was also revealed that the seedling growths were not much affected in soil as compared to the agar-based medium. This might be due to changes in the physico-chemical properties of NPs in the soil, as pore water harbours a range of electrolytes that increase the aggregation of AgNPs in soil. These aggregates were larger than the pore size of plant root cells and thus failed to pass through the cells. Greater aggregation may be the principal reason for the reduced phytotoxicity of AgNPs in soil. Thus, the relative germination index is extensively used as an indicator of phytotoxicity, and root growth is one of the sensitive biomarkers for the phytotoxicity assay [45]. Zaka et al. [46] compared AgNPs, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), and copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) for Eruca sativa Mill. and observed that AgNPs increased seed germination, shoot and root lengths, and seed vigour index, whereas the other two adversely affected these parameters (Table 1). Further evaluation unveiled that all the NPs affected the biochemical milieu of the plants differently (Table 2). In another study, green synthesized AgNPs using Curculigo orchioides Gaertn. were found to exert a positive influence on seedling growth and biomass of Oryza sativa L. cv. Swarna. When the germinated seedlings were biochemically analyzed, an increase in chlorophyll, flavonol contents and enzymes (POD, SOD, CAT, APX, and GR) activities, and a decrease in phenolics, flavonoids, H2O2, and MDA contents were observed. The gene expression analyses revealed that the SOD gene was down-regulated, whereas genes for CAT and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) were up-regulated after AgNP treatment [47]. Similarly, increased seed germination, seed vigour index, shoot and root lengths, and fresh and dry biomass in Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br. after the addition of AgNPs in the medium was reported [48]. The maximum germination was recorded at 40 ppm; at this concentration of AgNPs, mild activities of 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), SOD activities and proline content were recorded that significantly increased at higher dose of AgNPs. On the contrary, phenolic contents were higher at optimum germination concentration (40 ppm) and lower at higher concentration, whereas flavonoids were lower at 40 ppm and increased at high levels. AgNPs positively influenced the germination and seedling traits of Brassica oleracea L. var. sabellica ‘Nero di Toscana’ and Raphanus sativus L. var. sativus ‘Ramona’, whereas these traits were decreased in Solanum lycopersicum L. ‘Poranek’. One of the reasons behind decreased growth S. lycopersicum might be due to the presence of AgNPs in plasmodesmata, precluding the transport of nutrients that led to a reduction in plant biomass [49]. Recently, Tomaszewska-Sowa et al. [50] observed the effect of AgNPs and AuNPs on Brassica napus L., and revealed that application of both NPs decreased shoot and root lengths of seedlings irrespective of treatment time. However, total chlorophylls, carotenoids, anthocyanins, free sugars, and H2O2 contents were higher, but no major change in phenolics was found. The seed germination of N. tabacum was carried out using CTAB- and PVP-coated AgNPs, and coating with CTAB showed a positive influence whereas coating with PVP failed to show any positive effect on germination rate and biomass [51]. Similarly, positive influences of AgNPs have been also documented in Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. var. pusajaikisan [52], Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britton and Rose [53], and P. vulgaris [54] (Table 1).
Table 1. Effects of various NP on seed germination ofdifferent crops under in vitro conditions.
Plant Nanoparticle (NP) Treatment Parameters Reference
Brassica juncea
var. pusa jaikisan		 AgNPs Enhancement in the growth of seedlings in terms of shoot FW, shoot and root length, and vigor index [52]
Brassica napus AgNPs/AuNPs Deceased shoot and root lengths, as well as shoot FW and DW [50]
Brassica nigra ZnONPs Increased shoot length and shoot DW, decreased root length, shoot FW, root FW and DW [55]
Brassica nigra CuONPs Delayed seed germination, decreased plantlet length, and their FWs and DWs [4]
Brassica oleracea
var. sabellica ‘Nero di Toscana’		 AgNPs Increased germination response, shoot and root lengths, as well as biomass [49]
Cicer arietinum CuONPs Decreased shoot and root lengths, FWs and DWs of shoot and root, increased lignifications in root cells [56]
Eruca sativa AuNPs, CuNPs and AgNPs AgNP-increased seed germination, shoot and root lengths, and seed vigourindex;
AuNP-and CuNP-decreased seed germination, shoot and root lengths, and seed vigour index		 [46]
Glycine max
hybrid S42-T4		 MWCNTs Early and better germination, increased shoot, root and leaf lengths, shoot and root FWs and DWs [57]
Hylocereus undatus AgNPs Increased germination, shoot number, shoot, and root lengths, cladode size, and FW [53]
Hordeum vulgare hybrid Robust MWCNTs Early and better germination, increased shoot, root, and leaf lengths, shoot and root FWs and DWs [57]
Linum usitatissimum cv. Barbara ZnONPs Increased shoot and root length, as well as their FWs and DWs [58]
Nicotiana tabacum AgNPs Increased germination and dry biomass [51]
Oryza sativa
cv. Swarna		 AgNPs Increased shoot and root length, FWs and DWs of shoot and root [47]
Pennisetum glaucum AgNPs Increased germination, seed vigour index, shoot and root lengths, and fresh and dry biomass [48]
Petroselinum
crispum		 TiO2NPs Increased germination, shoot and root lengths, and their FWs [59]
Phaseolus radiatus AgNPs Adverse effect on seedling growth [27]
Phaseolus vulgaris AgNPs Increased seed germination, shoot and root length, their FWs and DWs, number of axillary buds, adventitious buds and leaves [54]
Physalis peruviana AgNPs Decreased shoot and root lengths, chlorophyll content, but increased FW and DW [60]
Raphanus sativus
var. sativus ‘Ramona’		 AgNPs Increased germination response, shoot and root lengths, and seedling biomass [49]
Solanum lycopersicum var. Poranek AgNPs Decreased germination response, shoot and root lengths, and seedling biomass [49]
Sorghum bicolour AgNPs Adverse effect on seedling growth [27]
Vigna radiata CuONPs Decreased shoot and root lengths and their FWs, increased lignifications in root cells [61]
Zea mays
hybrid N79Z 300GT		 MWCNTs Early and better germination, increased shoot, root and leaf lengths, shoot and root FW and DW [57]
AgNPs: silver nanoparticles; AuNPs: gold nanoparticles; CuNPs: copper nanoparticles; CuONPs: copper oxide nanoparticles; DW: dry weight; FW: fresh weight; MWCNTs: multi-walled carbon nanotubes; TiO2NPs: titanium dioxide nanoparticles; ZnONPs: zinc oxide nanoparticles.

3.2. Other Metal and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles

Apart from AgNPs, other metal NPs are also used for seedling germination under in vitro conditions; Dehkourdi and Mosavi [59] utilized TiO2NPs and documented a positive influence on seed germination as well as on chlorophyll synthesis in Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Fuss, whereas Nair et al. [61] observed that the application of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuONPs) on Vigna radiata L. decreased seedling growth in terms of length and biomass. They have also reported that CuONPs decreased chlorophyll and increased proline contents, whereas it increased H2O2 and MDA contents in the root; however, no change in carotenoid, H2O2, and MDA contents in the shoot and increased lignification of root cells were detected (Table 2). The negative effect of CuONPs on seedlings of Cicer arietinum L. was also documented where decreased growth and biomass have been recorded at all the tried concentrations (50–500 mg/L), and elevated H2O2 generation, MDA level, and POD activity along with increased lignifications in roots were observed. Further expression analysis revealed that CuZn-SOD, CAT, and APX genes were up-regulated in roots but no change was found in shoots [56]. Similarly, CuONPs, when used for the treatment of Brassica nigra (L.) K. Koch, delayed the germination of seedlings and decreased plantlet length and biomass significantly [55]. ZnONPs in the media containing seeds of the same plant negatively influenced seedling growth, shoot FW, and reduced stem diameter as the NP amount increased in the media. However, the treatment increased free radical scavenging activity, total antioxidant capacity, total reducing power, phenolics, and flavonoid contents in the shoot and root of the seedling (Table 2) [55]. Moreover, in seeds of Linum usitatissimum L. cv. Barbara, different concentrations of ZnONPs (1, 10, 100, 500, and 1000 mg/L) were tried, and 100 mg/L concentrations proved beneficial in terms of shoot and root lengths as well as seedling biomass, further higher concentrations adversely affected seedling growth [58]. In another study, treatment with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) showed a positive influence on germination, seedling lengths, as well as biomass in Glycine max (L.) Merr. hybrid S42-T4, H. vulgare hybrid Robust, and Zea mays L. hybrid N79Z 300GT [57]. Unlike the spherical shapes of other NPs, MWCNTs are the allotropes of carbon that are arranged in an elongated, tubular manner with many rolled sheets. Its unique features like functional group, diameter, length, and solubility make its penetration inside the seed coat convenient and it is efficiently translocated in plants [62]. Similar observations have been well documented previously where MWCNTs improve germination, plant growth, and agronomic traits by penetration, and increasing the water and nutrient uptake [63][64].
Table 2. Biochemical changes in seedlings and cultures after NP treatment.
Plant Nanoparticle (NP) Treatment and Culture Type Biochemical Changes Reference
Brassica juncea
var. pusa jaikisan		 AgNPs, shoots Increased chlorophyll and decreased MDA, H2O2, and proline content, increased CAT, GPX, and APX activities [52]
Brassica napus AgNPs/AuNPs, shoots Increased chlorophylls, carotenoids, anthocyanins, free sugars, H2O2 contents, no change in phenolic content [50]
Brassica nigra ZnONPs, shoots and roots (seedling), callus Increased free radical scavenging activity, total antioxidant capacity, total reducing power, phenolic, and flavonoid contents [55]
Brassica nigra CuONPs, seedling and roots (from leaf and stem derived callus) Seedlings increased free radical scavenging activity, total phenolic, and flavonoid content, decreased total antioxidant and reducing potential;
Roots increased free radical scavenging activity, total antioxidant and reducing potential, total phenolic, and flavonoid contents		 [4]
Brassica oleracea var. sabellica ‘Nero di Toscana’ AgNPs, leaves Decreased chlorophyll, carotenoid, and anthocyanin contents, no change in phenolic, protein contents and SOD activities, increased GPOX activity [49]
Campomanesia rufa AgNPs, shoots No significant difference in SOD activity [65]
Caralluma tuberculata AgNPs, callus Increased PAL and free radical scavenging, SOD, POD, CAT, APX activities, total phenolics, and flavonoid contents [66]
Cicer arietinum CuONPs, seedling Increased H2O2 generation, MDA content, POD activity, and lignification in roots [56]
Cichorium intybus Fe2O3NPs, hairy roots Increased hairy root growth, total phenolic, and flavonoid contents [67]
Corylus avellana
cv. Gerd Eshkevar		 AgNPs, cell suspension Increased CAT, APX, H2O2, PAL activities, decreased SOD and POD activities, and total soluble phenol content [68]
Corylus avellana
cv. Gerd Eshkevar		 AgNPs, cell suspension Increased MDA, total phenolic, anthocyanin, and flavonoid contents [69]
Cucumis anguria AgNPs, hairy roots Increased total phenolic and flavonoid contents, and antioxidant activities [70]
Eruca sativa AuNPs, CuNPs, and AgNPs, seedling AuNPs decreased total antioxidant capacity, total phenolic and flavonoid contents, increased DPPH, SOD and POD activities, no change in protein content;
CuNPs decreased total antioxidant capacity, DPPH activity, protein content, increased total phenolic, and flavonoid contents, SOD and POD activities;
AgNP decreased total antioxidant capacity, DPPH activity, decreased total phenolics and flavonoid contents, POD activity, increased SOD activity, no change in protein		 [46]
Fragaria × ananassa
cv. Queen Elisa		 FeNPs, shoots Increased chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll, carotenoid, total carbohydrates, total protein, and total free proline and iron contents, decreased H2O2 and MDA content, higher SOD and POD activities [71]
Linum usitatissimum
cv. Kerman Shahdad		 ZnONPs/TiO2NPs, cell suspension Increased PAL and CAD activities, and total phenol content [72]
Linum usitatissimum
cv. Barbara		 ZnONPs, seedling and callus Increased ROS production, membrane lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation and 8-oxo guanine formation, SOD, POD, radical scavenging activities, total phenolics, and flavonoid contents [58]
Maerua oblongifolia AgNPs, shoots Higher chlorophyll, total protein and proline contents, and increased activities of antioxidant enzymes [73]
Momordica charantia AgNPs, cell suspension Increased MDA, H2O2, total phenolics and flavonoid contents, and antioxidant activity [74]
Musa paradisiacal
cv. Grand Nain		 ZnNPs and ZnONPs, shoots Higher proline, chlorophyll, and antioxidant enzymes activities [33]
Musa spp. AgNPs, shoots Increased chlorophyll content [75]
Nicotiana benthamiana CH-ZnO, callus Increased chlorophyll, carotenoid, proline contents and PAL and AO activities, decreased MDA and H2O2 levels [76]
Nicotiana tabacum
cv. Bright Yellow-2		 ZnONPs, cell suspension Decreased dehydrogenase, oxidoreductase SOD, POD and APX activities, increased GR, PAL, protease, caspase-like and acid phosphatases activities, and total phenolic content [77]
Oryza sativa cv. Swarna AgNPs, seedling leaves Increased chlorophyll and flavonol contents and POD, SOD, CAT, APX and GR activities, decreased phenolics, flavonoids, H2O2 and MDA contents [47]
Oryza sativa cv. IR64 AgNPs, shoot Decreased MDA, proline and H2O2 levels [78]
Pennisetum glaucum AgNPs, seedling Increased DPPH, proline, SOD, POD, and CAT activities, total phenolics and flavonoid contents [48]
Phoenix dactylifera MWCNTs, shoots Increased flavonoid, chlorophylls and carotenoid, nutrient contents, decreased phenolics and tannin contents, SOD, GPOX, and GR activities [79]
Phoenix dactylifera
cv. Hayani		 AgNPs, somatic embryos Increased chlorophyll content [80]
Physalis peruviana AgNPs, seedling derived shoots and shoots Seedling derived shoots- increased CAT and APX activity, and decreased chlorophyll content, SOD and MDA activities;Shoots- no change in SOD, APX and MDA levels, decreased CAT activity [60]
Raphanus sativus
var. sativus ‘Ramona’		 AgNPs, leaves Increased carotenoid, phenolic contents, and SOD activity, decreased chlorophyll, anthocyanins, protein contents, and GPOX activity [49]
Saccharum spp.
cv. Mex 69-290		 AgNPs, leaves Increased N, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, and decreased P, K, and B content, higher total phenolics, ROS and lipid peroxidation contents, and antioxidant activity [81]
Simmondsia chinensis MWCNTs, shoots Increased total tannin content and antioxidant activities, decreased phenolics and flavonoid contents [82]
Solanum lycopersicon Fe3O4NPs, shoots Increased proline content and osmotic potential [83]
Solanum lycopersicum ZnONPs, callus Increased Na, N, P, K, and Zn ionic, protein contents, SOD and GPX activity [3]
Solanum lycopersicum
var. Poranek		 AgNPs, leaves Increased chlorophyll, anthocyanins, phenolics, protein contents and SOD and GPOX activities, decreased carotenoid content [49]
Solanum tuberosum SiO2NPs, leaves Increased antioxidant enzymes activity and expression of proteins [84]
Solanum tuberosum
cv. White Desiree		 AgNPs, shoots Increased total chlorophyll, carotenoids, proline, total flavonoids, phenolics, lipid peroxidation and H2O2 contents, decreased anthocyanins [85]
Vanilla planifolia AgNPs, shoots Higher chlorophyll, increased elements like N and B, no change in P, Ca and Mg, and decreased K, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn, and B contents, higher total phenolics, ROS and lipid peroxidation contents, and antioxidant activity [23]
Vigna radiata CuONPs, seedling Decreased chlorophyll and increased proline contents, H2O2 and MDA contents in root, no change in carotenoid, H2O2 and MDA contents in shoots [61]
AgNPs: silver nanoparticles; APX: ascorbate peroxidase; AO: ascorbate oxidase; AuNPs: gold nanoparticles; CAT: catalase; CH-ZnO: chitosan-zinc oxide nano-bioformulation; CuNPs: copper nanoparticles; CuONPs: copper oxide nanoparticles; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, FeNPs: iron nanoparticles; Fe2O3NPs/Fe3O4NPs: iron oxide nanoparticles; GPX: guaiacol peroxidase; GPOX: glutathione peroxidase; GR: glutathione reductase; H2O2: hydrogen peroxide; MDA: melondialdehyde; MWCNTs: multi-walled carbon nanotubes; PAL: phenylalanine ammonia lyase; POD: peroxidase; ROS: reactive oxygen species; SiO2NPs: silicon dioxide nanoparticles; SOD: superoxide dismutase; TiO2NPs: titanium dioxide nanoparticles; ZnNPs: zinc nanoparticles; ZnONPs: zinc oxide nanoparticles.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/plants12173126

References

  1. Hu, X.; Cook, S.; Wang, P.; Hwang, H.M. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of engineered metal oxide nanoparticles. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 3070–3072.
  2. Rico, C.M.; Majumdar, S.; Duarte-Gardea, M.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Interaction of nanoparticles with edible plants and their possible implications in the food chain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 3485–3498.
  3. Alharby, H.F.; Metwali, E.M.R.; Fuller, M.P.; Aldhebiani, A.Y. Impact of application of zinc oxide nanoparticles on callus induction, plant regeneration, element content and antioxidant enzyme activity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) under salt stress. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2016, 68, 723–735.
  4. Zafar, H.; Alim, A.; Zia, M. CuO nanoparticles inhibited root growth from Brassica nigra seedlings but induced root from stem and leaf explants. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 181, 365–378.
  5. Zia, M.; Gul, S.; Akhtar, J.; Ul Haq, I.; Abbasi, B.H.; Hussain, A.; Naz, S.; Chaudhary, M.F. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles from grape and tomato juices and evaluation of biological activities. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2017, 11, 193–199.
  6. Nauerby, B.; Billing, K.; Wyndaele, R. Influence of the antibiotic timentin on plant regeneration compared to carbenicillin and cefotaxime in concentrations suitable for elimination of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Sci. 1997, 123, 169–177.
  7. Wiebke, B.; Ferreira, F.; Pasquali, G.; Bodanese-Zanettini, M.H.; Droste, A. Influence of antibiotics on embryogenic tissue and Agrobacterium tumefaciens suppression in soybean genetic transformation. Bragantia 2006, 65, 543–551.
  8. Abdi, G.; Salehi, H.; Khosh-Khui, M. Nano silver: A novel nanomaterial for removal of bacterial contaminants in valerian (Valeriana officinalis L.) tissue culture. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2008, 30, 709–714.
  9. Safavi, K. Effect of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in plant tissue culture media for enhance resistance to bacterial activity. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2014, 3, 163–166.
  10. da Silva, T.G.A.; Duong, T.; Michi, T.; Seiichi, F. The effect of antibiotics on the in vitro growth response of chrysanthemum and tobacco stem transverse thin cell layers (tTCLs). Sci. Hortic. 2003, 97, 397–410.
  11. Safavi, K. Evaluation of using nanomaterial in tissue culture media and biological activity. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ecological, Environmental and Biological Sciences (EEBS’2012), Bali, Indonesia, 13–14 October 2012; pp. 5–8.
  12. Braydich-Stolle, L.; Hussain, S.; Schlager, J.J.; Hofmann, M.C. In vitro cytotoxicity of nanoparticles in mammalian germline stem cells. Toxicol. Sci. 2005, 88, 412–419.
  13. Shrivastava, S.; Bera, T.; Roy, A.; Singh, G.; Ramachandrarao, P.; Debabrata, D. Characterization of enhanced antibacterial effects of novel silver nanoparticles. Nanotechnology 2007, 18, 225103.
  14. Jeong, S.H.; Hwang, Y.H.; Yi, S.C. Antibacterial properties of padded PP/PE nonwovens incorporating nano-sized silver. J. Mater. Sci. 2005, 40, 5413–5418.
  15. Min, J.S.; Kim, K.S.; Kim, S.W.; Jung, J.H.; Lamsal, K.; Kim, S.B.; Jung, M.; Lee, Y.S. Effects of colloidal silver nanoparticles on sclerotium-forming phytopathogenic fungi. Plant Pathol. J. 2009, 25, 376–380.
  16. Rostami, A.A.; Shahsavar, A. Nano-silver particles eliminate the in vitro contaminations of Olive ‘Mission’ explants. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2009, 8, 505–509.
  17. Safavi, K.; Mortazaeinezahad, F.; Esfahanizadeh, M.; Asgari, M.J. In vitro antibacterial activity of nanomaterial for using in tobacco plants tissue culture. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2011, 55, 372–373.
  18. Bansod, S.; Bawskar, M.; Rai, M. In vitro effect of biogenic silver nanoparticles on sterilization of tobacco leaf explants and for higher yield of protoplasts. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2015, 9, 239–245.
  19. Fakhrfeshani, M.; Bagheri, A.; Sharifi, A. Disinfecting effects of nano silver fluids in gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii) capitulum tissue culture. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2012, 6, 121–127.
  20. Arab, M.M.; Yadollahi, M.M.H.; Bagheri, S. Effects of antimicrobial activity of silver nanoparticles on in vitro establishment of G × N15 (hybrid of almond × peach) rootstock. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2014, 12, 103–110.
  21. Shokri, S.; Babaei, A.; Ahmadian, M.; Hessami, S.; Arab, M.M. The effects of different concentrations of nano-silver on elimination of bacterial contaminations and phenolic exudation of Rosae (Rosa hybrida L.) in vitro culture. Acta Hortic. 2014, 3, 50–54.
  22. Gouran, A.; Jirani, M.; Mozafari, A.A.; Saba, M.K.; Ghaderi, N.; Zaheri, S. Effect of silver nanoparticles on grapevine leaf explants sterilization at in vitro conditions. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Nanotechnology from Theory to Application, Isfahan, Iran, 20 February 2014; pp. 1–6.
  23. Spinoso-Castillo, J.L.; Chavez-Santoscoy, R.A.; Bogdanchikova, N.; Pérez-Sato, J.A.; Morales-Ramos, V.; Bello-Bello, J.J. Antimicrobial and hormetic effects of silver nanoparticles on in vitro regeneration of vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Jacks. ex Andrews) using a temporary immersion system. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2017, 129, 195–207.
  24. El-Kosary, S.; Abd-Allatif, A.M.; Stino, R.G.; Hassan, M.M.; Kinawy, A.A. Effect of silver nanoparticles on micropropagation of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L. cv. sewi and medjool). Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 9701–9706.
  25. Abbas, H.K.; Abdulhussein, M.A.A. Improving shoot multiplication of strawberry (Fragaria ananassa L. Cv. Roby Gem) in vitro by using AgNPs and iron nanoparticles. Nat. Volatiles Essent. 2021, 8, 2521–2530.
  26. Darwesh, O.M.; Hassan, S.A.M.; Abdallatif, A.M. Enhancing in vitro multiplication of some olive cultivars using silver, selenium and chitosan nanoparticles. Res. Sq. 2021, 8, 995940.
  27. Lee, W.M.; Kwak, J.I.; An, Y.J. Effect of silver nanoparticles in crop plants Phaseolus radiatus and Sorghum bicolor: Media effect on phytotoxicity. Chemosphere 2012, 86, 491–499.
  28. Mahna, N.; Vahed, S.Z.; Khani, S. Plant in vitro culture goes nano: Nanosilver mediated decontamination of ex vitro explants. J. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. 2013, 4, 161.
  29. Cho, M.; Chung, H.; Choi, W.; Yoon, J. Different inactivation behaviors of MS-2 phage and Escherichia coli in TiO2 photocatalytic disinfection. Appl. Eniron. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 270–275.
  30. Shiraishi, K.; Koscki, H.; Tsurumoto, T.; Baba, K.; Naito, M.; Nakayama, K.; Shindo, H. Antimicrobial metal implant with a TiO2-conferred photocatalytic bactericidal effect against Staphylococcus aureus. Surf. Interface Anal. 2008, 41, 17–21.
  31. Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Plant Physiol. 1962, 15, 473–479.
  32. Mandeh, M.; Omidi, M.; Rahaie, M. In vitro influences of TiO2 nanoparticles on barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) tissue culture. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 150, 376–380.
  33. Helaly, M.N.; El-Metwally, M.A.; El-Hoseiny, H.; Omar, S.A.; El-Sheery, N.I. Effect of nanoparticles on biological contamination of in vitro cultures and organogenic regeneration of banana. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2014, 8, 612–624.
  34. Álvarez, S.P.; Tapia, M.A.M.; Vega, M.E.G.; Ardisana, E.F.H.; Medina, J.A.C.; Zamora, G.L.F.; Bustamante, D.V. Nanotechnology and plant tissue culture. In Plant Nanobionics, Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences; Prasad, R., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 333–370.
  35. Waterworth, W.M.; Bray, C.M.; West, C.E. The importance of safeguarding genome integrity in germination and seed longevity. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 3549–3558.
  36. Barrena, R.; Casals, E.; Colón, J.; Font, X.; Sánchez, A.; Puntes, V. Evaluation of the ecotoxicity of model nanoparticles. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 850–857.
  37. Yasur, J.; Rani, P.U. Environmental effects of nanosilver: Impact on castor seed germination, seedling growth, and plant physiology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2013, 20, 8636–8648.
  38. Hatami, M. Stimulatory and inhibitory effects of nanoparticulates on seed germination and seedling vigor indices. In Nanoscience and Plant-Soil Systems; Ghorbanpour, M., Manika, K., Varma, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 357–385.
  39. Zheng, L.; Mingyu, S.; Xiao, W.; Chao, L.; Chunxiang, Q.; Liang, C.; Huang, H.; Xiaoqing, L.; Hong, F. Effect of nano anatase on spectral characteristics and distribution of LHCLL on the thylakoid membranes of spinach. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2007, 120, 273–280.
  40. Mehrian, S.K.; Heidari, R.; Rahmani, F.; Najafi, S. Effect of chemical synthesis silver nanoparticles on germianation indices and seedling growth in seven varietes of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill (tomato) plants. J. Clust. Sci. 2016, 27, 327–340.
  41. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Qayyum, M.F.; Ok, Y.S.; Adrees, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Farid, M.; Abbas, F. Effect of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on growth and physiology of globally important food crops: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 322, 2–16.
  42. Szőllősi, R.; Molnár, Á.; Kondak, S.; Kolbert, Z. Dual effect of nanomaterials on germination and seedling growth: Stimulation vs. phytotoxcity. Plants 2020, 9, 1745.
  43. Mazumdar, H.; Ahmed, G.U. Phytotoxicity effect of silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa. Int. J. Chem. Tech. Res. 2011, 3, 1494–1500.
  44. Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Pandey, R.; Singh, V.P.; Sharma, N.C.; Chauhan, D.K. An overview on manufactured nanoparticles in plants: Uptake, translocation, accumulation and phytotoxicity. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 2–12.
  45. Ali, A.; Phull, A.R.; Zia, M.; Shah, A.M.A.; Malik, R.N.; Haq, I.U. Phytotoxicity of river Chenab sediments: In vitro morphological and biochemical response of Brassica napus L. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2015, 4, 74–84.
  46. Zaka, M.; Abbasi, B.H.; Rahman, L.; Shah, A.; Zia, M. Synthesis and characterisation of metal nanoparticles and their effects on seed germination and seedling growth in commercially important Eruca sativa. IET Nanobiotechnol. 2016, 10, 134–140.
  47. Dutta Gupta, S.; Agarwal, A.; Pradhan, S. Phytostimulatory effect of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) on rice seedling growth: An insight from antioxidative enzyme activities and gene expression patterns. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 161, 624–633.
  48. Khan, I.; Raza, M.A.; Awan, S.A.; Khalid, M.H.B.; Raja, N.I.; Min, S.; Zhang, A.; Naeem, M.; Meraj, T.A.; Iqbal, N.; et al. In vitro effect of metallic silver nanoparticles (AgNPs): A novel approach toward the feasible production of biomass and natural antioxidants in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 12877–12892.
  49. Tymoszuk, A. Silver nanoparticles effects on in vitro germination, growth, and biochemical activity of tomato, radish, and kale seedlings. Materials 2021, 14, 5340.
  50. Tomaszewska-Sowa, M.; Lisiecki, K.; Pańka, D. Response of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) to silver and gold nanoparticles as a function of concentration and length of exposure. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2885.
  51. Biba, R.; Matić, D.; Lyons, D.M.; Štefanić, P.P.; Cvjetko, P.; Tkalec, M.; Balen, B. Coating-dependent effects of silver nanoparticles on tobacco seed germination and early growth. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3441.
  52. Sharma, P.; Bhatt, D.; Zaidi, M.G.H.; Saradhi, P.P.; Khanna, P.K.; Arora, S. Silver nanoparticle-mediated enhancement in growth and antioxidant status of Brassica juncea. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 167, 2225–2233.
  53. Timoteo, C.O.; Paiva, R.; dos Reis, M.V.; da Silva, D.P.C.; da Silva, R.B.; de Oliveira, J.E. Silver nanoparticles on dragon fruit in vitro germination and growth. Plant Cell Cult. Micropropag. 2018, 14, 18–25.
  54. Mustafa, H.S.; Oraibi, A.G.; Ibrahim, K.M.; Ibrahim, N.K. Influence of silver and copper nanoparticles on physiological characteristics of Phaseolus vulgaris L. in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2017, 6, 834–843.
  55. Zafar, H.; Ali, A.; Ali, J.S.; Haq, I.U.; Zia, M. Effect of ZnO nanoparticles on Brassica nigra seedlings and stem explants: Growth dynamics and antioxidative response. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 535.
  56. Nair, P.M.G.; Chung, I.M. Changes in the growth, redox status and expression of oxidative stress related genes in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in response to copper oxide nanoparticle exposure. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 350–361.
  57. Lahiani, M.H.; Dervishi, E.; Chen, J.; Nima, Z.; Gaume, A.; Biris, A.S.; Khodakovskaya, M.V. Impact of carbon nanotube exposure to seeds of valuable crops. ACS Appl. Mater. Interface 2013, 5, 7965–7973.
  58. Zaeem, A.; Drouet, S.; Anjum, S.; Khurshid, R.; Younas, M.; Blondeau, J.P.; Tungmunnithum, D.; Giglioli-Guivarc’h, N.; Hano, C.; Abbasi, B.H. Effects of biogenic zinc oxide nanoparticles on growth and oxidative stress response in flax seedlings vs. in vitro cultures: A comparative analysis. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 918.
  59. Dehkourdi, E.H.; Mosavi, M. Effect of anatase nanoparticles (TiO2) on parsley seed germination (Petroselinum crispum) in vitro. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2013, 155, 283–286.
  60. Timoteo, C.O.; Paiva, R.; dos Reis, M.V.; Claro, P.I.C.; Ferraz, L.M.; Marconcini, J.M.; de Oliveira, J.E. In vitro growth of Physalis peruviana L. affected by silver nanoparticles. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 145.
  61. Nair, P.M.G.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, I.M. Copper oxide nanoparticle toxicity in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seedlings: Physiological and molecular level responses of in vitro grown plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2014, 36, 2947–2958.
  62. Husen, A.; Siddiqi, K.S. Carbon and fullerene nanomaterials in plant system. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2014, 12, 16–27.
  63. Villagarcia, H.; Dervishi, E.; de Silva, K.; Biris, A.S.; Khodakovskaya, M.V. Surface chemistry of carbon nanotubes impacts the growth and expression of water channel protein in tomato plants. Small 2012, 8, 2328–2334.
  64. Dhingra, P.; Sharma, S.; Singh, K.H.; Kushwaha, H.S.; Barupal, J.K.; Haq, S.; Kothari, S.L.; Kachhwaha, S. Seed priming with carbon nanotubes and silicon dioxide nanoparticles influence agronomic traits of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) in field experiments. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2022, 34, 102067.
  65. Timoteo, C.O.; Paiva, R.; dos Reis, M.V.; Claro, P.I.C.; da Silva, D.P.C.; Marconcini, J.M.; de Oliveira, J.E. Silver nanoparticles in the micropropagation of Campomanesia rufa (O. Berg) Nied. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2019, 137, 359–368.
  66. Ali, A.; Mohammad, S.; Khan, M.A.; Raja, N.I.; Arif, M.; Kamil, A.; Mashwani, Z.R. Silver nanoparticles elicited in vitro callus cultures for accumulation of biomass and secondary metabolites in Caralluma tuberculata. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2019, 47, 715–724.
  67. Mohebodini, M.; Fathi, R.; Mehri, N. Optimization of hairy root induction in chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) and effects of nanoparticles on secondary metabolites accumulation. Iran. J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2017, 6, 60–68.
  68. Jamshidi, M.; Ghanati, F.; Rezaei, A.; Bemani, E. Change of antioxidant enzymes activity of hazel (Corylus avellana L.) cells by AgNPs. Cytotechnology 2016, 68, 525–530.
  69. Jamshidi, M.; Ghanati, F. Taxanes content and cytotoxicity of hazel cells extract after elicitation with silver nanoparticles. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 178–184.
  70. Chung, I.M.; Rajakumar, G.; Thiruvengadam, M. Effect of silver nanoparticles on phenolic compounds production and biological activities in hairy root cultures of Cucumis anguria. Acta Biol. Hung. 2018, 69, 97–109.
  71. Mozafari, A.; Havas, F.; Ghaderi, N. Application of iron nanoparticles and salicylic acid in in vitro culture of strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) to cope with drought stress. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2018, 132, 511–523.
  72. Karimzadeh, F.; Haddad, R.; Garoosi, G.H.; Khademian, R. Effects of nanoparticles on activity of lignan biosynthesis enzymes in cell suspension culture of Linum usitatissimum L. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2019, 66, 756–762.
  73. Shaikhaldein, H.O.; Al-Qurainy, F.; Nadeem, M.; Khan, S.; Tarroum, M.; Salih, A.M. Biosynthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Ochradenus arabicus and their physiological effect on Maerua oblongifolia raised in vitro. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17569.
  74. Chung, I.M.; Rekha, K.; Rajakumar, G.; Thiruvengadam, M. Elicitation of silver nanoparticles enhanced the secondary metabolites and pharmacological activities in cell suspension cultures of bitter gourd. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 412.
  75. Do, D.G.; Dang, T.K.T.; Nguyen, T.H.T.; Nguyen, T.D.; Tran, T.T.; Duong, D.H. Effects of nano silver on the growth of banana (Musa spp.) cultured in vitro. J. Viet. Environ. 2018, 10, 92–98.
  76. Patel, K.V.; Nath, M.; Bhatt, M.D.; Dobriyal, A.K.; Bhatt, D. Nanofomulation of zinc oxide and chitosan zinc sustain oxidative stress and alter secondary metabolite profile in tobacco. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 477–492.
  77. Balážová, Ľ.; Baláž, M.; Babula, P. Zinc oxide nanoparticles damage tobacco BY-2 cells by oxidative stress followed by processes of autophagy and programmed cell death. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1066.
  78. Manickavasagam, M.; Pavan, G.; Vasudevan, V. A comprehensive study of the hormetic influence of biosynthesized AgNPs on regenerating rice calli of indica cv. IR64. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8821.
  79. Taha, R.A.; Hassan, M.M.; Ibrahim, E.A.; Baker, N.H.A.; Shaaban, E.A. Carbon nanotubes impact on date palm in vitro cultures. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2016, 127, 525–534.
  80. Elsayh, S.A.A. Impact of silver nanoparticles on enhancing in vitro proliferation of embryogenic callus and somatic embryos regeneration of date palm cv. Hayani. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotech. 2021, 6, 40–52.
  81. Bello-Bello, J.J.; Chavez-Santoscoy, R.A.; Lecona-Guzman, C.A.; Bogdanchikova, N.; Salinas-Ruız, J.; Gomez-Merino, F.C.; Pestryakov, A. Hormetic response by silver nanoparticles on in vitro multiplication of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. cv. Mex 69-290) using a temporary immersion system. Dose Response 2017, 15, 1559325817744945.
  82. Gaafar, A.A.; Taha, R.A.; Abou-Baker, N.H.; Shaaban, E.A.; Salama, Z.A. Evaluation of regeneration, active ingredients and antioxidant activities in jojoba tissue cultures as affected by carbon nanotubes. Biosci. Res. 2018, 15, 2283–2392.
  83. Aazami, M.A.; Rasouli, F.; Ebrahimzadeh, A. Oxidative damage, antioxidant mechanism and gene expression in tomato responding to salinity stress under in vitro conditions and application of iron and zinc oxide nanoparticles on callus induction and plant regeneration. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 597.
  84. Gowayed, S.M.H.; Al-Zahrani, H.S.M.; Metwali, E.M.R. Improving the salinity tolerance in potato (Solanum tuberosum) by exogenous application of silicon dioxide nanoparticles. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2017, 19, 183–194.
  85. Homaee, M.B.; Ehsanpour, A.A. Physiological and biochemical responses of potato (Solanum tuberosum) to silver nanoparticles and silver nitrate treatments under in vitro conditions. Ind. J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 20, 353–359.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback