Molecular Mechanism of Plant–Nanoparticle Interactions
Research and development in the field of nanotechnology are rapidly progressing in all aspects of human life. Recently, the use of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) is being conceptualized in the field of agriculture and food industry. These ENMs are often released into the environment and pose toxicity risk due to potential uptake by crop plants. Standard developmental and physiological methods to measure phytotoxicity including seed germination, root elongation, and enzymatic assays are not sensitive enough while evaluating nanoparticle toxicity to terrestrial plant species. Also, unique properties of nanomaterials allow them to interact with biological systems. Understanding the nature of interactions between nanoparticles and plants is crucial for assessing their uptake, distribution, and toxicity associated with exposure of plants to nanoparticles. However, little progress has been made toward understanding the impact of nanomaterials at molecular level, which is an important step in evaluation of the possible mechanisms of observed effects in planta. Analysis of changes in gene expression through transcriptomics constitutes a powerful approach toward understanding the mechanism of phytotoxicity and molecular responses of plants exposed to nanoparticles. Also, global protein profiling, emerging as a new field “nanotoxicoproteomics,” can be used for understanding plant responses to toxic nanomaterials. The present chapter reviews the current knowledge on phytotoxicity assessment and interactions of nanoparticles with plants at the cellular level and discusses the future aspects to improve our knowledge of this field.
KeywordsNanoparticles Nano-ecotoxicology Nano-toxicogenomics Nano-toxicoproteomics Phytotoxicity Risk assessment
SJ gratefully acknowledges Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science & Technology, Government of India for DST-SERB Young Scientist grant (SB/YS/LS-39/2014), University Grants Commission, India, for UGC start-up grant (F.30-50/2014-BSR), and Special Assistance Program (UGC-SAP-CAS) in the Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany, J.N.V. University, Jodhpur.
RNP gratefully acknowledges the funding under Start-up Research Grant (Life Sciences) by Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science & Technology, Government of India (SB/FT/LS-104/2012).
The authors declare no financial or commercial conflict of interest.
- Adhikari T, Kundu S, Biswas AK, Tarafdar JC, Rao AS (2012) Effect of copper oxide nano particle on seed germination of selected crops. J Agri Sci Technol 2:815–823Google Scholar
- Boonyanitipong P, Kositsup B, Kumar P, Baruah S, Dutta J (2011) Toxicity of ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles on germinating rice seed Oryza sativa L. Int J Biosci Biochem Bioinf 1(4):282–285Google Scholar
- Burklew CE, Ashlock J, Winfrey WB, Zhang BH (2012) Effects of aluminum oxide nanoparticles on the growth, development, and microRNA expression of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). PLoS ONE 7Google Scholar
- Chen C, Unrine JM, Judy JD, Lewis RW, Guo J, McNear DH Jr, Tsyusko OV (2015) Toxicogenomic responses of the model legume Medicago truncatula to aged biosolids containing a mixture of nanomaterials (TiO2, Ag, and ZnO) from a pilot wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol 49:8759–8768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Craig M, Jason CW (2011) Toxicity of silver and copper to Cucurbita pepo: differential effects of nano and bulk-size particles. Environ Toxicol 26: n/a. doi: 10.1002/tox.20667
- Farrag HF (2015) Evaluation of the growth responses of Lemna gibba L. (duckweed) exposed to silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles. World Appl Sci J 33(2):190–202Google Scholar
- Gao F, Liu C, Qu C, Zheng L, Yang F, Su M et al (2008) Was improvement of spinach growth by nano-TiO2 treatment related to the changes of Rubisco activase? Bio Metals 21:211–217Google Scholar
- Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Castillo-Michel H, Servin AD, Peralta-Videa JR, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2011) Spectroscopic verification of zinc absorption and distribution in the desert plant Prosopis juliflora-velutina (velvet mesquite) treated with ZnO nanoparticles. Chem Eng J 170(1–3):346–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Khodakovskaya MV, Biris AS (2015) Method of using carbon nanotubes to affect seed germination and plant growth. US Patent Application 14/716, 117Google Scholar
- Lahiani MH, Chen J, Irin F, Puretzky AA, Green MJ, Khodakovskaya MV (2015) Interaction of carbon nanohorns with plants: uptake and biological effects. Carbon 81:607–619Google Scholar
- Larue C, Khodja H, Herlin-Boime N, Brisset F, Flank AM, Fayard B, Chaillou S, Carrière M (2011) Investigation of titanium dioxide nanoparticles toxicity and uptake by plants. J Physics 304(1): Article ID 012057Google Scholar
- Lindgren AL (2014) The effects of silver nitrate and silver nanoparticles on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: a proteomic approach. Degree Project, Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- López-Moreno M, de la Rosa G, Hernandez-Viezcas J, Peralta-Videa J, Gardea-Torresdey J (2010a) X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) corroboration of the uptake and storage of CeO2 nanoparticles and assessment of their differential toxicity in four edible plant species. J Agric Food Chem 58:3689–3693PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- López-Moreno M, de la Rosa G, Hernandez-Viezcas J, Castillo-Michel H, Botez C, Peralta-Videa J, Gardea-Torresdey J (2010b) Evidence of the differential biotransformation and genotoxicity of ZnO and CeO2 nanoparticles on soybean (Glycine max) plants. Environ Sci Technol 44:7315–7320PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lu CM, Zhang CY, Wen JQ, Wu GR, Tao MX (2002) Research of the effect of nanometer materials on germination and growth enhancement of Glycine max and its mechanism. Soybean Sci 21:168–172Google Scholar
- Marmiroli M, Imperiale D, Pagano L, Villani M, Zappettini A, Marmiroli N (2015) The proteomic response of Arabidopsis thaliana to cadmium sulfide quantum dots, and its correlation with the transcriptomic response. Front Plant Sci 6Google Scholar
- Mattiello A, Filippi A, Pošćić F, Musetti R, Salvatici MC, Giordano C, Vischi M, Bertolini A, Marchiol L (2015) Evidence of phytotoxicity and genotoxicity in Hordeum vulgare L. exposed to CeO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles. Front Plant Sci 6Google Scholar
- Mazumdar H, Ahmed GU (2011) Phytotoxicity effect of Silver nanoparticles on Oryza sativa. Int J Chem Technol Res 3(3):1494–1500Google Scholar
- Salama HMH (2012) Effects of silver nanoparticles in some crop plants, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and corn (Zea mays L.). Int Res J Biotechnol 3:190–197Google Scholar
- Shiny PJ, Mukerjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2013) Comparative assessment of the phytotoxicity of silver and platinum nanoparticles. Proceedings of the international conference on advanced nanomaterials & emerging engineering technologies. Sathyabama University, Chennai, pp 391–393Google Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Ecological test guidelines (OPPTS 850, 4200): seed germination/root elongation toxicity test. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Nanotechnology White Paper: Tech. Rep. EPA 100/B-07/001, Science Policy Council, US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Wu SG, Huang L, Head J, Chen DR, Kong IC, Tang YJ (2012) Phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles is related to both dissolved metals ions and adsorption of particles on seed surfaces. J Pet Environ Biotechnol 3:4Google Scholar
- Zhao L, Peng B, Hernandez-Viezcas JA, Rico C, Sun Y, Peralta-Videa JR, Tang X, Niu G, Jin L, Varela-Ramirez A, Zhang JY, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2012) Stress response and tolerance of Zea mays to CeO2 nanoparticles: cross talk among H2O2, heat shock protein, and lipid peroxidation. ACS Nano 6:9615–9622PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar