1. Introduction
Agriculture is the backbone of developing countries as 60% of the total population relies on it for their income [1]. In contrast to underdeveloped countries, it is an unpopular source of income in developed countries. Nowadays, it is a big challenge to fulfill the demand for food for the growing population. As predicted by the United Nations, the expected global population will be around 10 billion by 2050. This growth in population demands a 60% increase in food production to ensure a balanced food supply [2]. Therefore, researchers and scientists have worked on the issues of global food security to improve the production of agricultural products, including both crops and livestock. However, many factors—including high input expenses, drought, cross bordering of plant and animal pests and diseases, decline in soil organic matter, less land for farming, poverty, urban development, high competition of water and land, changes in regulatory landscapes, degradation of natural resources, diminished ecosystems, climate change and loss of biodiversity—affect the issue. An ongoing challenge for farmers is the incorporation of available technology to make conventional production systems more cost-effective [1,3,4,5,6]. Moreover, the contribution of animal pests to overall crop losses is 18%; microbial pathogens and weeds contribute approximately 16% and 34%, respectively. In microbial pathogens, nearly 70–80% of these crop losses are due to fungal pathogens [7]. A review of plant disease control methods is shown in Figure 1.
1.1. Conventional Agricultural Practices
Various conventional agricultural practices have been used for disease management, including field sanitation, legal methods, resistant varieties, cropping systems, soil solarization, bio fumigants, soil amendments, anaerobic soil disinfection, soil steam sterilization, soilless culture and soil fertility. Field sanitation is used to avoid pathogen spread in crop growing areas by managing humidity in the crop canopy, ensuring that it is not excessive, as most plant pathogens benefit from high humidity. Additional measures include the decontamination of equipment using heat treatment, (UV) treatment, and light treatment, as well as removing volunteer plants (such as weeds), ploughing the soil, and implementing appropriate tillage practices. These strategies help to minimize the conditions favorable to pathogen growth and reduce the risk of disease spread [8]. Additionally, legal measures have been adopted to avoid the spread of disease from infected areas to uninfected areas. Long-distance pathogen emerge in previously uninfected areas by means of plant propagation materials, packaging materials, containers and seeds [9]. It has been reported that the trading of ornamental plants was the main cause of phytophthora (P. palmivora and P. syringae, P. ramorum, P. drechsleri and P. nicotianae) in North America and Europe [10,11]. Lab testing and quarantine practices were adopted to avoid such disease incidences [9]. Moreover, the development of resistant plant varieties has also been an efficient approach used to manage plant diseases [12]. Nevertheless, genetic resistance loses its effectiveness over time because of the pressure of selection against phytopathogens, the emergence of new strains of plant pathogens that overcome that resistance or the interaction nematodes and fungi. However, soil-borne pathogens of the tomato plant, such as F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici and F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici, have been successfully controlled by using this method [13]. Multiple cropping systems—i.e., mixed cropping (the use of multiple lines in cereals), intercropping and crop rotation—were adopted to prevent pathogen inoculum, as growing the same crop in the same field year after year provides a host crop for pathogens and increases the risk of disease epidemics. In this manner, crop rotation is used to control disease, increase soil fertility and soil moisture and improve the physiochemical properties of soil [10]. Crop rotation involving barley and clover has been used to reduce Rhizoctonia canker and black scurf disease [14]. In addition, solar energy is another method for reducing soil pathogens. It involves spreading a plastic sheet on production beds just after irrigation. Solar radiation is trapped at the soil surface and heats the upper layer [13,15]. Deep tillage and exposure of the soil to solar radiation are recommended during the warmer months of the year to reduce the inoculum of soil-inhabiting plant pathogens. It is an effective approach in killing many important soil-borne pathogens, such as Sclerotinia spp., Fusarium spp., Agrobacterium tumefaciens, nematodes and Streptomyces scabies.
In addition to the above, Brassicaceae crops, such as canola, cabbage and rapeseed, have substances that can control soil-borne pathogens and pests. These crops have the ability to produce glucosinolates, which are sulfur compounds toxic to soil organisms such as P. nicotianae and R. solani, as well as to some nematodes species, such as Meloidogyne; these glucosinolates also act as biofumigants [16,17,18]. It is reported by Baysal-Gurel et al. that R. solani and P. nicotianae can be effectively controlled in woody ornamental plants by using cover crops [19]. In addition to this, soil steam sterilization is another approach that has been used in open fields or in greenhouses to sterilize the soil, ultimately inhibiting soil-borne diseases. Hot water vapors are injected into the soil using conductors and boilers; this technology is applicable for the disinfection of substrates and feedstocks in plant nurseries and greenhouses. It is a better way to control fungal pathogens than using methyl bromide or chloropicrin [20]. Although some biocidal products are effective, they damage the ozone layer and are banned in some countries. These products have more effectively controlled root knot nematode in Florida than treatment with methyl bromide [21]. The use of organic amendment is another conventional way of suppressing the growth of pathogens. Liquids and composts nourished with essential oils, organic acids, phenols and other biological compounds from herbs have also been used occasionally in managing plant diseases [22,23]. Today, the use of plant-based pesticides or phytoplaxicides has become very important for the environment and the safety of food. Organic manures, such as compost and peat moss, control soil-borne pathogens, such as Thielaviopsis basicola, Pythium, Sclerotium, R. solani, Fusarium and Phytophthora [24,25]. Along with improving soil health, organic amendments—which improve the physical properties of the soil and promote the growth of rhizogenic microorganisms—also enhance the activity of beneficial microorganisms in the soil, such as Pseudomonas, Rhizobacteria and Trichoderma. They enhance the production of plant growth regulators, phenols and tannins that have an antagonistic effect on disease-causing microbes [26].
Limitations of Conventional Agricultural Practices
These methods are effective in reducing the incidence of disease, but have a few limitations, as shown in Figure 2. These methods are ineffective on pathogens that have a broad range of host crops, and are effective in controlling only soil-borne pathogens (Rhizoctonia, Sclerotium, Fusarium, Macrophomina, etc.), which are characterized by having a wide range of hosts, normally between 200 and 500 crops [27]. They are also dependent on climatic conditions [15] and are time-consuming, fuel-consuming and laborious approaches, which make their adoption unappealing for controlling diseases [28]. Moreover, they are dependent on the physiochemical properties of the soil, the type of soil, the amount of organic amendments added, soil pH, cation exchange capacity and phytotoxicity [27]. In addition, the use of Brassica cover crops kills pathogenic microorganisms, but they also lead to increased phytotxicity and disease severity [29]. Due to their negative impacts, they are unable to support agriculture and yield production efficiently.
Seeing as there is a need to boost yields for a growing population, which will reach up to 10 billion by the end of 2050 [30], in order to address the concerns about food security, improving production is the ultimate goal, but one which cannot be achieved through conventional approaches. Global crop losses due to plant diseases are estimated to be about 16–20% of potential crop yields annually. Diseases such as wheat rust, rice blast and late blight in potatoes can cause up to 30–50% yield losses in severe cases. The economic impact of plant diseases is substantial. For example, wheat rust diseases alone have caused an estimated loss of USD 60 billion annually worldwide. The impact of fungal diseases on maize can lead to losses of up to UDS 1.5 billion per year in the U.S. alone. Therefore, to reduce pest pressure and to combat food security issues, agriculture has switched to chemical pesticides [31].
1.2. Chemical Pesticides
Chemical pesticides are target-specific and therefore have many subdivisions/classes, such as insecticides, bactericides, herbicides, nematicides and fungicides. Insecticides are used to kill insect pests, fungicides are meant to destroy fungal pathogens and herbicides are used to eradicate weeds, while bactericides are used to kill bacteria and nematicides are used to kill nematodes. Traditional synthetic pesticides are considered one of the most cost-friendly, effective and quick approaches for managing plant diseases [32,33]. They play a significant role in reducing crop losses caused by insect pests, microbes and weeds [34]. It has been reported that there was a 78% reduction in crop losses in fruit crops, 32% in cereals and 54% in vegetables due to the use of chemical pesticides [35]. As a result, a significant decrease in the hunger pattern has been observed since the mid-twentieth century. The prime objective of this pesticide use has been to improve crop production. However, apart from their profitable effects, they also hold many disadvantages [36]. The extensive use of fungicides, with their site-specific mode of action, can lead to the development of resistance in pathogens, environmental pollution, risks to human health and a decline in soil fertility by negatively impacting beneficial organisms, including predators, earthworms, and pollinators. Additionally, they can disrupt microbial diversity by altering soil conditions. However, it is possible to mitigate these effects through bioremediation, a process that involves introducing certain microbial organisms into the soil to help decontaminate and restore its natural balance. These beneficial microbes can break down harmful chemicals, improve soil health and support microbial diversity [32,33,36]. The activity of root colonizing microbes, such as bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, Rhizogenous antagonist fungi and algae, is also affected in soil that is treated with exogenous pesticides, as these are toxic to the metabolic activity, growth and other factors of beneficial soil microbes [37]. The biochemical reactions of soil, such as nitrogen fixation, ammonification and nitrification, are also disrupted due to the activation or deactivation of specific microorganisms and enzymes [38]. Moreover, they cause retardation in soil organic mineralization, which is responsible for soil quality and its production capacity [39]. Along with their positive impacts, they also have negative impacts. For example, there is urea and ammonia present in pesticides that cause impairment of both environmental and human health. They cause metabolic issues—i.e., diabetes, infertility and endocrine disruptions, neurological disorders, compromised immune system and cancer—in humans [40,41]. Similarly, in recent years, synthetic and natural plant defense elicitors have emerged as promising alternatives or complementary strategies to chemical treatments. These elicitors, which activate plants’ innate immune responses, offer a more sustainable and targeted approach to disease control. For instance, synthetic elicitors like those described by the authors in [42] can mimic natural defense mechanisms, while novel proteins, such as those from Phytophthora parasitica [43], induce both basal immunity and systemic acquired resistance. Additionally, the intricate role of elicitor-receptor molecules in orchestrating plant defense, as discussed in [44], highlights the potential of these molecules in enhancing crop resilience to pathogens. In short, the continuous use of pesticides has had negative consequences on the environment and public health, and to some extent has contributed to a rise in disease incidence. The pros and cons of chemical pesticides are summarized in Figure 3. Therefore, as a sustainable alternative, biopesticides have become more and more popular due to their low toxicity and organic nature, and the fact that they are renewable, ecosystem-friendly and promote food safety [45].
1.3. Biopesticides
In order to reduce the increasing concerns related to chemical pesticide use, researchers have begun to utilize biopesticides [46], which involve the use of pesticides developed from living organisms (i.e., microorganisms and plants or synthesized substances derived from living organisms). Among these, botanicals or plant-based biopesticides have become more popular for the management of plant diseases without inducing toxicity to the food chain and are safer than agrochemicals, promoting safe food [47]. They are also non-toxic to the ecosystem and have an environment-friendly mode of action. The results of various studies have shown no related residual effects when applied in optimized concentrations [40]. Beneficial soil microorganisms are not harmed due to their target specificity [48]. Therefore, it is considered a sustainable pest management approach that has the ability to push agriculture towards sustainability [49]. The use of these natural pesticides is effective as they have not led to the development of resistance among pests [50]. Additionally, they have the ability to decontaminate soils through the addition of certain microbial organisms [51,52]. However, although biopesticides offer benefits, there are some obstacles that have prevented their implementation as an alternative in managing plant diseases. One of the major concerns is that high doses are required for their effectiveness under field conditions. The microorganisms (Trichoderma, Bacillus, Purpureocillium, etc.) used as biocontrol agents have the disadvantages of lack of adaptation and colonization. They should be applied preventively and repeatedly, and are not always available in commercial formulations. Plant-derived pesticides are dependent on the availability of their plant sources and their cultivation. Their formulations are difficult and should be applied at short intervals and at high doses; moreover, they have a shorter shelf life. The efficacy of microbial biopesticides is reduced by environmental factors such as temperature, UV light and desiccation. Moreover, they have issues of high costs and complexity in development [40]. In addition, many considerations are required before adopting biopesticides, including regarding the nature of the host and their ability to disperse [53]. This method has numerous resource constraints when it comes to its implementation [54]. Even today, biopesticides are generally unknown among policy makers, stakeholders and small-scale growers [55]. Due to all these limitations, this method has not been adequate for sustainable agriculture. Figure 4 offers a concise overview of the positive and negative aspects of biopesticides. Therefore, to revolutionize agricultural practices and to mitigate environmental concerns, a shift towards molecular techniques was imperative.
1.4. Molecular Techniques/Approaches
The integration of molecular techniques in crop improvement began in the latter half of the 20th century [56]. Numerous molecular techniques were used/adopted to achieve sustainable and targeted solutions for pest management, i.e., DNA barcoding and genome editing [57]. The mechanism of genome editing involves the use of sequence-specific nucleases (SSNs), which are programmable molecules that have the capacity to alter particular DNA sequences. It was reported that SSNs have been used to make targeted genome changes in multiple crops [58]. In genome editing, four principal mechanisms (meganucleases, zinc finger nucleases, transcription-like effector nucleases and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats associated protein 9 (Cas-9)) were used to perform targeted nuclease activities, which have opened the door to agricultural advancement [58].
1.4.1. Meganucleases (MegNs)
MegNs are naturally occurring endodeoxyribonucleases [59] that were discovered in the late 1980s. MegNs are members of the endonuclease family, which is capable of identifying and cleaving lengthy DNA sequences (between 20 and 40 base pairs) [60] found in a variety of microbial organisms, and can also be found in the mitochondria and chloroplast of eukaryotes [51]. In terms of molecular biology, the use of MegNs is adventitious due to their long recognition sites, high specificity, easy delivery, small size and their giving rise to more recombinant DNA by producing a 3′ overhang after DNA cleavage. In addition to this, they have the capacity to reduce the possibility of cytotoxicity [61,62]. Successful applications of MegNs have been seen in Arabidopsis, cotton and corn [63,64,65]. In an investigation, MegNs were developed to create resistance against insects and produce transgenic cotton by cleaving the specifically targeted DNA sequences [66]. It was reported that MegNs caused double strand breaks (DSBs) in embryogenic callus cells that lead to tolerance against two herbicides [67]. However, despite there being no reports on the use of MegNs in rice crops, it can potentially serve as an alternative option due to its low efficacy [63,64,65]. Additionally, the lack of naturally occurring MegNs is a major constraint, as it requires the costly, time-consuming and laborious construction of sequence specific enzymes [68]. Moreover, they can recognize a few specific DNA sequences, and there is a probability of errors due to deletion or addition at the cutting sites [63,69,70]. Figure 5 illustrates the key points of the capabilities and challenges of MegNs.
1.4.2. Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs)
The era of ZFNs started in 1996, and they are recognized as site specific nucleases [71]. ZFNs are synthetic restriction enzymes that are capable of cleaving long stretches of double-stranded DNA sequences [72,73,74]. These are artificially engineered nucleases and the synthesis of their monomers involves the fusion of two domains: a Cys2-His2 zinc finger domain and a non-specific DNA cleavage domain from the DNA restriction enzyme Flavobacterium okeanokoites I (FokI) [75]. Despite their complex modular construction, ZFNs have been utilized intensively in the genetic modification of the Arabidopsis plant [73,74,76,77,78], tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) [79,80], canola (Brassica napus), soybean (Glycine max) and maize (Zea mays) [75,81,82]. The abscisic acid (ABA) insensitive phenotype in Arabidopsis, herbicide resistance in tobacco and bialaphos resistance in maize were accomplished using ZFN technology [83,84,85]. Moreover, artificial zinc finger proteins (AZPs) have played a significant role in conferring antiviral resistance to plants by restricting the viral replication proteins’ DNA binding sites [86,87]. Chen et al. published a report employing ZFN technology to enhance disease resistance in crop plants. In this study, AZPs were designed to target a conserved sequence motif found in begomoviruses. Through this approach, the researchers achieved resistance against multiple begomoviruses—including Tobacco curly shoot virus (TbSCV) and Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus (TYLCCNV)—by specifically targeting a site within the viral DNA [88]. By preventing viral replication of the proteins’ DNA binding sites, artificial zinc finger proteins, or AZPs, have significantly increased plant resistance to viruses [86,87].
However, because of their engineering complexity and multiplexing difficulties, ZFNs have had a limited impact in inducing disease resistance in crops through the modification of genes that are associated with disease development [83,84,85]. Moreover, challenges such as off-target effects, low efficiency [89] and the existence of target sites that are sparsely distributed have made their use more challenging [90]. Figure 6 illustrates the benefits and drawbacks of ZFNs.
1.4.3. Transcription Activator-like Effector Nucleases (TALENs)
The limitations of ZFNs opened the door for a new class of nucleases: TALENs. Since the discovery of their DNA binding mechanism in 2009, it has become possible to use TALENs for DNA targeting [91,92], which are more efficient, safer and cheaper than ZFNs, and capable of targeting a specific site in the genome [93]. TALENs originate from phyto-pathogenic bacteria Xanthomonas spp. and their homologs from Ralstonia Solanacerum, and have a core DNA binding sites comprising tandem repeats made up of almost 30 to 35 identical amino acids [92,94,95]. Successful applications of this technology have been found in model plants, i.e., Arabidopsis and Brachypodium, and in some important cash crops, such as barley [96], maize [97,98] and rice. In rice, researchers successfully engineered resistance against bacterial blight disease in rice, caused by Xanthomonas oryzae, by changing the promoter region of the OsCWEET 14 gene, which is essential for susceptibility to the pathogen [99]. Similarly, targeting of the FAD2 gene has successfully improved the oil quality in soybean crops [100]. Wheat has acquired heritable resistance to powdery mildew disease after three homologs of MLO were successfully targeted for simultaneous knockout [101]. TALENs have been used to develop improved seeds that have a characteristic fragrance [102] and improved storage potential [103]. Additionally, TALENs-engineered potatoes have the characteristics suitable for cold storage and better processing qualities [104]. Despite the advancements and simplifications of TALEN methods, it remains complex for individuals unfamiliar with molecular biology studies. Moreover, compared to ZFNs, it faces certain constraints due to their larger size, which hinders delivery [105,106]. The construction of TALENs for genome editing via PCR is a difficult task due to the repetition of sequences required for their design. The requirement to create a new TALEN protein for every DNA target site increases the expense and time of their development. Since their cutting effectiveness is dependent on the target sequence, methylated DNA cannot be targeted using them [107]. A review of the pros and cons of TALENs is presented in Figure 7.
1.4.4. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)
The CRISPR/Cas9 system, sometimes referred to as “short regularly spaced repeats”, was discovered in the 1980s and is regarded as the third generation of genome editing tools (Figure 8). In 2013, it was utilized for modifications of a plants’ genome for the first time. In contrast to the earlier genome editing technology, i.e., ZNFs and TALENs, which relied on artificial proteins, CRISPR/Cas systems recognize DNA binding sites on the basis of DNA/RNA interactions [108]. The TALEN and ZFN tools, especially ZFNs, were overshadowed by the benefits of the CRISPR/Cas system due to their simple design for targeting any genomic sites, straightforward prediction of off-target sites and the potential to modify multiple genomic sites simultaneously [109,110,111]. The utilization of CRISPR for targeted mutation in the genome of the tomato has successfully induced resistance against bacterial speck disease caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato [112]. Similarly, in the case of citrus canker caused by Xanthomonas citri ssp. citri, the LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES 1 (CsLOB1) that promotes the proliferation of bacterium has been identified and successfully knocked out [113]. In another investigation, the connection between CsLOB1 and the effector PthA4 of the bacterium was disrupted by using CAS9 to develop immunity in plants against the bacterium Xcc [114]. Furthermore, it was reported that the apple and many other ornamental and commercially-important plants were seriously threatened by Erwinia amylovora. To reduce the impact of this bacterium, directly purified CRISPR ribonucleoprotein was injected into the protoplast of the apple by targeting three genes (DIPM-2, DIPM-1 and DIPM-4), and researchers observed enhanced resistance against apple fire blight disease [115]. Moreover, CRISPR technology was used to induce resistance against bacterial blight disease caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae via modifications in the Xa13/cdc region [112]. Similar effects were achieved in the following cases: in the MLO-7/cds region against powdery mildew of grapes caused by Erysiphe necator [115], in the OsERF922/cds region against rice blast caused by Magnaporthe oryzae [116] and in the SlMlo1/cds region against powdery mildew of tomato caused by Oidium neolycopersici [117]. Barley plants resistant to wheat dwarf virus have been successfully developed using CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis [118]. CRISPR has not only induced resistance in plants, but has also improved numerous other features, such as crop production [119,120], quality of grain [121,122], resistance to biotic stress [70] and abiotic stress [123] and male sterility via simple [124] and multiplex genome editing [125,126]. Yet, there are some significant constraints that prevent the Cas9 system from being beneficial in the development of disease resistance. Firstly, the direct targeting of the S gene (pathogens exploit S genes to facilitate infection and disease progression) may result in some adaptive costs due to their linkage with other desirable genes. Furthermore, any mutations in the S gene may cause a disruption in its pathways that ultimately damages a large number of other products by causing mutations in the targeted gene. These mutations have the potential to cause phenotypic abnormalities (such as chlorosis, necrosis, leaf deformation, yellowing, etc.) and the shortage of important micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn, etc.) [127]. In short, the CAS system is susceptible to off-target mutations [128]. The efficacy of genome editing using CRISPR is directly affected by both the sequence and the location of the target [129,130], as well as by the method of transformation (stable or transient expression methods) [131,132,133]. Moreover, it has caused difficulties/issues for the virologists while trying to control the spread of plant DNA viruses. There is a chance for endogenous genes to be inactivated through mutations or recombination, and the variations in plant virus systems due to genome editing lead to the evolution of viruses resulting from the lack of proofreading mechanisms in RNA replication. When two or more strains of an RNA virus infect the same host plant, recombination can occur, leading to the formation of new viral strains with mixed genetic material [134,135]. Although genetically modified plants developed through this technology have low viral infection rates and remain stable for up to three generations, they are subjected to regulations for genetically modified organisms and may not be accepted in some countries [136]. Figure 6 illustrates the benefits and drawbacks of CRISPR.
Therefore, the need of the hour is to develop such techniques that could increase crop production and protection with high efficacy, a lower dose and that could be environmentally friendly [137]. By keeping in view all the pros and cons of all the previously used practices and technologies (conventional approaches, chemical control, biocontrol, genome editing), researchers can continuously work to come up with emerging technologies that may have better a capacity/potential to overcome all such drawbacks.
2. Nanotechnology Used for Crop Protection
In recent years, nanotechnology has gained the attention of researchers for agricultural production [138]. “Nanotechnology” is the invention of Richard Feynman, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965. In 1959, during an American Physical Society meeting at Caltech, he introduced the idea of manipulating matter at the atomic level by presenting a paper titled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”. Nanotechnology represents the cutting edge of material sciences, comprising substances with unique properties in comparison to their larger macroscopic counterparts [139]. It is the use of tiny particles that are ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers in size, known as nanoparticles (NPs), that have a great potential to be used in medical fields, agriculture and industries due their extremely small size and large surface area [140]. For the identification of plant pathogens, it was introduced as a fourth resourceful tool for cellular and molecular biology [141].
Agriculture-based nanotechnology holds great potential for dealing with issues related to food security, including precise farming, waste management, nutrition management and disease control [142]. The earliest example of nanotechnology used in agriculture was reported in 2004 in animal breeding, crop growth and aquaculture [143,144]. In agriculture, NPs with larger specific surface areas function as unique agrochemical carriers that enable site-specific and controlled delivery of nutrients and chemicals [145], by improving their stability and solubility through nanoencapsulations [140]. Moreover, in the agro-environmental sector, numerous potential uses for this technology have been reported in protecting soil [146], improving stress tolerance in plants [147] and in the removal of contaminants [143]. The use of nanocapsules and nanodevices for disease detection and treatment is another emerging area of nanotechnology in agriculture. This includes the use of enzymatic biosensors for targeted sensing, quantum dots for fluorescent labeling to biologically recognize pathogens and in situ sensors for real-time monitoring [148,149,150]. Nanosensors serve as an effective means of identifying nutrient deficiencies, toxicity levels, animal and plant diseases and improving food quality [151]. By using this emerging technology, we can sort out farming issues effectively [152]. It has shown remarkable results for innovation in agriculture via the introduction of the newest and latest methods for disease detection, specified treatments, improved plant capacity for nutrients absorption, tackling disease and facing environmental challenges [141]. Furthermore, genetic modifications and seed treatments have been altered by agricultural nanotechnology. The coating of seeds with NPs promotes root development and early disease resistance and enhances seed germination [153]. Accurate genetic modifications have become possible through nanogenomics that optimize plants’ characteristics for increased adaptability, nutritional value and productivity [153]. In short, it can be concluded that nanotechnology holds the potential to push agriculture towards sustainability [154]. The NPs are classified as inorganic, organic, carbon based and polymeric.
2.1. Inorganic NPs
In the composition of inorganic NPs, carbon atoms are totally absent. These include metal-based and metal oxide-based NPs [155].
2.1.1. Metallic NPs Used for Plant Disease Management
The most common categories included in metal NPs are copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), gold (Au), Aluminium (Al), Cobalt (Co), Zinc (Zn), Lead (Pb) and Silver (Ag) [156]. On the basis of their size and characteristics, they possess extraordinary properties, such as cylindrical and spherical shapes, amorphous and crystalline structures, small surface area, pore sizes and surface charge densities [157]. Moreover, their numerous remarkable properties have been elaborated on by researchers in the field of agriculture, including their prolonged storage durability, high efficacy, extremely small size and easy transportation and handling when used in an appropriate way. Consequently, these nanomaterials hold the potential to be superior to traditional agrochemicals and to be the preferred choice of farmers [158]. This review will present the overview of previous research focusing on the utilization of metallic nanoparticles (NPs) in crop protection. We summarize the findings and advancements in this field in Table 1, highlighting their effectiveness in improving crop health by minimizing biotic and abiotic stress factors.
2.1.2. Metal Oxide NPs
Small metal oxide particles have unique characteristics because they are extremely small and their surface atoms can easily combine in reactions, making them different from bigger forms [186]. The most common varieties include Aluminum oxide (Al2O3), Cerium oxide (CeO2), silver oxide (Ag2O), copper oxide (CuO), Magnesium oxide (MgO), Iron oxide (Fe2O3), Magnetite (Fe3O4), Silicon dioxide (SiO2), Titanium oxide (TiO2) and Zinc oxide (ZnO) [187]. All of these MONPs possess remarkable properties, which include effective surface qualities, high thermal and chemical stability and flexibility in pore size. These outstanding properties have gained the attention of researchers and have caused them to be considered one of the superior agents for agricultural production. Multiple MONPs have been employed to understand their long-term impact in crop production and plant growth. The results have shown significant effects in absorption, accumulation and movement of the plant, leading to an overall improvement in agricultural output. Additionally, they are highly valuable in the prevention and control of plant diseases and pests due to their increased durability, efficacy and, in particular, their large surface area, which favors their interactions with living plant cells [188]. Furthermore, they are less toxic, highly stable [189], antifungal, antibacterial [190] and antioxidant [191]. A review of the results from numerous research findings that underscore the advantage of metal oxide NPs in crop protection is shown in Table 2.
2.2. Organic NPs
Organic NPs are environment friendly and nontoxic, and are also known as nanocapsules. Organic NPs that have high sensitivity when exposed to light and heat are liposomes, dendrimers, ferritin and micelles [258]. They have potential in various fields due to their properties, such as high reactivity with target substances and susceptibility to many factors, including heat, moisture, the atmosphere and light. They have toxic properties, as well as antibacterial, antifungal and disinfection properties that increase their value in the biomedical field. Furthermore, they possess oxidation, reduction and anti-corrosion properties. They have elasticity, flexibility, ductility, tensile strength, hydrophobicity, settling tendencies, suspension behavior, and diffusion rate make the valuable in diverse fields. Moreover, they are conductors, semiconductors and resistant [187]. Numerous researchers have investigated the antimicrobial potential of organic NPs, and their findings are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.
2.3. Carbon-Based NPs
The most significant class of NPs is carbon-based nanomaterials (CB-NMs) [271], which include fullerenes, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, graphene oxide and carbon nanofibers (CNFs). They have been extensively utilized in waste water treatment, crop protection, agriculture, antimicrobial activities, sensor technology and medicine due to distinctive features. Their uniqueness stems from their large surface area as well as electrical and optical [272,273,274,275,276,277]. thermal, mechanical and chemical properties [271]. Furthermore, CB-NMs, particularly, graphene, CNFs and CNTs, exhibit strong penetration capabilities, which enable their easy penetration through the seed coat and movement throughout the plant from roots to leaves and shoots. They serve as carriers of metal, metal oxide and agrochemicals by facilitating their easy translocation within the plant. This translocation ability of CB-NMs is observed due to their negatively charged surfaces, as well as their size [278]. Carbon-based materials have been extensively used in crop protection in multiple studies. A review of those studies and their findings is shown in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
2.4. Polymeric NPs
Polymeric NPs play a substantial role as drug nanocarriers in plants, functioning either as pesticides or plant growth regulators [295]. Research conducted over the past decade has found that the most important polymeric NPs in the agricultural sector are alginate [296,297,298,299], chitosan [300,301] and zein [302,303,304]. Meanwhile, the realm of synthetic polymers PLGA (poly lactic-co-glycolic acid) has been crucial in developing new NP-based materials [295]. Researchers have focused on polymeric NPs due to their potential to control the release of active ingredients and to protect them from unfavorable environmental conditions. Their stability and ability to deliver the active ingredients more precisely and accurately to the targeted areas of plants have generated significant interest in their use within agriculture. Additionally, the biodegradable and biocompatible properties of polymeric NPs result in low ecological toxicity. Furthermore, the encapsulation of large numbers of active ingredients and their slow release minimizes the environmental impact. Therefore, they need to be combined with active compounds such as herbicides, pesticides and antibiotics [143]. Polymeric NPs in agriculture also enable the efficient delivery of drugs, enhanced adhesion in soil, uptake by plants, thermal and photostability and reduce soil leaching [305]. Their coatings as nanocarriers enhance the life span of drugs due to their outstanding properties, such as easy water dispersal and their bioavailability for hydrophobic compounds. Biodegradable and biocompatible polymers can be considered as an alternative to inorganic NPs in order to minimize the issues of ecological toxicity [295]. This review focuses on the applications of polymeric NPs in crop protection shown in Table 8, highlighting their efficacy in delivering and stabilizing active molecules.
In addition to conventional nanomaterials, recent developments in self-assembled nano-bioprotectants have shown great promise for sustainable crop protection. These nanomaterials, which can self-assemble into functional structures, offer precise delivery and the controlled release of active compounds, enhancing their efficacy and reducing their environmental impact. For instance, Ref. [306] demonstrated the high efficiency of a self-assembled, multicomponent nano-bioprotectant in managing potato late blight. Similarly, Ref. [307] reported the successful use of self-assembled nanoparticles of a prodrug conjugate based on pyrimethanil for efficient disease control. Furthermore, Ref. [308] developed a plant protein-based self-assembling core-shell nanocarrier that not only controls plant viruses effectively but also promotes plant growth and induces resistance. These advancements highlight the potential of self-assembled nanomaterials in enhancing crop protection while addressing sustainability concerns.
Nanoparticles have been increasingly utilized to improve the efficiency of both traditional and frontier plant disease control strategies. Their unique properties allow for better delivery, stability, and controlled release of agrochemicals, contributing to enhanced disease resistance. For example, the authors of [309] discuss the role of nanoparticle-mediated strategies in enhancing plant disease resistance, illustrating their ability to work synergistically with traditional methods. Additionally, advanced applications, such as the use of exosome/liposome-like nanoparticles as carriers for CRISPR-based genome editing in plants, represent a frontier strategy in disease control [310]. These nanoparticles improve the precision and effectiveness of gene editing technologies, opening new avenues for crop improvement and disease management.
Table 8Applications of carbon NPs in plant disease management.
Polymeric | NPs Type | Concentration | Disease & Pathogen Management | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chitosan | Moringa chitosan NPs | 200 mg/L | Rice blast (Magnoparthae oryzae) | [311] |
Chitosan in acetic acid distilled water solution | 4 g/L | Dry rot and wilt (Fusarium sp.) | [312] | |
Chitosan biopolymer | 2.5 mg/mL | Powdery mildew of cucumber | [313,314] | |
Chitosan | 100 and 200 µg/mL | Bacterial wilt of potato and tomato | [315] | |
Bioengineered chitosan iron nanocomposites | In vitro: 250 μg m/L | Bacterial leaf blight of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) | [172] | |
Chitosan | 300 mg/L and 400 mg/L | Bean yellow mosaic virus of faba bean | [316] | |
Chitosan composite film having chitosan, calcium, auxiliaries, ferulic acid and dextrin | 0.71–1.42 g/L | Soft rot of kiwi (B. dothidea and Phomopsis sp.) | [317] | |
Copper chitosan NPs | 0.10, 0.20, and 0.30 mg/mL | Fusarium wilt of banana (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense) | [318] | |
Chitosan | 0.1–2.0 g/L | Root rot of fenugreek (Fusarium solani) | [319] | |
Chitosan | 500 mg/L | Powdery mildew of Rosa roxburghii | [320] | |
Chitosan | 0.2 g/L and 0.4 g/L | Blue mold of apple (Penicillium expansum) | [321] | |
Chitosan/dextran NPs | 100 µg m/L | Alfalafa mosaic virus on Nicotiana glutinosa plant | [322] | |
Nickle chitosan nanocojugate | 0.04 mg/mL | Fusarium rot of wheat | [323] | |
Fluoroalkenyl-Grafted Chitosan Oligosaccharide Derivative | 1 mg/mL | Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incongita) | [324] | |
Chitosan along with botanicals (Argemone mexicana L., Achyranthes aspera L., and Ricinus communis L.) | 2500, 2000, 1500, 1000, and 500 ppm | Meloidogyne incongita in carrot | [325] | |
Zein NPs | Natamycin-loaded zein-casein NPs (N-Z/C NPs) | 20 and 80 µg/m | Brown rot of peach (Monilinia fructicola) | [326] |
Carvacrol-loaded zein NPs | 135 μg/mL and 270 μg/mL | Bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae) | [327] | |
Natamycin-loaded zein NPs stabilized by carboxymethyl chitosan | 10 mg/L | Postharvest gray mold, rot and mildew of strawberry | [313] | |
Satureja montana Essential Oil in combination with zein NPs | 1 mg/mL | Bacterial spot of tomato (Xanthomonas sp.) | [314] | |
Rotenone loaded zein NPs | 16 μg m/L | Pseudomonas syringae Fusarium oxysporum | [328] | |
PLGA NPs | CTAB-PLGA Curcumin NP | 52.57 μg/mL and 44.67 μg/mL and 15 μg/mL | Pythium ultimum var. ultimum | [329] |
Poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) NPs(PLGA NPs) | 1.25–0.07 μg mL | Gray mold disease (Botrytis cinerea) | [330] | |
Alginate NPs | Alginate oligosaccharide (AOS) combined with Meyerozyma guilliermondii | 5 g/L | Blue mold decay (Penicillium expansum) | [331] |
Alginate oligosaccharide (AOS) | 50 mg/L | Gray mold of kiwi fruit (Botrytis cinerea) | [332] | |
Alginate polysaccharide | 1 g/L | Bayoud disease of date palm (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. albedins) | [333] | |
Alginate | 2 g/L | Verticillium wilt of olive (Verticillium dahliae) | [334] | |
Nano Cu-Cu2O/Alginate | 17.8 mg Cu/L. | Rice blast (Pyricularia oryzae) | [335] |
2.5. Limitations of Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is considered a groundbreaking technology that holds the potential to revolutionize numerous industries, including agriculture. Despite its promising applications, it also carries a number of possible risks and drawbacks [336]—as illustrated in Figure 9—that should be addressed. One of the major concerns is their nano-scale size, which enables them to be easily transported by air and water, thereby causing contamination. Once released in the environment, their accumulation in the air, water and soil leads to the development of ecological threats. For instance, a disruption of the balance of macro- and microorganisms leads to a decrease in soil fertility [337,338,339]. Nanopesticides can enhance the efficiency of pesticides by providing controlled release to the targeted pathogens. However, several studies have shown that only 0.1% of nanopesticides reach the intended target, while the remaining 99.9% disperse in the surrounding environment, which results in the loss of biodiversity, soil and water pollution and increased resistance among plant pests and pathogens. Studies have shown that nanopesticides are harmful to bees, which are important pollinators for the spread of pollen [36]. Additionally, their accumulation in plants and animals have adverse impacts on human health [340], leading to cardiovascular issues, respiratory diseases and neurological damage as well [341]. Direct exposure to nanopesticides through the skin facilitates their entry into systemic circulation, which causes systemic toxicity [342]. The interaction of NPs with cellular components, such as nucleic acid, lipids, proteins etc., causes inflammation, toxicity and oxidative stress [343]. As a result, reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the body that damage the cellular membranes [344]. Furthermore, substantial investment is required for the research and development of nanotechnology, making it expensive. It is unaffordable for small scale growers, resulting in an unequal distribution of the benefits of nanotechnology in society [336]. Finally, last but not least, there is a knowledge gap regarding the environmental and ecosystem impacts of nanotechnology, which justifies significant investment to mitigate the potential hazards these tiny particles represent to humans and wildlife [345].
3. Conclusions
In conclusion, the integration of nanotechnology into plant disease management represents a promising pathway for sustainable agriculture. As traditional methods face numerous increasing challenges, such as pesticide resistance and environmental concerns, nanotechnology offers innovative solutions for enhanced disease resistance, controlled drug delivery and reduced pest resistance. NPs bring the promising benefit of targeted delivery to enhance the plant defense mechanism.
However, there are certain obstacles to the adoption of nanotechnology. Concerns regarding NPs toxicity, regulatory frameworks and environmental persistence demands thorough investigation and careful consideration. Collaborative efforts between researchers, policymakers and industry stakeholders are imperative to address these challenges and to ensure the safe application of nanotechnology in agriculture.
Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of nanotechnology in plant disease management are vast. By utilizing nanoscale materials and technologies, farmers can mitigate the impacts of plant disease by promoting sustainable agriculture. In addition, genetic engineering technologies also play a crucial role in developing disease-resistant crops, offering complementary and powerful tools to enhance crop resilience. Continued research, coupled with protective measures to address regulatory concerns and safety measures, will be essential in understanding the full potential of nanotechnology to revolutionize modern agriculture and ensure global food security for future generations.
Future Directions
Nanotechnology can offer vast and promising applications in plant disease management. One of its exciting domains of exploration is the development of multi-functional NPs or nanocomposites that can detect, treat and deliver drugs and nutrients simultaneously to plants to improve plant health status. Additionally, the development of advanced nanocarrier systems designed for the targeted delivery of treatments to specific plant pathogens holds great potential. This system would enable precise application, reducing the impact on non-target organisms and decreasing the reliance on chemical pesticides. Furthermore, the development of nanosensors for the real-time monitoring of plant health and early disease detection is a critical area for future research directions. Such technology would allow for timely interventions, improving management practices and potentially preventing large scale disease outbreaks. These future directions highlight the transformative potential of nanotechnology in creating more efficient, sustainable and effective plant disease management strategies.
Challenges: The challenges in genome editing include handling the off-target effects, improving delivery methods for CRISPR components, and addressing ethical issues related to safety and use. Regulatory concerns focus on ensuring the safety and effectiveness of genome-edited products and managing public perception. These concerns can differ by region and impact how genome editing technologies are developed, approved, and adopted.
H.A.: Investigation, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing—original draft; M.U.: Data curation, Investigation, Software, Visualization, Writing—original draft; R.B.: Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing—original draft; A.H.: Conceptualization, Validation, Visualization, Writing—original draft; S.F.A.: Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing—review & editing; H.M.U.A.: Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Writing—review & editing; I.A.K.: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Writing—review & editing; M.A.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Writing—review & editing; H.E.M.Z.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing—review & editing; G.O.: Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing—review & editing; M.S.S.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable for studies not involving humans or animals.
Not applicable.
All data created were used in this article.
The authors acknowledge Canva for providing the tools used in the creation of the figures in this manuscript. Author Zaki thanks and acknowledges the Department of Research and Consultation at the University of Technology and Applied Sciences-Sur, Oman, for their ongoing support and facilities.
Author Manzar Abbas was employed by the company Inner Mongolia Saikexing Institute of Breeding and Reproductive Biotechnology in Domestic Animal. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1. Plant disease control methods from conventional methods to the modern era.
Figure 2. Limitations of conventional control strategies for plant disease management.
Applications of metal NPs in plant disease management.
MNPs | Concentration | Source of Synthesis | Size of NPs (nm) | Disease & Pathogen Management | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Au | 200 ppm | Biosynthesis | N/A | Sheath blight of rice caused by Rhizoctonia solani | [ |
2 ppm | Trichoderma atroviride | 50–75 | Phomopsis canker in tea pant | [ | |
0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 ppm | Bacillus sonorensis | 10–35 | Dematophora necatrix, Fusarium oxysporum, Alternaria aternata, Alternaria mali, Sclerotium rolfsii and Colletotrichum capsici | [ | |
150 ppm | Metarhizium anisopliae | 9–54 | Rice blast disease | [ | |
Zn | 50, 100, 250, and 500 ppm | N/A | DLS: 30–40 | Aspergillus niger | [ |
0–65 mg/L | N/A | >50 | Peronospora tabacina | [ | |
Ag | 25 ppm, 37.5 ppm and 50 ppm | N/A | 3 to 10 | Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici | [ |
2, 4 and 10 µg/mL | Serratia sp | 10 to 20 | Spot blotch of wheat (Bipolaris sorokiniana) | [ | |
17.24 μg/mL | Azadirachta indica | 15 | Bakanae of rice (F. fujikuroi and | [ | |
50 ppm | Azadirachta indica | N/A | Early blight of tomato (Alternaria solani) | [ | |
40 mg/L | Allium sativum bulb | N/A | Spot blotch of wheat (B. sorokiniana) | [ | |
40 ppm | Avena fatua | 5 to 25 | Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici | [ | |
40 mg/L | Allium sativum bulb extract | N/A | Black leg and soft rot of potato | [ | |
7.8 μg/mL | Pseudomonas canadensis | 21 and 52 | Brown blotch of mushroom | [ | |
100 ppm | Pleurotus ostreatus | N/A | Fusarium oxysporum | [ | |
0.35 mg/100 uL | Hyppophae rhamnoides | N/A | Ralstonia solanacearum and Pseudomonas syringae | [ | |
N/A | Malva parviflora L. | 50.6 | Helminthosporium rostratum, Fusarium solani, Fusarium oxysporum, and Alternaria alternata. | [ | |
150 ppm | Penicillium verrucosum | 10–12 | F. chlamydosporum and Aspergillus flavus | [ | |
15 μg/mL | leaf extract of rice | 16.5 | Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae | [ | |
20 μg mL | Bacillus sp. | 22–41 | Red rot of sugarcane (Colletotrichum falcatum) | [ | |
N/A | Pseudomonas poae | 19.8–44.9, | Head blight of wheat (Fusarium graminearum) | [ | |
Cu | 20 ppm | CuSO4 | 35–70 | Macrophomina phaseolina, Bipolaris maydis, and Fusarium verticillioides In maize | [ |
50 ppm | CuSO4 | 35–70 | Rhizoctonia solani in maize | [ | |
30 ppm | CuSO4 precursor | 35–70 | Erwinia carotovora and Ralstonia solanacearum in maize | [ | |
≥80 ppm | Chemical reduction of Cu2+ with reductive agent of NaHB4 | 26.5 | Fusarium oxysporum | [ | |
500 ppm and 1000 ppm | Eucalyptus and | 10–130 | Colletotrichum capsici of chilli | [ | |
N/A | Pseudomonas fluorescens, Trichoderma atroviride and Streptomyces griseus | N/A | Red root-rot disease in tea (Poria hypolateritia), collar canker (Phomopsis theae) | [ | |
20 ppm | CuSO4 precursor | 35–70 | Macrophomina phaseolina, Bipolaris maydis, and Fusarium verticillioides. | [ | |
100 µg/mL | Bacillus altitudinis strain WM-2/2 | 29.11–78.56 | Bacterial fruit blotch (BLB) of watermelon (Acidovorax citrulli) | [ | |
N/A | Chemical synthesis | 28 | Bacterial leaf blight (BLB) of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae) | [ | |
100, 150 and 200 ppm | Chemical synthesis and green synthesis | 126 and 85 | Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne Incongita) | [ |
Applications of metal oxide NPs in plant disease management.
MONPs | Concentration | Source of Synthesis | Size of NPs (nm) | Disease & Pathogen Management | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ZnO | 130.1 and 104.9 µg/mL | Carica papaya leaf extract | N/A | S. sclerotiorum | [ |
10% of 3 mL/L | PVP/ZnSO4 irradiated to 30 kGy. | 38 | Black mould of pomegranate (Aspergillus niger) | [ | |
5% of 9 mL/L. | PVP/ZnSO4 irradiated to 30 kGy. | 38 | Green mould of orange (Penicillium digitatum) | [ | |
20 mg/L | Cinnamomum camphora | 13.92, 15.19 and 21.13 | Early blight of tomato (Alternaria solani) | [ | |
18.0 µg/mL | Matricaria chamomilla flower extract | 8.9 to 32.6 | Bacterial wilt of tomato (Ralstonia solanacearum) | [ | |
1.0 mg/mL | Trachyspermum ammi | 48.52 | Fruit rot (Rhizoctonia solani) | [ | |
100 ppm | Eucalyptus globules | 52–70 | Alteraria blotch (Alternaria mali), Botryosphaeria canker of apple (Botryosphaeria dothidea) | [ | |
250 ppm | N/A | N/A | Purple Blotch disease in onion (Alternaria porri) | [ | |
100 µg/mL | Picea smithiana extract | 25 | Bacterial leaf spot of tomato | [ | |
100 µg/mL | Trichoderma harzianum | 25–60 | Fusarium wilt of tomato (F. oxysporum) | [ | |
200 μg/mL | Cannabis sativa L. | 13.51 | Fusarium virguliforme in soybean | [ | |
100 mg/mL−1 | lemon peels | 16.8 | Citrus black rot (Alternaria citri) | [ | |
Ag2O | 0.10 and 0.20 g/L | solid homogeneous solution of silver oxide material | 38.23 | Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria, Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum, Ralstonia solanacearum, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Alternaria solani in tomato | [ |
CuO | N/A | Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. flower extract | 28.1 | Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae | [ |
10 ppm | coffee powder | 85–100 | Fusarium wilt in chickpea | [ | |
200 μg/mL | Cannabis sativa L. | 7.36 | Fusarium virguliforme in soybean | [ | |
N/A | Chemical synthesis | 25.54 and 25.83 | Root rot disease in cucumber (Fusarium solani) | [ | |
10, 15, 30, 50, 70, 100, and 150 mg/L | Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma viride | 40–100 and 20–80 | Gummosis of citrus (Phytophthora parasitica) | [ | |
5–350 μg/mL | Cassia fistula | 12–38 | Fusarium wilt of tomato (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici) | [ | |
200 ppm | Trichoderma asperellum | 22 | Alternaria brassicae | [ | |
200.0 μg/mL | Hibiscus rosa-sinensis L. | 28.1 | Bacterial leaf blight of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae) | [ | |
200 ppm | Jatropha curcas | 5 to 15 | Root-knot nematode in chickpea (Meloidogyne incognita) | [ | |
100 mg/mL | lemon peels | 18 | Citrus black rot (Alternaria citri) | [ | |
SiO2 | 100 mg/L | N/A | 54–76 | P. syringae | [ |
50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ppm | bioleaching of sand | 22.5 | Meloidogyne javanica | [ | |
2, 20, 200 and 2000 ppm. | Green synthesis | 58.6 | Vigna radiata L. | [ | |
200 µg/mL | Crocus sativus L. | N/A | Bacterial leaf blight of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae) | [ | |
250 to 1000 mg/kg | agro-waste | N/A | Fusarium oxysporum (Fusarium wilt in Eruca sativa) | [ | |
150 ppm | Green synthesis | N/A | Pepper bacterial leaf spot (Xanthomonas vesicatoria) | [ | |
25, 50, and 100 µg/mL | saffron extract | 9.92 and 19.8 | Rhizoctonia solani | [ | |
50 mg/L | Milled/acid leaching rice husk | 15 | Bakanae of rice (F. fujikuroi) | [ | |
TiO2 | 100 and 200 mg/L | N/A | 21 | Pectobacterium betavasculorum, Rhizoctonia solani, and Meloidogyne incognita in beetroot | [ |
40 mg/L | Moringa oleifera Lam | 10–100 | Spot blotch of wheat (Bipolaris sorokiniana) | [ | |
0.20 mg/mL | N/A | 5–15 | Phomopsis vexans, Ralstonia solanacearum, and root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in egg plant | [ | |
50 µg/mL | mixing of TiO2 solution with a lemon fruit extract at room temperature | 41.5 | Soft rot of sweet potato (Dickeya dadantii) | [ | |
100 ppm | Aspergillus versicolor | 47.15 | Leaf blight of tomato (Alternaria alternata) | [ | |
25, 50 and 75 μL | Trianthema portulacastrum, Chenopodium quinoa and by chemical conventional (sol-gel) method | <15 | Wheat rust (Ustillago tritici) | [ | |
40 mg/L | Moringa oleifera | <100 | Stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) | [ | |
150 µg/mL | Chemical (sol gel) synthesis | 20 | Tobacco mosaic virus in chili pepper | [ | |
400 mg/L | Green synthesis by African palm oil and Chemical synthesis by sol gel method | 14.60 ± 0.44 and 12.30 ± 0.54 | Fusarium solani | [ | |
CeO2 | 50 and 250 mg/L | N/A | 8 ± 1 | Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici) | [ |
30 mg/L | Acorus calamusas rhizomes | 42 | Wheat stripe rust (Puccinia striformis) | [ | |
100 mg/L | Chenopodium quinoa L. | 7–10 | Ustilago tritici in wheat | [ | |
Fe2O3 | 20 µg/mL | Green synthesis by hydrothermal process | HRTEM: 5 ± 1.0 DLS: 7.5 | Fusarium wilt (F. oxysporum) | [ |
1.0 mg/mL | Green synthesis | 49 | Fusarium fruit rot (Fusarium oxysporum) | [ | |
1.0 mg/mL | Trichoderma harzianum | 17.78 | brown rot of apple (Fusarium oxysporum) | [ | |
0, 10, 50, 250 and 500 | Mentha spicata | 21–26 | E. coli and B. cereus | [ | |
6 mg/mL | Skimmia laureola leaf extract | 56–350 | Bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum) | [ | |
1.0 mg/mL | Azadirachta indica | 24 | brown rot of sweet oranges (Fusarium oxysporum) | [ | |
100 and 200 ppm | Thyme plant | N/A | Gray mold of strawberry (Botrytis cinerea) | [ | |
1.0 mg/mL | Calotropis procera | 49 | Fusarium fruit rot of loquat | [ | |
15, 10 and 5 mg/L | Dried Guava | 29–41 | Alternaria solani | [ | |
1.0 mg/mL | Calotropis procera | 32 | Fruit rot of cherry (Aspergillus flavus) | [ | |
Al2O3 | 1, 6 and 50 mg/100 mL | Pepsi cans | 4–10 | A. flavus, Fusarium sp. and Alternaria sp. | [ |
150 mg/mL | Colletotrichum sp. | 39 ± 35 | F. oxysporum | [ | |
CoO | 200 µg/mL | Hibiscus rosa sinensis flower | 34.9 | Bacterial leaf blight of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) | [ |
Fe3O4 | 0.01–15 μg/mL | Spinach | 20 | Fusarium Wilt of tomato (Fusarium oxysporum) | [ |
10 µg/mL | Spinacia oleracea | 4 | Fusarium wilt of tomato | [ | |
1000–1400 ppm | N/A | 50 ± 5 | Onion white rot (Sclerotium cepivorum) | [ | |
10, 40 and 80 mg/L | Chemical co-precipitation synthesis | 60 to 72 | Acremonium Wilt of sorghum (Acremonium striticum) | [ | |
MgO | 100 μg/mL | Green synthesis | 29–60 | Rhizoctonia solani, Acidovorax oryzae | [ |
4 μg/mL | Aqueous Rosemary extract | <20 | Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae | [ | |
16.0 μg/mL | Paenibacillus polymyxa | 10.9 | Xanthomonas oryzae oryzae | [ | |
75, 150, 300, and 500 μg/mL | Strawberry | 100 | Root-knot nematode (Meloidogynidae) | [ | |
3 mg/mL | Chemical synthesis | N/A | Brown rot of potato (R. solanacearum) | [ | |
50 and 100 mg/L | Lemon fruit extracts | N/A | Alternaria leaf blight of carrot | [ | |
20 mg/mL | Acinetobacter johnsonii strain RTN1 | 18 to 45 | Acidovorax oryzae | [ | |
15.36 μg/mL | Burkholderia rinojensis | 26.70 | Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici | [ | |
200 ppm | S. cerevisiae | 27 | Callosobruchus maculatus | [ | |
50 μg/mL | Green synthesis | N/A | Phytophthora infestans | [ | |
75, 150 and 200 mg/L | N/A | 52.5 to 57.3 | Black scurf of potato (Rhizoctonia solani) | [ | |
74.81, 82.94, and 91.19 mg/g | Magnesium nitrate hexahydrates precursor | 52.97 ± 1.43 | Powdery mildew of peppers (Oidiopsis sicula) | [ | |
500, 1500, 2500 mg/L | Magnesium nitrate hexahydrate precursor | 21.8 | Clubroot caused by Plasmodiophora brassica | [ | |
79.43 ppm | Alcoholic extract of the bark of the walnut tree | 28.55 | Thielaviopsis paradoxa and Thielaviopsis punctulata | [ | |
100, 200, and/or 1000 μg/mL | N/A | 20 | Bacterial spot of tomato (Xanthomonas perforans) | [ |
Applications of organic NPs in plant disease management.
Organic NPs | Concentration | Nanocomposite | Disease & Pathogen Management | Rerefernces |
---|---|---|---|---|
Micelles | 0.013 to 0.042 mg/mL | Carboxymethylchitosan (CMCS) micelles | Smart delivery of agrochemicals | [ |
N/A | Hexaconazole/dazomet-micelle | Bio-fungicidal activity against Ganoderma boninense | [ | |
30 mg/L | Linear Supramolecular Block Copolymer Micelles | Rhizoctonia solani | [ | |
10, 20, 40, and 80 μL/L | Humidity-Responsive Cinnamon Essential Oil Nano micelles | High antifungal activity against Botrytis cinerea and nano-vesicles for preservation of fruit or vegetable | [ | |
Liposomes | 10 µg/mL | Liposomes bounded amphotericin | F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris in chickpea | [ |
0, 1 and 3 g/L | Tea tree oil solid liposomes (TTO-SLPs) | Brown rot of peach fruit caused by Monilinia fructicola | [ | |
0.046 mg/L | Nano-Insecticide through Encapsulation of insecticides in Polymeric Liposomes | Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda | [ | |
136.59 and 83.99 mg/L, | Eleocharis dulcis peel extract (EDPE) nanoliposomes | Megoura crassicauda and Acyrthosiphon pisum | [ |
Characteristics of Organic Nanoparticles in Disease Management.
Organic NPs | Concentration | Size (nm) | Disease & Pathogen Management | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dendrimers | 24 μg | 1.1, 1.8, and 3.2 | Cotton bollworm cells and larvae (H. armigera) | [ |
500, 1000, 2000 and 5000 ppm | 20 to 30 | Phytophthora infestans | [ | |
Ferritin | N/A | N/A | Changes in the regulation of iron homeostasis are involved in increasing resistance to Common scab caused by Streptomyces scabies | [ |
N/A | N/A | Enhanced resistance against fire blight of pear caused by Erwinia amylovora | [ |
Properties of Nanoparticles in Disease and Pathogen Management.
Concentration | Source | Size | Disease & Pathogen Management | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon nanotubes | 100 mg/L | N/A | 30–50 nm | Stem and fruit rot and leaf blight of tomato caused by Alternaria solani | [ |
200 mg/L | N/A | 20–30 nm | Powdery mildew of roses caused by Podosphaera pannosa | [ | |
19 and 23 mg/mL. | Pulsed laser ablation in liquid (PLAL) | 23 nm | Fusarium oxysporum | [ | |
100, 200 and 500 mg/L | N/A | 20–30 nm | Tobacco mosaic virus in Nicotiana benthamiana | [ | |
100 and 500 mg/L | Chemical synthesis | 52 ± 1.2 nm | Stalk rot caused by Fusarium verticillioides in Maize | [ | |
Fullerenes | 100, 200 and 500 mg/L | N/A | 50 nm | Tobacco mosaic virus in Nicotiana benthamiana | [ |
100 mg/L | N/A | 50 ± 5 nm | Cucurbit Chlorotic Yellows Virus (CCYV) Infecting Nicotiana benthamiana | [ |
Properties of Nanocomposites in Disease and Pathogen Management.
Concentration | Nanocomposite | Size | Disease & Pathogen Management | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graphene | 150 μg/mL | Reduced graphene oxide/silver nanocomposite (rGO-Ag) | 7–26 nm | Chocolate spot disease of broad bean caused by Botrytis fabae | [ |
200 mg/L | Reduced graphene oxide copper oxide (rGO-CuO) | 0.55 to 3.74 nm | Powdery mildew of roses caused by Podosphaera pannosa | [ | |
1 mg/L | Reduced Graphene Oxide Nanosheet-Decorated Copper Oxide (rGO-CuO) | 5, 20 and 50 nm | Fusarium wilt and root rot | [ | |
50 and 500 µg/mL | Reduced graphene oxide based Cu and Ag NPs (rGO-Cu/Ag) | SEM: 2.4 nm | Bacterial spot of tomato and pepper caused by Xanthomonas euvesicatoria | [ | |
1280 μg/mL | Bi2O3/TiO2@reduced graphene oxide (rGO) | N/A | Pseudomonas syringae tomato | [ | |
N/A | Graphene quantum dots (GQD) | 2–5 nm | Fusariusm head blight of wheat caused by Fusarium graminearum | [ | |
50 and 250 μg/mL | Graphene oxide-Fe3O4 nanocomposites (GO- Fe3O4) | 30–36nm | Downy mildew of grapevine (Plasmopara viticola) | [ |
Impact of Nanoparticle Types on Crop Performance.
NP Type | Crop | Effect | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Carbon Black | Modified nanoscale carbon black (MCB) | Ryegrass and chard | Reduction of heavy metals, increased plant growth and enhanced microbial communities | [ |
Carbon nanofibers | Acylated homoserine-coated iron-carbon nanofibers | Chickpea | Suppression of Fusarium oxyssporum f. sp. ciceris | [ |
Carbon nanofiber | Chicory | Improved water absorption, germination rate, shoot and root ratio and protein content | [ | |
Acylated homoserine lactone coated-iron carbon nanofiber (AHL/Fe-CNF) | Cicer arietinum and Triticum aestivum | Fusarium wilt of chickpea and root rot of wheat caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and Cochliobolus sativus | [ | |
Carbon nanofibers (CNFs) | Maize and barley | Resistance against fungal diseases and enhanced seed germination | [ |
References
1. Elizabath, A.; Babychan, M.; Mathew, A.M.; Syriac, G.M. Application of nanotechnology in agriculture. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci.; 2019; 7, pp. 131-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.6493]
2. Ma, W.; Hong, S.; Reed, W.R.; Duan, J.; Luu, P. Yield effects of agricultural cooperative membership in developing countries: A meta-analysis. Ann. Public Coop. Econ.; 2023; 94, pp. 761-780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apce.12411]
3. Asfaw, S.; Pallante, G.; Palma, A. Distributional impacts of soil erosion on agricultural productivity and welfare in Malawi. Ecol. Econ.; 2020; 177, 106764. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106764]
4. Challinor, A.J.; Watson, J.; Lobell, D.B.; Howden, S.M.; Smith, D.R.; Chhetri, N. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang.; 2014; 4, pp. 287-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2153]
5. Lachaud, M.A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Ludena, C.E. Economic effects of climate change on agricultural production and productivity in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Agric. Econ.; 2022; 53, pp. 321-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/agec.12682]
6. Varma, V.; Bebber, D.P. Climate change impacts on banana yields around the world. Nat. Clim. Chang.; 2019; 9, pp. 752-757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0559-9]
7. Moore, D.; Robson, G.D.; Trinci, A.P. 21st Century Guidebook to Fungi; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020.
8. Panth, M.; Hassler, S.C.; Baysal-Gurel, F. Methods for management of soilborne diseases in crop production. Agriculture; 2020; 10, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10010016]
9. Crooks, J.A. Lag times and exotic species: The ecology and management of biological invasions in slow-motion1. Ecoscience; 2005; 12, pp. 316-329. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-3-316.1]
10. Goss, E.M.; Carbone, I.; Grünwald, N.J. Ancient isolation and independent evolution of the three clonal lineages of the exotic sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Mol. Ecol.; 2009; 18, pp. 1161-1174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04089.x]
11. Moralejo, E.P.; Pérez-Sierra, A.M.; Álvarez, L.A.; Belbahri, L.; Lefort, F.; Descals, E. Multiple alien Phytophthora taxa discovered on diseased ornamental plants in Spain. Plant Pathol.; 2009; 58, pp. 100-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01930.x]
12. Katan, J. Diseases caused by soilborne pathogens: Biology, management and challenges. J. Plant Pathol.; 2017; 99, pp. 305-315.
13. Yadav, B.; Gurjar, M.K.; Sheshma, R.; Chopdar, R. Management Strategies for Seed and Soil Borne Diseases in Vegetable Production. Agric. Mag.; 2022; 1, pp. 35-40.
14. Larkin, R.P.; Griffin, T.S.; Honeycutt, C.W. Rotation and cover crop effects on soilborne potato diseases, tuber yield, and soil microbial communities. Plant Dis.; 2010; 94, pp. 1491-1502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-10-0172] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30743393]
15. Baysal-Gurel, F.; Gardener, B.M.; Miller, S.A. Soil Borne Disease Management in Organic Vegetable Production. 2012; Available online: https://eorganic.org/node/7581 (accessed on 27 August 2024).
16. Baysal-Gurel, F.; Liyanapathiranage, P.; Mullican, J. Biofumigation: Opportunities and challenges for control of soilborne diseases in nursery production. Plant Health Prog.; 2018; 19, pp. 332-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHP-08-18-0049-RV]
17. Larkin, R.P.; Griffin, T.S. Control of soilborne potato diseases using Brassica green manures. Crop Prot.; 2007; 26, pp. 1067-1077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2006.10.004]
18. Larkin, R.P.; Honeycutt, C.W. Effects of different 3-year cropping systems on soil microbial communities and Rhizoctonia diseases of potato. Phytopathology; 2006; 96, pp. 68-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-96-0068] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18944206]
19. Baysal-Gurel, F.; Liyanapathiranage, P.; Addesso, K.M. Effect of Brassica crop-based biofumigation on soilborne disease suppression in woody ornamentals. Can. J. Plant Pathol.; 2020; 42, pp. 94-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2019.1625444]
20. Tanaka, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Iwasaki, K.; Yamane, S.; Maeda, K.; Sakurai, K. Properties and metabolic diversity of microbial communities in soils treated with steam sterilization compared with methyl bromide and chloropicrin fumigations. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr.; 2003; 49, pp. 603-610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2003.10410050]
21. Kokalis-Burelle, N.; Butler, D.M.; Holzinger, J.; Rosskopf, E.N. Evaluation of steam for meloidogyne arenaria control in production of in-ground floriculture crops in florida. J. Nematol.; 2016; 48, pp. 183-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2017-026]
22. El-Sharouny, E.E. Effect of different soil amendments on the microbial count correlated with resistance of apple plants towards pathogenic Rhizoctonia solani AG-5. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip.; 2015; 29, pp. 463-469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2014.1002285]
23. Kirkegaard, J.A.; Sarwar, M.; Wong, P.T.; Mead, A.; Howe, G.; Newell, M. Field studies on the biofumigation of take-all by Brassica break crops. Aust. J. Agric. Res.; 2000; 51, pp. 445-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AR99106]
24. Bonanomi, G.; Antignani, V.; Pane, C.; Scala, F. Suppression of soilborne fungal diseases with organic amendments. J. Plant Pathol.; 2007; 89, pp. 311-324.
25. Shafique, H.A.; Sultana, V.; Ehteshamul-Haque, S.; Athar, M. Management of soil-borne diseases of organic vegetables. J. Plant Prot. Res.; 2016; 56, pp. 221-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jppr-2016-0043]
26. Welke, S.E. The effect of compost extract on the yield of strawberries and the severity of Botrytis cinerea. J. Sustain. Agric.; 2005; 25, pp. 57-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v25n01_06]
27. Sullivan, D.M.; Miller, R.O. Compost Quality Attributes, Measurements, and Variability. Compost Utilization In Horticultural Cropping Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001.
28. Luvisi, A.; Panattoni, A.; Materazzi, A. Heat treatments for sustainable control of soil viruses. Agron. Sustain. Dev.; 2015; 35, pp. 657-666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0258-x]
29. Kwerepe, B.; Labuschagne, N. Biofumigation and solarization as integrated pest management (IPM) components for control of root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) Chitwoodi) on bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). UNISWA J. Agric.; 2003; 11, pp. 56-63.
30. Abeyratne, R. Regulation of Air Transport; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016.
31. Sarkar, S.; Gil, J.D.; Keeley, J.; Jansen, K. The Use of Pesticides in Developing Countries and Their Impact on Health and the Right to Food; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
32. Duhan, J.S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, N.; Kaur, P.; Nehra, K.; Duhan, S. Nanotechnology: The new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol. Rep.; 2017; 15, pp. 11-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2017.03.002]
33. Malandrakis, A.A.; Kavroulakis, N.; Chrysikopoulos, C.V. Use of copper, silver and zinc nanoparticles against foliar and soil-borne plant pathogens. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 670, pp. 292-299. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.210]
34. Aktar, W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol.; 2009; 2, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7]
35. Lamichhane, J.R. Pesticide use and risk reduction in European farming systems with IPM: An introduction to the special issue. Crop Prot.; 2017; 97, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.017]
36. Khan, B.A.; Nadeem, M.A.; Nawaz, H.; Amin, M.M.; Abbasi, G.H.; Nadeem, M.; Ali, M.; Ameen, M.; Javaid, M.M.; Maqbool, R. et al. Pesticides: Impacts on agriculture productivity, environment, and management strategies. Emerging Contaminants and Plants: Interactions, Adaptations and Remediation Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 109-134.
37. Ahemad, M.; Khan, M. Toxicological assessment of selective pesticides towards plant growth promoting activities of phosphate solubilizing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Acta Microbiol. Et. Immunol. Hung.; 2011; 58, pp. 169-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/amicr.58.2011.3.1]
38. Hussain, J.; Ullah, R.; Rehman, N.U.; Khan, A.L.; Muhammad, Z.; Khan, F.U.; Hussain, S.T.; Anwar, S. Endogenous transitional metal and proximate analysis of selected medicinal plants from Pakistan. J. Med. Plants Res.; 2010; 4, pp. 267-270.
39. Sebiomo, A.; Ogundero, V.W.; Bankole, S.A. Effect of four herbicides on microbial population, soil organic matter and dehydrogenase activity. Afr. J. Biotechnol.; 2011; 10, pp. 770-778.
40. Essiedu, J.A.; Adepoju, F.O.; Ivantsova, M.N. Benefits and limitations in using biopesticides: A review. AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
41. Thakur, N.J.P. Increased soil-microbial-eco-physiological interactions and microbial food safety in tomato under organic strategies. Probiotics and Plant Health; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 215-232.
42. Bektas, Y.; Eulgem, T. Synthetic plant defense elicitors. Front. Plant Sci.; 2015; 5, 804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00804]
43. Chang, Y.H.; Yan, H.Z.; Liou, R.F. A novel elicitor protein from P hytophthora parasitica induces plant basal immunity and systemic acquired resistance. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2015; 16, pp. 123-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12166] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24965864]
44. Abdul Malik, N.A.; Kumar, I.S.; Nadarajah, K. Elicitor and receptor molecules: Orchestrators of plant defense and immunity. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2020; 21, 963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21030963]
45. Abdullah, S.; Zahoor, I. Biopesticides: A Green Substitute to Chemical Pesticide. Int. J. Chem. Biochem. Sci.; 2023; 24, pp. 141-156.
46. Koul, O.; Walia, S.; Dhaliwal, G.S. Essential oils as green pesticides: Potential and constraints. Biopestic. Int.; 2008; 4, pp. 63-84.
47. Munjanja, B.; Chaparadza, A.; Majoni, S. Biopesticide residue in foodstuffs. Biopesticides Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 71-92.
48. Shiberu, E.G.T. Assessment of selected botanical extracts against Liriomyza species (Diptera: Agromyzidae) on tomato under glasshouse condition. Int. J. Fauna Biol. Stud.; 2016; 3, pp. 87-90.
49. Nawaz, M.; Mabubu, J.I.; Hua, H. Current status and advancement of biopesticides: Microbial and botanical pesticides. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud.; 2016; 4, pp. 241-246.
50. Tadele, S.; Emana, G. Entomopathogenic effect of Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) and Metarrhizium anisopliae (Metschn.) on Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) larvae under laboratory and glasshouse conditions in Ethiopia. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol.; 2017; 8, pp. 411-414.
51. Khalil, A.M. The genome editing revolution. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol.; 2020; 18, 68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43141-020-00078-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123803]
52. Javaid, M.K.; Ashiq, M.; Tahir, M. Potential of biological agents in decontamination of agricultural soil. Scientifica; 2016; 2016, 1598325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/1598325] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27293964]
53. Gerson, U. Pest control by mites (Acari): Present and future. Acarologia; 2014; 54, pp. 371-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/acarologia/20142144]
54. Stoneman, B. Challenges to commercialization of biopesticides. Proceedings Microbial Biocontrol of Arthropods, Weeds and Plant Pathogens: Risks, Benefits and Challenges; National Conservation Training Center: Shepherdstown, WV, USA, 2010; pp. 123-127.
55. Kumar, S.; Singh, A. Biopesticides: Present status and the future prospects. J. Fertil. Pestic.; 2015; 6, 129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2471-2728.1000e129]
56. Moose, S.P.; Mumm, R.H. Molecular plant breeding as the foundation for 21st century crop improvement. Plant Physiol.; 2008; 147, pp. 969-977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.118232]
57. Ramarasu, A.; Asokan, R.; Pavithra, B.S.; Sridhar, V. Innovative molecular approaches for pest management. Genetic Methods and Tools for Managing Crop Pests; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 27-43.
58. Nekrasov, V.; Staskawicz, B.; Weigel, D.; Jones, J.D.; Kamoun, S. Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat. Biotechnol.; 2013; 31, pp. 691-693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2655]
59. Stoddard, B.L. Homing endonucleases: From microbial genetic invaders to reagents for targeted DNA modification. Structure; 2011; 19, pp. 7-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2010.12.003]
60. Gallagher, R.R.; Li, Z.; Lewis, A.O.; Isaacs, F.J. Rapid editing and evolution of bacterial genomes using libraries of synthetic DNA. Nat. Protoc.; 2014; 9, pp. 2301-2316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.082]
61. Mandip, K.; Steer, C.J. A new era of gene editing for the treatment of human diseases. Swiss Med. Wkly.; 2019; 149, w20021.
62. Devarajan, A. Optically Controlled CRISPR-Cas9 and Cre Recombinase for Spatiotemporal Gene Editing: A Review. ACS Synth. Biol.; 2023; 13, pp. 25-44. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38134336]
63. Daboussi, F.; Stoddard, T.J.; Zhang, F. Engineering meganuclease for precise plant genome modification. Advances in New Technology for Targeted Modification of Plant Genomes; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 21-38.
64. Viana, V.E.; Pegoraro, C.; Busanello, C.; Costa de Oliveira, A. Mutagenesis in rice: The basis for breeding a new super plant. Front. Plant Sci.; 2019; 10, 1326.
65. Zhu, C.; Bortesi, L.; Baysal, C.; Twyman, R.M.; Fischer, R.; Capell, T.; Schillberg, S.; Christou, P. Characteristics of genome editing mutations in cereal crops. Trends Plant Sci.; 2017; 22, pp. 38-52. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27645899]
66. Singh, A.; Srivastava, A.; Saidulu, D.; Gupta, A.K. Advancements of sequencing batch reactor for industrial wastewater treatment: Major focus on modifications, critical operational parameters, and future perspectives. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 317, 115305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115305] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35642808]
67. D’Halluin, K.; Vanderstraeten, C.; Van Hulle, J.; Rosolowska, J.; Van Den Brande, I.; Pennewaert, A.; D’Hont, K.; Bossut, M.; Jantz, D.; Ruiter, R. et al. Targeted molecular trait stacking in cotton through targeted double-strand break induction. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2013; 11, pp. 933-941.
68. Prieto, J.; Redondo, P.; Padro, D.; Arnould, S.; Epinat, J.C.; Pâques, F.; Blanco, F.J.; Montoya, G. The C-terminal loop of the homing endonuclease I-CreI is essential for site recognition, DNA binding and cleavage. Nucleic Acids Res.; 2007; 35, pp. 3262-3271.
69. Majid, A.; Parray, G.A.; Wani, S.H.; Kordostami, M.; Sofi, N.R.; Waza, S.A.; Shikari, A.B.; Gulzar, S. Genome editing and its necessity in agriculture. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.; 2017; 6, pp. 5435-5443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.611.520]
70. Yin, K.; Qiu, J.-L. Genome editing for plant disease resistance: Applications and perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B; 2019; 374, 20180322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0322]
71. Kim, Y.G.; Cha, J.; Chandrasegaran, S. Hybrid restriction enzymes: Zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 1996; 93, pp. 1156-1160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.3.1156]
72. Carroll, D. Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics; 2011; 188, pp. 773-782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.131433]
73. Osakabe, K.; Osakabe, Y.; Toki, S. Site-directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis using custom-designed zinc finger nucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2010; 107, pp. 12034-12039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000234107] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20508151]
74. Zhang, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, K.Y. Chitosan/double-stranded RNA nanoparticle-mediated RNA interference to silence chitin synthase genes through larval feeding in the African malaria mosquito (Anopheles gambiae). Insect Mol. Biol.; 2010; 19, pp. 683-693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2583.2010.01029.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20629775]
75. Curtin, S.J.; Zhang, F.; Sander, J.D.; Haun, W.J.; Starker, C.; Baltes, N.J.; Reyon, D.; Dahlborg, E.J.; Goodwin, M.J.; Coffman, A.P. et al. Targeted mutagenesis of duplicated genes in soybean with zinc-finger nucleases. Plant Physiol.; 2011; 156, pp. 466-473. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.172981] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21464476]
76. Even-Faitelson, L.; Samach, A.; Melamed-Bessudo, C.; Avivi-Ragolsky, N.; Levy, A.A. Localized egg-cell expression of effector proteins for targeted modification of the Arabidopsis genome. Plant J.; 2011; 68, pp. 929-937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04741.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21848915]
77. Petolino, J.F.; Worden, A.; Curlee, K.; Connell, J.; Strange Moynahan, T.L.; Larsen, C.; Russell, S. Zinc finger nuclease-mediated transgene deletion. Plant Mol. Biol.; 2010; 73, pp. 617-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11103-010-9641-4]
78. Qi, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.; Starker, C.G.; Baltes, N.J.; Zhang, F.; Sander, J.D.; Reyon, D.; Joung, J.K.; Voytas, D.F. Targeted deletion and inversion of tandemly arrayed genes in Arabidopsis thaliana using zinc finger nucleases. G3 Genes Genomes Genet.; 2013; 3, pp. 1707-1715. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1534/g3.113.006270]
79. Townsend, J.A.; Wright, D.A.; Winfrey, R.J.; Fu, F.; Maeder, M.L.; Joung, J.K.; Voytas, D.F. High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature; 2009; 459, pp. 442-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07845]
80. Wright, D.A.; Townsend, J.A.; Winfrey, R.J., Jr.; Irwin, P.A.; Rajagopal, J.; Lonosky, P.M.; Hall, B.D.; Jondle, M.D.; Voytas, D.F. High-frequency homologous recombination in plants mediated by zinc-finger nucleases. Plant J.; 2005; 44, pp. 693-705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02551.x]
81. Ainley, W.M.; Sastry-Dent, L.; Welter, M.E.; Murray, M.G.; Zeitler, B.; Amora, R.; Corbin, D.R.; Miles, R.R.; Arnold, N.L.; Strange, T.L. et al. Trait stacking via targeted genome editing. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2013; 11, pp. 1126-1134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12107]
82. Shukla, V.K.; Doyon, Y.; Miller, J.C.; DeKelver, R.C.; Moehle, E.A.; Worden, S.E.; Mitchell, J.C.; Arnold, N.L.; Gopalan, S.; Meng, X. et al. Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature; 2009; 459, pp. 437-441. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07992]
83. de Galarreta, M.R.; Lujambio, A. Therapeutic editing of hepatocyte genome in vivo. J. Hepatol.; 2017; 67, pp. 818-828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.05.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28527665]
84. Jaganathan, D.; Ramasamy, K.; Sellamuthu, G.; Jayabalan, S.; Venkataraman, G. CRISPR for crop improvement: An update review. Front. Plant Sci.; 2018; 9, 985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00985] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30065734]
85. Khandagale, K.; Nadaf, A. Genome editing for targeted improvement of plants. Plant Biotechnol. Rep.; 2016; 10, pp. 327-343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11816-016-0417-4]
86. Sera, T. Inhibition of virus DNA replication by artificial zinc finger proteins. J. Virol.; 2005; 79, pp. 2614-2619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JVI.79.4.2614-2619.2005]
87. Takenaka, K.; Koshino-Kimura, Y.; Aoyama, Y.; Sera, T. Inhibition of tomato yellow leaf curl virus replication by artificial zinc-finger proteins. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser.; 2007; pp. 429-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nass/nrm215] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18029770]
88. Chen, W.; Qian, Y.; Wu, X.; Sun, Y.; Wu, X.; Cheng, X. Inhibiting replication of begomoviruses using artificial zinc finger nucleases that target viral-conserved nucleotide motif. Virus Genes; 2014; 48, pp. 494-501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11262-014-1041-4]
89. Nemudryi, A.A.; Valetdinova, K.R.; Medvedev, S.P.; Zakian, S.Á. TALEN and CRISPR/Cas genome editing systems: Tools of discovery. Acta Naturae (Англoязычная Версия); 2014; 6, pp. 19-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32607/20758251-2014-6-3-19-40] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25349712]
90. Maeder, M.L.; Thibodeau-Beganny, S.; Osiak, A.; Wright, D.A.; Anthony, R.M.; Eichtinger, M.; Jiang, T.; Foley, J.E.; Winfrey, R.J.; Townsend, J.A. et al. Rapid “open-source” engineering of customized zinc-finger nucleases for highly efficient gene modification. Mol. Cell; 2008; 31, pp. 294-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2008.06.016]
91. Boch, J.; Scholze, H.; Schornack, S.; Landgraf, A.; Hahn, S.; Kay, S.; Lahaye, T.; Nickstadt, A.; Bonas, U. Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-type III effectors. Science; 2009; 326, pp. 1509-1512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1178811]
92. Moscou, M.J.; Bogdanove, A.J. A simple cipher governs DNA recognition by TAL effectors. Science; 2009; 326, 1501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1178817]
93. Christian, M.L.; Demorest, Z.L.; Starker, C.G.; Osborn, M.J.; Nyquist, M.D.; Zhang, Y.; Carlson, D.F.; Bradley, P.; Bogdanove, A.J.; Voytas, D.F. Targeting G with TAL effectors: A comparison of activities of TALENs constructed with NN and NK repeat variable di-residues. PLoS ONE; 2012; 7, e45383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045383] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23028976]
94. de Lange, O.; Schreiber, T.; Schandry, N.; Radeck, J.; Braun, K.H.; Koszinowski, J.; Heuer, H.; Strauß, A.; Lahaye, T. Breaking the DNA-binding code of Ralstonia solanacearum TAL effectors provides new possibilities to generate plant resistance genes against bacterial wilt disease. New Phytol.; 2013; 199, pp. 773-786. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.12324] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23692030]
95. Jankele, R.; Svoboda, P. TAL effectors: Tools for DNA targeting. Brief. Funct. Genom.; 2014; 13, pp. 409-419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elu013] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24907364]
96. Wendt, T.; Holm, P.B.; Starker, C.G.; Christian, M.; Voytas, D.F.; Brinch-Pedersen, H.; Holme, I.B. TAL effector nucleases induce mutations at a pre-selected location in the genome of primary barley transformants. Plant Mol. Biol.; 2013; 83, pp. 279-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11103-013-0078-4]
97. Char, S.N.; Unger-Wallace, E.; Frame, B.; Briggs, S.A.; Main, M.; Spalding, M.H.; Vollbrecht, E.; Wang, K.; Yang, B. Heritable site-specific mutagenesis using TALEN s in maize. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2015; 13, pp. 1002-1010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12344]
98. Liang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Chen, K.; Gao, C. Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. J. Genet. Genom.; 2014; 41, pp. 63-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2013.12.001]
99. Li, T.; Liu, B.; Spalding, M.H.; Weeks, D.P.; Yang, B. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat. Biotechnol.; 2012; 30, pp. 390-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2199]
100. Haun, W.; Coffman, A.; Clasen, B.M.; Demorest, Z.L.; Lowy, A.; Ray, E.; Retterath, A.; Stoddard, T.; Juillerat, A.; Cedrone, F. et al. Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2014; 12, pp. 934-940. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12201]
101. Wang, Y.; Cheng, X.; Shan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Gao, C.; Qiu, J.L. Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat. Biotechnol.; 2014; 32, pp. 947-951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2969]
102. Shan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, K.; Zhang, K.; Gao, C. Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the Os BADH 2 gene using TALEN technology. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2015; 13, pp. 791-800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12312]
103. Ma, L.; Zhu, F.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, X.; Dong, J.; Wang, T. TALEN-based mutagenesis of lipoxygenase LOX3 enhances the storage tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) seeds. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0143877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143877]
104. Clasen, B.M.; Stoddard, T.J.; Luo, S.; Demorest, Z.L.; Li, J.; Cedrone, F.; Tibebu, R.; Davison, S.; Ray, E.E.; Daulhac, A. et al. Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2016; 14, pp. 169-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12370] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25846201]
105. Gaj, T.; Sirk, S.J.; Shui, S.L.; Liu, J. Genome-editing technologies: Principles and applications. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.; 2016; 8, a023754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a023754]
106. Khan, S.H. Genome-editing technologies: Concept; pros, and cons of various genome-editing techniques and bioethical concerns for clinical application. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids; 2019; 16, pp. 326-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2019.02.027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30965277]
107. Malzahn, A.; Lowder, L.; Qi, Y. Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR. Cell Biosci.; 2017; 7, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13578-017-0148-4]
108. Huo, Z.; Tu, J.; Xu, A.; Li, Y.; Wang, D.; Liu, M.; Zhou, R.; Zhu, D.; Lin, Y.; Gingold, J.A. et al. Generation of a heterozygous p53 R249S mutant human embryonic stem cell line by TALEN-mediated genome editing. Stem Cell Res.; 2019; 34, 101360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scr.2018.101360]
109. Hille, F.; Richter, H.; Wong, S.P.; Bratovič, M.; Ressel, S.; Charpentier, E. The biology of CRISPR-Cas: Backward and forward. Cell; 2018; 172, pp. 1239-1259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.032]
110. Koonin, E.V.; Makarova, K.S.; Zhang, F. Diversity, classification and evolution of CRISPR-Cas systems. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.; 2017; 37, pp. 67-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.05.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28605718]
111. Lino, C.A.; Harper, J.C.; Carney, J.P.; Timlin, J.A. Delivering CRISPR: A review of the challenges and approaches. Drug Deliv.; 2018; 25, pp. 1234-1257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2018.1474964]
112. Ortigosa, A.; Gimenez-Ibanez, S.; Leonhardt, N.; Solano, R. Design of a Bacterial Speck Resistant Tomato by CRISPR /Cas9-mediated Editing of Sl JAZ 2. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2019; 17, pp. 665-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13006]
113. Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Jia, H.; Sosso, D.; Li, T.; Frommer, W.B.; Yang, B.; White, F.F.; Wang, N.; Jones, J.B. Lateral organ boundaries 1 is a disease susceptibility gene for citrus bacterial canker disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2014; 111, pp. E521-E529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313271111] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24474801]
114. Peng, A.; Chen, S.; Lei, T.; Xu, L.; He, Y.; Wu, L.; Yao, L.; Zou, X. Engineering canker-resistant plants through CRISPR/Cas9-targeted editing of the susceptibility gene Cs LOB 1 promoter in citrus. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2017; 15, pp. 1509-1519. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12733] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28371200]
115. Malnoy, M.; Viola, R.; Jung, M.H.; Koo, O.J.; Kim, S.; Kim, J.S.; Velasco, R.; Nagamangala Kanchiswamy, C. DNA-free genetically edited grapevine and apple protoplast using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Front. Plant Sci.; 2016; 7, 1904. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01904] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28066464]
116. Wang, F.; Wang, C.; Liu, P.; Lei, C.; Hao, W.; Gao, Y.; Liu, Y.G.; Zhao, K. Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0154027. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154027] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27116122]
117. Nekrasov, V.; Wang, C.; Win, J.; Lanz, C.; Weigel, D.; Kamoun, S. Rapid generation of a transgene-free powdery mildew resistant tomato by genome deletion. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00578-x]
118. Kis, A.; Hamar, É.; Tholt, G.; Bán, R.; Havelda, Z. Creating highly efficient resistance against wheat dwarf virus in barley by employing CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol. J.; 2019; 17, 1004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13077]
119. Bao, A.; Burritt, D.J.; Chen, H.; Zhou, X.; Cao, D.; Tran, L.S. The CRISPR/Cas9 system and its applications in crop genome editing. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.; 2019; 39, pp. 321-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2018.1554621]
120. Hussain, B.; Lucas, S.J.; Budak, H. CRISPR/Cas9 in plants: At play in the genome and at work for crop improvement. Brief. Funct. Genom.; 2018; 17, pp. 319-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/ely016]
121. Chao, S.; Cai, Y.; Feng, B.; Jiao, G.; Sheng, Z.; Luo, J.; Tang, S.; Wang, J.; Hu, P.; Wei, X. Editing of rice isoamylase gene ISA1 provides insights into its function in starch formation. Rice Sci.; 2019; 26, pp. 77-87.
122. Fiaz, S.; Ahmad, S.; Noor, M.A.; Wang, X.; Younas, A.; Riaz, A.; Riaz, A.; Ali, F. Applications of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for rice grain quality improvement: Perspectives and opportunities. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2019; 20, 888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20040888]
123. Zafar, S.A.; Zaidi, S.S.; Gaba, Y.; Singla-Pareek, S.L.; Dhankher, O.P.; Li, X.; Mansoor, S.; Pareek, A. Engineering abiotic stress tolerance via CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J. Exp. Bot.; 2020; 71, pp. 470-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erz476] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31644801]
124. Barman, H.N.; Sheng, Z.; Fiaz, S.; Zhong, M.; Wu, Y.; Cai, Y.; Wang, W.; Jiao, G.; Tang, S.; Wei, X. et al. Generation of a new thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice line by targeted mutagenesis of TMS5 gene through CRISPR/Cas9 system. BMC Plant Biol.; 2019; 19, 109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-1715-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894127]
125. Li, S.; Shen, L.; Hu, P.; Liu, Q.; Zhu, X.; Qian, Q.; Wang, K.; Wang, Y. Developing disease-resistant thermosensitive male sterile rice by multiplex gene editing. J. Integr. Plant Biol.; 2019; 61, pp. 1201-1205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12774] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30623600]
126. Shen, L.; Hua, Y.; Fu, Y.; Li, J.; Liu, Q.; Jiao, X.; Xin, G.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Yan, C. et al. Rapid generation of genetic diversity by multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in rice. Sci. China Life Sci.; 2017; 60, pp. 506-515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11427-017-9008-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28349304]
127. van Schie, C.C.; Takken, F.L. Susceptibility genes 101: How to be a good host. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2014; 52, pp. 551-581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-045854]
128. Langner, T.; Kamoun, S.; Belhaj, K. CRISPR crops: Plant genome editing toward disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2018; 56, pp. 479-512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-050158]
129. Slaymaker, I.M.; Gao, L.; Zetsche, B.; Scott, D.A.; Yan, W.X.; Zhang, F. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science; 2016; 351, pp. 84-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5227]
130. Tycko, J.; Myer, V.E.; Hsu, P.D. Methods for optimizing CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing specificity. Mol. Cell; 2016; 63, pp. 355-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.07.004]
131. Scheben, A.; Wolter, F.; Batley, J.; Puchta, H.; Edwards, D. Towards CRISPR/Cas crops–bringing together genomics and genome editing. New Phytol.; 2017; 216, pp. 682-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.14702]
132. Tsai, S.Q.; Joung, J.K. Defining and improving the genome-wide specificities of CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet.; 2016; 17, pp. 300-312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.28]
133. Yin, K.; Gao, C.; Qiu, J.L. Progress and prospects in plant genome editing. Nat. Plants; 2017; 3, 17107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.107] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28758991]
134. Mehta, D.; Stürchler, A.; Anjanappa, R.B.; Zaidi, S.S.; Hirsch-Hoffmann, M.; Gruissem, W.; Vanderschuren, H. Linking CRISPR-Cas9 interference in cassava to the evolution of editing-resistant geminiviruses. Genome Biol.; 2019; 20, 80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1678-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31018865]
135. Cao, Y.; Zhou, H.; Zhou, X.; Li, F. Control of plant viruses by CRISPR/Cas system-mediated adaptive immunity. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 593700. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.593700] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33193268]
136. Tyagi, S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, V.; Won, S.Y.; Shukla, P. Engineering disease resistant plants through CRISPR-Cas9 technology. GM Crop. Food; 2021; 12, pp. 125-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1831729]
137. Delgado, J.A.; Short Jr, N.M.; Roberts, D.P.; Vandenberg, B. Big data analysis for sustainable agriculture on a geospatial cloud framework. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2019; 3, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00054]
138. Parisi, C.; Vigani, M.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Agricultural nanotechnologies: What are the current possibilities?. Nano Today; 2015; 10, pp. 124-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2014.09.009]
139. Hulla, J.E.; Sahu, S.C.; Hayes, A.W. Nanotechnology: History and future. Hum. Exp. Toxicol.; 2015; 34, pp. 1318-1321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0960327115603588]
140. Ghidan, A.Y.; Al-Antary, T.M.; Salem, N.M.; Awwad, A.M. Facile green synthetic route to the zinc oxide (ZnONPs) nanoparticles: Effect on green peach aphid and antibacterial activity. J. Agric. Sci.; 2017; 9, pp. 131-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n2p131]
141. Sharon, M.; Choudhary, A.K.; Kumar, R. Nanotechnology in agricultural diseases and food safety. J. Phytol.; 2010; 2, pp. 83-92.
142. Guleria, G.; Thakur, S.; Shandilya, M.; Sharma, S.; Thakur, S.; Kalia, S. Nanotechnology for sustainable agro-food systems: The need and role of nanoparticles in protecting plants and improving crop productivity. Plant Physiol. Biochem.; 2023; 194, pp. 533-549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.12.004]
143. Khan, S.; Naushad, M.; Al-Gheethi, A.; Iqbal, J. Engineered nanoparticles for removal of pollutants from wastewater: Current status and future prospects of nanotechnology for remediation strategies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2021; 9, 106160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106160]
144. Zhang, P.; Lynch, I.; Handy, R.D.; White, J.C. A brief history of nanotechnology in agriculture and current status. Nano-Enabled Sustainable and Precision Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 3-14.
145. Shang, Y.; Hasan, M.K.; Ahammed, G.J.; Li, M.; Yin, H.; Zhou, J. Applications of nanotechnology in plant growth and crop protection: A review. Molecules; 2019; 24, 2558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules24142558]
146. Liu, W.; Li, Y.; Feng, Y.; Qiao, J.; Zhao, H.; Xie, J.; Fang, Y.; Shen, S.; Liang, S. The effectiveness of nanobiochar for reducing phytotoxicity and improving soil remediation in cadmium-contaminated soil. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57954-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31965039]
147. Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Ullah, S.; Melagraki, G.; Afantitis, A.; Lynch, I. Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence to enable sustainable and precision agriculture. Nat. Plants; 2021; 7, pp. 864-876. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00946-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168318]
148. Daniel, A.; Laës-Huon, A.; Barus, C.; Beaton, A.D.; Blandfort, D.; Guigues, N.; Knockaert, M.; Munaron, D.; Salter, I.; Woodward, E.M. et al. Toward a harmonization for using in situ nutrient sensors in the marine environment. Front. Mar. Sci.; 2020; 6, 773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00773]
149. Sargazi, S.; Fatima, I.; Kiani, M.H.; Mohammadzadeh, V.; Arshad, R.; Bilal, M.; Rahdar, A.; Díez-Pascual, A.M.; Behzadmehr, R. Fluorescent-based nanosensors for selective detection of a wide range of biological macromolecules: A comprehensive review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2022; 206, pp. 115-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.02.137]
150. Tovar-Lopez, F.J. Recent progress in micro- and nanotechnology-enabled sensors for biomedical and environmental challenges. Sensors; 2023; 23, 5406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23125406]
151. Shawon, Z.B.; Hoque, M.E.; Chowdhury, S.R. Nanosensors and nanobiosensors: Agricultural and food technology aspects. Nanofabrication for Smart Nanosensor Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 135-161.
152. Manjunatha, S.B.; Biradar, D.P.; Aladakatti, Y.R. Nanotechnology and its applications in agriculture: A review. J. Farm. Sci.; 2016; 29, pp. 1-13.
153. do Espirito Santo Pereira, A.; Caixeta Oliveira, H.; Fernandes Fraceto, L.; Santaella, C. Nanotechnology potential in seed priming for sustainable agriculture. Nanomaterials; 2021; 11, 267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano11020267]
154. Pramanik, P.; Krishnan, P.; Maity, A.; Mridha, N.; Mukherjee, A.; Rai, V. Application of nanotechnology in agriculture. Environ. Nanotechnol.; 2020; 4, pp. 317-348.
155. Zahoor, M.; Nazir, N.; Iftikhar, M.; Naz, S.; Zekker, I.; Burlakovs, J.; Uddin, F.; Kamran, A.W.; Kallistova, A.; Pimenov, N. et al. A review on silver nanoparticles: Classification, various methods of synthesis, and their potential roles in biomedical applications and water treatment. Water; 2021; 13, 2216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13162216]
156. Pandiyaraj, V.; Murmu, A.; Pandy, S.K.; Sevanan, M.; Arjunan, S. Metal nanoparticles and its application on phenolic and heavy metal pollutants. Phys. Sci. Rev.; 2023; 8, pp. 2879-2897. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/psr-2021-0058]
157. Amer, M.; Awwad, A. Green synthesis of copper nanoparticles by Citrus limon fruits extract, characterization and antibacterial activity. Chem. Int.; 2020; 7, pp. 1-8.
158. Acharya, A.; Pal, P.K. Agriculture nanotechnology: Translating research outcome to field applications by influencing environmental sustainability. NanoImpact; 2020; 19, 100232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2020.100232]
159. Das, A.; Dutta, P. Antifungal activity of biogenically synthesized silver and gold nanoparticles against sheath blight of rice. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.; 2021; 21, pp. 3547-3555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1166/jnn.2021.18996]
160. Ponmurugan, P. Biosynthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles using Trichoderma atroviride for the biological control of Phomopsis canker disease in tea plants. IET Nanobiotechnology; 2017; 11, pp. 261-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1049/iet-nbt.2016.0029]
161. Thakur, R.K.; Prasad, P. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles and assessment of in vitro toxicity against plant pathogens. Indian Phytopathol.; 2022; 75, pp. 101-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42360-021-00444-x]
162. Kaman, P.; Dutta, P.; Bhattacharyya, A. Synthesis of gold nanoparticles from Metarhizium anisopliae for management of blast disease of rice and its effect on soil biological index and physicochemical properties. Res. Sq.; 2022; pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2080559/v1]
163. Patra, P.; Mitra, S.; Debnath, N.; Goswami, A. Biochemical-, biophysical-, and microarray-based antifungal evaluation of the buffer-mediated synthesized nano zinc oxide: An in vivo and in vitro toxicity study. Langmuir; 2012; 28, pp. 16966-16978. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/la304120k]
164. Wagner, G.; Korenkov, V.; Judy, J.D.; Bertsch, P.M. Nanoparticles composed of Zn and ZnO inhibit Peronospora tabacina spore germination in vitro and P. tabacina infectivity on tobacco leaves. Nanomaterials; 2016; 6, 50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano6030050]
165. Akpinar, I.; Unal, M.; Sar, T. Potential antifungal effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) of different sizes against phytopathogenic Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (FORL) strains. SN Appl. Sci.; 2021; 3, 506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04524-5]
166. Mishra, S.; Singh, B.R.; Singh, A.; Keswani, C.; Naqvi, A.H.; Singh, H.B. Biofabricated silver nanoparticles act as a strong fungicide against Bipolaris sorokiniana causing spot blotch disease in wheat. PLoS ONE; 2014; 9, e97881. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097881]
167. Jahan, Q.S.; Sultana, Z.; Ud-Daula, M.A.; Ashikuzzaman, M.; Reja, M.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Khaton, A.; Tang, M.A.; Rahman, M.S.; Faruquee, H.M. et al. Optimization of green silver nanoparticles as nanofungicides for management of rice bakanae disease. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e27579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27579] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38533066]
168. Ansari, M.; Ahmed, S.; Khan, M.T.; Hamad, N.A.; Ali, H.M.; Abbasi, A.; Mubeen, I.; Intisar, A.; Hasan, M.E.; Jasim, I.K. Evaluation of in vitro and in vivo antifungal activity of green synthesized silver nanoparticles against early blight in tomato. Horticulturae; 2023; 9, 369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030369]
169. Bibi, S.; Raza, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Ajmal, M.; Mehak, A.; Fatima, N.; Abasi, F.; Seelan, J.S.; Raja, N.I.; Yongchao, B. et al. Biosynthesized silver nanoparticles enhanced wheat resistance to Bipolaris sorokiniana. Plant Physiol. Biochem.; 2023; 203, 108067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2023.108067]
170. Qureshi, A.K.; Farooq, U.; Shakeel, Q.; Ali, S.; Ashiq, S.; Shahzad, S.; Tariq, M.; Seleiman, M.F.; Jamal, A.; Saeed, M.F. et al. The Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles from Avena fatua Extract: Antifungal Activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Pathogens; 2023; 12, 1247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12101247]
171. Ghasemi, S.; Harighi, B.; Ashengroph, M. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Pseudomonas canadensis, and its antivirulence effects against Pseudomonas tolaasii, mushroom brown blotch agent. Sci. Rep.; 2023; 13, 3668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30863-x]
172. Ahmed, T.; Noman, M.; Jiang, H.; Shahid, M.; Ma, C.; Wu, Z.; Nazir, M.M.; Ali, M.A.; White, J.C.; Chen, J. et al. Bioengineered chitosan-iron nanocomposite controls bacterial leaf blight disease by modulating plant defense response and nutritional status of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Nano Today; 2022; 45, 101547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2022.101547]
173. Iqbal, M.; Raja, N.I.; Khan, S.A.; Ali, A.; Hanif, A.; Hussain, M.; Anwar, T.; Qureshi, H.; Saeed, M.; Rauf, A. et al. Evaluation of Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles against Bacterial Pathogenic Strains of Plants. Pak. J. Bot.; 2023; 55, pp. 1967-1972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30848/PJB2023-5(21)]
174. Al-Otibi, F.; Perveen, K.; Al-Saif, N.A.; Alharbi, R.I.; Bokhari, N.A.; Albasher, G.; Al-Otaibi, R.M.; Al-Mosa, M.A. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Malva parviflora and their antifungal activity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2021; 28, pp. 2229-2235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.01.012]
175. Yassin, M.A.; Elgorban, A.M.; El-Samawaty, A.E.; Almunqedhi, B.M. Biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Penicillium verrucosum and analysis of their antifungal activity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2021; 28, pp. 2123-2127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.01.063] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33911928]
176. Namburi, K.R.; Kora, A.J.; Chetukuri, A.; Kota, V.S. Biogenic silver nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent against bacterial leaf blight causing rice phytopathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng.; 2021; 44, pp. 1975-1988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00449-021-02579-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33974135]
177. Ajaz, S.; Ahmed, T.; Shahid, M.; Noman, M.; Shah, A.A.; Mehmood, M.A.; Abbas, A.; Cheema, A.I.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Li, B. Bioinspired green synthesis of silver nanoparticles by using a native Bacillus sp. strain AW1-2: Characterization and antifungal activity against Colletotrichum falcatum Went. Enzym. Microb. Technol.; 2021; 144, 109745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2021.109745]
178. Ibrahim, E.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Hossain, A.; Qiu, W.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, W.; Sun, G.; Li, B. Green-synthesization of silver nanoparticles using endophytic bacteria isolated from garlic and its antifungal activity against wheat Fusarium head blight pathogen Fusarium graminearum. Nanomaterials; 2020; 10, 219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano10020219]
179. Dorjee, L.; Gogoi, R.; Kamil, D.; Kumar, R.; Verma, A. Copper nanoparticles hold promise in the effective management of maize diseases without impairing environmental health. Phytoparasitica; 2023; 51, pp. 593-619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12600-023-01060-3]
180. Truong, H.T.; Nguyen, L.C.; Le, L.Q. Synthesis and antifungal activity of copper nanoparticles against Fusarium oxysporum pathogen of plants. Mater. Res. Express; 2023; 10, 065001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/acdb34]
181. Iliger, K.S.; Sofi, T.A.; Bhat, N.A.; Ahanger, F.A.; Sekhar, J.C.; Elhendi, A.Z.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Khan, F. Copper nanoparticles: Green synthesis and managing fruit rot disease of chilli caused by Colletotrichum capsici. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2021; 28, pp. 1477-1486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.12.003] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33613075]
182. Natesan, K.; Ponmurugan, P.; Gnanamangai, B.M.; Manigandan, V.; Joy, S.P.J.; Jayakumar, C.; Amsaveni, G. Biosynthesis of silica and copper nanoparticles from Trichoderma, Streptomyces and Pseudomonas spp. evaluated against collar canker and red root-rot disease of tea plants. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot.; 2021; 54, pp. 56-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2020.1817258]
183. Noman, M.; Ahmed, T.; White, J.C.; Nazir, M.M.; Azizullah Li, D.; Song, F. Bacillus altitudinis-Stabilized Multifarious Copper Nanoparticles Prevent Bacterial Fruit Blotch in Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.): Direct Pathogen Inhibition, In Planta Particles Accumulation, and Host Stomatal Immunity Modulation. Small; 2023; 19, 2207136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smll.202207136]
184. Majumdar, T.D.; Singh, M.; Thapa, M.; Dutta, M.; Mukherjee, A.; Ghosh, C.K. Size-dependent antibacterial activity of copper nanoparticles against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae–A synthetic and mechanistic approach. Colloid Interface Sci. Commun.; 2019; 32, 100190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colcom.2019.100190]
185. Soliman, A.M.M.; Abdallah, E.A.M.; Hafez, E.E.; Kadous, E.A.; Kassem, F.A. Nematicidal Activity of Chemical and Green Biosynthesis of Copper Nanoparticles Against Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne Incognita. Alex. Sci. Exch. J.; 2022; 43, pp. 583-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/asejaiqjsae.2022.271961]
186. Liu, Q.; Zhang, A.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Q.; Cui, D. A review on metal-and metal oxide-based nanozymes: Properties, mechanisms, and applications. Nano Micro Lett.; 2021; 13, 154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40820-021-00674-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34241715]
187. Ealia, S.A.M.; Saravanakumar, M.P. A review on the classification, characterisation, synthesis of nanoparticles and their application. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2017; 263, 032019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/032019]
188. Maity, D.; Gupta, U.; Saha, S. Biosynthesized metal oxide nanoparticles for sustainable agriculture: Next-generation nanotechnology for crop production, protection and management. Nanoscale; 2022; 14, pp. 13950-13989. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D2NR03944C]
189. Cheira, M.F. Performance of poly sulfonamide/nano-silica composite for adsorption of thorium ions from sulfate solution. SN Appl. Sci.; 2020; 2, 398. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2221-6]
190. Sharma, S.; Virk, K.; Sharma, K.; Bose, S.K.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, V.; Focarete, M.L.; Kalia, S. Preparation of gum acacia-poly (acrylamide-IPN-acrylic acid) based nanocomposite hydrogels via polymerization methods for antimicrobial applications. J. Mol. Struct.; 2020; 1215, 128298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2020.128298]
191. Singh, K.R.; Nayak, V.; Sarkar, T.; Singh, R.P. Cerium oxide nanoparticles: Properties, biosynthesis and biomedical application. RSC Adv.; 2020; 10, pp. 27194-27214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D0RA04736H] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35515804]
192. Dulta, K.; Koşarsoy Ağçeli, G.; Chauhan, P.; Jasrotia, R.; Chauhan, P.K. Ecofriendly synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles by Carica papaya leaf extract and their applications. J. Clust. Sci.; 2022; 33, pp. 603-617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10876-020-01962-w]
193. Helmy, K.G.; Partila, A.M.; Salah, M. Gamma radiation and polyvinyl pyrrolidone mediated synthesis of zinc oxide/zinc sulfide nanoparticles and evaluation of their antifungal effect on pre and post harvested orange and pomegranate fruits. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.; 2020; 29, 101728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101728]
194. Zhu, W.; Hu, C.; Ren, Y.; Lu, Y.; Song, Y.; Ji, Y.; Han, C.; He, J. Green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl leaf extracts and its antifungal activity. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.; 2021; 9, 106659. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106659]
195. Khan, R.A.; Tang, Y.; Naz, I.; Alam, S.S.; Wang, W.; Ahmad, M.; Najeeb, S.; Rao, C.; Li, Y.; Xie, B. et al. Management of Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato using ZnO nanoparticles synthesized through Matricaria chamomilla. Plant Dis.; 2021; 105, pp. 3224-3230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-08-20-1763-RE] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33507097]
196. Ali, M.; Wang, X.; Haroon, U.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Kamal, A.; Ali, Q.; Saleem, M.H.; Usman, K.; Alatawi, A.; Ali, S. et al. Antifungal activity of Zinc nitrate derived nano Zno fungicide synthesized from Trachyspermum ammi to control fruit rot disease of grapefruit. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2022; 233, 113311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113311]
197. Ahmad, H.; Venugopal, K.; Rajagopal, K.; De Britto, S.; Nandini, B.; Pushpalatha, H.G.; Konappa, N.; Udayashankar, A.C.; Geetha, N.; Jogaiah, S. Green synthesis and characterization of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Eucalyptus globules and their fungicidal ability against pathogenic fungi of apple orchards. Biomolecules; 2020; 10, 425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom10030425] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32182874]
198. Chaithanya, G.; Kumar, A.; Vijay, D.; Singh, P.K.; Hussain, Z.; Basu, S.; Lal, S.K. Efficacy of nanoparticles against purple blotch (Alternaria porri) of onion. Indian Phytopathol.; 2023; 76, pp. 845-852. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42360-023-00632-x]
199. Rehman, F.U.; Paker, N.P.; Khan, M.; Naeem, M.; Munis, M.F.H.; Rehman, S.U.; Chaudhary, H.J. Bio-fabrication of zinc oxide nanoparticles from Picea smithiana and their potential antimicrobial activities against Xanthomonas campestris pv. Vesicatoria and Ralstonia solanacearum causing bacterial leaf spot and bacterial wilt in tomato. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2023; 39, 176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-023-03612-5]
200. Jomeyazdian, A.; Pirnia, M.; Alaei, H.; Taheri, A.; Sarani, S. Control of Fusarium wilt disease of tomato and improvement of some growth factors through green synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.; 2024; 169, pp. 333-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10658-024-02831-2]
201. Karmous, I.; Vaidya, S.; Dimkpa, C.; Zuverza-Mena, N.; da Silva, W.; Barroso, K.A.; Milagres, J.; Bharadwaj, A.; Abdelraheem, W.; White, J.C. et al. Biologically synthesized zinc and copper oxide nanoparticles using Cannabis sativa L. enhance soybean (Glycine max) defense against Fusarium virguliforme. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.; 2023; 194, 105486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2023.105486]
202. Sardar, M.; Ahmed, W.; Al Ayoubi, S.; Nisa, S.; Bibi, Y.; Sabir, M.; Khan, M.M.; Ahmed, W.; Qayyum, A. Fungicidal synergistic effect of biogenically synthesized zinc oxide and copper oxide nanoparticles against Alternaria citri causing citrus black rot disease. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2022; 29, pp. 88-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.08.067] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35002397]
203. Parveen, A.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Effect of silver oxide nanoparticles on growth, activities of defense enzymes and fungal and bacterial diseases of tomato. Gesunde Pflanz.; 2023; 75, pp. 405-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10343-022-00712-4]
204. Ogunyemi, S.O.; Luo, J.; Abdallah, Y.; Yu, S.; Wang, X.; Alkhalifah, D.H.; Hozzein, W.N.; Wang, F.; Bi, J.A.; Yan, C. et al. Copper oxide nanoparticles: An effective suppression tool against bacterial leaf blight of rice and its impacts on plants. Pest. Manag. Sci.; 2024; 80, pp. 1279-1288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.7857]
205. Tiwari, V.; Bambharoliya, K.S.; Bhatt, M.D.; Nath, M.; Arora, S.; Dobriyal, A.K.; Bhatt, D. Application of green synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles for effective mitigation of Fusarium wilt disease in roots of Cicer arietinum. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2024; 131, 102244. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2024.102244]
206. Kamel, S.M.; Elgobashy, S.F.; Omara, R.I.; Derbalah, A.S.; Abdelfatah, M.; El-Shaer, A.; Al-Askar, A.A.; Abdelkhalek, A.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A.; Essa, T. et al. Antifungal activity of copper oxide nanoparticles against root rot disease in cucumber. J. Fungi; 2022; 8, 911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jof8090911] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36135636]
207. Sawake, M.M.; Moharil, M.P.; Ingle, Y.V.; Jadhav, P.V.; Ingle, A.P.; Khelurkar, V.C.; Paithankar, D.H.; Bathe, G.A.; Gade, A.K. Management of Phytophthora parasitica causing gummosis in citrus using biogenic copper oxide nanoparticles. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2022; 132, pp. 3142-3154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.15472] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35119711]
208. Ashraf, H.; Anjum, T.; Riaz, S.; Batool, T.; Naseem, S.; Ahmad, I.S. Sustainable synthesis of microwave assisted IONPs by using spinacia oleracea: Enhances resistance against fungal wilt infection by inducing ROS and modulating defense system in tomato plants. J. Nanobiotechnol.; 2021; 20, 8.
209. Gaba, S.; Rai, A.K.; Varma, A.; Prasad, R.; Goel, A. Biocontrol potential of mycogenic copper oxide nanoparticles against Alternaria brassicae. Front. Chem.; 2022; 10, 966396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.966396] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36110132]
210. Khan, A.U.; Khan, M.; Khan, A.A.; Parveen, A.; Ansari, S.; Alam, M. Effect of Phyto-Assisted Synthesis of Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles (MgO-NPs) on Bacteria and the Root-Knot Nematode. Bioinorg. Chem. Appl.; 2022; 2022, 3973841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3973841]
211. El-Shetehy, M.; Moradi, A.; Maceroni, M.; Reinhardt, D.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B.; Mauch, F.; Schwab, F. Silica nanoparticles enhance disease resistance in Arabidopsis plants. Nat. Nanotechnol.; 2021; 16, pp. 344-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-00812-0]
212. Zaheer, S.; Shehzad, J.; Chaudhari, S.K.; Hasan, M.; Mustafa, G. Morphological and biochemical responses of Vigna radiata L. seedlings towards green synthesized SiO2 NPs. Silicon; 2023; 15, pp. 5925-5936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12633-023-02470-y]
213. Abdallah, Y.; Nehela, Y.; Ogunyemi, S.O.; Ijaz, M.; Ahmed, T.; Elashmony, R.; Alkhalifah, D.H.; Hozzein, W.N.; Xu, L.; Yan, C. et al. Bio-functionalized nickel-silica nanoparticles suppress bacterial leaf blight disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci.; 2023; 14, 1216782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1216782]
214. Goswami, P.; Sharma, M.; Srivastava, N.; Mathur, J. Assessment of the fungicidal efficacy of biogenic SiO2 NPs in Eruca sativa against fusarium wilt. J. Nat. Pestic. Res.; 2022; 2, 100011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.napere.2022.100011]
215. Awad-Allah, E.F.; Shams, A.H.; Helaly, A.A. Suppression of bacterial leaf spot by green synthesized silica nanoparticles and antagonistic yeast improves growth, productivity and quality of sweet pepper. Plants; 2021; 10, 1689. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10081689] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34451734]
216. Abdelrhim, A.S.; Mazrou, Y.S.; Nehela, Y.; Atallah, O.O.; El-Ashmony, R.M.; Dawood, M.F. Silicon dioxide nanoparticles induce innate immune responses and activate antioxidant machinery in wheat against Rhizoctonia solani. Plants; 2021; 10, 2758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10122758]
217. Elamawi, R.M.; Tahoon, A.M.; Elsharnoby, D.E.; El-Shafey, R.A. Bio-production of silica nanoparticles from rice husk and their impact on rice bakanae disease and grain yield. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot.; 2020; 53, pp. 459-478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2020.1750824]
218. Khan, M.R.; Siddiqui, Z.A. Efficacy of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the management of disease complex of beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) caused by Pectobacterium betavasculorum, Rhizoctonia solani, and Meloidogyne incognita. Gesunde Pflanz.; 2021; 73, pp. 445-464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10343-021-00566-2]
219. Satti, S.H.; Raja, N.I.; Javed, B.; Akram, A.; Mashwani, Z.U.; Ahmad, M.S.; Ikram, M. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles elicited agro-morphological and physicochemical modifications in wheat plants to control Bipolaris sorokiniana. PLoS ONE; 2021; 16, e0246880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246880] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33571310]
220. Khan, M.; Siddiqui, Z.A.; Parveen, A.; Khan, A.A.; Moon, I.S.; Alam, M. Elucidating the role of silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles in mitigating the disease of the eggplant caused by Phomopsis vexans, Ralstonia solanacearum, and root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Nanotechnol. Rev.; 2022; 11, pp. 1606-1619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2022-0097]
221. Hossain, A.; Abdallah, Y.; Ali, M.A.; Masum, M.M.; Li, B.; Sun, G.; Meng, Y.; Wang, Y.; An, Q. Lemon-fruit-based green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles and titanium dioxide nanoparticles against soft rot bacterial pathogen Dickeya dadantii. Biomolecules; 2019; 9, 863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom9120863]
222. El-Gazzar, N.; Ismail, A.M. The potential use of Titanium, Silver and Selenium nanoparticles in controlling leaf blight of tomato caused by Alternaria alternata. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.; 2020; 27, 101708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101708]
223. Irshad, M.A.; Nawaz, R.; ur Rehman, M.Z.; Imran, M.; Ahmad, J.; Ahmad, S.; Inam, A.; Razzaq, A.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S. Synthesis and characterization of titanium dioxide nanoparticles by chemical and green methods and their antifungal activities against wheat rust. Chemosphere; 2020; 258, 127352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127352]
224. Satti, S.H.; Raja, N.I.; Ikram, M.; Oraby, H.F.; Mashwani, Z.U.; Mohamed, A.H.; Singh, A.; Omar, A.A. Plant-based titanium dioxide nanoparticles trigger biochemical and proteome modifications in Triticum aestivum L. under biotic stress of Puccinia striiformis. Molecules; 2022; 27, 4274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27134274]
225. Acuña-Fuentes, N.L.; Vargas-Hernandez, M.; Rivero-Montejo, S.D.; Rivas-Ramirez, L.K.; Macias-Bobadilla, I.; Palos-Barba, V.; Rivera-Muñoz, E.M.; Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G.; Torres-Pacheco, I. Antiviral activity of TiO2 NPs against tobacco mosaic virus in chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Agriculture; 2022; 12, 2101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122101]
226. Monclou-Salcedo, S.A.; Correa-Torres, S.N.; Kopytko, M.I.; Santoyo-Muñóz, C.; Vesga-Guzmán, D.M.; Castellares-Lozano, R.; López-Amaris, M.; Saavedra-Mancera, A.D.; Herrera-Barros, A.P. Evaluación antifúngica de nanopartículas de TiO2 para inhibición de Fusarium solani en Palma Africana. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour.; 2020; 47, pp. 126-133.
227. Adisa, I.O.; Reddy Pullagurala, V.L.; Rawat, S.; Hernandez-Viezcas, J.A.; Dimkpa, C.O.; Elmer, W.H.; White, J.C.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L. Role of cerium compounds in Fusarium wilt suppression and growth enhancement in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2018; 66, pp. 5959-5970. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b01345]
228. Shahbaz, M.; Fatima, N.; Mashwani, Z.U.; Akram, A.; Haq, E.U.; Mehak, A.; Abasi, F.; Ajmal, M.; Yousaf, T.; Raja, N.I. et al. Effect of phytosynthesized selenium and cerium oxide nanoparticles on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) against stripe rust disease. Molecules; 2022; 27, 8149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27238149] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36500240]
229. Alotaibi, M.O.; Alotaibi, N.M.; Ghoneim, A.M.; ul Ain, N.; Irshad, M.A.; Nawaz, R.; Abbas, T.; Abbas, A.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S. Effect of green synthesized cerium oxide nanoparticles on fungal disease of wheat plants: A field study. Chemosphere; 2023; 339, 139731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139731]
230. Elbasuney, S.; El-Sayyad, G.S.; Abdelaziz, A.M.; Rizk, S.H.; Tolba, M.M.; Attia, M.S. Stable Colloidal Iron Oxide Nanoparticles: A New Green Nanofertilizer and Therapeutic Nutrient for Eggplant Immune Response against Fusarium Wilt Disease. J. Clust. Sci.; 2024; 35, pp. 983-997. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10876-023-02527-3]
231. Niazi, F.; Ali, M.; Haroon, U.; Farhana Kamal, A.; Rashid, T.; Anwar, F.; Nawab, R.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Munis, M.F. Effect of green Fe2O3 nanoparticles in controlling Fusarium fruit rot disease of loquat in Pakistan. Braz. J. Microbiol.; 2023; 54, pp. 1341-1350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42770-023-01050-x]
232. Akbar, M.; Haroon, U.; Ali, M.; Tahir, K.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Munis, M.F. Mycosynthesized Fe2O3 nanoparticles diminish brown rot of apple whilst maintaining composition and pertinent organoleptic properties. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2022; 132, pp. 3735-3745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.15483]
233. Umar, H.; Aliyu, M.R.; Ozsahin, D.U. Iron oxide nanoparticles synthesized using Mentha spicata extract and evaluation of its antibacterial, cytotoxicity and antimigratory potential on highly metastatic human breast cells. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express; 2024; 10, 035019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ad3646]
234. Alam, T.; Khan, R.A.; Ali, A.; Sher, H.; Ullah, Z.; Ali, M. Biogenic synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles via Skimmia laureola and their antibacterial efficacy against bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2019; 98, pp. 101-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2018.12.117]
235. Ali, M.; Haroon, U.; Khizar, M.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Hussain Munis, M.F. Scanning electron microscopy of bio-fabricated Fe2O3 nanoparticles and their application to control brown rot of citrus. Microsc. Res. Tech.; 2021; 84, pp. 101-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23570] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32860281]
236. Mogazy, A.M.; Mohamed, H.I.; El-Mahdy, O.M. Calcium and iron nanoparticles: A positive modulator of innate immune responses in strawberry against Botrytis cinerea. Process Biochem.; 2022; 115, pp. 128-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2022.02.014]
237. Anwaar, S.; Ijaz, D.E.; Anwar, T.; Qureshi, H.; Nazish, M.; Alrefaei, A.F.; Almutairi, M.H.; Alharbi, S.N. Boosting Solanum tuberosum resistance to Alternaria solani through green synthesized ferric oxide (Fe2O3) nanoparticles. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 2375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52704-1]
238. Zubair, M.S.; Munis, M.F.; Alsudays, I.M.; Alamer, K.H.; Haroon, U.; Kamal, A.; Ali, M.; Ahmed, J.; Ahmad, Z.; Attia, H. First report of fruit rot of cherry and its control using Fe2O3 nanoparticles synthesized in Calotropis procera. Molecules; 2022; 27, 4461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144461]
239. Ismail, A.; Kabary, H.; Samy, A. Synthesis of α-Al2O3 Nanoparticles from Pepsi Cans Wastes and Its Fungicidal Effect on Some Mycotoxins Producing Fungal Isolates. Res. Sq.; 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-774484/v1]
240. Suryavanshi, P.; Pandit, R.; Gade, A.; Derita, M.; Zachino, S.; Rai, M. Colletotrichum sp.-mediated synthesis of sulphur and aluminium oxide nanoparticles and its in vitro activity against selected food-borne pathogens. LWT Food Sci. Technol.; 2017; 81, pp. 188-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.03.038]
241. Ogunyemi, S.O.; Xu, X.; Xu, L.; Abdallah, Y.; Rizwan, M.; Lv, L.; Ahmed, T.; Ali, H.M.; Khan, F.; Yan, C. et al. Cobalt oxide nanoparticles: An effective growth promoter of Arabidopsis plants and nano-pesticide against bacterial leaf blight pathogen in rice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2023; 257, 114935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114935] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37086623]
242. Ashraf, H.; Batool, T.; Anjum, T.; Illyas, A.; Li, G.; Naseem, S.; Riaz, S. Antifungal Potential of Green Synthesized Magnetite Nanoparticles Black Coffee–Magnetite Nanoparticles against Wilt Infection by Ameliorating Enzymatic Activity and Gene Expression in Solanum lycopersicum L. Front. Microbiol.; 2022; 13, 754292.
243. Elenany, A.M.; Atia, M.M.; Abbas, E.E.; Moustafa, M.; Alshaharni, M.O.; Negm, S.; Elnahal, A.S. Nanoparticles and Chemical Inducers: A Sustainable Shield against Onion White Rot. Biology; 2024; 13, 219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology13040219]
244. El-Ganainy, S.M.; El-Bakery, A.M.; Hafez, H.M.; Ismail, A.M.; El-Abdeen, A.Z.; Ata, A.A.; Elraheem, O.A.; El Kady, Y.M.; Hamouda, A.F.; El-Beltagi, H.S. et al. Humic acid-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles confer resistance to Acremonium wilt disease and improve physiological and morphological attributes of grain Sorghum. Polymers; 2022; 14, 3099. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym14153099]
245. Ahmed, T.; Noman, M.; Luo, J.; Muhammad, S.; Shahid, M.; Ali, M.A.; Zhang, M.; Li, B. Bioengineered chitosan-magnesium nanocomposite: A novel agricultural antimicrobial agent against Acidovorax oryzae and Rhizoctonia solani for sustainable rice production. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2021; 168, pp. 834-845. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.11.148] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33242551]
246. Abdallah, Y.; Ogunyemi, S.O.; Abdelazez, A.; Zhang, M.; Hong, X.; Ibrahim, E.; Hossain, A.; Fouad, H.; Li, B.; Chen, J. The green synthesis of MgO nano-flowers using Rosmarinus officinalis L.(Rosemary) and the antibacterial activities against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. BioMed Res. Int.; 2019; 2019, 5620989. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/5620989] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30906776]
247. Ogunyemi, S.O.; Zhang, M.; Abdallah, Y.; Ahmed, T.; Qiu, W.; Ali, M.A.; Yan, C.; Yang, Y.; Chen, J.; Li, B. The bio-synthesis of three metal oxide nanoparticles (ZnO, MnO2, and MgO) and their antibacterial activity against the bacterial leaf blight pathogen. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 588326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.588326]
248. Rabea, A.; Naeem, E.; Balabel, N.M.; Daigham, G.E. Management of potato brown rot disease using chemically synthesized CuO-NPs and MgO-NPs. Bot. Stud.; 2023; 64, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40529-023-00393-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37458850]
249. Ahamad, L.; Azmat, A.L.; Masudulla, K.H.; Farid, O.; Mahboob, A.L. Exploring the nano-fungicidal efficacy of green synthesized magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO NPs) on the development, physiology, and infection of carrot (Daucus carota L.) with Alternaria leaf blight (ALB): Molecular docking. J. Integr. Agric.; 2023; 22, pp. 3069-3080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2023.02.034]
250. Abdel-Aziz, M.M.; Emam, T.M.; Elsherbiny, E.A. Bioactivity of magnesium oxide nanoparticles synthesized from cell filtrate of endobacterium Burkholderia rinojensis against Fusarium oxysporum. Mater. Sci. Eng. C; 2020; 109, 110617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2019.110617]
251. Abdelfattah, N.A.; Yousef, M.A.; Badawy, A.A.; Salem, S.S. Influence of biosynthesized magnesium oxide nanoparticles on growth and physiological aspects of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) plant, cowpea beetle, and cytotoxicity. Biotechnol. J.; 2023; 18, 2300301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/biot.202300301]
252. Wang, Z.L.; Zhang, X.; Fan, G.J.; Que, Y.; Xue, F.; Liu, Y.H. Toxicity effects and mechanisms of MgO nanoparticles on the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora infestans and its host Solanum tuberosum. Toxics; 2022; 10, 553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics10100553]
253. Ismail, A.M. Efficacy of copper oxide and magnesium oxide nanoparticles on controlling black scurf disease on potato. Egypt. J. Phytopathol.; 2021; 49, pp. 116-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/ejp.2021.109535.1050]
254. Ismail, A.M.; El-Gawad, A.; Mona, E. Antifungal activity of MgO and ZnO nanoparticles against powdery mildew of pepper under greenhouse conditions. Egypt. J. Agric. Res.; 2021; 99, pp. 421-434.
255. Liao, J.; Yuan, Z.; Wang, X.; Chen, T.; Qian, K.; Cui, Y.; Rong, A.; Zheng, C.; Liu, Y.; Wang, D. et al. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles reduce clubroot by regulating plant defense response and rhizosphere microbial community of tumorous stem mustard (Brassica juncea var. tumida). Front. Microbiol.; 2024; 15, 1370427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1370427] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38572228]
256. Hantoosh, M.N.; Hussein, H. Bioactivity of Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles Synthesized by Alcoholic Extract of Walnut Tree Bark Juglans regia against Thielaviopsis paradoxa and Thielaviopsis punctulata in vitro. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2023; 1252, 012021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1252/1/012021]
257. Liao, Y.Y.; Huang, Y.; Carvalho, R.; Choudhary, M.; Da Silva, S.; Colee, J.; Huerta, A.; Vallad, G.E.; Freeman, J.H.; Jones, J.B. et al. Magnesium oxide nanomaterial, an alternative for commercial copper bactericides: Field-scale tomato bacterial spot disease management and total and bioavailable metal accumulation in soil. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2021; 55, pp. 13561-13570. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00804] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34291924]
258. El-Sayed, M.E. Nanoadsorbents for water and wastewater remediation. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 739, 139903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139903] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32544683]
259. Feng, S.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Q.; Yue, W.; Ke, N.; Xie, H. Coumarin-containing light-responsive carboxymethyl chitosan micelles as nanocarriers for controlled release of pesticide. Polymers; 2020; 12, 2268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym12102268]
260. Mustafa, I.F.; Hussein, M.Z.; Idris, A.S.; Hilmi, N.H.; Ramli, N.R.; Fakurazi, S. The effect of surfactant type on the physico-chemical properties of hexaconazole/dazomet-micelle nanodelivery system and its biofungicidal activity against Ganoderma boninense. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.; 2022; 640, 128402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2022.128402]
261. Su, W.; Qin, Y.; Wu, J.; Meng, G.; Yang, S.; Cui, L.; Liu, Z.; Guo, X. Linear Supramolecular Block Copolymer Micelles for ROS-Responsive Release of Antimicrobial Pesticides. ACS Appl. Nano Mater.; 2023; 6, pp. 12736-12743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.3c01281]
262. Luong, J.H.; Tran, C.; Ton-That, D. A paradox over electric vehicles, mining of lithium for car batteries. Energies; 2022; 15, 7997. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15217997]
263. Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Cifuentes, Z.; Beckstead, J.A.; Sillero, J.C.; Ávila, C.; Rubio, J.; Ryan, R.O. Effect of amphotericin B nanodisks on plant fungal diseases. Pest. Manag. Sci.; 2012; 68, pp. 67-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.2222]
264. Xu, Y.; Wei, Y.; Jiang, S.; Xu, F.; Wang, H.; Shao, X. Preparation and characterization of tea tree oil solid liposomes to control brown rot and improve quality in peach fruit. Lwt; 2022; 162, 113442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113442]
265. Chen, X.; Qiu, L.; Liu, Q.; He, Y. Preparation of an environmentally friendly nano-insecticide through encapsulation in polymeric liposomes and its insecticidal activities against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Insects; 2022; 13, 625. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/insects13070625] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35886801]
266. Li, M.; Li, J.; Meng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Gao, M.; Dong, J.; Cao, Z.; Zhang, L.; Ma, S. Preparation of nanoliposomes containing the extracts of Eleocharis dulcis corm-peels and ascertaining their aphidicidal activity against Megoura crassicauda and Acyrthosiphon pisum. Ind. Crop. Prod.; 2024; 207, 117746. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117746]
267. Liu, X.; He, B.; Xu, Z.; Yin, M.; Yang, W.; Zhang, H.; Cao, J.; Shen, J. A functionalized fluorescent dendrimer as a pesticide nanocarrier: Application in pest control. Nanoscale; 2015; 7, pp. 445-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C4NR05733C]
268. Thanh, V.M.; Bui, L.M.; Bach, L.G.; Nguyen, N.T.; Thi, H.L.; Hoang Thi, T.T. Origanum majorana L. essential oil-associated polymeric nano dendrimer for antifungal activity against Phytophthora infestans. Materials; 2019; 12, 1446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12091446]
269. Labidi, S.; Sandhu, R.K.; Beaulieu, C.; Beaudoin, N. Increased ferritin and iron accumulation in tubers of thaxtomin A-habituated potato var. Yukon Gold somaclones with enhanced resistance to common scab. J. Plant Pathol.; 2023; 105, pp. 107-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42161-022-01289-7]
270. Maleki, R.; Abdollahi, H.; Piri, S. Variation of active iron and ferritin content in pear cultivars with different levels of pathogen resistance following inoculation with Erwinia amylovora. J. Plant Pathol.; 2022; 104, pp. 281-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42161-021-00998-9]
271. Khot, L.R.; Sankaran, S.; Maja, J.M.; Ehsani, R.; Schuster, E.W. Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop protection: A review. Crop Prot.; 2012; 35, pp. 64-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.01.007]
272. Khare, P.; Talreja, N.; Deva, D.; Sharma, A.; Verma, N. Carbon nanofibers containing metal-doped porous carbon beads for environmental remediation applications. Chem. Eng. J.; 2013; 229, pp. 72-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.04.113]
273. Kumar, D.; Talreja, N. Nickel nanoparticles-doped rhodamine grafted carbon nanofibers as colorimetric probe: Naked eye detection and highly sensitive measurement of aqueous Cr3+ and Pb2+. Korean J. Chem. Eng.; 2019; 36, pp. 126-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11814-018-0139-0]
274. Saraswat, R.; Talreja, N.; Deva, D.; Sankararamakrishnan, N.; Sharma, A.; Verma, N. Development of novel in situ nickel-doped, phenolic resin-based micro–nano-activated carbon adsorbents for the removal of vitamin B-12. Chem. Eng. J.; 2012; 197, pp. 250-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.046]
275. Talreja, N.; Jung, S.; Kim, T. Phenol-formaldehyde-resin-based activated carbons with controlled pore size distribution for high-performance supercapacitors. Chem. Eng. J.; 2020; 379, 122332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122332]
276. Talreja, N.; Kumar, D.; Verma, N. Removal of hexavalent chromium from water using Fe-grown carbon nanofibers containing porous carbon microbeads. J. Water Process Eng.; 2014; 3, pp. 34-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2014.08.001]
277. Talreja, N.; Verma, N.; Kumar, D. Carbon bead-supported ethylene diamine-functionalized carbon nanofibers: An efficient adsorbent for salicylic acid. CLEAN–Soil. Air Water; 2016; 44, pp. 1461-1470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clen.201500722]
278. Omar, R.A.; Talreja, N.; Chauhan, D.; Mangalaraja, R.V.; Ashfaq, M. Nano metal-carbon–based materials: Emerging platform for the growth and protection of crops. Nanotechnology-Based Sustainable Alternatives for the Management of Plant Diseases; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 341-354.
279. González-García, Y.; Cadenas-Pliego, G.; Alpuche-Solís, Á.G.; Cabrera, R.I.; Juárez-Maldonado, A. Carbon nanotubes decrease the negative impact of Alternaria solani in tomato crop. Nanomaterials; 2021; 11, 1080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano11051080] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33922093]
280. Hao, Y.; Fang, P.; Ma, C.; White, J.C.; Xiang, Z.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Rui, Y.; Xing, B. Engineered nanomaterials inhibit Podosphaera pannosa infection on rose leaves by regulating phytohormones. Environ. Res.; 2019; 170, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30554052]
281. Lipșa, F.D.; Ursu, E.L.; Ursu, C.; Ulea, E.; Cazacu, A. Evaluation of the antifungal activity of gold–chitosan and carbon nanoparticles on Fusarium oxysporum. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 1143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081143]
282. Adeel, M.; Farooq, T.; White, J.C.; Hao, Y.; He, Z.; Rui, Y. Carbon-based nanomaterials suppress tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) infection and induce resistance in Nicotiana benthamiana. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2021; 404, 124167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124167]
283. El-Ganainy, S.M.; Mosa, M.A.; Ismail, A.M.; Khalil, A.E. Lignin-loaded carbon nanoparticles as a promising control agent against Fusarium verticillioides in maize: Physiological and biochemical analyses. Polymers; 2023; 15, 1193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/polym15051193]
284. Al-Zaban, M.I.; Alhag, S.K.; Dablool, A.S.; Ahmed, A.E.; Alghamdi, S.; Ali, B.; Al-Saeed, F.A.; Saleem, M.H.; Poczai, P. Manufactured nano-objects confer viral protection against cucurbit chlorotic yellows virus (CCYV) infecting nicotiana benthamiana. Microorganisms; 2022; 10, 1837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10091837]
285. Baka, Z.A.; El-Zahed, M.M. Biocontrol of chocolate spot disease of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) caused by Botrytis fabae using biosynthesized reduced graphene oxide/silver nanocomposite. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2023; 127, 102116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2023.102116]
286. El-Abeid, S.E.; Ahmed, Y.; Daròs, J.A.; Mohamed, M.A. Reduced graphene oxide nanosheet-decorated copper oxide nanoparticles: A potent antifungal nanocomposite against fusarium root rot and wilt diseases of tomato and pepper plants. Nanomaterials; 2020; 10, 1001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano10051001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32456282]
287. Bytešníková, Z.; Pečenka, J.; Tekielska, D.; Kiss, T.; Švec, P.; Ridošková, A.; Bezdička, P.; Pekárková, J.; Eichmeier, A.; Pokluda, R. et al. Reduced graphene oxide-based nanometal-composite containing copper and silver nanoparticles protect tomato and pepper against Xanthomonas euvesicatoria infection. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric.; 2022; 9, 84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40538-022-00347-7]
288. Yu, H.; Wang, L.; Qu, J.; Wang, X.; Huang, F.; Jiao, Y.; Zhang, Y. Bi2O3/TiO2@ reduced graphene oxide with enzyme-like properties efficiently inactivates Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 and enhances abiotic stress tolerance in tomato. Environ. Sci. Nano; 2022; 9, pp. 118-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1EN00558H]
289. Bityutskii, N.P.; Yakkonen, K.L.; Lukina, K.A.; Semenov, K.N. Fullerenol increases effectiveness of foliar iron fertilization in iron-deficient cucumber. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0232765. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232765]
290. Gyawali, B.; Rahimi, R.; Alizadeh, H.; Mohammadi, M. Graphene Quantum Dots (GQD)-Mediated dsRNA Delivery for the Control of Fusarium Head Blight Disease in Wheat. ACS Appl. Bio Mater.; 2024; 7, pp. 1526-1535. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsabm.3c00972]
291. Wang, X.; Cai, A.; Wen, X.; Jing, D.; Qi, H.; Yuan, H. Graphene oxide-Fe3O4 nanocomposites as high-performance antifungal agents against Plasmopara viticola. Sci. China Mater.; 2017; 60, pp. 258-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40843-016-9005-9]
292. Cheng, J.; Sun, Z.; Li, X.; Yu, Y. Effects of modified nanoscale carbon black on plant growth, root cellular morphogenesis, and microbial community in cadmium-contaminated soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2020; 27, pp. 18423-18433. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08081-z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32185740]
293. Gahoi, P.; Omar, R.A.; Verma, N.; Gupta, G.S. Rhizobacteria and Acylated homoserine lactone-based nanobiofertilizer to improve growth and pathogen defense in Cicer arietinum and Triticum aestivum Plants. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol.; 2021; 1, pp. 240-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00039]
294. Joshi, A.; Sharma, A.; Nayyar, H.; Verma, G.; Dharamvir, K. Carbon nanofibers suppress fungal inhibition of seed germination of maize (Zea mays) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) crop. AIP Conf. Proc.; 2015; 1675, 030034.
295. Shakiba, S.; Astete, C.E.; Paudel, S.; Sabliov, C.M.; Rodrigues, D.F.; Louie, S.M. Emerging investigator series: Polymeric nanocarriers for agricultural applications: Synthesis, characterization, and environmental and biological interactions. Environ. Sci. Nano; 2020; 7, pp. 37-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C9EN01127G]
296. Astete, C.E.; Sabliov, C.M.; Watanabe, F.; Biris, A. Ca2+ cross-linked alginic acid nanoparticles for solubilization of lipophilic natural colorants. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2009; 57, pp. 7505-7512. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf900563a]
297. Goh, K.L.; Manikam, J.; Qua, C.S. High-dose rabeprazole–amoxicillin dual therapy and rabeprazole triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin for 2 weeks as first and second line rescue therapies for H elicobacter pylori treatment failures. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.; 2012; 35, pp. 1097-1102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05054.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22404486]
298. Goh, C.H.; Heng, P.W.; Chan, L.W. Alginates as a useful natural polymer for microencapsulation and therapeutic applications. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2012; 88, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.012]
299. Ye, F.; Astete, C.E.; Sabliov, C.M. Entrapment and delivery of α-tocopherol by a self-assembled, alginate-conjugated prodrug nanostructure. Food Hydrocoll.; 2017; 72, pp. 62-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.05.032]
300. Chauhan, N.; Dilbaghi, N.; Gopal, M.; Kumar, R.; Kim, K.H.; Kumar, S. Development of chitosan nanocapsules for the controlled release of hexaconazole. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2017; 97, pp. 616-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.12.059]
301. Murugeshu, A.; Astete, C.; Leonardi, C.; Morgan, T.; Sabliov, C.M. Chitosan/PLGA particles for controlled release of α-tocopherol in the GI tract via oral administration. Nanomedicine; 2011; 6, pp. 1513-1528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2217/nnm.11.44]
302. Chuacharoen, T.; Sabliov, C.M. Stability and controlled release of lutein loaded in zein nanoparticles with and without lecithin and pluronic F127 surfactants. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp.; 2016; 503, pp. 11-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2016.04.038]
303. Prasad, A.; Astete, C.E.; Bodoki, A.E.; Windham, M.; Bodoki, E.; Sabliov, C.M. Zein nanoparticles uptake and translocation in hydroponically grown sugar cane plants. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2017; 66, pp. 6544-6551. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02487]
304. Ristroph, K.D.; Astete, C.E.; Bodoki, E.; Sabliov, C.M. Zein nanoparticles uptake by hydroponically grown soybean plants. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2017; 51, pp. 14065-14071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03923]
305. Pascoli, M.; Lopes-Oliveira, P.J.; Fraceto, L.F.; Seabra, A.B.; Oliveira, H.C. State of the art of polymeric nanoparticles as carrier systems with agricultural applications: A minireview. Energy Ecol. Environ.; 2018; 3, pp. 137-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40974-018-0090-2]
306. Wang, Y.; Li, M.; Ying, J.; Shen, J.; Dou, D.; Yin, M.; Whisson, S.C.; Birch, P.R.; Yan, S.; Wang, X. High-efficiency green management of potato late blight by a self-assembled multicomponent nano-bioprotectant. Nat. Commun.; 2023; 14, 5622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41447-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37699893]
307. Tian, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Tang, G.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Yu, X.; Li, X. et al. Self-assembled nanoparticles of a prodrug conjugate based on pyrimethanil for efficient plant disease management. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2022; 70, pp. 11901-11910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c04489] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36111893]
308. Xiang, H.; Meng, J.; Shao, W.; Zeng, D.; Ji, J.; Wang, P.; Zhou, X.; Qi, P.; Liu, L.; Yang, S. Plant protein-based self-assembling core–shell nanocarrier for effectively controlling plant viruses: Evidence for nanoparticle delivery behavior, plant growth promotion, and plant resistance induction. Chem. Eng. J.; 2023; 464, 142432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.142432]
309. Dong, B.R.; Jiang, R.; Chen, J.F.; Xiao, Y.; Lv, Z.Y.; Chen, W.S. Strategic nanoparticle-mediated plant disease resistance. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.; 2023; 43, pp. 22-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2021.2007842]
310. Alghuthaymi, M.A.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, Z.; Khan, S.H.; Ahmed, F.K.; Faiz, S.; Nepovimova, E.; Kuča, K.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A. Exosome/liposome-like nanoparticles: New carriers for CRISPR genome editing in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2021; 22, 7456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147456]
311. Hafeez, R.; Guo, J.; Ahmed, T.; Jiang, H.; Raza, M.; Shahid, M.; Ibrahim, E.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Yan, C. et al. Bio-formulated chitosan nanoparticles enhance disease resistance against rice blast by physiomorphic, transcriptional, and microbiome modulation of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Carbohydr. Polym.; 2024; 334, 122023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122023]
312. Mejdoub-Trabelsi, B.; Touihri, S.; Ammar, N.; Riahi, A.; Daami-Remadi, M. Effect of chitosan for the control of potato diseases caused by Fusarium species. J. Phytopathol.; 2020; 168, pp. 18-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jph.12847]
313. Lin, M.; Fang, S.; Zhao, X.; Liang, X.; Wu, D. Natamycin-loaded zein nanoparticles stabilized by carboxymethyl chitosan: Evaluation of colloidal/chemical performance and application in postharvest treatments. Food Hydrocoll.; 2020; 106, 105871. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.105871]
314. Oliveira-Pinto, P.R.; Mariz-Ponte, N.; Sousa, R.M.; Torres, A.; Tavares, F.; Ribeiro, A.; Cavaco-Paulo, A.; Fernandes-Ferreira, M.; Santos, C. Satureja montana essential oil, zein nanoparticles and their combination as a biocontrol strategy to reduce bacterial spot disease on tomato plants. Horticulturae; 2021; 7, 584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120584]
315. Khairy, A.M.; Tohamy, M.R.; Zayed, M.A.; Mahmoud, S.F.; El-Tahan, A.M.; El-Saadony, M.T.; Mesiha, P.K. Eco-friendly application of nano-chitosan for controlling potato and tomato bacterial wilt. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.; 2022; 29, pp. 2199-2209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.11.041]
316. El Gamal, A.Y.; Atia, M.M.; Sayed, T.E.; Abou-Zaid, M.I.; Tohamy, M.R. Antiviral activity of chitosan nanoparticles for controlling plant-infecting viruses. S. Afr. J. Sci.; 2022; 118, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2022/10693] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38724652]
317. Zhang, C.; Long, Y.; Li, J.; Li, M.; Xing, D.; An, H.; Wu, X.; Wu, Y. A chitosan composite film sprayed before pathogen infection effectively controls postharvest soft rot in kiwifruit. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020265]
318. Kumar, N.V.; Basavegowda, V.R.; Murthy, A.N. Synthesis and characterization of copper-chitosan based nanofungicide and its induced defense responses in Fusarium wilt of banana. Inorg. Nano Met. Chem.; 2022; pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24701556.2022.2068591]
319. Ghule, M.R.; Ramteke, P.K.; Ramteke, S.D.; Kodre, P.S.; Langote, A.; Gaikwad, A.V.; Holkar, S.K.; Jambhekar, H. Impact of chitosan seed treatment of fenugreek for management of root rot disease caused by Fusarium solani under in vitro and in vivo conditions. 3 Biotech; 2021; 11, 290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13205-021-02843-3]
320. Zhang, C.; Li, Q.; Li, J.; Su, Y.; Wu, X. Chitosan as an adjuvant to enhance the control efficacy of low-dosage pyraclostrobin against powdery mildew of Rosa roxburghii and improve its photosynthesis, yield, and quality. Biomolecules; 2022; 12, 1304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom12091304]
321. Abdel-Rahman, F.A.; Monir, G.A.; Hassan, M.S.; Ahmed, Y.; Refaat, M.H.; Ismail, I.A.; El-Garhy, H.A. Exogenously applied chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles improved apple fruit resistance to blue mold, upregulated defense-related genes expression, and maintained fruit quality. Horticulturae; 2021; 7, 224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7080224]
322. Abdelkhalek, A.; Qari, S.H.; Abu-Saied, M.A.; Khalil, A.M.; Younes, H.A.; Nehela, Y.; Behiry, S.I. Chitosan nanoparticles inactivate alfalfa mosaic virus replication and boost innate immunity in Nicotiana glutinosa plants. Plants; 2021; 10, 2701. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10122701]
323. Chouhan, D.; Dutta, A.; Kumar, A.; Mandal, P.; Choudhuri, C. Application of nickel chitosan nanoconjugate as an antifungal agent for combating Fusarium rot of wheat. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 14518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18670-2]
324. Fan, Z.; Qin, Y.; Liu, S.; Xing, R.; Yu, H.; Li, K.; Li, P. Fluoroalkenyl-grafted chitosan oligosaccharide derivative: An exploration for control nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2022; 23, 2080. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms23042080]
325. Khan, A.; Tariq, M.; Ahmad, F.; Mennan, S.; Khan, F.; Asif, M.; Nadeem, H.; Ansari, T.; Shariq, M.; Siddiqui, M.A. Assessment of nematicidal efficacy of chitosan in combination with botanicals against Meloidogyne incognita on carrot. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil. Plant Sci.; 2021; 71, pp. 225-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2021.1880620]
326. Xu, X.; Peng, X.; Huan, C.; Chen, J.; Meng, Y.; Fang, S. Development of natamycin-loaded zein-casein composite nanoparticles by a pH-driven method and application to postharvest fungal control on peach against Monilinia fructicola. Food Chem.; 2023; 404, 134659. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134659] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36323020]
327. Bidyarani, N.; Srivastav, A.K.; Gupta, S.K.; Kumar, U. Synthesis and physicochemical characterization of rhamnolipid-stabilized carvacrol-loaded zein nanoparticles for antimicrobial application supported by molecular docking. J. Nanoparticle Res.; 2020; 22, 307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-05037-9]
328. Bidyarani, N.; Kumar, U. Synthesis of rotenone loaded zein nano-formulation for plant protection against pathogenic microbes. RSC Adv.; 2019; 9, pp. 40819-40826. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C9RA08739G] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35540079]
329. Khatua, A.; Prasad, A.; Priyadarshini, E.; Virmani, I.; Ghosh, L.; Paul, B.; Meena, R.; Barabadi, H.; Patel, A.K.; Saravanan, M. CTAB-PLGA Curcumin Nanoparticles: Preparation, Biophysical Characterization and Their Enhanced Antifungal Activity against Phytopathogenic Fungus Pythium ultimum. ChemistrySelect; 2020; 5, pp. 10574-10580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/slct.202002158]
330. De Angelis, G.; Simonetti, G.; Chronopoulou, L.; Orekhova, A.; Badiali, C.; Petruccelli, V.; Portoghesi, F.; D’Angeli, S.; Brasili, E.; Pasqua, G. et al. A novel approach to control Botrytis cinerea fungal infections: Uptake and biological activity of antifungals encapsulated in nanoparticle based vectors. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 7989. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11533-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35568696]
331. Han, J.; Zhao, L.; Zhu, H.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Study on the effect of alginate oligosaccharide combined with Meyerozyma guilliermondii against Penicillium expansum in pears and the possible mechanisms involved. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.; 2021; 115, 101654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2021.101654]
332. Zhuo, R.; Li, B.; Tian, S. Alginate oligosaccharide improves resistance to postharvest decay and quality in kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa cv. Bruno). Hortic. Plant J.; 2022; 8, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpj.2021.07.003]
333. Bouissil, S.; Guérin, C.; Roche, J.; Dubessay, P.; El Alaoui-Talibi, Z.; Pierre, G.; Michaud, P.; Mouzeyar, S.; Delattre, C.; El Modafar, C. Induction Induction of defense gene expression and the resistance of date palm to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. albedinis in response to alginate extracted from Bifurcaria bifurcata. Mar. Drugs; 2022; 20, 88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/md20020088]
334. Ben Salah, I.; Aghrouss, S.; Douira, A.; Aissam, S.; El Alaoui-Talibi, Z.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; El Modafar, C. Seaweed polysaccharides as bio-elicitors of natural defenses in olive trees against verticillium wilt of olive. J. Plant Interact.; 2018; 13, pp. 248-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2018.1471528]
335. Ngoc, D.T.; Du, B.D.; Tuan, L.N.; Thach, B.D.; Kien, C.T.; Phu, D.V.; Hien, N.Q. Study on antifungal activity and ability against rice leaf blast disease of nano Cu-Cu2O/alginate. Indian J. Agric. Res.; 2020; 54, pp. 802-806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-582]
336. Yadav, A.; Yadav, K.; Ahmad, R.; Abd-Elsalam, K.A. Emerging frontiers in nanotechnology for precision agriculture: Advancements, hurdles and prospects. Agrochemicals; 2023; 2, pp. 220-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2020016]
337. Hsueh, Y.H.; Ke, W.J.; Hsieh, C.T.; Lin, K.S.; Tzou, D.Y.; Chiang, C.L. ZnO nanoparticles affect Bacillus subtilis cell growth and biofilm formation. PLoS ONE; 2015; 10, e0128457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128457]
338. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Sushkova, S.; Tsitsuashvili, V.; Mandzhieva, S.; Gorovtsov, A.; Nevidomskyaya, D.; Gromakova, N. Effect of nanoparticles on crops and soil microbial communities. J. Soils Sediments; 2018; 18, pp. 2179-2187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11368-017-1793-2]
339. Tang, R.; Zhu, D.; Luo, Y.; He, D.; Zhang, H.; El-Naggar, A.; Palansooriya, K.N.; Chen, K.; Yan, Y.; Lu, X. et al. Nanoplastics induce molecular toxicity in earthworm: Integrated multi-omics, morphological, and intestinal microorganism analyses. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2023; 442, 130034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.130034]
340. Tiede, K.; Hassellöv, M.; Breitbarth, E.; Chaudhry, Q.; Boxall, A.B. Considerations for environmental fate and ecotoxicity testing to support environmental risk assessments for engineered nanoparticles. J. Chromatogr. A; 2009; 1216, pp. 503-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.09.008]
341. Pietroiusti, A.; Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Lucaroni, F.; Savolainen, K. Nanomaterial exposure, toxicity, and impact on human health. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol.; 2018; 10, e1513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wnan.1513] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29473695]
342. Larese, F.F.; D’Agostin, F.; Crosera, M.; Adami, G.; Renzi, N.; Bovenzi, M.; Maina, G. Human skin penetration of silver nanoparticles through intact and damaged skin. Toxicology; 2009; 255, pp. 33-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2008.09.025]
343. Singh, N.; Manshian, B.; Jenkins, G.J.; Griffiths, S.M.; Williams, P.M.; Maffeis, T.G.; Wright, C.J.; Doak, S.H. NanoGenotoxicology: The DNA damaging potential of engineered nanomaterials. Biomaterials; 2009; 30, pp. 3891-3914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.009]
344. Fu, P.P.; Xia, Q.; Hwang, H.M.; Ray, P.C.; Yu, H. Mechanisms of nanotoxicity: Generation of reactive oxygen species. J. Food Drug Anal.; 2014; 22, pp. 64-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2014.01.005]
345. Jafari, S.M.; Katouzian, I.; Akhavan, S. Safety and regulatory issues of nanocapsules. Nanoencapsulation Technologies for the Food and Nutraceutical Industries; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 545-590.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Agriculture plays a fundamental role in ensuring global food security, yet plant diseases remain a significant threat to crop production. Traditional methods to manage plant diseases have been extensively used, but they face significant drawbacks, such as environmental pollution, health risks and pathogen resistance. Similarly, biopesticides are eco-friendly, but are limited by their specificity and stability issues. This has led to the exploration of novel biotechnological approaches, such as the development of synthetic proteins, which aim to mitigate these drawbacks by offering more targeted and sustainable solutions. Similarly, recent advances in genome editing techniques—such as meganucleases (MegNs), zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)—are precise approaches in disease management, but are limited by technical challenges and regulatory concerns. In this realm, nanotechnology has emerged as a promising frontier that offers novel solutions for plant disease management. This review examines the role of nanoparticles (NPs), including organic NPs, inorganic NPs, polymeric NPs and carbon NPs, in enhancing disease resistance and improving pesticide delivery, and gives an overview of the current state of nanotechnology in managing plant diseases, including its advantages, practical applications and obstacles that must be overcome to fully harness its potential. By understanding these aspects, we can better appreciate the transformative impact of nanotechnology on modern agriculture and can develop sustainable and effective strategies to mitigate plant diseases, ensuring enhanced agricultural productivity.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details







1 Institute of Plant Protection, MNS University of Agriculture, Multan 66000, Pakistan;
2 Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, MNS University of Agriculture, Multan 66000, Pakistan;
3 Institute of Plant Protection, MNS University of Agriculture, Multan 66000, Pakistan;
4 Department of Pharmacy, MNS University of Agriculture, Multan 66000, Pakistan;
5 Inner Mongolia Saikexing Institute of Breeding and Reproductive Biotechnology in Domestic Animal, Hohhot 011517, China;
6 Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Minia University, El-Minia 61517, Egypt;
7 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska Cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
8 Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khoud, Muscat 123, Oman;