Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 25;19(3):e0297870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297870

Bacteria-mediated green synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their antifungal potentials against Aspergillus flavus

Achyut Ashokrao Bharose 1, Sunil Tulshiram Hajare 2,*, Gajera H P 3, Mukesh Soni 4, Krushna Kant Prajapati 5, Suresh Chandra Singh 6, Vijay Upadhye 7
Editor: Arumugam Sundaramanickam8
PMCID: PMC10962810  PMID: 38527060

Abstract

The best biocontroller Bacillus subtilis produced silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) with a spherical form and a 62 nm size through green synthesis. Using UV-vis spectroscopy, PSA, and zeta potential analysis, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, the properties of synthesized silver nanoparticles were determined. Silver nanoparticles were tested for their antifungicidal efficacy against the most virulent isolate of the Aspergillus flavus fungus, JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20, and among the 10 different treatments, the treatment T6 [PDA + 1 ml of NP (19: 1)] + Pathogen was shown to be extremely significant (82.53%). TG-51 and GG-22 were found to be the most sensitive groundnut varieties after 5 and 10 days of LC-MS QTOF infection when 25 different groundnut varieties were screened using the most toxic Aspergillus flavus isolate JAM- JKB-BHA-GG20, respectively. In this research, the most susceptible groundnut cultivar, designated GG-22, was tested. Because less aflatoxin (1651.15 g.kg-1) was observed, treatment T8 (Seed + Pathogen + 2 ml silver nanoparticles) was determined to be much more effective. The treated samples were examined by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for the detection of metal ions and the fungicide carbendazim. Ag particles (0.8 g/g-1) and the fungicide carbendazim (0.025 g/g-1) were found during Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry analysis below detectable levels. To protect plants against the invasion of fungal pathogens, environmentally friendly green silver nanoparticle antagonists with antifungal properties were able to prevent the synthesis of mycotoxin by up to 82.53%.

Introduction

For the synthesis of nanoparticles (NPs), there are a number of chemical methods in the literature [1]. In these protocols, toxic chemicals are used, which have been a matter of great concern for environmental reasons. As a result, researchers in the field of nanoscale material synthesis and assembly have been searching for alternatives in biological systems. Several biotechnological applications, such as microbial corrosion, bioremediation, biomineralization, and leaching, are highly dependent on the interactions between metal microbes [2,3]. Recently, the use of biological systems as a novel approach for the manufacture of metal nanoparticles has developed. Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs), being an important metal, have prospective uses in a wide range of fields, including medical diagnosis, catalysis, electronics, and antibacterial activity [47], and also have other unique properties such as anticoagulant, antidiabetic, and thrombolytic [8,9]. Among Me-NP, Ag-NPs have been known to have inhibitory and bactericidal effects [10,11]. Because of their huge specific surface area and high proportion of surface atoms, AgNPs are expected to exhibit more antibacterial activity than bulk silver metal. Resistance to commercially available antimicrobial drugs by pathogenic bacteria and fungi has become a serious problem in recent years [12]. Microbes, such as bacteria, molds, yeasts, and viruses, in living environment are often pathogenic and cause antimicrobial agents from natural and inorganic substances [10,13]. Among inorganic antimicrobial agents, silver has been used most extensively since ancient times to combat infections [14]. Compared to other microorganisms, fungi have the ability to produce a large amount of metabolites, which makes them more suitable for the production of nanoparticles [4,15]. It is well known that many microbes, both unicellular and multicellular, produce inorganic materials, intracellular or extracellular [2]. By reducing metal ions, microorganisms, including bacteria, yeast, and fungi, contribute significantly to the cleanup of hazardous metals and function as fascinating nanofactories [16]. These bacteria are excellent candidates for the manufacture of nanoparticles made of cadmium, gold, and silver (Ag-NP) [1,17,18]. For this reason, the present work has focused on the development of Ag-NPs using culture supernatant from antagonist bacteria and the evaluation of their antimicrobial activity against Aspergillus species producing aflatoxigenic, which cause serious problems about aflatoxin contamination, worldwide, in agricultural commodities, including groundnut. The characteristics of synthesized AgNPs were identified by using UV-vis spectroscopy, PSA, and zeta potential analysis, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. We also tested the antifungal activity of AgNPs and standardized key factors involved in the process of synthesis of AgNPs.

Materials and methods

Synthesis and characterization of green silver nanoparticle antagonists from best antagonist

To obtain the cell supernatant for synthesis of silver nanoparticles from Bacillus subtilis, the bacterial strain was obtained from the Department of Microbiology of the Junagadh Agriculture University, Gujarat, India and was suspended aerobically in nitrate medium. Culture flasks were incubated on a rotator shaker at 120 rpm. Cell supernatant was collected after 24 hours by centrifugation at 6,000 rpm for 10 minutes at 6° C. For silver nanoparticle biosynthesis studies, the bacterial supernatant was inoculated in 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask containing 100 ml of sterile nutrient broth. Cultured flasks were incubated on a rotating shaker set at 200 rpm for 48 h at room temperature. After this, the culture was centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 10 min. The biomass was separated by discarding the supernatant and used for the synthesis of silver nanoparticles. For this approximately 2 g of wet biomass containing Bacillus subtilis was resuspended in 100 ml of 1 mM AgNO3 aqueous solution in a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask, allowing the reduction of silver nanoparticles. All reaction mixtures were incubated on a rotating shaker (200 rpm) at room temperature for a period of 24 h in light. Heat-killed samples with AgNO3 were also incubated along with experimental samples as a control. Visual observations were conducted periodically to check for nanoparticle formation [19]. All media components and chemicals were analytical grade and obtained from Hi-Media Laboratories Ltd. Mumbai, India.

Characterization of bacterial green silver nanoparticle antagonists

Change in colour

The colour change in the reaction mixture was recorded by visual observation. The change in supernatant colour from light yellow to dark brown indicated that the silver nanoparticles were synthesized as previously described [19].

UV-vis spectral analysis

Synthesized silver nanoparticles were confirmed by sampling the aqueous component at different time intervals, and the absorption maxima were scanned by UV-visible spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 300–700 nm on UV-visible spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer Lambda 25 spectrophotometer), using deionized water as the reference [19].

Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy

Identification of the biomolecules associated with nanoparticle synthesis was performed using FTIR-8400S (Shimadzu). The dried silver nanoparticles were grinded with KBr pellets and measured in the wavelength range from 4000 to 400 cm-1. Functional groups in silver nanoparticles were identified by FTIR by referring to the standard protocol [19].

Particle Size Analyzer (PSA) and zeta potential analysis

The particle size distribution and the Zeta potential analysis of synthesized nanoparticles were carried out by Microtrac S3500 PSA (Nanotrac Wave). The size distribution is determined on the basis of the dynamic scattering of red laser having wavelength 750 nm. Light is scattered by Brownian motion of the colloidal SNPs. Among the total percentage of the size distribution obtained, the value D-50, which is 50% size distribution, was taken into account. The z potential values suggest the stability of the synthesized nanoparticles as follows: Zeta potential value from 0 to ±5: Rapid coagulation or flocculation; Value from ±10 to ±30: Incipient instability; Value from ±30 to ±40: Moderate stability; Value from ±40 to ±60: Good stability; Value greater than ±61: Excellent stability.

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analyses

To reveal the shape and size, we applied AgNP scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis using the Zeiss Gemini SEM instrument. The samples were prepared onto an adhesive carbon tape on an aluminum stub. SEM is a direct technique used to detect and characterize nanoparticles. Scanning electron microscopy uses a high-energy electron beam, but the beam is scanned over the surface and backscattering of the electrons was observed [19].

Bioefficacy of AgNPs

To optimize the effective dose of green AgNPs, we derived the best biocontrol for control of highly virulent and toxigenic Aspergillus strain below treatments were composed.

In vitro assay

The in vitro assay was performed on potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) growth medium treated with different concentrations (that is, 500 ‘μl, 1 ml, 2 ml, 3 ml and 4 ml) of AgNPs derived from the best antagonist strain of bacteria in conjunction with the control. AgNPs having different concentrations were poured into growth media prior to plating in a Petri dish (90 × 15 mm). The medium containing silver nanoparticles was incubated at room temperature. After 48 h of incubation, uniform sized agar plugs (diameter, 8 mm) containing fungi were inoculated simultaneously in the center of each Petri dish containing AgNP, followed by incubation at 28 ± 2° C for 5 and 10 days. All experiments were performed in triplicate, and the mean value along with standard deviation was recorded.

Observations recorded

After incubation of fungi on PDA medium containing silver nanoparticles, radial growth of fungal mycelium was recorded. Radial inhibition was calculated when the growth of mycelia in the control plate reached the edge of the Petri dish. The following formula was used for the calculation of the inhibition rate (%):

Inhibitionrate(%)=RrR

Where, R is the radial growth of fungal mycelia on the control plate; r is the radial growth of fungal mycelia on the plate treated with AgNPs

Collection of groundnut varieties

All methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the respective institute. The varieties of groundnut seeds used in the proposed research were developed and published by Junagadh Agriculture University, Gujarat, India, so no specific permission was required to obtain seeds for research. Additionally, since the work does not involve any endangered or protected plant species, no additional authorization is needed for collection of plant materials.

Screening of susceptible groundnut variety and bioefficacy of green silver nanoparticle antagonists against aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus infections

Randomly, 10 grams of undamaged kernels were picked for the study of seed infection with Aspergillus flavus. The same procedure was followed for the selection of different varieties of groundnuts released for susceptibility and the aflatoxin estimation tests against the highly virulent and toxigenic Aspergillus flavus strain JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 that was obtained from the Department of Microbiology of Junagadh Agriculture University, Gujarat, India. Aflatoxin was determined after 10 days of interval according to the LC-MS QTOF.

Antagonist potentials of optimized AgNPs derived from the best antagonist with the most toxic aflatoxin-producing Aspergillus infected onto most susceptible groundnut seeds

To identify the effect of green AgNPs, best biocontrol for the control of highly virulent and toxigenic Aspergillus strains were composed below treatments.

In vitro assay of pathogen inhibition by bacterial NPs

The seeds of the most susceptible varieties released from groundnuts were collected from the Main Oil Seed Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Gujarat. Randomly, 10 grams of undamaged kernels were picked for the study of seed infection with Aspergillus flavus. The same procedure was followed for the selection of susceptible groundnut varieties released for susceptibility and aflatoxin estimation test against the highly virulent and toxigenic Aspergillus strain. The aflatoxin was determined after 10 days of interval by LC-MS QTOF.

Detection of Ag Ions Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICPMS)

Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) can be used to find the total concentration of an element in a dissolved solution. ICP-MS works by nebulizing a solution, sending it through a spray chamber where droplets larger than 2 μm do not pass through, and then using argon plasma to ionize the atoms. The stream of ions goes through a series of cones where most of the ions do not pass through. The mass spectrometer of the instrument is kept under high vacuum along with the detector. A series of ion lenses focuses the ion stream on a mass spectrometer [20].

Ethical statement

Each technique was used in accordance with the relevant institute-specific regulations. The varieties of groundnut seeds used in the proposed research were developed and published by Junagadh Agriculture University, Gujarat, India. Therefore, no specific permission was required to obtain seeds for research. Additionally, the work does not involve any endangered or protected plant species so no further authorization is needed for collection of plant material and utilization in the proposed research.

Results

Synthesis and characterization of green silver nanoparticle antagonists

The best biocontroller isolated was utilized for the green synthesis of nanoparticles. The biosynthesized silver nanoparticles were characterized by using UV-vis spectroscopy, PSA, and Zeta Potential Analysis, Scanning Electron Microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy.

UV-vis spectroscopy

A visible colour change of the solution was observed with the identified strain Bacillus subtilis when used for the synthesis of silver nanoparticles. The UV-vis spectroscopy was used to identify the silver nanoparticles. A characteristic broad peak of silver nanoparticles was observed in the UV-visible spectra at 430 nm. The blue peak was observed to shift in the absorption spectrum from 400 to 430 nm (Fig 1A and 1B).

Fig 1. Characterization of silver nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis.

Fig 1

A: Monitoring of silver ions by change in color; B: The UV-VIS spectrum of nanoparticles.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

The nearly spherical form of the silver nanoparticles and diameters between 50 and 67 nm were verified by the SEM picture. The typical size of a nanoparticle is 62 nm (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Scanning Electron Microscope of silver nanoparticles synthesized by Bacillus subtilis.

Fig 2

Particle Size Analysis (PSA) and zeta potential

Zetapotential measurements and particle size analyses were used to examine the quality of the nanodispersion. The majority of the particles in the dispersion were found to be smaller than 70 nm (average particle size), and the zeta potential was found to be -56.9 mV, indicating the presence of a stable nanodispersion (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Characterization of green synthesized bacterial AgNPs derived from best antagonists Bacillus subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A.

Fig 3

A: Particle size distribution of silver nanoparticles; B: FITR analysis of silver nanoparticles.

Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)

To examine the reduction of AgNO3 by the Bacillus subtilis bacterial isolate (JND-KHGn-29-A) culture supernatant, FTIR measurements were made to look for any interactions between silver salts and protein molecules that could be responsible for the reduction of Ag + ions and the stabilization of AgNP. The well-known electromagnetic fingerprints in the infrared part of the spectrum are created by the amide connections between amino acid residues in proteins. Weak bands between 1632.8 cm-1 and 1655.94 cm-1 were identified in the exudates of Bacillus subtilis as weak fingerprint areas of phenyl-ring substitution overtones. The band between 1673.3 and 1758.17 cm-1 that was detected is indicative of -C = O carbonyl stretching. The starching of peaks between 1239.31 cm-1 and 1339.61 cm-1 is due to the C-N amines bending vibration of the CN amines. While peaks between 1355.04 cm-1 and 1466.91 cm-1 are related to the C-H alkanes group’s varied scissoring and bending vibrations of the C-H alkanes group. The carboxylic C-O group is responsible for the band at 1260.52 cm-1 (Fig 3B).

Antifungal assays

To determine the effective dosage of silver nanoparticles, tests were carried out on the most poisonous isolate of the Aspergillus flavus fungus, JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20. The most poisonous isolate of the Aspergillus flavus fungus, JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20, was shown to be inhibited (82.53%) by treatment T6 (PDA + 1ml NP (19: 1) + Pathogen), which was followed by treatment T3 (PDA (20 ml) +1 ml Bacillus subtilis (2.7 × 10 7 cfu) + Pathogen) (Table 1 and S1 Fig in S1 File).

Table 1. Percent growth inhibition of Aspergillus flavus by Bacillus subtilis synthesized nanoparticles.

Treatment No. Treatment % Growth inhibition of A. flavus
T1 PDA (20 ml) + Pathogen* (Control) 0.00
T2 PDA (20 ml) + Fungus + B. subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A (live antagonist)** 57.05
T3 PDA (20 ml) + 1 ml B. subtilis (2.7 × 107cfu) + Pathogen 72.53
T4 PDA + 200 μl nanoparticles (NPs) + Pathogen 56.04
T5 PDA + 500 μl NPs + Pathogen 67.03
T6 PDA + 1ml NPs (19:1) + Pathogen 82.53
T7 PDA + 2ml NPs (18:2) + Pathogen 67.03
T8 PDA + 3ml NPs (17:3) + Pathogen 25.00
T9 PDA + 4ml NPs (16:4) + Pathogen 0.00
T10 PDA + 5ml NPs (15:5) + Pathogen 0.00
S.E.M.± 0.53
C.D. @ 5% 1.56
C.V. % 2.32

* Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 (Isolate-3)—most toxic to produce aflatoxin

**NPs: nanoparticles from best antagonist Bacillus subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A; Cfu: Colony forming unit.

Microscopic examination of antagonist interaction with test pathogen

To highlight the variations in fungal mycelium growth, the impact of the interaction between treatment T2: PDA (20 ml) + Fungus + Bacillus subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A (live antagonist) was shown under SEM. The results of a microscope examination showed that Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20, the most dangerous strain of the fungus, was inhibited in its reproduction ability. Additionally, in T2 treatment, a potent antagonist formed over the pathogenic fungus’s mycelia, forming a capsule-like spherical structure. Treatment T6: PDA + 1ml of NP (19: 1) + Pathogen destroyed the mycelia of the pathogenic fungus (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) image obtained from 8 day old fungal-bacterial antagonist interaction.

Fig 4

Screening of susceptible groundnut variety and bio-efficacy of green silver nanoparticle antagonists

The Aspergillus flavus strain JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 was used to infect all 25 cultivars, and aflatoxin generation and accumulation were observed after 5 and 10 days. In this investigation, the same fungus, JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20, was used to produce aflatoxin in 25 different types of groundnut beans. Table 2 lists the five resistant and five susceptible types that were found. Among the 25 JAU-released groundnut varieties, the ground nut variety GJG-19 (101 g.kg-1) was found to be the most resistant; while the groundnut variety TG-51 (6111 g.kg-1) was shown to be the most vulnerable. After 10 days, the 25 JAU groundnut variations showed that GJG-17 (551 g.kg-1) was the most resistant variety and that GG-22 (35585 g kg-1) was the most vulnerable variety. (Tables 2 and 3 and Fig 5).

Table 2. In-vitro screening of 25 groundnut varieties for aflatoxin production by most toxic and virulent Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 at 5 and 10 days of infections.

Duration 5 days (Aflatoxin: μg.kg-1) 10 day (Aflatoxin: μg.kg-1)
Variety B1 B2 G1 G2 Total B1 B2 G1 G2 Total
GG-2 53 51 29 99 232 955 462 701 618 2737
GG-5 201 00 29 100 330 314 00 937 598 1848
GG-6 42 00 30 99 171 611 00 792 00 1403
GG-7 167 00 29 99 295 758 266 316 00 1341
GG-8 43 64 31 97 236 2964 627 419 00 4010
GG-9 42 00 30 97 169 3650 725 550 00 4925
SB-XI 64 00 00 00 101 3796 670 474 1070 6011
GG-10 231 99 00 00 330 218 246 390 00 854
GG-11 67 41 32 100 240 5674 1121 474 00 7268
GG-12 3474 342 126 107 4049 2564 230 308 570 3672
GG-13 102 43 32 103 280 12164 2030 312 00 14505
GG-14 73 00 30 00 104 8820 1214 685 00 10719
GJG-17 107 00 00 00 166 00 244 307 00 551
GJG-18 74 41 00 00 115 00 3231 2487 00 23985
GJG-19 33 68 00 00 101 26822 1234 598 00 28655
GG-15 80 78 00 00 158 18725 2136 1022 00 21883
GG-20 150 101 33 00 284 22523 365 530 00 23418
GG-21 634 113 33 00 779 13369 2033 248 00 15650
GG-22 214 103 31 00 348 32687 1460 1437 00 35585
TG-26 54 60 32 00 146 4739 539 276 00 5553
HPS-1 30 54 34 106 223 10663 1550 2959 00 15173
TG-37 3380 501 146 00 4028 4090 356 244 00 4690
TG-45 5008 459 136 00 5604 15339 2282 1132 00 18752
TG-51 4924 890 297 00 6111 12306 1548 723 00 14577
TPG-41 47 62 00 00 109 13313 1819 728 00 15859
S.Em.± 1.20 1.43 00 1.12 0.51 2.07 1.60 2.14 0.47 0.79
C.D. @ 5% 3.41 4.05 2.21 3.18 1.44 5.87 4.54 6.08 1.32 2.25
C.V. % 0.27 1.90 2.94 4.88 0.29 2.14 0.26 5.49 0.71 2.74

Table 3. List of most susceptible and resistant groundnut varieties derived with infection of most toxic Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 by LCMS-Q-TOF.

5 days 10 days
Ground nut
Variety
Total Aflatoxin (μg.kg-1) Pattern Ground nut
Variety
Total Aflatoxin
(μg.kg-1)
Pattern
GJG-19 101 Tolerant
Varieties
GJG-17 551 Tolerant
Varieties
SB-XI 101 GG-10 854
GG-14 104 GG-7 1341
TPG-41 109 GG-6 1403.35
GJG-18 115 GG-5 1848
GG-21 779 Susceptible Varieties GG-15 21883 Susceptible Varieties
TG-37 4028 GG-20 23418
GG-12 4049 GJG-18 23985
TG-45 5604 GJG-19 28655
TG-51 6111 GG-22 35585

Fig 5. Total aflatoxin production in 25 groundnut varieties by most toxic and virulent Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 after 5 and 10 days of infections.

Fig 5

Bio-efficacy of antagonists or green silver nanoparticle antagonists against aflatoxin producing Aspergillus infections in the most susceptible variety GG-22

Screening of the most susceptible variety GG-22 with AgNPs

The experiment was set up with 10 treatments to examine the effectiveness of bacterial nanoparticles in forming the aflatoxin content of the seed infected with Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG-20 in the most sensitive groundnut GG-22 (Table 4). After 7 days, LCMSQTOF was used to evaluate half of the samples, and the results showed that only the treatment T6, which used the pathogenic fungus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20, produced aflatoxin. Treatment T8 (Seed+ Pathogen+2 m1 NP), which contained NP, was shown to be the most effective since less aflatoxin (1651.15 g.Kg-1) was identified after pathogen infection. It shows that T8 therapy stops the generation of aflatoxin and the growth of the dangerous fungus Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20. Because only groundnut seeds were used in treatment T6 (Seed + Pathogen* + 2 m1 water), a high quantity of aflatoxin (5388.82 g.kg-1) was generated. The second halves of the remaining samples (treatments) were examined by ICPMS and GCMS for the detection of metal ions and fungicide. The outcome demonstrated the presence of the carbedazim fungicide carbedazim (0.025 g.g-1) and Ag particles (0.8 g.g-1) that were below MRL levels (Table 4 and Fig 6 and S2 Fig in S1 File).

Table 4. Efficacy of bacterial nanoparticles on production of seed aflatoxin content infected with Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 to most susceptible groundnut GG 22.
Treatment No. Treatment B1
μg.Kg-1
B2
μg.Kg-1
G1
μg.Kg-1
G2
μg.Kg-1
Total Aflatoxin
μg.Kg-1
T1 Seed + 2 ml Water (Control) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T2 Seed + B. subtilis** in 2 ml Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T3 Seed + B. subtilis nanoparticles (NPs)*** 2 ml 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T4 Seed + AgNo3 in 2 ml Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T5 Seed + Fungicide in 2 ml Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
T6 Seed + Pathogen* + 2 m1 Water 5388.82 ± 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 5388.82 ± 2.08
T7 Seed + Pathogen + B. subtilis + 2 m1 Water 4381.11 ± 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 4381.11 ± 3.21
T8 Seed + Pathogen +2 m1 NPs 1651.15 ± 3.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 1651.15 ± 3.06
T9 Seed + Pathogen + 1 mM AgNo3 in 2 ml Water 2403.08 ± 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2403.08 ± 5.13
T10 Seed + Pathogen+ 1 mg carbedazim in 2 ml Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

* A. flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20—most toxic to produce aflatoxin

** Bacillus subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A live antagonist- best antagonist

***NPs: nanoparticles from best antagonist B. subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A; 1ug/g = 1000ug/kg.

Fig 6. Efficacy of bacterial nanoparticles on production of seed aflatoxin content infected with Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 to most susceptible groundnut GG 20.

Fig 6

Discussion

The aim of the current work is to investigate the antifungal properties of silver nanoparticles generated from Bacillus subtilis, the most effective biocontrol agent. The potential antifungal activity of nanosized materials against Aspergillus flavus, a difficult groundnut pathogen, supports the idea that nanosizing produces antifungal activity and can serve as the best alternative to address the issue of such a significant pathogen for agriculture in the future. There are numerous synthetic antimicrobial substances that can be used in agriculture and medicine. However, the harmful effects of these agents on people and the environment, as well as widespread resistance to microbials, have led to an urgent search for microbial-based alternatives [21]. By opening up new pathways for the treatment of many diseases over the past three decades, innovations in the field of nanotechnology have revolutionized drug design and development [22]. In summary, the investigations performed as part of this thesis affirm the notion of nanosizing biocontrol microbes into biologically active substances. The highlights of the findings of these studies will be discussed in more detail.

Silver has long been known to exhibit strong toxicity to a wide range of 116 microorganisms [23] for these reasons silver-based compounds have been used extensively in many antimicrobial applications [24]. The aim of this study was the synthesis of AgNPs using a bacterial isolate, to characterize the synthesized nanoparticles and the evaluation of the antifungal activity of the synthesized AgNPs.

In the present study, the best biocontroller, i.e. Bacillus subtilis, was utilized for the green synthesis of nanoparticles, which was confirmed primarily as positive by changing the reaction mixture from the change of the blue peak in the absorption spectrum from 400 to 430 nm, indicating the production of silver nanoparticles (Ag+ to Ag0), which is in close agreement with the ranges reported by earlier researchers [2527]. The shifting of blue in the AgNO3 treated flask is attributed to the surface Plasmon resonance (SPR) that suggested the formation of AgNPs [28]. As such, it confirms the biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using the best bio controller antagonistic bacterial culture i.e. Bacillus subtilis JND-KHGn-29-A.

Furthermore, the controversy over concluding that Bacillus subtilis produces AgNPs is obscured by the characterization of AgNPs using UV-vis spectroscopy, PSA, and Zeta Potential Analysis, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. In order to investigate the reduction of AgNO 3 by the culture supernatant of Bacillus subtilis bacterial isolate no. 1 (JND-KHGn-29-A), FTIR measurements were made to look for any interactions between silver salts and protein molecules that could be responsible for the reduction of Ag + ions and the stabilization of AgNP. The amide connections of proteins between amino acid residues provide the well-recognized electromagnetic fingerprints in the infrared range. The overall FTIR pattern confirms the presence of proteins in the synthesized nanoparticles. The free amine and carbonyl groups present in the bacterial protein could possibly perform the function for the formation and stabilization of silver nanoparticles [29,30]. The biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using Bacillus sp. with a size range of 50–100 nm was reported by Safaa et al. [31], Vithiya et al. [32], Vidhya et al. [33] which support our findings. The findings of Sinha et al. [34] to identified possible interactions between silver salts and protein molecules, which could explain the reduction of Ag + ions and stabilization of AgNPs, were similar to our findings.

The existence of a plasmon absorption band at around 430 nm, which is typical of silver nanoparticles, in the absorption spectra of the silver nanoparticles, as illustrated, showed their creation. The surface of a metal resembles plasma with unbound electrons in the conduction band and positively charged nuclei. Surface Near the surface of the nanoparticles, plasmon resonance is a collective excitation of the conduction band electrons. Electrons are limited to specific vibrational modes by the particle’s size and shape. The large peak at 431 nm is caused by surface plasmons, which are unique to Ag nanoparticles and result from the collective oscillations of valence electrons in the electromagnetic field of incoming light [35].

The 25 varieties were infected with Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 and aflatoxin production and accumulations were identified at 5 and 10 days of infection. Aflatoxin extraction and LCMS-Q TOF quantification were acquired. In this study, the 25 grounds varieties apparently behaved for aflatoxin production infected with the same fungus. In this study, the five resistant and five susceptible varieties were identified. It is intriguing that certain varieties of peanuts support low toxin production, whereas other varieties support maximal production. This difference is possibly related to certain basic biochemical characteristics such as protein [36] or possibly vitamin E [37] in addition to cultivar practices. From the point of view of prevention, the challenge, therefore, appears to be to identify peanut genotypes that will support minimal toxin production by a number of fungal isolates of Aspergillus flavus and A. Parasiticus. A. Parasiticus is well recognized to be powerfully toxigenic. Shencong et al. [38] demonstrated a sensitive and selective analytical method for the determination of the residues of aflatoxin G1, G2, B1, and B2 in groundnuts using the Agilent G6410AA Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer LC / MS. Simple sample preparation techniques are used in this procedure; then LC/MS/MS. The detection thresholds for all aflatoxins in cereals were less than 1 ng.mL-1.

To evaluate the efficacy of bacterial nanoparticles in the production of seed aflatoxin content inoculated with Aspergillus flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 to the most susceptible groundnut GG-22, the experiment was served with 10 treatments. After 7 days, half of the samples were analyzed by LCMS-Q-TOF, which caused aflatoxin to only be produced for treatment T6. Among the various treatments, treatment T8, (Seed + Pathogen + 2 m1 NP) containing NP, was less significant, as less aflatoxin concentration of aflatoxin was detected (1651.15 μg.Kg-1) upon pathogen infection. Safaa et al. [31] revealed that AgNPs can be effectively against various pathogenic plant fungi. In vitro Petri dish assays indicated a significant effect on the colony formation of these two pathogens. Effective concentrations of AgNPs inhibited colony formation of B. sorokiniana and M. grisea. Growth chamber inoculation tests provided additional evidence that the two fungi that cause these diseases in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) had been greatly reduced by AgNPs. Sang et al. [39] reported fungicidal properties of silver nanoparticles against pathogenic plant fungi. Eighteen different pathogenic plant fungi were treated with AgNPs on plates of potato dextrose agar (PDA), malt extract agar, and corn meal agar. The results indicated that AgNPs possess antifungal properties against these plant pathogens at various levels and showed that the most significant inhibition of plant pathogenic fungi was observed in PDA, which supports our findings.

The majority of chemical and physical techniques for producing nanosilver are very costly and require the use of dangerous, poisonous compounds that might be harmful to the environment or human health. There is a need for an ecologically and financially viable method of synthesizing silver nanoparticles, since it is an inevitable truth that these particles must be handled by people and made more affordable for successful use. The search for such a technique has necessitated the development of biomimetic silver nanoparticle synthesis, in which biological techniques are employed to create the particles, and their application in large-scale manufacturing has been shown to be economically advantageous. As such, the synthesized AgNPs exhibited remarkable antifungal activity against Aspergillus flavus regardless of their drug resistance mechanisms and could also be considered as a potential antifungal agent. In addition to overcoming resistance and being less expensive than traditional antibiotics, fungicidal activity has demonstrated that AgNPs kill germs at low concentrations (units of ppm) without revealing acute harmful effects on human cells.

Supporting information

S1 File. S1 and S2 Figs: Detailed information on the groundnut varieties used in the proposed study and results of screening analysis.

(PDF)

pone.0297870.s001.pdf (875.5KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All data discovered or designed in this study is available in this article and in Additional files. Also, the datasets generated during the current study are available in nucleotide database of NCBI with following accession number KU984480, KU984481, KU984482, KU984483, KU984484, KU984485, KU984486, KU984487, KU984488, KU984489, KU984490. Additional raw data, which is not part of the minimal data set for this study, is available from from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ahmad A, Mukherjee P, Senapati S, Mandal D, Khan MI. (2003). Extra- intracellular biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using the Fusarium oxysporum. Colloid. Surf. B. 28:313–318. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beveridge TJ, Hughes MN, Lee H, Leung KT,Poole RK. (1997). Metal microbe interacti-ons: Contemporary approaches. Adv. Microbol. Physiol. 38:177–243. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2911(08)60158-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bruins RM, Kapil S, Oehme SW. (2000). Microbial resistance to metal in the environment. Ecoto. Environ. Saf. 45:198–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wang D, Xue B, Wang L. et al. (2021). Fungus-mediated green synthesis of nano-silver using Aspergillus sydowii and its antifungal/antiproliferative activities. Sci Rep. 11: 10356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shah MZ, Guan ZH, Din AU. et al. (2021). Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Plantago lanceolata extract and assessing their antibacterial and antioxidant activities. Sci Rep. 11:20754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 6.Groneberg DA, Giersig M, Welte T, Pison U. (2006). Nanoparticle-based diagnosis and therapy. Curr. Drug. Targets. 7:643–648. doi: 10.2174/138945006777435245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.White RJ, Budarin VL, Moir JWB, Clark JH. (2011). A sweet killer: Mesoporous polysaccharide onfined silver nanoparticles for antibacterial applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 12:5782–5796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Agbaje L, Sunday AO, Joseph AE, Paul OA. Nanomedical applications of nanoparticles for blood coagulation disorders. Environ. Nanotechnol. 14:243–277 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Agbaje L, et al. (2017). Evaluation of some biosynthesized silver nanoparticles for biomedical applications: hydrogen peroxide scavenging, anticoagulant and thrombolytic activities. J. Clust. Sci. 28:1379–1392. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cho KH, Park JE, Osaka T, Park SG. (2005). The study of antimicrobialactivity and preservative effects of nanosilver ingredient, Electrochim. Acta. 51:956–960. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Osorio-Echavarría J, Ossa-Orozco CP, et al. (2021). Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using white-rot fungus Anamorphous Bjerkandera sp. R1: influence of silver nitrate concentration and fungus growth time. Sci Rep. 11:3842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Alqahtani MA, Al Othman MR, Mohammed AE. (2020). Bio fabrication of silver nanoparticles with antibacterial and cytotoxic abilities using lichens. Sci Rep. 10:16781. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73683-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.González-Pedroza MG, Benítez ART, Navarro-Marchal SA, et al. (2023). Biogeneration of silver nanoparticles from Cuphea procumbens for biomedical and environmental applications. Sci Rep. 13:790. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26818-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Oka M, Tomioka T, Tomita K, Nishino A, Ueda S. (1994). Inactivation of Q13 enveloped viruses by a silver-thiosulfate complex, Metal Based Drug. 1:511–519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tavan M, Hanachi P, Mirjalili MH, et al. (2023). Comparative assessment of the biological activity of the green synthesized silver nanoparticles and aqueous leaf extract of Perilla frutescens (L.). Sci Rep. 13:6391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fortin D, Beveridge TJ. (2000). Mechanistic routes towards biomineral surface development, in Biomineralisatin: From biology to biotechnology and medical application, edited by Bacuerlein E, Wiley-VCH, Verlag, Germany. pp 294. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gaddam SA, Kotakadi VS, Subramanyam GK, et al. (2021). Multifaceted phytogenic silver nanoparticles by an insectivorous plant Drosera spatulata Labill var. bakoensis and its potential therapeutic applications. Sci Rep. 11:21969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Garibo D, Borbon-Nuñez HA, de Leon JND, et al. (2020). Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Lysiloma acapulcensis exhibit high-antimicrobial activity. Sci Rep. 10:12805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dipak P, Sankar NS. (2014). Extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Pseudomonas aeruginosa KUPSB12 and its antibacterial activity. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 7(4):245–250. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mitrano DM, et al. (2012). Silver nanoparticle characterization using single particle ICPMS (SPICPMS) and asymmetrical flow field flow fractionation ICPMS (AF4ICPMS). J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 27:1131–1142. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Polianciuc SI, Gurzau AE, Kuss B, Stefan MG, Loghin F. (2020). Antibiotics in the environment: causes and consequences. Med. Pharm. Rep. 93(3):231–240. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mitchell MJ, Billingsley MM, Haley RM, et al. (2020). Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 20:101–124. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Clement JL, Jarrett PS. (1994). Antibacterial Silver. Met. Based Drugs. 1(5–6):467–482. doi: 10.1155/MBD.1994.467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kalimuthu K, Babu S, Venkataraman R, Bilal D, Gurunathan MS. (2008). Biosynthesis of Silver Nanocrystals by Bacillus Licheniformis. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 65: 150–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gurunathan S, et al. (2009). Biosynthesis, Purification and Characterization of Silver Nanoparticles Using Escherichia Coli. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 74:328–335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sarangadharan S, Nallusamy S. (2015). Biosynthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles produced by Bacillus licheniformis. Int. J. Pharma Med. Biol. Sci. 4:236. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kalishwaralal K, Deepak V. Ramkumarpandian S, Nellaiah H, Sangiliyandi G. (2008).Extracellular biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles by the culture supernatant of Bacillus licheniformis. Materials Letters. 62:4411–4413. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Natarajan K. Selvaraj S, Murty VR. (2010).Microbial Production of Silver Nanoparicles. Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures. 5(1):135–140. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Babu MMG, Gunasekaran P. (2009). Production and structural characterization of crystalline silver nanoparticles from Bacillus cereus isolate. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 74:191–195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Balaji DS, et al. (2009). Extracellular biosynthesis of functionalized silver nanoparticles by strains of Cladosporium cladosporiodes fungus. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces. 68:88–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Safaa MA, Naima HAY, Nivien AY. (2015). Application of biosynthesized silver nanopaarticles for the control of land snail Eobania vermiculata and some plant pathogenic fungi. J. Nanomaterials. 10:218–904. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Vithiya K, Rajendran K, Sen S. (2014). Bacillus sp. mediated extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 6(2):525–527. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Vidhya LD, Roshmi T, Rintu T, Varghese EV, Jyothis SM, Radhakrishnan EK. (2014). Extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles by the Bacillus strain CS 11 isolated from industrialized area. 3 Biotech. 4:121–126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sinha SN, Paul D, et al. (2014). Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using fresh water alga Pithophora oedogonia (Mont.) Wittrock and evaluation of their antibacterial activity. Applied Nanoscience. 5:703–709. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Majeed KMA, Sushil K, et al. (2011). Structural and spectroscopic studies of thin film of silver nanoparticles. Applied Surface Science. 257:10607. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nagarajanv Bhat RV. (1972). Factor responsible for varietal differences in aflatoxin production in maize. J. Agr. Fed. Chem. 20:911–913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Detroy RW, Lillehoj ED, Ciegler A. (1971). Aflatoxins and related compounds. In: Ciegler A, Kadis S, Ajl SJ. Fungal toxins. Academic Press Inc. New York. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132(36):12733–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shencong LV, et al. (2019). Quantification and confirmation of four aflatoxins using LC-MS/MS QTRAP system in multiple reaction monitoring, enhanced product ion scan and MS3 modes. Eur. J. Mass Spectrometry. 26:63–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sang W, et al. (2012). Antifungal Effects of Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs) against various plant Pathogenic Fungi. Mycobiology. 40(1):53–58. doi: 10.5941/MYCO.2012.40.1.053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Arumugam Sundaramanickam

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

30 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-27369Bacteria-mediated green synthesis of nano-silver particles and their anti-fungal potentials against Aspergillus flavusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hajare,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Arumugam Sundaramanickam, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data)

3. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/am.25.2.319-321.1973

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"NO"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

ACADEMIC EDITOR:I have carefully reviewed your submission and would like to offer some feedback based on the Submission Guidelines. It is essential to ensure that your manuscript complies with the provided guidelines to enhance the quality and suitability of your work for publication.Please find below the necessary modifications:Submission Guidelines Compliance: Ensure that your manuscript aligns with the provided Submission Guidelines. This includes adhering to formatting, style, and length requirements. Particularly the Materials and Methods should moved before the results section Methodology Section Revision: The methodology section requires major revisions. Please consider the following: Sampling Procedure Details: Provide a comprehensive description of the sampling procedure, How the bacterial strain  Bacillus subtilis was  isolated? include the sampling methods. This will help readers understand about your research. Proper References: Ensure that all references in the methodology section are accurate and appropriately cited. This is crucial for establishing the credibility of your research. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-manuscript-organization

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. In table 4, Most susceptible groundnut GG 20 has mentioned but in your abstract “The GG-22 was identified as most susceptible groundnut variety and was served in further study.” has mentioned. Same you have mentioned in figure 6 that “Efficacy of bacterial nanoparticles on production of seed aflatoxin content infected with A. flavus JAM-JKB-BHA-GG20 to most susceptible groundnut GG 20”.

2. Screening of susceptible groundnut variety and bio-efficacy of antagonists green silver Nanoparticles.

After 5 days, the ground nut variety GJG-19 (101 μg.kg-1) was identified as most resistant variety whereas, ground nut variety TG-51 (6111 μg.kg-1) was identified as most susceptible variety among all 25 JAU released groundnut varieties. After 10 days, the groundnut variety GG-22 (35585 μg.kg-1) was identified as most susceptible variety whereas, GJG-17 (551 μg.kg-1) was identified as most resistant variety among 25 JAU realized groundnut varieties. The GG-22 was selected as most susceptible groundnut variety and used in further study.

Why they have used G22 for further studies not TG-51? Scientific Explanation?

3. From where you have isolated Bacillus subtilis and Aspergillus flavus?

4. Synthesis and characterization of green silver nanoparticles from best antagonist

As you have mentioned there, the cultured flasks were incubated for 48 hours at room temperature on a revolving shaker set at 200 rpm. The culture was then centrifuged for 10 minutes at 12,000 rpm. What do you mean by culture flask?

5. For this reason, the present work has been focused on the development of Ag-NPs using culture supernatant of antagonist bacteria and the evaluation of their antimicrobial activity against Aspergillus species producing aflatoxigenic, which cause serious problems about aflatoxin contamination, worldwide in agricultural commodities including groundnut.

What do you mean by cultured supernatant antagonist?

6. In figure 5, X-axis labelling “Ground varities” spelling has wrong.

Reviewer #2: English-wise, the manuscript is poorly written and needs major careful revision.

The manuscript suffers from poor information about the mechanism of synthesis of nanoparticles.

How did the bacteria synthesize the nanoparticles and stabilize NPs? What analysis proved this statement? What is the proposed mechanism?

The study lacks statistical analyses to show the significance of the results.

The discussion part is written poorly, and the available data is much more; the authors need to improve the study with more literature review.

What was the yield of biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles?

The authors are suggested including a paragraph to mention the different physical, chemical, and biological techniques for synthesis of inorganic nanoparticles and explain the superiorities of microbial synthesis of nanoparticles over traditional physical and chemical synthesis.

The abbreviations should come later than the actual words and provide the details when used for first time in the manuscript.

There are lots of spelling and grammatical mistakes that occur throughout the manuscript, for example interection, grinded, nanoparticals etc..; authors should check them carefully and need to proofread the paper by English professionals.

None of the characterization figures are clear and unsuitable; please improve their quality.

The authors must put each chemical purity or grade and make in the material and methods section.

In the SEM image, I couldn’t see any nanoparticles; I strongly recommend authors should improve the image quality. There are no measurement details in the SEM micrograph, which is very important in the analysis.

In the DLS image complete peak should be visible there is no clear data found

FTIR graph not clear provide images with clarity; Standard scanning range of FTIR is 4000-400 cm-1; the author mentioned only 1800-1100, what is the reason behind? Please provide complete scan data and discuss the functional groups.

Provide proper subheadings, change improper headings like ‘By color change’

Avoid abbreviations in the abstract part

The word ‘Anti-fungicidal activity’ should replace by ‘Anti-fungal activity’

Figure (4) is badly shown, I suggest separating that figure into five to make things clear;

Centre of the cultural plates showed visual Aspergillus growth, how can you claim that NPs inhibit the fungus more than 70%.

How the silver nanoparticles are better than the existing methods, since silver is an expensive material? How it can be cost-effective in large scale production?

What is the purification of nanoparticles in the study?

How the bacterial strains were discarded after synthesis of nanoparticles?

What is the product drying process in the study?

Invitro fungicidal activity of different concentrations of silver nanoparticles can be included (Culture plates) as visual evidence.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Surabhi Awasthi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 25;19(3):e0297870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297870.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Dec 2023

Response to Reviewers Comments

Academic Editor

1. Financial statement has been modified in the revised manuscript.

2. Data availability statement has been modified in the revised manuscript.

3. Captions for the supporting information have been provided in the revised paper.

4. Materials and method section has been moved before the result section in the revised version of paper.

5. Brief description for isolation of B. subtilis has been added in the revised draft of paper.

6. All references are properly cited in the revised paper.

7. Statement for replicates has been included in the revised paper.

8. Since, the manuscript involves most of the analysis part through various instrumentation it does not required appropriately and rigorously statistical analysis.

Reviewer 1

1. We apologize for the typographical errors in Table 4 and Figure 6. The same has been corrected in the revised paper by mentioning G22 as susceptible variety.

2. We agree with the learn reviewer that TG-51 and GG-22 were found to be the most sensitive groundnut varieties after 5 and 10 days of infection by LC-MS QTOF when 25 different groundnut varieties were screened using the most toxic A. flavus isolate JAM- JKB-BHA-GG20 respectively. The most susceptible groundnut cultivar, designated as GG-22, was tested in this research. Because less aflatoxin (1651.15 g.kg-1) was observed, treatment T8 (Seed + Pathogen + 2 m1 AgNPs) was determined to be much more effective. Hence, G-22 was designated as most susceptible varieties and used for further studies.

3. The details of isolation of Bacillus and Aspergillus species have been provided in the revised paper.

4. The culture flask means the conical flasks which were used for experiments.

5. Culture supernatant antagonist refers to a substance obtained from the liquid portion of bacterial culture which has antagonist effect by inhibiting the growth of Aspergillus which indicates the interaction and dynamics within the microbial communities.

6. Spelling of Groundnut varieties has been corrected in Figure 5.

Reviewer 2

1. We agree with the learned reviewer and the quality of English language have been improved by taking the help of person who is expert in English language.

2. As suggested by learned reviewer a brief description for synthesis of silver particles have been inserted in the revised manuscript.

3. Bacillus subtilis posses the enzyme nitrate reductase enzyme which helps in reduction and stabilization of silver nanoparticles. This is common mechanism. Synthesis of silver nanoparticles was confirmed by Utilizing UV-Visible spectroscopy, PSA and Zeta Potential Analysis, Scanning Electron Microscopy, and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. The same has been clearly mentioned in the revised paper.

4. Since, the manuscript involves most of the analysis part through various instrumentation it does not required appropriately and rigorously statistical analysis. However, all the important statistical analysis was utilized to prove the significance of study. The statistical analysis are in clearly indicates in respective tables and figures.

5. As recommended by reviewer discussion has been modified in the revised paper.

6. The yield of nanoparticles was in the range of 50 to 67 nm.

7. We agree with the learn reviewer and the paragraph superiorities of microbial synthesis of nanoparticles over traditional physical and chemical synthesis has been added in the revised manuscript.

8. Abbreviations are put later than the actual word in the revised paper as recommended by learn reviewer.

9. All spellings, grammatical and typo errors are corrected in the revised paper by taking the help of person who is native in English.

10. The purity and grade of chemical has been added in the revised paper.

11. We agree with the reviewer however, all the figures are modified as per the PACE software tools to meet the requirement of journals and also improved the quality of figures.

12. We totally agree with the learn reviewer however, FITR is shown in the range of 1800-1100 to demonstrate the best possible results by referring standard references.

13. Sub-headings are modified in the revised paper.

14. Abbreviations are removed from abstract section in revised paper.

25. The word ‘Anti-fungicidal activity’ was replace by ‘Anti-fungal activity’ in revised paper.

16. Figure 4 shows the correlation among each other and therefore it is shown together and modified through PACE to meet the journal requirements.

17. We agree with the learn reviewer however, no growth was observed for fungus across the centre well which confirmed that the growth was inhibited by more than 70%.

18. Justification for cost effective of silver nanoparticles has been provided in the revised paper under discussion section.

19. Culture was centrifuged to remove the impurities in order to obtain pure nanoparticles and is clearly mentioned in paper.

20. Bacterial strains were discarded by autoclaving them by referring safety laboratory protocols.

21. Drying process is not included in this study as we follow other standard reference published previously and hence is not mentioned in the paper.

22. We agree that the In-vitro fungicidal activity of different concentrations of silver nanoparticles can be included (Culture plates) as visual evidence and is provided as supplementary file for clear understanding. Also we have to follow journal guidelines to reduce number of tables and figures.

Other Corrections

1. All the typographical errors, minor corrections, etc. are highlighted with the track change in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297870.s002.docx (16.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Arumugam Sundaramanickam

15 Jan 2024

Bacteria-mediated green synthesis of nano-silver particles and their anti-fungal potentials against Aspergillus flavus

PONE-D-23-27369R1

Dear Dr. Hajare,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Arumugam Sundaramanickam, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I would like to appreciate author’s effort, it is highly commendable. Authors have addressed all the comments raised by me. The manuscript is now acceptable for publication

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Arumugam Sundaramanickam

15 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-27369R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hajare,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Arumugam Sundaramanickam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. S1 and S2 Figs: Detailed information on the groundnut varieties used in the proposed study and results of screening analysis.

    (PDF)

    pone.0297870.s001.pdf (875.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0297870.s002.docx (16.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data discovered or designed in this study is available in this article and in Additional files. Also, the datasets generated during the current study are available in nucleotide database of NCBI with following accession number KU984480, KU984481, KU984482, KU984483, KU984484, KU984485, KU984486, KU984487, KU984488, KU984489, KU984490. Additional raw data, which is not part of the minimal data set for this study, is available from from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES