Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BioMed Research International logoLink to BioMed Research International
. 2022 Oct 3;2022:8688584. doi: 10.1155/2022/8688584

Nanotechnology for Nanophytopathogens: From Detection to the Management of Plant Viruses

Rachana Singh 1, Mohammad Kuddus 2, Pradhyumna Kumar Singh 3, Deki Choden 4,✉
PMCID: PMC9550482  PMID: 36225980

Abstract

Plant viruses are the most destructive pathogens which cause devastating losses to crops due to their diversity in the genome, rapid evolution, mutation or recombination in the genome, and lack of management options. It is important to develop a reliable remedy to improve the management of plant viral diseases in economically important crops. Some reports show the efficiency of metal nanoparticles and engineered nanomaterials and their wide range of applications in nanoagriculture. Currently, there are reports for the use of nanoparticles as an antibacterial and antifungal agent in plants and animals too, but few reports as plant antiviral. “Nanophytovirology” has been emerged as a new branch that covers nanobased management approaches to deal with devastating plant viruses. Varied nanoparticles have specific physicochemical properties that help them to interact in various unique and useful ways with viruses and their vectors along with the host plants. To explore the antiviral role of nanoparticles and for the effective management of plant viruses, it is imperative to understand all minute details such as the concentration/dosage of nanoparticles, time of application, application interval, and their mechanism of action. This review focused on different aspects of metal nanoparticles and metal oxides such as their interaction with plant viruses to explore the antiviral role and the multidimensional perspective of nanotechnology in plant viral disease detection, treatment, and management.

1. Introduction

Food security has always been the priority and important agenda around the globe to feed the large population [1]. Food sustainability is encountering a serious threat due to the manifestation of devastating infections followed by diseases in cultivated plants [2–4]. Majorly, crop infections are caused by plant pathogens such as bacteria [5], fungi [6, 7], and viruses [8–12]. Phytoviruses have been reported for several decades as the most contagious pathogens which cause drastic effects on plants. Various scientists working in plant virology have given critical reviews which have demonstrated that the heavy crop losses are due to virus diseases [13–24]. This loss can be measured in terms of both quantity and quality of produce [25]. The proper management of virus diseases of plants is always been a matter of great concern from farmers to horticulturists, manufacturers to consumers, and foresters.

For decades, nanotechnology has proved its potential for the development of effective formulations [26–28], but due to the paucity of commercial applications and its role in agriculture has not gained popularity, various studies showed the use of nanoparticles as insecticides, fungicides, or herbicides and discussed the nanoparticle formulations against a target pest. There are two mechanisms for the application of nanoparticles to safeguard plants: (i) nanoparticles themselves provide crop protection and (ii) nanoparticles used as carriers for existing pesticides, for example, the application of double-stranded RNA, can be done by spray application on foliar tissue or on roots or soaking of seeds [29, 30]. In this review, we present a focused discussion on different aspects of nanoparticles in plant viral disease detection, treatment, management, and their interaction with plant viruses. The new term is also given to this study called “nanophytovirology.”

2. Nanoparticles and Their Application against Plant Pathogens

Nanoparticles (NPs) are small materials with nanosize ranging from 1 nm to 100 nm [31, 32] and are classified based on their shape or size and also (and most importantly) on their composition (Figure 1). The different class comprises metal NPs, ceramic NPs, polymeric NPs, and fullerenes. They show unique physiochemical properties due to their large surface-to-mass ratio, high reactivity, and unique interactions with biological systems [33]. Due to these unique properties and characteristics, they have gained attention in all fields from commercial to domestic, medical [34, 35] to agriculture [36], and environment [37, 38] to energy-based research [39–41]. The use of nanoparticles for sustainable agriculture was discussed in [31, 42, 43]. Different nanoparticles are used to design biosensors for the detection of plant disease, as the delivery vehicle for genetic materials [44], such as nanofertilizers and nanopesticides [28, 45].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Diagrammatic representation of the classification of nanomaterials.

The nanoparticles could be synthesized by three different methods: biological, physical, and chemical methods. Out of these, biological approaches are considered the best, due to their nontoxic effect, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly nature [46]. The method of synthesizing nanoparticles greatly influences their geometry and further affects the physiochemical properties like morphology, size, crystal structure, and dispersity. The biosynthetic method to synthesize nanoparticles by different methods and utilizing plants and microorganisms is very diverse. Preliminary microorganisms or plant extracts are exposed to metallic salts that in turn reduce the metal to its nanosize. The nanoparticles were further characterized and made available for further applications [47–49].

Numerous evaluations have been carried out that show the applications of nanoparticles related to plant diseases are either metalloids, metallic oxides, or nonmetals, involved in disease resistance as bactericide/fungicides or nanofertilizers (Table 1) [44, 50]. The metallic nanoparticles include pure metal and metal oxides [51]. The most popular metal nanoparticles comprise silver (Ag), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), and iron (Fe), and the metal oxide nanoparticle includes compounds such as TiO2, ZnO, MgO, CuO, Cu2O, Al2O3, NiO, and SnO2 [52].

Table 1.

Types of nanoparticles and their use against plant pathogens.

Type of nanoparticles Application in plant pathology
Metalloids, metallic oxides, nonmetals, and their composites Bactericide/fungicide nanofertilizers carrier for antimicrobials and genetic material
Carbon nanomaterials Multiple uses
Single-walled or multiwalled nanotubes Antimicrobial agents, carrier for antimicrobials, and genetic material
Graphene oxide sheet (reduced or oxide forms) Antimicrobial agents, carrier for antimicrobials, and genetic material
Liposomes The delivery vehicle for genetic or antimicrobial formulations
Nanobiosensor Diagnostics, research tool
Quantum dots Diagnostics, research tool
Open in a new tab

3. Systematic Facets of Nanomaterials as Antiviral Agents

Phytoviruses are always being a challenge for farmers in terms of the production of crops and vegetables. There is a list of experiments that shows the application of different nanoparticles in bacterial and fungal diseases of plants; however, the focused study of nanoparticles on plant virus management is still in its preliminary stages, and the antiviral mechanisms of action of metal nanoparticles are not completely understood. The summary of published work and the available information concerning nanoparticles and plant viruses are gathered in Table 2.

Table 2.

Types of nanoparticles and their effect on different plant viruses.

Type of nanoparticle Plant pathogen Effect References
AgNPs Sun-hemp rosette virus Complete suppression of disease [68]
AgNPs Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) Decreased infection [41]
AgNPs Potato virus Y Resistance against virus infection [56, 67]
AgNPs Tomato spotted wilt virus Decrease in infectivity and reduced local lesions [69]
AgNPs Tomato mosaic virus Reduced disease severity and virus infection [67]
Gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) Barley yellow dwarf virus Destroyed coat protein and eliminated virus infection [124]
AuNPs Barley yellow mosaic virus Virus particles dissociated [125]
Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnONPs) TMV Reduction in the TMV invasion speed [71]
ZnONPs Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) Significant reduction in severity and incidence of disease [56]
Titanium dioxide NPs (TiO2NPs) Turnip mosaic virus Decreased viral replication and infection [115]
Iron dioxide NPs (Fe2O3 NPs) Turnip mosaic virus Effectively limits viral replication and infection [72]
Fe2O3 NPs TMV [71]
Silicon dioxide NPs (SiO2NPs) TMV Reduction in the speed of virus invasion [71]
SiO2NPs Papaya ringspot virus Suppression of disease severity and virus accumulation [116]
SiO2NPs Tomato yellow leaf curl virus Reduced disease severity and virus concentration [126]
SiO2NPs TMV Suppression in the speed of virus invasion [71]
Open in a new tab

The antiviral mechanism of NPs discussed in different studies and other different possible mechanisms (Figure 2) and the specific interactions between host (plant), vector (s), and pathogen (viruses) is summarized in (Figure 3, 4,and 5).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Diagrammatic representation of (a) virus particles infesting eukaryotic cell and (b) antiviral mechanics of metallic nanoparticle.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Mechanism of nanoparticle interaction with plant-virus system (created in http://BioRender.com).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Diagrammatic representation of effects of potential smart (nano) fertilizers in soil-plant system (adapted from Calabi-Floody et al.) (created in http://Biorender.com).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Various approaches of nanotechnology to attain antiviral protection in plants (created with http://BioRender.com).

4. Antiviral Activity of Metallic Nanoparticles for Plants

To protect the plants from pathogen invasion, the nanomaterials can be applied directly either into the soil or to seeds or foliage. This direct application is similar to the use of chemical pesticides. However, direct application of nanoparticles to the soil directly affects microorganisms, especially nitrogen-fixing and mineral solubilizing which play a significant role in plant health and nutrition. Silver nanoparticles were the first to be used in plant disease management and showed their antimicrobial activity [53]. The nanoparticle's interface with bacterial and fungal pathogens is studied very well but with viral particles is still not explored well, although some researchers studied the antiviral and virucidal mode of action of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) against plant viruses [54–56].

The antiviral mechanisms of metal nanoparticles are not very well understood, but the available studies could provide evidence of the mechanisms involved. The antiviral activity of MeNPs has been observed both in vitro and in vivo on different plants, and it is found to be effective against most of the RNA viruses. Various studies revealed that physical properties like size, shape, and surface area are the key factors to control the biological activity of any nanoparticle [57, 58]. Reports revealed that the antibacterial activity of AgNPs is size-dependent. The small size (10 nm) of AgNPs has shown more antibacterial affinity in comparison to larger ones [59]. Furthermore, the variable antimicrobial activity of nanoparticles is influenced by the shape of nanoparticles (spherical, rod-shaped, nanoshells, nanocages, nanowires, triangular, and dimensional).

The impact of AgNPs on the Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) was studied and reported that the antiviral property of NPs is due to their ability to attach to the envelope glycoprotein of the virus. It binds the disulfide bond regions of the CD4-binding domain present in the envelope glycoprotein gp120 of yellow mosaic virus and prevents entry [54]. Apart from their interaction with the surface glycoprotein of the virus, AgNPs also interact with the nucleic acid of the virus to enter into the cell and complete their antiviral activity. This experiment was intended to compare the impact of the spray of AgNPs before infection, 24 h after infection, and at the time of inoculation. Another work was also evidenced the high attachment capacity of nanoparticles of different sizes (10 and 50 nm), to virus DNA and extracellular virions. It was also observed that the AgNPs inhibited the production of viral RNA and extracellular virions in in vitro conditions, verified by UV-Vis absorption assay [60] and also found to restrict the fusion of the viral membrane by hindering viral permeation into the host cell [61].

Sun and his coworkers compared the AgNPs and gold nanoparticles and found AgNPs superior when used for cytoprotective activity towards the virus. It was a general observation that various forms of silver nanoparticles can inactivate viruses by denaturing enzymes through different reactions with self-hydra, amino, carboxyl, phosphate, and imidazole groups [62–66]. Dougdoug et al. [67] experimented with the effectiveness of AgNPs as an antiviral agent against two plant viruses, Potato virus Y (PVY) and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) and observed the effect. Different concentrations (50, 60, and 70 ppm) of AgNPs was sprayed on the plants carrying both diseases and at 50 ppm a concentration of AgNP the striking decrease in disease severity and concentration of both viruses was observed. Furthermore, the transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis of the viral sap substantiated the binding of coated protein particles of the virus to AgNPs [67]. Furthermore, a study on Sun-hemp rosette virus (SHRV) indicated complete suppression of the viral disease when spraying with AgNPs at the concentration of 50 mg/L. The detailed result showed the binding of these NPs with virus coat protein and virus inactivation is due to inhibition of virus replication [68].

The antiviral effect of AgNPs was observed against Tomato spot wilt virus (TSWV) on Chenopodium amaranticolor. Plants sprayed 24 h after inoculation showed weak infection in comparison to plants sprayed before inoculation [69]. Similar result, reduction in virus concentration and disease percentage, was reported by El-shazly et al. on potato plants against Tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV) [70], while Cyamopsis tetragonoloba, infected with Sun-hemp rosette virus (SHRV), displayed complete suppression of the disease and inactivation of virus replication [68]. The antiviral effect of ZnO and SiO2 NPs was studied on tobacco plants against TMV by Cai et al. Both NPs were applied on 3, 7, and 12 days before inoculation of virus. The plant treated 12-days before displayed an extreme antiviral effect by preventing TMV infection and spreading in new leaves [71]. Findings of his work suggest that the inhibition of TMV is due to interaction of metal NPs with envelope glycoproteins, resulting injury of TMV coat protein, and its aggregation. Hao et al. used Fe2O3 or TiO2NPs for pretreatment of tobacco plants for 21 days to check the antiviral properties against Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV). The results of the study showed a high decrease in viral proteins, in which the authors suggest could be related to the fact that the NPs interfered with either protein biosynthesis or posttranslational modification processes in the virus, and activated defense mechanisms [72]. Various reports confirmed its action against plant viruses as it successfully induced resistance to mosaic disease impeded by the virus in potato, alfalfa, cucumber, peanut, and snuff [72–74]. Malerba and Cerana reported various conceivable mechanisms of chitosan that precede the antimicrobial effects that includes disruption of the cell membrane, inhibition of toxin production and microbial growth, inhibition of H+ -ATPase activity, and preventing the synthesis of mRNA and proteins. Furthermore, their studies revealed the antiviral action of chitosan nanoparticles in bean plants infected with bean mild mosaic virus, tobacco plants infected with tobacco necrosis virus and tobacco mosaic virus [75].

Adeel et al. worked on Nicotiana benthamiana plants and given the treatment at different concentrations of titanium dioxide (TiO2) and silver (Ag) nanoparticles, C60 fullerenes, and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) at 100, 200, and 500 mg/L and observed for a 21-day foliar exposure before inoculation of Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV). Plants treated with CNTs and C60 (200 mg/L) exhibited normal phenotype, and viral symptomology was not evident at 5 days postinfection, whereas TiO2 and Ag NP-treated plants show no sign of virus infection suppression [76].

5. Nanotechnology in Diagnostics of Plant Viruses

Many molecular and serological techniques, viz., polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real time PCR, immunological assays such as Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and electrochemical immunoassay (ECIA), are being used for diagnostics and identification of plant viral pathogens [32, 77–80]. Although these techniques are efficiently and effectively detecting plant pathogens, it requires well-established laboratory settings with high-end equipment and chemical, well-trained/experienced individuals. With fast-developing technology, the hour demands to develop rapid, accurate, reliable, and miniaturized field-deployable devices which do not demand a very trained personnel [81]. The success of any management practice depends on the quick, early, and sensitive diagnostic of the infected material. Nanotechnology recommends major progress through quick and very sensitive pathogen probes in this area. Nanotechnology has gained a pace in the diagnostics of plant pathogens. Nanoparticles are being used as rapid diagnostic tools for the detection of bacterial, fungal, and nematodes, and very few reports [82, 83] are there in the diagnostics of plant virus disease. The use of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles has been used in medicine and water purification for decades [84, 85], but now, it has taken advancement, and its potential is being recently been explored in plant pathology. These magnetic nanoparticles adhere to the biological tissue and DNA, eventually facilitating the extraction and detection of the pathogen [86].

5.1. Biosensor-Based Detection

The device designed to detect the occurrence of any biological analyte, such as a biomolecule, a biological structure, or a microorganism, is known as biosensors. It consists of three parts: (i) a section that identifies the analyte and produces a signal, (ii) a signal transducer, and (iii) a reader device [87]. Various nanomaterials, basic metallic nanoparticles (carbon and gold nanoparticles), and nanospheres enhance the sensitivity of the assay when used in combination with aptamer-based detection systems.

5.2. Antibody-Based Detection

In recent years, various reports have manifested the antibody-based detection of plant viruses [88–90]. James and Lin et al. developed nanobased biosensors for the detection of the Lettuce mosaic virus, Cowpea mosaic virus, and tobacco mosaic virus with twofold increase of the sensitivity of detection in comparison to traditional methods of ELISA [89, 90]. Indirect ELISA was applied for the detection of Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) by Jiao et al. This method of ELISA consists of three steps: (i) fixation of virus antigen on the surface, (ii) treatment with specific antibodies for the detection of the virus, and (iii) incubation with an enzyme and horse shoe peroxidase- (HRP-) labeled secondary antibody. The reaction was monitored by the mercury electrode. This electrochemical enzyme-linked immunoassay (ECEIA) sensor-based method showed four times higher sensitivity in the detection of CMV in comparison to the standard spectrophotometric ELISA. This was also observed with other plant viruses such as Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV), Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), Potato virus Y (PVY), Southern bean mosaic virus (SBMV), and Tomato aspermy virus (ToAV).

In the case of immunosensors, self-assembled monolayers (SAM) were used for diagnostics of plant pathogens. In this method, gold electrodes are the most commonly used substrate for the detection of Plum pox virus (PPV) [91]. Later on, Jarocka et al. in 2013 applied the same method for the diagnostic of Prunus necrotic ringspot virus (PNRSV) and concluded that the biosensor has alike similarity as ELISA [92]. Another biosensor-based plant virus detection was discussed by Huang et al. [93]. He used the quartz crystal microbalance immune sensor that was based on SAMs for identification of Maize chlorotic mottle virus (MCMV). The sensitivity of the biosensor was found to be similar to ELISA with a detection limit of 250 ng/mL and showed high sensitivity with similar viruses such as Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV) [93]. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), a type of optical immunosensor, was initially used by Tsuda et al. [94] for the detection of the Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV). Later on, this method was employed for the diagnostic of several other viruses, Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) [95], Potato virus X (PVX) [96], Potato virus x [97], Potato virus Y (PVY), Potato virus M (PVM), and Potato virus A (PVA) with a reported sensitivity of 2 ng/mL.

An immunoassay is reported to be developed for the detection of multiple substances such as biomarkers and plant pathogens that function based on fluorescence-loaded magnetic microspheres and fluorophore antibodies [98, 99]. A study has been conducted using specific antibodies for plant viruses, Chilli vein-banding mottle virus (CVbMV), Watermelon silver mottle virus (WSMoV), and Melon yellow spot virus (MYSV) [100]. Although the techniques have shown high sensitivity for detection along with the capacity of multiple detections in a single assay, they did not become very popular due to the complexity of assays and fluorescent readers. Various reports mentioned the use of label-free biosensors, based on SPR, developed for the detection of CMV, TMV, and Lettuce mosaic virus [101–104] and for orchid viruses, Cymbidium mosaic virus (CymMV) or Odontoglossum ringspot virus (ORSV) [90]. Table 3 summarizes the application of different biosensors for the detection of various plant viruses.

Table 3.

Different biosensors used for the detection of plant viruses.

Biosensors Plant viruses Detection limit
Antibody-based Cucumber mosaic virus 0.5 ng/mL
Antibody-based Plum pox virus 10 pg/mL
Antibody-based Prunus necrotic ringspot virus —
Antibody-based Maize chlorotic mottle virus 250 ng/mL
Antibody-based Potato virus x 2 ng/mL
Antibody-based Chilli vein bending mottle virus 35.3 ng mL
Antibody-based Watermelon silver mottle virus —
Antibody-based Melon yellow spot virus —
Antibody-based Cymbidium mosaic virus 48 pg/mL
Antibody-based Odontoglossum ringspot virus 42 pg/mL
DNA-based Plum pox virus 12.8 pg/mL
DNA-based Banana bunchy top virus 15 ng/mL
DNA-based Banana streak virus 50 fm
Open in a new tab

5.3. Plant Virus Detection Based on Quantum Dots (QD)

Quantum dots (QD) are small semiconductor nanocrystals that have been used for the construction of biosensors [105]. It has been used for disease detection as it consists of a unique optical property that is used in fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) [106]. Rad et al. used this approach for the detection of phytoplasma disease known as Witches' broom disease of lime (WBDL) caused by Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia [107]. The consistent result with 100% specificity and sensitivity was achieved by this approach for approximately 5 Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia per μL. This technique was applied to detect Rhizoctonia, the disease vector of the Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV) [108].

6. Metal Nanoparticles as Biostimulants in Virus-Infected Plants

Biostimulants are substances that enhance the physiological process of plants and promote growth, development, and defense responses. When applied directly to plants or seeds, they cannot be considered pesticides or nutrients [109]. The positive or negative effect of nanoparticles on the plant is based on the type of nanoparticles and the condition of the plant [110, 111]. Healthy tobacco plants were studied for the effect of SiO2, Fe2O3, and ZnO nanoparticles and observed to have increased growth [112, 113]. When the effect of NiONPs was observed on the virus-infected cucumber plants by foliar spray and soil drench, it showed an increased number of leaves along with higher fresh and dry weight [114]. The tobacco plant infected with Turnip mosaic virus was being treated with foliar spray of TiO2 and FeO3 with the concentration of 50 mg/L and observed with enhanced fresh and dry weight, whereas no effect was observed with the treatment of 200 mg/L in comparison to nontreated plants [115]. When the Potato virus Y-infested tubers were treated with AgNPs, they have shown improved quality parameters in comparison to infected but not treated plants. The reason may be the provocation of resistance or the effect of nanoparticles on virus entry [70, 113].

7. NPs as an Option to Control of Plant Viral Pathogens

7.1. Application of NPs in Plant Defense Induction and Viral Repression

7.1.1. Antioxidant System

Under stress conditions (biotic or abiotic), the plant response is observed by increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) that limits the entry of the pathogen and its dissemination and stimulates local and systemic defense responses [71]. When the ROS level increases than the threshold, oxidative stress is being produced and this interrupts the steadiness between ROS and antioxidants. The role of antioxidants in plants is to counterpoise the antioxidants effect. Superoxide dismutase (SOD) acts as the initial boundary of defense and coverts the O2 into water and H2O2 [113, 114]. The enzymes like catalase, ascorbate peroxidase, and guaiacol peroxidase make antioxidant systems [113]. The type of metal nanoparticles, their concentration, and the culture type define the interaction of metal nanoparticles with cellular redox homeostasis and alter the incident of oxidative stress inducing or reducing it [114]. The foliar application of Fe3O4 NPs to tobacco leaves resulted in enhanced production of ROS, which indicates the stimulation of resistance against the virus in tobacco [71]. When cucumber plants were treated with SiO2 NP, they displayed the expression of pox and pal genes a day after inoculation of PRSV [116]. A similar observation was reported, with increased pod gene expression, when cucumber plants were treated with NiO NPs, after four days of CMV inoculation [112]. The AgNP-treated tomato plants when inoculated with TMV and PVY revealed a major increase in the activity of enzymes such as polyphenol oxidase and antioxidant enzyme POD [67, 117].

7.1.2. Plant Hormones and Pathogenesis-Related Proteins

Plant hormones play important roles in the defense mechanism of the plant. The phytohormones like salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene are the key factors to regulate pathways involved in the defense mechanism and induce appropriate responses. The other phytohormones which can modulate plant defense and responses are auxins, cytokinins, gibberellin, abscisic acid, brassinosteroids, and strigolactone. Different hormonal pathways are up- or downregulated in different types of stress. Nanoparticles have been shown to stimulate hormonal balance in plants [110]. Various studies and discussions concluded that the expression of any particular plant hormone is completely dependent on the particular interaction of plant and metal nanoparticles together with the dose and time of application. Vincovi'c et al. reported that treatment of Capsicum annum L plants with AgNPs increases cytokinin [117]. Tobacco plants infested with TMV, when given the treatment of Fe2O3 and TiO2 NPs, influence the levels of zeatin, ribose (ZR), abscisic acid, and brassinosteroid (BR) phytohormones [115]. When the treatment of similar nanoparticles was given to tobacco, plants infected with TuMV showed an enhanced level of BR and ZR, but the decrease in ABA concentration was observed. Various other reports suggest that treatment of ZnO and SiO2 [111] to uninfected tobacco plants upregulated salicylic acid- (SA-) induced pathogenesis and a similar effect was reported for Fe3O4 NPs [111].

8. Conclusion

Nanophytovirology is a very promising field towards sustainable crop protection against viruses. The different nanoparticles and their applications have tremendous potential to deal with plant virus disease-related problems. Among plant viruses, DNA plant viruses specially geminiviruses [118] are a continuous threat to farmers and cause a serious threat to the crops [12, 119]. It consists of a very wide host range, with varied symptoms. Geminivirus constitutes a major and rapidly emerging group [120, 121] of circular, single-stranded plant viruses. Various countries like the United States, Africa, India, and Pakistan have reported large crop losses due to geminivirus infection, worth several million dollars [10, 122, 123]. Moreover, the effect of nanomaterials in the tripartite interaction of plant-viruses-vector is still not known. Although various roles and uses have already been studied, precise complementary methodologies are needed to establish so that a ready-to-use technology could be given to farmers without posing any risk to the environment or consumers. This additional information and knowledge are required to particularize the doses, the stage of the plant for application, and the particular type of NPs that can produce the greatest advantages. In addition, the effect of nanoparticles on the virus-vector relationship also needs to be explored, whether it is dose-dependent or stage-dependent. It is important to say that for sustainable management of phytoviruses, the multidisciplinary research is required with proper planning, development, and implementation of nanobased antiviral strategies.

Conflicts of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Rachana Singh and Deki Choden were involved in designing, conception, and revising of the manuscript critically for intellectual content. Mohammad Kuddus and Pradhyumna Kumar Singh were involved in critically examining the manuscript and incorporation important relevant information.

References

  • 1.Kleve S., Booth S., Davidson Z. E., Palermo C. Walking the food security tightrope-exploring the experiences of low-to-middle income Melbourne households. International journal of environmental research and public health . 2018;15(10):p. 2206. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Woolhouse M. E., Haydon D. T., Antia R. Emerging pathogens: the epidemiology and evolution of species jumps. Trends in ecology & evolution . 2005;20(5):238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cleaveland S., Haydon D. T., Taylor L. Overviews of pathogen emergence: which pathogens emerge, when and why? Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology . 2007;315:85–111. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jones R. A. C. Plant virus emergence and evolution: origins, new encounter scenarios, factors driving emergence, effects of changing world conditions, and prospects for control. Virus Research . 2009;141(2):113–130. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2008.07.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sudheep N. M., Marwal A., Lakra N., Anwar K., Mahmood S. Fascinating fungal endophytes role and possible applications. In: Singh D. P., editor. Plant-Microbe Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives . Singapore: Springer; 2017. pp. 255–273. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Prajapat R., Marwal A., Jha P. N. Erwinia carotovora associated with potato: a critical appraisal with respect to Indian perspective. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences . 2013;2:83–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mahmood S., Lakra N., Marwal A., Sudheep N. M., Anwar K. Singh. Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives . Springer; 2017. Crop genetic engineering: an approach to improve fungal resistance in plant system; pp. 581–591. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gaur R. K., Prajapat R., Marwal A., Sahu A., Rathore M. S. First report of a begomovirus infecting Mimosa pudica in India. Journal of Plant Pathology . 2011;93:p. 80. doi: 10.4454/jpp.v93i4.2394. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Singh R., Srivastava A. Prevention and control of viral diseases of crops. Applied Plant Virology: Advances, Detection and antiviral strategies . 2020;1:593–599. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818654-1.00041-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singh R., Raj S. K., Prasad V. Molecular characterization of a strain of squash leaf curl China virus from North India. Journal of Phytopathology . 2008;156(4):222–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2007.01347.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Singh R., Raj S. K., Chandra G. Association of a monopartite begomovirus with yellow mosaic disease of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) in India. Plant Disease . 2001;85(9):p. 1029. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.9.1029C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raj S. K., Snehi S. K., Khan M. S., Singh R., Khan A. A. Molecular evidence for association of Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus with leaf curl disease of papaya (Carica papaya L.) in India. Australasian Plant Disease Notes . 2008;3:152–155. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Klinkowski M. Catastrophic plant diseases. Annual Review of Phytopathology . 1970;8(1):37–60. doi: 10.1146/annurev.py.08.090170.000345. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lana A. F., Adegbola M. O. K. Important virus diseases in West African crops. Review of Plant pathology . 1977;56(1):849–868. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bos L. Crop losses caused by viruses. Crop Protection . 1982;1(3):263–282. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(82)90002-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Barnett O. W., Diachun S. Edwardson S. R., Cristie R. G., editors. Virus diseases of clovers: etiology and crop losses. Viruses Infecting Forage Legumes II . 1986. pp. 625–675.
  • 17.Martelli G. P. Virus and virus-like diseases of the grapevine in the Mediterranean area. FAO plant protection bulletin . 1986;34:25–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Godo G. General synthesis of national reports on the African cassava mosaic and its control. In: Fauquet C., Fargette D., editors. La mosaique du Manioc et son Control . Paris, France: ORSTOM; 1988. pp. 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lovisolo O., Caciagli P. Tentativi di valutazione dei danni causati alle colture da malattie virali e similvirali. Informatore Fitopatologico . 1989;10:33–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Agrios G. N. Economic considerations. In: Mandahar C. L., editor. Plant Viruses. Vol. II. Pathology . CRC Press; 1990. pp. 2–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roistacher C. N., Moreno P. The worldwide threat from destructive isolates of citrus tristeza virus. A review. Eleventh Conference of the International Organization of Citrus Virologists; 1991; U C Riverside. pp. 7–19. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Thottappilly G. Plant virus diseases of importance to African agriculture∗. Journal of Phytopathology . 1992;134(4):265–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1992.tb01236.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rush C. M., Heidel G. B. Fuvovirus diseases of sugar beets in the United States. Plant Disease . 1995;79(9):868–875. doi: 10.1094/PD-79-0868. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Almeida R. P. P. Emerging plant disease epidemics: biological research is key but not enough. PLoS Biology . 2018;16(8):p. e2007020. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2007020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nicaise V. Crop immunity against viruses: outcomes and future challenges. Frontiers in plant science . 2014;5:p. 660. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00660). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu R., Lal R. Potentials of engineered nanoparticles as fertilizers for increasing agronomic productions. Science of the total environment . 2015;514:131–139. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.01.104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Prasad R., Kumar V., Prasad K. S. Nanotechnology in sustainable agriculture: present concerns and future aspects. African Journal of Biotechnology . 2014;13:705–713. doi: 10.5897/AJBX2013.13554. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tarafder C., Daizy M., Alam M. M., et al. Formulation of a hybrid nanofertilizer for slow and sustainable release of micronutrients. ACS Omega . 2020;5(37):23960–23966. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.0c03233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Elizabeth A., Worrall A. H., Karishma T., Mody N. M., Pappu H. R. Nanotechnology for Plant Disease Management. Agronomy . 2018;8:p. 285. doi: 10.3390/agronomy8120285. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Khan I., Saeed K., Khan I. Nanoparticles: properties, applications and toxicities. Arabian Journal of Chemistry . 2019;12(7):908–931. doi: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.05.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Srivastava A., Singh R. Nanoparticles for sustainable agriculture and their effect on plants. Current Nanoscience . 2021;17(1):58–69. doi: 10.2174/1573413716999200403152439. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Khan A. A., Naqvi Q. A., Khan M. S., Singh R., Raj S. K. First report of a begomovirus infecting calendula in India. Plant pathology . 2005;54(4):p. 569. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2005.01220.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhuang J., Gentry R. W. Biotechnology and nanotechnology risk assessment: minding and managing the potential threats around us . ACS Symposium Series; 2011. Environmental application and risks of nanotechnology: a balanced view; pp. 41–67. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Loureiro A., Azoia N. G., Gomes A. C., Cavaco-Paulo A. Albumin-based nanodevices as drug carriers. Current Pharmaceutical Design . 2016;22(10):1371–1390. doi: 10.2174/1381612822666160125114900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nikalje A. P. Nanotechnology and its applications in medicine. Medicinal Chemistry . 2015;5(2):1–9. doi: 10.4172/2161-0444.1000247. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Srivastava A., Chuhan S. P., Singh Effect of silver nanoparticles on the growth and development of Indian brassica and Cicer arietinum. Research Journal of Biotechnology . 2021;16:94–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ripp S., Henry T. B. Biotechnology and Nanotechnology Risk Assessment: Minding and Managing the Potential Treats around US . ACS symposium series; 2011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Golobič M., Jemec A., Drobne D., Romih T., Kasemets K., Kahru A. Upon exposure to Cu nanoparticles, accumulation of copper in the isopod Porcellio scaber is due to the dissolved Cu ions inside the digestive tract. Environmental Science and Technology . 2012;46(21):12112–12119. doi: 10.1021/es3022182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Avasare V., Zhang Z., Avasare D., Khan I., Qurashi A. Room-temperature synthesis of TiO2 nanospheres and their solar driven photoelectrochemical hydrogen production. International Journal of Energy Research . 2015;39(12):1714–1719. doi: 10.1002/er.3372. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ning F., Shao M., Xu S., et al. TiO2/graphene/NiFe-layered double hydroxide nanorod array photoanodes for efficient photoelectrochemical water splitting. Energy & Environmental Science . 2016;9(8):2633–2643. doi: 10.1039/C6EE01092J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang Y., Sun C., Xu C., et al. Preliminary experiments on nano-silver against tobacco mosaic virus and its mechanism. Tobacco Science and Technology . 2016;49:22–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sinha K., Ghosh J., Sil P. C. New pesticides: a cutting-edge view of contributions from nanotechnology for the development of sustainable agricultural pest control. In: Mihai A., editor. New Pesticides and Soil Sensors . Cambridge, MA, USA: Grumezescu. Academic Press; 2017. pp. 47–79. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Balaure P. C., Gudovan D., Gudovan I. New pesticides and soil sensors . Academic Press; 2017. Nanopesticides: a new paradigm in crop protection; pp. 129–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Elmer W., White J. C. The future of nanotechnology in plant pathology. Annual Review of Phytopathology . 2018;56(1):111–133. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-050108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ahmadian K., Jalilian J., Pirzad A. Nano-fertilizers improved drought tolerance in wheat under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management . 2021;244, article 106544 doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ni D., Bu W., Ehlerding E. B., Cai W., Shi J. Engineering of inorganic nanoparticles as magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Chemical Society Reviews . 2017;46(23):7438–7468. doi: 10.1039/C7CS00316A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Iravani S. Green synthesis of metal nanoparticles using plants. Green Chemistry . 2011;13(10):2638–2650. doi: 10.1039/c1gc15386b. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mittal A. K., Chisti Y., Banerjee U. C. Synthesis of metallic nanoparticles using plant extracts. Biotechnology advances . 2013;31(2):346–356. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Alghuthaymi M. A., Almoammar H., Rai M., Said-Galiev E., Abd-Elsalam K. A. Myconanoparticles: synthesis and their role in phytopathogens management. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment . 2015;29(2):221–236. doi: 10.1080/13102818.2015.1008194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Datnoff L. E., Elmer W. H., Huber D. M., editors. Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease . St. Paul, MN: APS Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sanchez-Dominguez M., Boutonnet M., Solans C. A novel approach to metal and metal oxide nanoparticle synthesis: the oil-in-water microemulsion reaction method. Journal of nanoparticle research . 2009;11(7):1823–1829. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9660-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rajput V., Minkina T., Behal A., et al. Effects of zinc-oxide nanoparticles on soil, plants, animals and soil organisms: a review. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management . 2018;9:76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.enmm.2017.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Richards R. M. Antimicrobial action of silver nitrate. Microbios . 1981;31(124):83–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Elbeshehy E. K., Elazzazy A. M., Aggelis G. Silver nanoparticles synthesis mediated by new isolates of Bacillus spp., nanoparticle characterization and their activity against bean yellow mosaic virus and human pathogens. Frontiers in microbiology . 2015;6:p. 453. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cordero T., Mohamed M. A., López-Moya J. J., Daròs J. A. A recombinant potato virus Y infectious clone tagged with the rosea1 visual marker (pvy–ros1) facilitates the analysis of viral infectivity and allows the production of large amounts of Anthocyanins in plants. Frontiers in microbiology . 2017;8:p. 611. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hao Y., Cao X., Ma C., et al. Potential applications and antifungal activities of engineered nanomaterials against gray mold disease agent Botrytis cinerea on rose petals. Frontiers in Plant Science . 2017;8:p. 1332. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kreibig U., Vollmer M. Optical properties of metal clusters. Springer Series in Material Science . 1995;25 doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-09109-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mulvaney P. Surface plasmon spectroscopy of nanosized metal particles. Langmuir . 1996;12(3):788–800. doi: 10.1021/la9502711. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Morones J. R., Elechiguerra J. L., Camacho A., et al. The bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticles. Nanotech . 2005;16(10):2346–2353. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/16/10/059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lara H. H., Ayala-Núñez N. V., Ixtepan Turrent L. C., Rodríguez Padilla C. Bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticles against multidrug–resistant bacteria. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology . 2010;26(4):615–621. doi: 10.1007/s11274-009-0211-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mehrbod P., Motamed N., Tabatabaian M., Soleimani Estyar R., Amini E., Shahidi M. In vitro antiviral effect of “nanosilver” on influenza virus. Daru . 2009;17:88–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Borkow G., Gabbay J. Putting copper into action: copper–impregnated products with potent biocidal activities. FASEB Journal . 2004;18(14):1728–1730. doi: 10.1096/fj.04-2029fje. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Borkow G., Gabbay J. Copper, an ancient remedy returning to fight microbial, fungal and viral infections. ACS Chemical Biology . 2009;3:272–278. doi: 10.2174/187231309789054887. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Baker C., Pradhan A., Pakstis L., Pochan D. J., Shah S. I. Synthesis and antibacterial properties of silver nanoparticles. Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology . 2005;5(2):244–249. doi: 10.1166/jnn.2005.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ruparelia J. P., Chatterjee A. K., Duttagupta S. P., Mukherji S. Strain specificity in antimicrobial activity of silver and copper nanoparticles. Acta Biomaterialia . 2008;4(3):707–716. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2007.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rai M., Yadav A., Gade A. Silver nanoparticles as a new generation of antimicrobials. Biotechnology Advances . 2009;27(1):76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2008.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.El-Dougdoug N. K., Bondok A. M., El-Dougdoug K. A. Evaluation of silver nanoparticles as antiviral agent against ToMV and PVY in tomato plants. Sciences . 2018;8:100–111. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Jain D. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles and their application in plant virus inhibition. Journal of mycology and plant pathology . 2014;44:21–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Shafie R. M., Salama A. M., Farroh K. Y. Silver nanoparticles activity against tomato spotted wilt virus. Middle East Journal of Agriculture Research . 2018;7:1251–1267. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.El-shazly M., Attia Y., Kabil F., Anis E., Hazman M. Inhibitory effects of salicylic acid and silver nanoparticles on potato virus Y-infected potato plants in Egypt. Middle East Journal of Agriculture Research . 2017;6:835–848. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Cai L., Liu C., Fan G., Liu C., Sun X. Preventing viral disease by ZnONPs through directly deactivating TMV and activating plant immunity in Nicotiana benthamiana. Environmental Science: Nano . 2019;6(12):3653–3669. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kochkina Z., Pospeshny G., Chirkov S. Inhibition by chitosan of productive infection of T-series bacteriophages in the Escherichia coli culture. Mikrobiologiia . 1994;64:211–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Chirkov S. The antiviral activity of chitosan (review) Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology . 2002;38(1):1–8. doi: 10.1023/A:1013206517442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Kashyap P. L., Xiang X., Heiden P. Chitosan nanoparticle based delivery systems for sustainable agriculture. International journal of biological macromolecules . 2015;77:36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.02.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Malerba M., Cerana R. Chitosan effects on plant systems. International journal of molecular sciences . 2016;17(7):p. 996. doi: 10.3390/ijms17070996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.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. Journal of Hazardous Materials . 2021;404, article 124167 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zein H. S., Miyatake K. Development of rapid, specific and sensitive detection of cucumber mosaic virus. African Journal of Biotechnology . 2009;8:751–759. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sun W., Jiao K., Zhang S., Zhang C., Zhang Z. Electrochemical detection for horseradish peroxidase-based enzyme immunoassay using p-aminophenol as substrate and 12 its application in detection of plant virus. Analytica Chimica Acta . 2001;434:43–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zein H. S., da Silva J. A. T., Miyatake K. Antigenic properties of the coat of Cucumber mosaic virus using monoclonal antibodies. Journal of virological methods . 2009;162(1-2):223–230. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Raj S. K., Singh R., Pandey S. K., Singh B. P. Association of geminivirus with a leaf curl disease of Sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) in India. European journal of plant pathology . 2003;109(5):467–470. doi: 10.1023/A:1024237322397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Chartuprayoon N., Rheem Y., Ng J. C. K., Nam J., Chen W., Myung N. V. Polypyrrole nanoribbon based chemiresistive immunosensors for viral plant pathogen detection. Analytical Methods . 2013;5(14):3497–3502. doi: 10.1039/c3ay40371h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Boonham N., Glover R., Tomlinson J., Mumford R. Exploiting generic platform technologies for the detection and identification of plant pathogens. In: Collinge D. B., editor. Sustainable Disease Management in a European Context . BM Cooke: L Munk; 2008. pp. 355–363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Yao K. S., Li S. J., Tzeng K. C., et al. Fluorescence silica nanoprobe as a biomarker for rapid detection of plant pathogens. Advanced Materials Research . 2009;79-82:513–516. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.79-82.513. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Li X. M., Xu G., Liu Y., He T. Magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles: synthesis and application in water treatment. Nanoscience & Nanotechnology-Asia . 2011;1:14–24. doi: 10.2174/2210681211101010014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Tartaj P., del Puerto M. M., Veintemillas-Verdaguer S., Gonzalez-Carreno T., Serna C. J. The preparation of magnetic nanoparticles for applications in biomedicine. Journal of physics D: Applied physics . 2003;36(13):R182–R197. doi: 10.1088/0022-3727/36/13/202. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Ahmadov S., Ramazanov M. A., Sienkiewicz A., Forro L. Uptake and intracellular trafficking of super paramagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) in plants. Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures . 2014;9:1149–1157. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Cash K. J., Plaxco K. W. Signal transduction with a swing. Nature Chemistry . 2021;13(5):392–393. doi: 10.1038/s41557-021-00692-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Perdikaris A., Vassilakos N., Yiakoumettis I., Kektsidou O., Kintzios S. Development of a portable, high throughput biosensor system for rapid plant virus detection. Journal of virological methods . 2011;177(1):94–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.06.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.James C. Polypyrrole nanoribbon based chemiresistive immunosensors for viral plant pathogen detection. Analytical Methods . 2013;5(14):3497–3502. doi: 10.1039/c3ay40371h. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Lin H. Y., Huang C. H., Lu S. H., Kuo I. T., Chau L. K. Direct detection of orchid viruses using nanorod-based fiber optic particle plasmon resonance immunosensor. Biosensors and Bioelectronics . 2014;51:371–378. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2013.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Jarocka U., Wąsowicz M., Radecka H., Malinowski T., Michalczuk L., Radecki J. Impedimetric immunosensor for detection of plum pox virus in plant extracts. Electroanalysis . 2011;23(9):2197–2204. doi: 10.1002/elan.201100152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Jarocka U., Radecka H., Malinowski T., Michalczuk L., Radecki J. Detection of Prunus necrotic ringspot virus in plant extracts with impedimetric immunosensor based on glassy carbon electrode. Electroanalysis . 2013;25(2):433–438. doi: 10.1002/elan.201200470. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Huang X., Xu J., Ji H.-F., Li G., Chen H. Quartz crystal microbalance based biosensor for rapid and sensitive detection of maize chlorotic mottle virus. Analytical Methods . 2014;6(13):4530–4536. doi: 10.1039/c4ay00292j. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Tsuda S., Mitsuro K.-I., Hanada K., Kouda Y., Hikata M., Tomaru K. Novel detection and identification technique for plant viruses: rapid immunofilter paper assay (RIPA) Plant Disease . 1992;76:466–469. doi: 10.1094/PD-76-0466. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Salomone A., Mongelli M., Roggero P., Boscia D. Reliability of detection of citrus tristeza virus by an immunochromatographic lateral flow assay in comparison with ELISA. Journal of Plant Pathology . 2004;86:43–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Danks C., Barker I. On-site detection of plant pathogens using lateral-flow devices∗. EPPO Bulletin . 2000;30(3-4):421–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.2000.tb00922.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Drygin Y. F., Blintsov A. N., Grigorenko V. G., et al. Highly sensitive field test lateral flow immunodiagnostics of PVX infection. Applied microbiology and biotechnology . 2012;93(1):179–189. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3522-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Kim J. H., Kim S. K., Wang K. C. Ischemia/angiogenesis-related molecules and cells. In: Cho B. K., Tominaga T., editors. Moyamoya disease update . Tokyo: Springer; 2010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Mushaben E. M., Brandt E. B., Hershey G. K. K., Le Cras T. D. Differential effects of rapamycin and dexamethasone in mouse models of established allergic asthma. PLoS One . 2013;8(1):p. e54426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Charlermroj R., Himananto O., Seepiban C., et al. Multiplex detection of plant pathogens using a microsphere immunoassay technology. PLoS One . 2013;8(4):p. e62344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Boltovets P. M., Boyko V. R., Kostikov I. Y., Dyachenko N. S., Snopok B. A., Shirshov Y. M. Simple method for plant virus detection: effect of antibody immobilization technique. Journal of Virological Methods . 2002;105(1):141–146. doi: 10.1016/S0166-0934(02)00098-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Torrance L., Ziegler A., Pittman H., Paterson M., Toth X., Eggleston I. Oriented immobilisation of engineered single-chain antibodies to develop biosensors for virus detection. Journal of virological methods . 2006;134(1-2):164–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Skottrup P., Hearty S., Frøkiær H., et al. Detection of fungal spores using a generic surface plasmon resonance immunoassay. Biosensors and Bioelectronics . 2007;22(11):2724–2729. doi: 10.1016/j.bios.2006.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Skottrup P., Nicolaisen M., Justesen A. F. Rapid determination of Phytophthora infestans sporangia using a surface plasmon resonance immunosensor. Journal of microbiological methods . 2007;68(3):507–515. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2006.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Frasco M. F., Chaniotakis N. Semiconductor quantum dots in chemical sensors and biosensors. Sensor . 2009;9(9):7266–7286. doi: 10.3390/s90907266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Algar W. R., Krull U. J. Quantum dots as donors in fluorescence resonance energy transfer for the bioanalysis of nucleic acids, proteins, and other biological molecules. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry . 2008;391(5):1609–1618. doi: 10.1007/s00216-007-1703-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Rad F., Mohsenifar A., Tabatabaei M., et al. Detection of Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia with a quantum dots fret-based biosensor. Journal of Plant Pathology . 2012;94:525–534. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Safarpour H., Safarnejad M. R., Tabatabaei M., et al. Development of a quantum dots FRET-based biosensor for efficient detection ofPolymyxa betae. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology . 2012;34(4):507–515. doi: 10.1080/07060661.2012.709885. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.du Jardin P. Plant biostimulants: definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia horticulturae . 2015;196:3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Vazquez-Hernandez C., Feregrino-Perez A. A., Perez-Ramirez I., et al. Controlled elicitation increases steviol glycosides (SGs) content and gene expression-associated to biosynthesis of SGs in Stevia rebaudiana B. cv. Morita II. Industrial Crops and Products . 2019;139, article 111479 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111479. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Rastogi A., Zivcak M., Sytar O., et al. Impact of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on plant: a critical review. Frontiers in chemistry . 2017;5:p. 78. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2017.00078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Cai L., Liu C., Fan G., Liu C., Sun X. Preventing viral disease by ZnONPs through directly deactivating TMV and activating plant immunity inNicotiana benthamiana. Environmental Science: Nano . 2019;6(12):3653–3669. doi: 10.1039/C9EN00850K. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Farooq T., Adeel M., He Z., et al. Nanotechnology and plant viruses: an emerging disease management approach for resistant pathogens. ACS Nano . 2021;15(4):6030–6037. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.0c10910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Derbalah A. S. H., Elsharkawy M. M. A new strategy to control cucumber mosaic virus using fabricated NiO-nanostructures. Journal of Biotechnology . 2019;306:134–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2019.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Hao Y., Yuan W., Ma C., et al. Engineered nanomaterials suppress turnip mosaic virus infection in tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana) Environmental Science: Nano . 2018;5(7):1685–1693. doi: 10.1039/C8EN00014J. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Tan B. L., Norhaizan M. E., Liew W. P. P., Sulaiman R. H. Antioxidant and oxidative stress: a mutual interplay in age-related diseases. Frontiers in pharmacology . 2018;9:p. 1162. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Hao Y., Fang P., Ma C., et al. Engineered nanomaterials inhibit Podosphaera pannosa infection on rose leaves by regulating phytohormones. Environmental research . 2019;70:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Soares C., Pereira R., Fidalgo F. Metal-based nanomaterials and oxidative stress in plants: current aspects and overview. In: Faisal M., Saquib Q., Alatar A., Al-Khedhairy A., editors. Phytotoxicity of Nanoparticles . 2018. pp. 197–227. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Elsharkawy M. M., Mousa K. M. Induction of systemic resistance againstPapaya ring spot virus(PRSV) and its vectorMyzus persicaebyPenicillium simplicissimumGP17-2 and silica (SiO2) nanopowder. International journal of pest management . 2015;61(4):353–358. doi: 10.1080/09670874.2015.1070930. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Vinković T., Novák O., Strnad M., et al. Cytokinin response in pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.) exposed to silver nanoparticles. Environmental research . 2017;156:10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Rojas M. R., Hagen C., Lucas W. J., Gilbertson R. L. Exploiting chinks in the plant’s armor: evolution and emergence of geminiviruses. Annual Review of Phytopathology . 2005;43(1):361–394. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.040204.135939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.García-Arenal F., Zerbini F. M. Life on the edge: geminiviruses at the interface between crops and wild plant hosts. Annual Review of Virology . 2019;6(1):411–433. doi: 10.1146/annurev-virology-092818-015536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Tiwari A. K., Snehi S. K., Singh R., Raj S. K., Rao G. P., Sharma P. K. Molecular identification and genetic diversity among six Begomovirus isolates affecting cultivation of cucurbitaceous crops in Uttar Pradesh, India. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection . 2011;45(1):62–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Briddon R. W., Markham P. G. Cotton leaf curl virus disease. Virus Research . 2000;71(1-2):151–159. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1702(00)00195-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Malathi V. G., Radhakrishnan G., Varma A. Cotton. In: Loebenstein G., Thottappilly G., editors. Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Major Crops in Developing Countries . Dordrecht: Springer: Netherlands; 2003. pp. 743–754. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Moffat A. S. Geminiviruses emerge as serious crop threat. Science . 1999;286(5446):1835–1835. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5446.1835. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BioMed Research International are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES