journal article·2024-09-17Open access

Temporal Dynamics of Copper-Based Nanopesticide Transfer and Subsequent Modulation of the Interplay Between Host and Microbiota Across Trophic Levels

Xuchen Yan, Jason C. White, Erkai He, Willie J.G.M. Peijnenburg, Peng Zhang, Hao Qiu

ACS Nano· Volume 18· Issue 37

Abstract

During agricultural production, significant quantities of copper-based nanopesticides (CBNPs) may be released into terrestrial ecosystems through foliar spraying, thereby posing a potential risk of biological transmission via food chains. Consequently, we investigated the trophic transfer of two commonly available commercial CBNPs, Reap2000 (RP) and HolyCu (HC), in a plant-caterpillar terrestrial food chain and evaluated impacts on host microbiota. Upon foliar exposure (with 4 rounds of spraying, totaling 6.0 mg CBNPs per plant), leaf Cu accumulation levels were 726 ± 180 and 571 ± 121 mg kg –1 for RP and HC, respectively. HC exhibited less penetration through the cuticle compared to RP (RP: 55.5%; HC: 32.8%), possibly due to size exclusion limitations. While caterpillars accumulated higher amounts of RP, HC exhibited a slightly higher trophic transfer factor (TTF; RP: 0.69 ± 0.20; HC: 0.74 ± 0.17, p > 0.05) and was more likely to be transferred through the food chain. The application of RP promoted the dispersal of phyllosphere microbes and perturbed the original host intestinal microbiota, whereas the HC group was largely host-modulated (control: 65%; RP: 94%; HC: 34%). Integrating multiomics analyses and modeling approaches, we elucidated two pathways by which plants exert bottom-up control over caterpillar health. Beyond the direct transmission of phyllosphere microbes, the leaf microbiome recruited upon exposure to CBNPs further influenced the ingestion behavior and intestinal microbiota of caterpillars via altered leaf metabolites. Elevated Proteobacteria abundance benefited caterpillar growth with RP, while the reduction of Proteobacteria with HC increased the risk of lipid metabolism issues and gut disease. The recruited Bacteroidota in the RP phyllosphere proliferated more extensively into the caterpillar gut to enhance stress resistance. Overall, the gut microbes reshaped in RP caterpillars exerted a strong regulatory effect on host health. These findings expand our understanding of the dynamic transmission of host-microbiota interactions with foliar CBNPs exposure, and provide critical insight necessary to ensure the safety and sustainability of nanoenabled agricultural strategies.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Legume Nitrogen Fixing Symbiosis · Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity · Plant Parasitism and Resistance

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven06511, Connecticut, United States

School of Geographic Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China

Center for the Safety of Substances and Products, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven 3720BA, The Netherlands

Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden 2300RA, The Netherlands

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, Birmingham, U.K.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China · National Natural Science Foundation of China

References (64)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1021/acs.est.6b0276310.1021/acs.est.6b02763 ↗
2. 10.1021/acsagscitech.2c0009810.1021/acsagscitech.2c00098 ↗
3. 10.1038/s41565-019-0439-510.1038/s41565-019-0439-5 ↗
4. 10.1039/D0EN01129K10.1039/D0EN01129K ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.71210.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.712 ↗
6. 10.1038/s41565-020-00812-010.1038/s41565-020-00812-0 ↗
7. 10.1021/acs.jafc.0c0454610.1021/acs.jafc.0c04546 ↗
8. 10.1039/C9EN00461K10.1039/C9EN00461K ↗
9. 10.1007/s10661-015-4436-310.1007/s10661-015-4436-3 ↗
10. 10.1021/acs.est.2c0766010.1021/acs.est.2c07660 ↗
11. 10.1021/acs.est.1c0500610.1021/acs.est.1c05006 ↗
12. 10.1071/EN1901110.1071/EN19011 ↗
13. 10.1021/es103092a10.1021/es103092a ↗
14. 10.1016/j.fooweb.2018.e0011110.1016/j.fooweb.2018.e00111 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.tim.2019.04.00810.1016/j.tim.2019.04.008 ↗
16. 10.1111/nph.1792810.1111/nph.17928 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.nantod.2023.10175210.1016/j.nantod.2023.101752 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.00110.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.001 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.16376010.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163760 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.12838510.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128385 ↗
21. 10.1038/nrmicro291010.1038/nrmicro2910 ↗
22. 10.1111/1462-2920.1539210.1111/1462-2920.15392 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.06.00310.1016/j.tplants.2020.06.003 ↗
24. 10.1111/jam.1497510.1111/jam.14975 ↗
25. 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c0111310.1021/acs.jafc.2c01113 ↗
26. 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c0203710.1021/acs.jafc.2c02037 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.fct.2017.11.00110.1016/j.fct.2017.11.001 ↗
28. 10.1371/journal.pone.015463210.1371/journal.pone.0154632 ↗
29. 10.1038/s41396-020-0646-y10.1038/s41396-020-0646-y ↗
30. 10.1038/s41586-020-2185-010.1038/s41586-020-2185-0 ↗
31. 10.1038/s41598-024-62680-110.1038/s41598-024-62680-1 ↗
32. 10.1105/tpc.104.03045210.1105/tpc.104.030452 ↗
33. 10.1111/ppl.1294010.1111/ppl.12940 ↗
34. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b0033910.1021/acs.jafc.8b00339 ↗
35. 10.3390/ijms23211295010.3390/ijms232112950 ↗
36. 10.1002/fes3.26910.1002/fes3.269 ↗
37. 10.1186/s12951-017-0286-110.1186/s12951-017-0286-1 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.12479410.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124794 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.01610.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.12.00310.1016/j.tplants.2008.12.003 ↗
41. 10.1021/acsnano.8b0978110.1021/acsnano.8b09781 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.12862410.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128624 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.03.01410.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.03.014 ↗
44. 10.1021/acs.est.3c0642410.1021/acs.est.3c06424 ↗
45. 10.1021/acsomega.3c0231710.1021/acsomega.3c02317 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.15067910.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150679 ↗
47. 10.1021/acs.est.7b0073910.1021/acs.est.7b00739 ↗
48. 10.1021/acs.est.8b0059610.1021/acs.est.8b00596 ↗
49. 10.1038/srep2381910.1038/srep23819 ↗
50. 10.1093/jpe/rtab03810.1093/jpe/rtab038 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.11630010.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116300 ↗
52. 10.1021/acs.est.3c0364910.1021/acs.est.3c03649 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.06510.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.065 ↗
54. 10.1021/acsnano.3c1200910.1021/acsnano.3c12009 ↗
55. 10.1038/s41396-020-00785-x10.1038/s41396-020-00785-x ↗
56. 10.3390/agriculture1112121510.3390/agriculture11121215 ↗
57. 10.3389/fmars.2022.92613210.3389/fmars.2022.926132 ↗
58. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-30999010.1136/gutjnl-2015-309990 ↗
59. 10.1039/D1EN00740H10.1039/D1EN00740H ↗
60. 10.1186/2049-1891-5-3410.1186/2049-1891-5-34 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.envint.2021.10645210.1016/j.envint.2021.106452 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.tim.2020.06.00610.1016/j.tim.2020.06.006 ↗
63. 10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300060031x10.2136/sssaj1969.03615995003300060031x ↗
64. 10.1021/acs.est.1c0873310.1021/acs.est.1c08733 ↗