Fig 1.
Shoot length measurement in rose plants for assessment of physical growth parameter.
Fig 2.
Shoot length measurement in cestrum plants for assessment of physical growth parameter.
Fig 3.
In vitro cultures of rose plants established from nodal explant in MS media supplemented with BAP 2 mg/l captured during micro propagation after 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 days of inoculation (A to E) respectively.
Fig 4.
In vitro cultures of Cestrum plants established from nodal explant in MS media supplemented with BAP 2 mg/l captured during micropropagation after 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 days of inoculation (A to E) respectively.
Table 1.
Determination of anti-contaminant potential of AgNPs treatment on in vitro cultures of Cestrum and Rose: a percentage calculated after 90 days of incubation in control medium MS media supplemented with BAP 2 mg/l and same medium having AgNPs in concentration of 1, 3, and 5 ppm as Treatment I, 2 and 3 respectively.
Fig 5.
Rose micro plants exposed in AgNPs treatments: (A) Treatment-1, 2 ppm of AgNPs; (B) Treatment-2, 3 ppm of AgNPs; and (C) Treatment-3, 5 ppm of AgNPs; was in MS media supplemented with BAP 2 mg/l.
Fig 6.
Cestrum micro plants exposed in AgNPs treatments: (A) Treatment-1, 2 ppm of AgNPs; (B) Treatment-2, 3 ppm of AgNPs; and (C) Treatment-3, 5 ppm of AgNPs; was in MS media supplemented with BAP 2 mg/l.
Fig 7.
Comparison of shoot length of control and treated plant groups of rose and cestrum: The average of shoot lengths of all replica plants of the control group are compared with the average shoot lengths of all replica plants in three treatments i-e.
T1, 2 ppm of AgNPs; T2, 3 ppm of AgNPs; and T3, 5 ppm of AgNPs added in MS media having BAP 2 mg/l.
Fig 8.
Comparison of leaf count of control and treated plant groups of rose and cestrum: The average of no of leaves of all replica plants of the control group is compared with the average of no of leaves of all replica plants in three treatments i-e.
T1, 2 ppm of AgNPs; T2, 3 ppm of AgNPs; and T3, 5 ppm of AgNPs added in MS media having BAP 2 mg/l.
Fig 9.
Comparison of chlorophyll content in control and treated plant groups of rose and cestrum: chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content of all replica plants of the control group and the replica plants in three treatments i-e.
Treatment-I, II and III (2, 3 and 5 ppm of AgNPs, respectively) are measured and compared with the chlorophyll content of control plants growing in the natural environment.
Fig 10.
Analysis and comparison of morphology of cells and tissues of cestrum plants from control group and treatment-3 (5 ppm AgNPs) at fluorescent microscope [Nikon, Model No. ECL IPSE Ts2-FL (245,795)].: (A) transverse section of control plant at 40X resolution; (B) transverse section of treated plant at 40X resolution; (C and E) longitudinal section of control plant at 20X and 40X resolution respectively (D and F) longitudinal section of treated plant at 20X and 40X resolution respectively.
Fig 11.
Analysis and comparison of morphology of cells and tissues of rose plants from control group and treatment-3 (5 ppm AgNPs) at fluorescent microscope [Nikon, Model No. ECL IPSE Ts2-FL (245,795)].: (A) transverse section of control plant at 40X resolution; (B) transverse section of treated plant at 40X resolution; (C) longitudinal section of control plant at 20X; (D) longitudinal section of treated plant at 20X resolution.
Fig 12.
Analysis and comparison of the morphology of cells and tissues of cestrum plants from the control group and treatment-3 (5 ppm AgNPs) a scanning electron microscope (ZEISS).: (A, C, E, G) micrographs of peel of control plant at 100X, 249X, 252X, 500X, 300X, 500X, and 750X magnifications respectively; (B, D, F, H) micrographs of peel of treated plant at 150X, 249X, 252X, 500X, 500X, 500X, and 1000X magnifications respectively.
Fig 13.
Analysis and comparison of the morphology of cells and tissues of rose plants from the control group and treatment-3 (5 ppm AgNPs) a scanning electron microscope (ZEISS).: (A, and C) micrographs of the cross verse section of the control plant at 250X, and 500X magnifications respectively; (B, and D) micrographs of the ross verse section of a treated plant at 100X and 403X magnifications respectively.
Fig 14.
Analysis and comparison of the morphology of cells and tissues of rose plants from the control group and treatment-3 (5 ppm AgNPs) a scanning electron microscope (ZEISS).: (A, and C) micrographs of a longitudinal slice of a control plant at 250X, and 301X magnifications respectively; (B, D, E, and F) micrographs of a longitudinal slice of a treated plant at 301X, 500X, 1000X and 2000X magnifications respectively.
Fig 15.
RNA extraction and purification: (A) rose RNA from control (1) and treated plants (2 and 3); (B) cestrum RNA from control (1 and 2) and treated plants (3 to 7); (C) purified RNA of rose control (1) and cestrum control (2,3); M is Lambda Hindi III DNA marker.
Fig 16.
PCR conditions (annealing temperature) optimized for SAND gene primers: M is 100 bp DNA ladder, 1 PCR with annealing at 55oC, 2 at 56oC, 3 at 57oC, 4 at 58oC and 5 at 59oC, and C is PCR negative control.
Fig 17.
PCR conditions (annealing temperature) optimized for PP2A gene primers: M is 100 bp DNA ladder, 1 PCR with annealing at 54oC, 2 at 55oC, 3 at 56oC, 4 at 57oC, and C is PCR negative control.
Fig 18.
Comparison of gene expression between treated and control plant groups of rose and cestrum: Ct values (Average of 10 replicates) obtained for rose and cestrum of treated (5 ppm) and control plants for SAND and PP2A gene.