Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance in agriculture is a global concern and carries huge financial consequences. Despite that, practical solutions for growers that are sustainable, low cost and environmentally friendly have been sparse. This has created opportunities for the agrochemical industry to develop pesticides with novel modes of action. Recently the use of photodynamic inactivation (PDI), classically used in cancer treatments, has been explored in agriculture as an alternative to traditional chemistries, mainly as a promising new approach for the eradication of pesticide resistant strains. However, applications in the field pose unique challenges and call for new methods of evaluation to adequately address issues specific to PDI applications in plants and challenges faced in the field. The aim of this review is to summarize in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo/in planta experimental strategies and methods used to test and evaluate photodynamic agents as photo-responsive pesticides for applications in agriculture. The review highlights some of the strategies that have been explored to overcome challenges in the field.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 PDI principle
Photodynamic inactivation, also referred to as antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation (aPDI), uses light-responsive molecules (photosensitizers, PS) that when excited by light react with molecular oxygen to generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) [1]. ROS can be highly cytotoxic if produced in sufficient amounts and in close proximity to the pathogens as they can cause irreversible damages to both the outer membranes as well as internal structural and cellular components (proteins, lipids, DNA, membranes, cytoskeleton), culminating in microbial death [2, 3]. Depending on the type of PS, generation of ROS can follow two different photochemical mechanisms. Upon absorption of a photon by the ground-state (inactive) PS, the singlet excited state 1PS* is formed. Intersystem crossing converts a portion of this state into the triplet state (3PS*) which can then interact with molecular oxygen by either electron transfer (Type I photosensitisation), or energy transfer (Type II photosensitization) (Fig. 1). In the former, the interaction between the activated electron and a molecular oxygen leads to the formation of ROS, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), superoxide (O2 − •) or hydroxyl radical (•HO); in the latter, singlet oxygen (1O2) is produced [4–6] (Fig. 1). While both Type I and II photosensitization can occur simultaneously upon excitation of a PS, in general the Type II reaction is preferred in aPDI [7, 8]. The high reactivity of 1O2 is partly due to its lifetime (3–50 ms in aqueous media and several tens of ms (2–1000 ms) in lipid environments such as membranes), which allows this species to diffuse over relatively long distances before being deactivated [9, 10]. If generated in the apoplast, singlet oxygen can diffuse across the cell membrane [11], where it can last long enough to interact with its targets. While ROS can be non-specific in their interactions with pathogens and host membranes, toxicity towards plant cells has been observed only at high concentrations whereas microbial inactivation is effective at micromolar concentrations [12–14]. Several studies have shown the non-toxic properties of PSs against various plant species at photochemically active doses [15–17] as well as no toxicity upon repeated applications in developmentally-relevant plant stages [18]. Having said that, sensitivities to a PS can be species-specific and similar concentrations may have contrasting-impacts. This might be linked to structural differences in the cuticle/wax layer, or antioxidative capacity in cells. For instance, cationic porphyrins, were non-damaging to tomato plants whereas they completely eradicated the model plant Arabidopsis [19, 20].
The wavelength of light required for activation depends on the absorption characteristics of the PS used, but for agricultural uses PSs that can absorb a substantial portion of photons in the photosynthetically active radiation of the solar irradiance. Generally, antimicrobial activity of PSs seems to be more efficient if natural sunlight is used, likely because of its higher intensity as well as its use of the full absorbance spectra of the molecules [21–23]; however, antimicrobial activity is also effective in greenhouse settings with commercially available LEDs [15, 21–23]. Several types of PSs have been shown to be effective against plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi, as summarized in Table 1. Nonetheless, the efficacy of such PSs is typically assessed in traditional liquid culture, which differs significantly from killing pathogens on the surface or within the body of a plant leaf. In the following section, three key challenges associated with such predictions are outlined as well as descriptions of protocols that aim to address these challenges.
2 Photostability
While activation of PSs with high intensity sunlight leads to effective antibacterial activity, it can cause rapid photodegradation/bleaching of PS molecules resulting in loss of their absorption and emission. Destruction of the molecules on one hand reduces their effective lifetime [3, 24–26]; on the other hand, for example for chlorophyll derived photosensitizers with degradation products that can be metabolized by the plant [27], it has a chance to prevent the accumulation of compounds in the environment. This reduces or eliminates pesticide residue issues that plague conventional pesticides and limit when such pesticides can be used in the growing cycle. Classically, photodegradation studies are done in liquid through monitoring changes in the absorption spectrum of the photosensitizer (i.e., the appearance of new absorption bands or decrease of the maximum absorption peak) [28]. In agricultural applications however, foliar sprays typically dry on the leaf surface in minutes and remain dry until dew or rain rewets them. This may lead to changes in the aggregation state of photosensitizing molecules. Recently, Islam et al. studied the stability and efficacy of the water-soluble semisynthetic derivative of chlorophyllin (sodium magnesium chlorophyllin (Mg-chl) following dry-rewet cycles mimicking conditions similar to the field [15] (Fig. 2). They observed that, there was a gradual decrease of fluorescence and single oxygen production with time, indicating gradual degradation of the compound under light exposure. However, despite some degradation, the compound was still able to eradicate bacteria significantly (3log10 reduction) up to 5 days after of light exposure, suggesting that the activity of the PS was maintained for at least up to 5 days in the dry state.
3 Contact/bacterial proximity
Given that photo-pesticides are contact pesticides, the proximity of PS to the pathogen is one of the crucial factors determining antimicrobial efficacy since the probability of ROS reacting with target structures and molecules drastically decreases with distance [29]. For example Gram ( −) bacteria are wrapped in a densely packed protective layer (outer membrane) comprising mainly glycolipid lipopolysaccharides and phosphoglycerides that serve as a permeability barrier which can effectively inhibit penetration of pesticides into the cell [30]. While both anionic and cationic photosensitizers alone can kill efficiently Gram ( +) bacteria in vitro [31], for complete eradication of Gram ( −) bacteria a synergistic combination of PS combined with a membrane disrupting molecule is necessary [15, 31–33]. Uptake of anionic PS by bacterial cells may be mediated through both protein transporters and electrostatic charge interaction, while the uptake of cationic PS is presumed to be facilitated through self-promoted uptake in addition to interactions with membranes [28, 34]. Efficacy in vitro is typically tested in liquid culture (Fig. 3), with plates kept in the dark after PS addition to allow the PS to adhere to bacterial cell walls prior to light exposure [8, 15, 31]. Although the assay is adequate for determining effective concentration ranges of PSs against pathogenic bacteria in vitro, it does not represent the environment on plant surfaces. The epidermal cells of most plant surfaces are covered with cuticle, a lipid-rich layer that prevents water loss and protects plants against multiple biotic and abiotic stresses [35, 36]. To reflect interactions of bacteria with the cuticle and test aPDI on plant surfaces, both ex vivo experiments using detached plant leaves [17, 37] and in vivo/in planta experiments using intact plants have been developed [15]. In ex vivo experiments, detached leaves are sprayed with bacteria and PS (Fig. 4a); the in vivo method follows the same procedure except that bacteria and PS are applied through a foliar spray directly on the plant (Fig. 4b) [15], representing conditions in the field.
In the case of fungi, both anionic and cationic PS can efficiently eradicate the pathogens (refer to Table 1 and references therein). Fungal mycelia typically grow in 3-D structures that often limit access of the PS to all mycelia. To simulate the 3-D structure of mycelia, Hamminger et al., carried out in vitro aPDI of fungi using mycelial spheres in 24-well plates (Fig. 5) [18] and showed that the PSs can efficiently kill fungal species.
4 Light intensity
Exposure to a sufficient amount of light for PS activation is an indispensable requirement for PDI. Particularly in foliar pathogens, the first step in pathogenesis is the colonization of aerial tissue surfaces. Flat surfaces such as cucumber, tomato, and lettuce leaves provide excellent light exposure, and good microbial reduction was observed when the cationic curcumin derivative SACUR-3 was used against E. coli O157:H7 [38]. Bacterial pathogens can gain access to internal plant tissues either through wounds or through natural openings such as stomatal pores used for gas exchange; alternately, pathogens can be delivered into plants by insect vectors [39, 40]. Until recently it was unclear whether a sufficient amount of light is available to activate PS molecules inside the leaf. Islam et al. investigated this question by infiltrating a mix of bacterial suspension and photosensitizer in the intercellular leaf spaces of tomato and N. benthamiana plants, exposing the plants to light, and determining the number of viable bacteria in the leaves after treatment (Fig. 6) [15]. They found a significant inhibition of bacterial growth in planta when plants were exposed to light which suggests that PS can be activated inside the leaves and is able to kill intracellular bacteria.
5 Conclusion and outlook
The photochemical efficiency of aPDI in lab test conditions depends critically on the properties of the PS molecule (e.g. the presence or absence of charge and the charge distribution), the efficiency of light absorption, and the longevity of the triplet excited state or singlet oxygen and free radical production [4]. However, when targeting plant pathogens in vivo, consideration of an additional layer of requirements depending on the lifecycle of the pathogen and tissues it inhabits is important. The design of the photosensitizer must consider the presence of peripheral functionalizations that may confer specific localization in the plant (i.e. hydrophilicity vs. lipophilicity, ability to translocate and/or bind to various cellular structures [41], as aPDI activity may change depending on cell location and/or the oxidative state of the cell. Nanoencapsulation of PSs that can facilitate improved photostability, targeted tissue penetration, and tunable PS release kinetics offer a promising route to address these challenges [42]. In addition, while progress has been made to better represent processes occurring in the field via ex vivo, or in planta assays, further development is necessary to address the various challenges often occurring at once in the field- from water fluctuations to intense sun and wind.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Hamblin, M. R. (2016). Antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation: A bright new technique to kill resistant microbes. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 33, 67–73.
Wiehe, A., O’Brien, J. M., & Senge, M. O. (2019). Trends and targets in antiviral phototherapy. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 2565–2612.
Kawczyk-Krupka, A., Pucelik, B., Międzybrodzka, A., Sieroń, A. R., & Dąbrowski, J. M. (2018). Photodynamic therapy as an alternative to antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infected leg ulcers. Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, 23, 132–143.
Wainwright, M., Maisch, T., Nonell, S., Plaetzer, K., Almeida, A., Tegos, G. P., & Hamblin, M. R. (2017). Photoantimicrobials—are we afraid of the light? The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 17, e49–e55.
Redmond, R. W., & Gamlin, J. N. (1999). A compilation of singlet oxygen yields from biologically relevant molecules. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 70, 391–475.
Foote, C. S. (1991). Definition of type I and type II photosensitized oxidation. Photochemistry and photobiology, 54–5, 659–659.
Cieplik, F., Deng, D., Crielaard, W., Buchalla, W., Hellwig, E., Al-Ahmad, A., & Maisch, T. (2018). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy–what we know and what we don’t. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 44, 571–589.
Krüger, M., Richter, P., Strauch, S. M., Nasir, A., Burkovski, A., Antunes, C. A., Meißgeier, T., Schlücker, E., Schwab, S., & Lebert, M. (2019). What an Escherichia coli mutant can teach us about the antibacterial effect of chlorophyllin. Microorganisms., 7, 59.
Wefers, H. (1987). Singlet oxygen in biological systems. Bioelectrochemistry Bioenergy, 18, 91–104.
Wasserman, H. H., & Murray, R. W. (1979). Singlet oxygen. Academic Press.
Skovsen, E., Snyder, J. W., Lambert, J. D. C., & Ogilby, P. R. (2005). Lifetime and diffusion of singlet oxygen in a cell. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 109, 8570–8573.
Jemli, M., Alouini, Z., Sabbahi, S., & Gueddari, M. (2002). Destruction of fecal bacteria in wastewater by three photosensitizers. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 4, 511–516.
Costa, L., Alves, E., Carvalho, C. M. B., Tomé, J. P. C., Faustino, M. A. F., Neves, M. G., Tomé, A. C., Cavaleiro, J. A. S., Cunha, Â., & Almeida, A. (2008). Sewage bacteriophage photoinactivation by cationic porphyrins: A study of charge effect. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 7, 415–422.
Alves, E., Costa, L., Carvalho, C., Tomé, J. P. C., Faustino, M. A., Neves, M. G., Tomé, A. C., Cavaleiro, J. A. S., Cunha, Â., & Almeida, A. (2009). Charge effect on the photoinactivation of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria by cationic meso-substituted porphyrins. BMC Microbiology, 9, 1–13.
Islam, M. T., Ng, K., Fefer, M., Liu, J., Uddin, W., Ckurshumova, W., & Rosa, C. (2023). Photosensitizer to the rescue: In planta and field application of photodynamic inactivation against plant-pathogenic bacteria. Plant Disease, 107, 870–878.
Jiang, L., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Su, D., Zou, H., Liu, J., Yuan, C., & Huang, M. (2020). Inhibition of the citrus canker pathogen using a photosensitizer assisted by sunlight irradiation. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 571691.
Martins, D., Mesquita, M. Q., Neves, M. G., Faustino, M. A. F., Reis, L., Figueira, E., & Almeida, A. (2018). Photoinactivation of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae in kiwifruit plants by cationic porphyrins. Planta, 248, 409–421.
Hamminger, C., Glueck, M., Fefer, M., Ckurshumova, W., Liu, J., Tenhaken, R., & Plaetzer, K. (2022). Photodynamic inactivation of plant pathogens part II: fungi. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-021-00157-0
Guillaumot, D., Issawi, M., Da Silva, A., Leroy-Lhez, S., Sol, V., & Riou, C. (2016). Synergistic enhancement of tolerance mechanisms in response to photoactivation of cationic tetra (N-methylpyridyl) porphyrins in tomato plantlets. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 156, 69–78.
Issawi, M., Guillaumot, D., Sol, V., & Riou, C. (2018). Responses of an adventitious fast-growing plant to photodynamic stress: Comparative study of anionic and cationic porphyrin effect on Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiologia Plantarum, 162, 379–390.
Mamone, L., Di Venosa, G., Gándara, L., Sáenz, D., Vallecorsa, P., Schickinger, S., Rossetti, M. V., Batlle, A., Buzzola, F., & Casas, A. (2014). Photodynamic inactivation of Gram-positive bacteria employing natural resources. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 133, 80–89.
Heitz J. R. (1987). Development of photoactivated compounds as pesticides. ACS Publications
Clement, S. L., Schmidt, R. S., Szatmari-Goodman, G., & Levine, E. (1980). Activity of xanthene dyes against black cutworm larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology, 73, 390–392.
Moan, J. (1986). Effect of bleaching of porphyrin sensitizers during photodynamic therapy. Cancer Letters, 33, 45–53.
Ferreira, J., Kurachi, C., Moriyama, L. T., Menezes, P. F. C., Perussi, J. R., Sibata, C., Zucoloto, S., Silva, O. C., Jr., & Bagnato, V. S. (2005). Correlation between the photostability and photodynamic efficacy for different photosensitizers. Laser Physics Letters, 3, 91.
Barras, A., Skandrani, N., Pisfil, M. G., Paryzhak, S., Dumych, T., Haustrate, A., Héliot, L., Gharbi, T., Boulahdour, H., Lehen’kyi, V., et al. (2018). Improved photodynamic effect through encapsulation of two photosensitizers in lipid nanocapsules. Journal of Materials Chemistry B, 6, 5949–5963.
Heaton, J. W., & Marangoni, A. G. (1996). Chlorophyll degradation in processed foods and senescent plant tissues. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 7, 8–15.
Sułek, A., Pucelik, B., Kobielusz, M., Barzowska, A., & Dąbrowski, J. M. (2020). Photodynamic inactivation of bacteria with porphyrin derivatives: Effect of charge, lipophilicity, ros generation, and cellular uptake on their biological activity in vitro. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21, 8716.
Sokolov, V. S., Batishchev, O. V., Akimov, S. A., Galimzyanov, T. R., Konstantinova, A. N., Malingriaux, E., Gorbunova, Y. G., Knyazev, D. G., & Pohl, P. (2018). Residence time of singlet oxygen in membranes. Science and Reports, 8, 1–11.
Zhang, G. E., Meredith, T. C., & Kahne, D. (2013). On the essentiality of lipopolysaccharide to Gram-negative bacteria. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 16, 779–785.
Glueck, M., Hamminger, C., Fefer, M., Liu, J., & Plaetzer, K. (2019). Save the crop: Photodynamic Inactivation of plant pathogens I: Bacteria. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 18, 1700–1708. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9pp00128j
Jalil, A., Asim, M. H., Nazir, I., Matuszczak, B., & Bernkop-Schnürch, A. (2020). Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems containing hydrophobic ion pairs of polymyxin B and agaric acid: A decisive strategy for enhanced antimicrobial activity. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 311, 113298.
Kimura, Y., Matsunaga, H., & Vaara, M. (1992). Polymyxin B octapeptide and polymyxin B heptapeptide are potent outer membrane permeability-increasing agents. The Journal of Antibiotics (Tokyo), 45, 742–749.
George, S., Hamblin, M. R., & Kishen, A. (2009). Uptake pathways of anionic and cationic photosensitizers into bacteria. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 8, 788–795.
Kerstiens, G. (1996). Cuticular water permeability and its physiological significance. Journal of Experimental Botany, 47, 1813–1832.
Domínguez, E., Heredia-Guerrero, J. A., & Heredia, A. (2011). The biophysical design of plant cuticles: An overview. New Phytologist, 189, 938–949.
Jesus, V., Martins, D., Branco, T., Valério, N., Neves, M. G., Faustino, M. A. F., Reis, L., Barreal, E., Gallego, P. P., & Almeida, A. (2018). An insight into the photodynamic approach versus copper formulations in the control of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae in kiwi plants. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 17, 180–191.
Dias, L. D., Blanco, K. C., Mfouo-Tynga, I. S., Inada, N. M., & Bagnato, V. S. (2020). Curcumin as a photosensitizer: From molecular structure to recent advances in antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, C: Photochemistry Reviews, 45, 100384.
Chisholm, S. T., Coaker, G., Day, B., & Staskawicz, B. J. (2006). Host-microbe interactions: Shaping the evolution of the plant immune response. Cell, 124, 803–814.
Panchal, S., Chitrakar, R., Thompson, B. K., Obulareddy, N., Roy, D., Hambright, W. S., & Melotto, M. (2016). Regulation of stomatal defense by air relative humidity. Plant Physiology, 172, 2021–2032.
Maisch, T. (2015). Resistance in antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation of bacteria. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 14, 1518–1526.
Zhao, L., Ckurshumova, W., Fefer, M., Liu, J., & Hoare, T. (2022). Fabrication, Characterization and in planta uptake of engineered surfactant nanovesicles for the delivery of the biostimulant sodium copper chlorophyllin. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 70, 15028–15037.
Alananbeh, K. M., BouQellah, N. A., Al Harbi, M. R., & Ouf, S. A. (2018). The efficacy of photosensitizers on mycelium growth, mycotoxin and enzyme activity of Alternaria spp. Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11(5), 499–510.
Temba, B. A., Fletcher, M. T., Fox, G. P., Harvey, J. J. W., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2016). Inactivation of Aspergillus flavus spores by curcumin-mediated photosensitization. Food Control, 59, 708–713.
Temba, B. A., Fletcher, M. T., Fox, G. P., Harvey, J., Okoth, S. A., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2019). Curcumin-based photosensitization inactivates Aspergillus flavus and reduces aflatoxin B1 in maize kernels. Food Microbiology, 82, 82–88.
Nguenha, R., Damyeh, M. S., Phan, A. D. T., Hong, H. T., Chaliha, M., O’Hare, T. J., Netzel, M. E., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2021). Effect of photosensitization mediated by curcumin on carotenoid and aflatoxin content in different maize varieties. Applied Sciences, 11, 5902.
Luksiene, Z., Peciulyte, D., & Lugauskas, A. (2004). Inactivation of fungi in vitro by photosensitization: preliminary results. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 11(2), 215–220.
Zhang, G., Yang, J., Hu, C., Zhang, X., Li, X., Gao, S., Ouyang, X., Ma, N., & Wei, H. (2019). Green synthesis of Chlorin e6 and tests of its photosensitive bactericidal activities. Journal of Forest Research, 30, 2349–2356.
Kairyte, K., Kadys, A., & Luksiene, Z. (2013). Antibacterial and antifungal activity of photoactivated ZnO nanoparticles in suspension. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 128, 78–84.
Huang, L., Yong, K. W. L., Fernando, W. C., de Jesus, M., De Voss, J. J., Sultanbawa, Y., & Fletcher, M. T. (2021). The inactivation by curcumin-mediated photosensitization of Botrytis cinerea spores isolated from strawberry fruits. Toxins (Basel)., 13, 196.
Ambrosini, V., Issawi, M., Sol, V., & Riou, C. (2020). Photodynamic inactivation of Botrytis cinerea by an anionic porphyrin: An alternative pest management of grapevine. Science and Reports, 10, 1–12.
Buchovec, I., & Lukšienė, Ž. (2015). Novel approach to control microbial contamination of germinated wheat sprouts: Photoactivatedchlorophillin-chitosan complex. Int. J. Food Process. Technol., 2, 26–30.
Averyanov, A. A., Lapikova, V. P., Pasechnik, T. D., Zakharenkova, T. S., Pogosyan, S. I., & Baker, C. J. (2011). Suppression of cucurbit scab on cucumber leaves by photodynamic dyes. Crop Protection, 30, 925–930.
Gonzales, J. C., Brancini, G. T. P., Rodrigues, G. B., Silva-Junior, G. J., Bachmann, L., Wainwright, M., & Braga, G. U. L. (2017). Photodynamic inactivation of conidia of the fungus Colletotrichum abscissum on Citrus sinensis plants with methylene blue under solar radiation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 176, 54–61.
Fracarolli, L., Rodrigues, G. B., Pereira, A. C., Júnior, N. S. M., Silva-Junior, G. J., Bachmann, L., Wainwright, M., Bastos, J. K., & Braga, G. U. L. (2016). Inactivation of plant-pathogenic fungus Colletotrichum acutatum with natural plant-produced photosensitizers under solar radiation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 162, 402–411.
de Menezes, H. D., Pereira, A. C., Brancini, G. T. P., de Leão, H. C., Júnior, N. S. M., Bachmann, L., Wainwright, M., Bastos, J. K., & Braga, G. U. L. (2014). Furocoumarins and coumarins photoinactivate Colletotrichum acutatum and Aspergillus nidulans fungi under solar radiation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology, B: Biology, 131, 74–83.
de Menezes, H. D., Rodrigues, G. B., de Teixeira, S. P., Massola, N. S., Jr., Bachmann, L., Wainwright, M., & Braga, G. U. L. (2014). In vitro photodynamic inactivation of plant-pathogenic fungi Colletotrichum acutatum and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides with novel phenothiazinium photosensitizers. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80, 1623–1632.
Vandresen, C. C., Goncalves, A. G., Ducatti, D. R. B., Murakami, F. S., Noseda, M. D., Duarte, M. E. R., & Barreira, S. M. W. (2016). In vitro photodynamic inactivation of conidia of the phytopathogenic fungus Colletotrichum graminicola with cationic porphyrins. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 15, 673–681.
Fuchs, B. B., Tegos, G. P., Hamblin, M. R., & Mylonakis, E. (2007). Susceptibility of Cryptococcus neoformans to photodynamic inactivation is associated with cell wall integrity. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 51, 2929–2936.
Rodrigues, G. B., Primo, F. L., Tedesco, A. C., & Braga, G. U. L. (2012). In vitro photodynamic inactivation of Cryptococcus neoformans melanized cells with chloroaluminum phthalocyanine nanoemulsion. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 88, 440–447.
Asthana, A., & Tuveson, R. W. (1992). Effects of UV and phototoxins on selected fungal pathogens of citrus. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 153, 442–452.
Bourque, G., Arnason, J. T., Madhosingh, C., & Orr, W. (1985). The photosensitization of the plant pathogen Fusarium culmorum by phenylheptatriyne from Bidens pilosa. Canadian Journal of Botany, 63, 899–902.
Lazzaro, A., Corominas, M., Martí, C., Flors, C., Izquierdo, L. R., Grillo, T. A., Luis, J. G., & Nonell, S. (2004). Light-and singlet oxygen-mediated antifungal activity of phenylphenalenone phytoalexins. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 3, 706–710.
de Menezes, H. D., Tonani, L., Bachmann, L., Wainwright, M., Braga, G. Ú. L., & von Zeska Kress, M. R. (2016). Photodynamic treatment with phenothiazinium photosensitizers kills both ungerminated and germinated microconidia of the pathogenic fungi Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium moniliforme and Fusarium solani. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 164, 1–12.
Vorobey, A. V., & Pinchuk, S. V. (2008). Photodamage to spores of Fusarium fungi sensitized by protoporphyrin IX. Biophysics (Oxford), 53, 386–389.
Desjardins, A. E., Spencer, G. F., & Plattner, R. D. (1989). Tolerance and metabolism of furanocoumarins by the phytopathogenic fungus Gibberella pulicaris (Fusarium sambucinum). Phytochemistry, 28, 2963–2969.
Buchovec, I., Lukseviciute, V., Marsalka, A., Reklaitis, I., & Luksiene, Z. (2016). Effective photosensitization-based inactivation of Gram (−) food pathogens and molds using the chlorophyllin—chitosan complex: Towards photoactive edible coatings to preserve strawberries. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 15, 506–516.
Garcia, M., David, B., Sierra-Garcia, I. N., Faustino, M. A. F., Alves, A., Esteves, A. C., & Cunha, A. (2021). Photodynamic inactivation of Lasiodiplodia theobromae: Lighting the way towards an environmentally friendly phytosanitary treatment. Biology Letters, 17, 20200820.
Gonzales, F. P., Da Silva, S. H., Roberts, D. W., & Braga, G. U. L. (2010). Photodynamic inactivation of conidia of the fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Aspergillus nidulans with methylene blue and toluidine blue. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 86, 653–661.
Gomes C., Maykel M., Ferrer B., Álvaro M., & García H. (2009). Enhanced efficiency of the visible-light photocatalytic hydrogen generation by the ruthenium tris(2,2′-bipyridyl)–methyl viologen system in the presence of cucurbit[n]urils. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 8, 1650–1654.
Zambounis, A., Sytar, O., Valasiadis, D., & Hilioti, Z. (2020). Effect of photosensitisers on growth and morphology of Phytophthora citrophthora coupled with leaf bioassays in pear seedlings. Plant Protection Science, 56, 74–82.
Tang, J., Tang, G., Niu, J., Yang, J., Zhou, Z., Gao, Y., Chen, X., Tian, Y., Li, Y., & Li, J. (2021). others, Preparation of a porphyrin metal–organic framework with desirable photodynamic antimicrobial activity for sustainable plant disease management. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 69, 2382–2391.
Sarwar, S., Netzel, G., Netzel, M. E., Mereddy, R., Phan, A. D. T., Hong, H. T., Cozzolino, D., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2021). Impact of curcumin-mediated photosensitization on fungal growth, physicochemical properties and nutritional composition in Australian grown strawberry. Food Analytical Methods, 14, 465–472.
Wimmer, A., Glueck, M., Ckurshumova, W., Liu, J., Fefer, M., & Plaetzer, K. (2022). Breaking the rebellion: photodynamic inactivation against Erwinia amylovora resistant to streptomycin. Antibiotics. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11050544
Lopes, M. M., Bartolomeu, M., Gomes, A. T. P. C., Figueira, E., Pinto, R., Reis, L., Balcão, V. M., Faustino, M. A. F., Neves, M. G. P. M. S., & Almeida, A. (2020). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in the control of Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae transmission by kiwifruit pollen. Microorganisms, 8, 1022.
Ndemueda, A., Pereira, I., Faustino, M. A. F., & Cunha, Â. (2020). Photodynamic inactivation of the phytopathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 71, 420–427.
de Ferreira, F. S., Tebaldi, N. D., & de Oliveira, C. A. (2021). Photodynamic inactivation to control Xanthomonas gardneri in tomato seeds, Tropical. Plant Pathology, 46, 559–564.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Yuichi Terazono for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: MTI, WC, and CR; Literature search: MTI, MS, and CS; Writing—Original draft: MTI and WC; Visualization: MTI; Writing—review and editing: MTI, MF, JL, TH, WC, and CR.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Islam, M.T., Sain, M., Stark, C. et al. Overview of methods and considerations for the photodynamic inactivation of microorganisms for agricultural applications. Photochem Photobiol Sci 22, 2675–2686 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-023-00466-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43630-023-00466-6