Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Use of Low-dose Gamma Radiation to Promote the Germination and Early Development in Seeds

Written By

Daniel Villegas, Constanza Sepúlveda and Doris Ly

Submitted: 07 June 2023 Reviewed: 19 August 2023 Published: 27 October 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1003137

From the Edited Volume

Seed Biology - New Advances

Ertan Yıldırım, Sıtkı Ermiş and Eren Özden

Chapter metrics overview

80 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The study of the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation on the germination and initial growth of different seeds is a recent area of research, with gamma rays and X-rays receiving the most attention. The use of this type of energy can generate an increase in germination percentages, an increase in germination speed, and changes in the length and area of roots and shoots, which will depend both on intrinsic factors of the nature of the energy (dose, dose rate, energy, etc.) as well as aspects of the irradiated seeds (water content, sensitivity, etc.). In addition to morphological effects, radio-stimulation due to low doses of ionizing radiation (a phenomenon also described as radio-hormesis) generates changes at physiological, biochemical, metabolic, and molecular levels. Despite the evidence that has been accumulating, it is still necessary to deepen the knowledge about these phenomena in order to establish the use of ionizing radiation with the aim of using radio-stimulation as a real impact tool in the agroforestry sector.

Keywords

  • radio-stimulation
  • hormesis
  • ionizing radiation
  • germination
  • plant development

1. Introduction

The mutagenic effect of ionizing energy has been widely studied, being the most commonly used physical agent to irradiate seeds (and other plant materials) in order to generate heritable mutations in plant breeding programs [1]. For this purpose, it is necessary to define the highest possible dose to induce high frequency mutations and, at the same time, the least negative effects dose, a concept named Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) [2]. However, in recent years, the non-mutagenic effect related to low doses (below LD50) of ionizing radiation (IR) is an area that has attracted special attention, a phenomenon known as radio-stimulation or radio-hormesis (from the Greek “hormaein”, which means to stimulate) [3]. The vast majority of plant foods are produced by crops that are propagated by seeds, but the germination process is highly vulnerable to external conditions, which can cause delayed and/or uneven germination or even weak seedlings, which will inevitably end up affecting the yield and production quality [4]. In search of alternatives to reduce the difficulties associated with seed quality, low doses of IR have begun to be applied to speed up the germination processes, increase seedling quality, and to improve tolerance to biotic and abiotic stressors [5].

Within the different types of IR (X-rays; alpha and beta particles; neutrons), the majority of research has been done using gamma radiation due to the safety and ease of operation of equipment such as Gammacell irradiators.

Gamma rays can engage with cell components like atoms or molecules. This interaction affects the structure and biochemical processes and, in this way, modifies the overall plant behavior. Seed germination, seedling growth, secondary metabolite synthesis, and biotic/abiotic stress responses are some of the main processes that are modified in response to gamma ray exposure [5, 6].

Considering the large amount of information accumulated to date on this topic, the purpose of this chapter is to summarize the most recent and more relevant results on the radio-stimulation of seeds.

Advertisement

2. Physical nature of IR and its interaction with plant tissues

To understand the stimulating effect of IR, it is necessary to recall basic aspects of atomic structure. All atoms are made up of protons and neutrons (forming the atomic nucleus) and electrons that “orbit” around the nucleus. When the nuclear forces that keep the protons and neutrons together are strong enough to overcome the electric repulsion between particles of the same charge (protons), the atom will remain stable. Conversely, an atom will be unstable when the number of neutrons exceeds a limit (z = 82), causing the excess energy to be released in the form of radioactivity to maintain the integrity of the nucleus [7]. The radioactivity emitted from the nucleus can be in the form of alpha particles, beta particles, gamma radiation, or a combination of the three. Alpha particles are composed of 2 protons and 2 neutrons (structurally equivalent to a positively charged Helium nucleus), while beta particles are electrons that come from the nucleus (the product of the transformation of a neutron into a proton and an electron). The formed electron is released from the nucleus as a result of the decay [8]. Due to the release of alpha and beta particles, a rearrangement occurs inside the nucleus, which in turn results in the release of electromagnetic energy or gamma radiation [9].

2.1 Interaction of IR with matter

Both alpha and beta particles, as well as gamma radiation, have the ability to interact with matter and deposit enough energy to “knock out” an electron and thereby ionize the matter [10]. This ability to alter the atomic structure (ionization) is what differentiates the effect of alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma radiation from the effect of UV light and other electromagnetic radiations (visible light, infrared, microwaves, etc.), since the latter are capable of modifying the behavior of matter but do not have enough energy to alter its structure [7]. To understand the differences between alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma radiation, it is necessary to define two main components that largely determine the ability of each of these to interact with matter and, consequently, modify its behavior: Penetrability and Linear Energy Transfer (LET). Penetrability refers to the ability of radiation to pass through matter, which is directly related to the mass and electric charge of the radiation. Alpha particles have a mass (2 protons +2 neutrons) and an electric charge of +2, which means that they are highly reactive particles and therefore have very low penetrability (they are blocked by a paper sheet) [8]. Beta particles, with a fraction of the mass of a proton and an electric charge of −1, penetrate material to a greater depth than alpha particles [9] and can be blocked by aluminum foil. Gamma radiation, due to its electromagnetic nature, does not have mass, and therefore it can penetrate deeply into matter. To block gamma radiation, dense materials such as concrete or lead are required [11]. Linear Energy Transfer (LET) refers to the energy dissipated per unit length along the tracks of the ionizing particles [12]. Gamma rays have low linear energy transfer (LET), while alpha particles have high linear energy transfer (LET) [13]. The radiation source, along with penetrability and linear energy transfer (LET), determines the amount of energy absorbed by matter or absorbed dose, which is expressed in Gy (gray), with 1 Gy equivalent to 1 Joule of energy absorbed per kilogram [14].

At the level of plant tissues or cells, the interaction of IR can occur in two ways. When the energy of the radiation is deposited directly onto macromolecules (DNA, membranes, etc.) [15], it generates “damage” that, depending on the dose, can become lethal [16, 17]. However, the main effect of IR on plant cells occurs indirectly and it is mediated by the ionization of the water molecule (radiolysis), which results in the production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) [18, 19]. Most of the responses described below, related to the stimulating effects of low doses of IR applied to seeds, are ultimately mediated by the accumulation of ROS.

For more detailed information on the physical, physicochemical, and chemical processes triggered by the interaction of IR with the water molecule, please refer to [20, 21].

Advertisement

3. The effects of low doses of IR on germination, plant growth, and development

Before presenting reports on the effect of treating seeds with low doses of IR, it is important to emphasize that the range of what is called low doses of IR is species-specific and depends not only on the particular radio-sensitivity of each species but also on the type of radiation (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, X-rays, etc.), the rate of dose (acute or chronic irradiation), the pre-treatment of the material to be irradiated (moisture content), and the ontogenic state of the irradiated material [22]. In this way, the stimulating dose of IR found in the literature can vary from less than 1 Gy to doses of more than 1 KGy [23, 24], which highlights the difficulty of establishing cross-sectional ranges of stimulating thresholds as these must be defined on a case-by-case basis. In view of the above, the data and results presented below aim only to compile the growing and recent information on radiation stimulation by IR in seeds and visualize the differential effect (stimulation or inhibition) that different IR treatments have on different plant species. A simplified scheme summarizing the overall seed radio-stimulation response to low doses of IR is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Overall radio-stimulation response of seed treated with low doses of ionizing radiation. Created with BioRender.com.

3.1 IR and effect on germination

The effects of low doses of IR on plants have been studied for several decades. These studies have been conducted on different species and varieties, applying IR to different structures (seeds or vegetative structures), under different systems (in vivo or in vitro), on different ploidy levels and/or ages of the organ or tissues and using different dose and dose/rate combinations [25]. All of these parameters make it difficult to define a standard protocol to apply to a given species or situation.

Despite the above, in literature, some authors have made efforts to define low doses like the one that falls between 5 and 20 Gy for seeds and 1 to 5 Gy for vegetative material [26]. These authors mention only stimulatory effects of low doses, on seeds of several crops, like Capsicum annuum, Arabidopsis thaliana, Phaseolus vulgaris, Cajanus cajan, Triticum sp. and in vegetative stages of Arabidopsis thaliana. Another study on tomato seeds [27] defines 150 Gy as a low dose that stimulates parameters like germination, fruit number, and total production up to 86%.

Nevertheless, it has been observed that doses ranging from 5 to 800 Gy of gamma radiation have had stimulatory effects on growth of dry seeds [28]. This wide range of possibly stimulating doses is related to seed radio-sensitivity, which in terms depends on genetic characteristics and on seed moisture content. Table 1 shows the latest works on the stimulation effect caused by IR.

Plant speciesStimulatory dose (Gy)Reference
Sugarcane4.7–5.7[29]
Datura innoxia5[30]
Eucalyptus nitens10[31]
Hordeum vulgare4–20[32, 33, 34]
Cucumis sativus50[35]
Abelmoschus esculentus (seeds, seedlings)50[35]
Chenopodium quinoa50[36]
Vicia faba<100[37]
Lathyrus chrysanthus50–150[38]
Vigna unguiculata100[39]
Physalis peruviana125–200[40]
Abelmoschus esculentus400[41]
Sophora davidii800[42]

Table 1.

Low-dose IR on some seeds.

It has been reported repeatedly that low dose rate and/or low total dose gamma irradiation impact germination yield and seedling performance, acting like an actual priming treatment [14]. Due to this well-documented effect, efforts have been made to investigate the molecular mechanism activated in seeds as a response to this physical treatment. Doses lower than 100 Gy of gamma rays positively stimulated the germination index, seedling growth, primary root length, and fresh weight on A. thaliana seeds. In that work, 50 Gy was the dose that showed the maximal positive effect on all growth parameters [43].

Seed germination, vigor, and seedling growth in wild oat (Avena fatua L.) [44], garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) [45], deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna L.) [46], okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Monch.) [47], and rocket (Eruca vesicaria L. subsp. sativa) [48] have been stimulated by low-dose gamma rays. All these works provided cumulative evidence that small doses of γ-rays result in beneficial action in physically treated seeds. These works point to several mechanisms as responsible for the effect of low-dose gamma rays on seeds and early growth. Among the triggering factors of the response are the ROS produced, which act as signaling molecules to respond under stress conditions; increased enzymatic activity; nucleic acids and protein synthesis in treated seeds. These changes in metabolism could explain the boost in germination, break of dormancy, and plant development. Conversely, exposing seed to high doses of gamma rays has been demonstrated to alter protein synthesis, hormonal equilibrium, enzyme activity, and leaf gas, and water exchange [49].

3.2 IR and its effect on growth

There are reports showing that low gamma irradiation doses led to positive effects on growth and plant yield in tomato hybrids [50]. Nevertheless, El-Sayed et al. [51] reported that 12 krad (equivalent to 120 Gy) gamma rays increased plant height, yield, chlorophyll a and b and carotenoids in tomato hybrids. Studies on Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) show a stimulatory effect at 5 Gy dose on plant height, number of branches, fresh and dry shoot weight [52].

The effect of gamma rays on plant growth and development is explained by cytological, genetical, biochemical, physiological, and morphogenetic changes in cells and tissues [53]. These changes are commonly reported as more vigorous vegetative growth [54], early maturity [55], and higher yield [56].

While a definitive explanation regarding positive impacts of low-dose gamma radiation remains elusive, researchers suggest a theory that these irradiation levels stimulate growth by altering the hormonal signaling network within plant cells. Besides, it is proposed that increased cells’ antioxidative capacity could allow better performance over stressful fluctuations in light intensity and temperature conditions [57]. Conversely, the growth suppression due to high doses of irradiation has been linked to cell cycle alterations in the G2/M phase, as well as several impairments across the entire genome [58].

Recent studies have shown that not only the dose is important but also the dose rate. Even when the final dose was the same, long-term exposure to gamma rays produced more free radicals than shorter exposure. When exposed for short periods, wheat shoot and root lengths showed minor decreases compared to control samples, however, longer periods resulted in substantial growth reduction. The expression of genes associated with antioxidants and DNA repair showed a reduction in response to long-term gamma ray exposure [59].

3.3 IR and seed priming

Seed priming corresponds to the induction of a particular physiological state through the application of treatments (physical, chemical, thermal, etc.) prior to germination, which allows the plant to better respond to the subsequent presence of abiotic and biotic stresses [60]. In recent years, priming (particularly at the seed level) has emerged as a strategy for stress management without significantly affecting plant development [61]. Many of the advances in understanding and elucidating the stimulatory effect of low doses of ionizing radiation have their origin in the study of priming through physical stimuli [14]. A study on the effect of low doses of gamma radiation and the induction of tolerance to stress caused by Cadmium and Lead in Arabidopsis seeds [43], reported that doses up to 100 Gy induced better germination rates and initial growth. It also demonstrated that doses of 50 Gy induced a better response of tolerance to stress caused by these metals, such as a decrease in the presence of H2O2, higher activity of antioxidant enzymes, and greater accumulation of proline compared to non-irradiated seeds. Similar results were observed when irradiating Hordeum vulgare seeds with doses up to 300 Gy, where those seedlings derived from seeds irradiated with 50 Gy improved their tolerance to the presence of heavy metals (lower contents of H2O2 and improvement in the ultrastructure of chloroplasts) [62]. Doses of 50 Gy applied to Arabidopsis seeds stimulated the tolerance of seedlings to thermal stress (improved growth rates, reduced ROS levels, higher antioxidant enzyme activity, etc.) [63], while exposure to 100 Gy applied to Vicia sativa L. seedlings (alone or in combination with salt and drought stress) generated significant increases in dry matter accumulation, higher antioxidant enzyme activity (CAT, SOD and APX), higher proline contents, and decreases in relative water content [6]. Doses between 500 and 1000 Gy decreased the incidence of fungal diseases in Pennisetum glaucum grains, and despite the high doses applied, no effects on the germination percentage of these grains were observed [64].

3.4 IR and metabolic effects

Due to its penetrability and linear energy transfer, as gamma radiation passes through different plant structures and tissues, it generates a broad spectrum of modifications affecting biochemical, physiological, and molecular processes. As the effect of IR is mainly mediated by the increase in ROS, a significant part of the literature focuses on describing the processes that are directly modified by these molecules, such as processes associated with photosynthesis or processes associated with the plant antioxidant system [26].

3.4.1 Effect on photosynthesis

IR affects various components of the photosynthetic apparatus, such as the content of pigments responsible for the absorption of visible radiation; enzymes responsible for CO2 reduction; thylakoids structure, etc. [26]. Regarding the chlorophyll content, various studies show contradictory trends or dynamics. Studies in Arabidopsis thaliana show that chlorophyll concentration remains stable up to doses of approximately 60 Gy [65], while similar doses (50 Gy) generated a significant increase in the total chlorophyll content in cowpea [66].

On the other hand, a recent study on soybean seeds and seedlings reported a positive relationship between the content of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids at a dose of 12 Gy when compared to non-irradiated seeds [67]. Another study suggests that, in general, the effect of IR on photosynthetic pigments follows a pattern of mild stimulation at low IR doses, while as the doses increase, the concentrations may initially increase but then drop in the long term [26]. The activity of the Rubisco enzyme, a central component of the CO2 fixation process, shows stimulation at low doses (5 and 25 Gy) in wheat seedlings [68], while higher doses decrease the specific activity of this enzyme in Arachis hypogaea L [69].

The radio-sensitivity studies of this enzyme are particularly complex since the different subunits that form this enzyme are encoded by both nuclear and plastidial genetic material [70]. However, despite the stimulatory effect of low doses of radiation on Rubisco activity, the effect of radiation on the rate of CO2 assimilation appears to be negative even at doses as low as 0.12 Gy [71] and 1.2 Gy [72], while higher doses have resulted in prolonged inhibition of the CO2 assimilation rate [68].

3.4.2 Antioxidant metabolism

The increase of ROS after exposure to IR has been thoroughly discussed. Seeds and plants subjected to IR show high levels of ROS that remain elevated for times ranging from several hours to several days post-irradiation. Since ROS are short-lived compounds, the increase of these components observed in plant tissues days or hours post-irradiation would not be the product of the direct process of radiolysis of water but rather the result of an imbalance between the processes of generation and use of these compounds [26]. In this way, it is expected that IR affects the content and/or activity of various enzymes involved in these processes. For example, irradiation with doses between 25 and 200 Gy stimulates the activity of ascorbate peroxidase and glutathione reductase enzymes in rice seeds [73], while peroxidase activity increased in orange seeds (doses of 10–50 Gy) [74] and in bean seeds (150 and 200 Gy) [75]. Irradiation of red pepper seeds with doses of 2 to 16 Gy resulted in an increase in superoxide dismutase activity but, at the same time, led to a decrease in glutathione reductase activity [57].

Several studies have established that ROS production mediated by IR is dose-dependent and follows a trend close to linearity [73, 76, 77, 78]. However, the existence of multiple pathways for ROS production and utilization (in response to biotic and abiotic stimuli) makes it very complex to identify or describe a specific pathway of response to IR mediated by ROS in plants [18]. Besides, these pathways are being influenced or affected differentially depending on the radiation dose [79].

3.4.3 Effect on secondary metabolism

One of the most widely studied processes is the stimulating effect of IR on secondary metabolism, and more specifically on metabolites with antioxidant capacity. It is postulated that the increase in antioxidant compounds would be triggered by the high concentration of ROS resulting from the radiolysis of water through two different pathways [80]. On one hand, the increase in ROS would stimulate the expression of genes that encode for key enzymes in the biosynthetic pathways of these compounds, as demonstrated by the results in Rosmarinus officinalis [81] and Arabidopsis thaliana [82]. On the other hand, studies on different medicinal plants show that the presence of ROS would directly stimulate the activity of these enzymes and, even more interestingly, demonstrate that the increase in activity of enzymes such as phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) and chalcone synthase (CHS) is dose-dependent [83]. Solanum melongena seeds treated with 50 Gy gamma rays showed increased growth that led to increased levels of flavonoid and tannin contents in pulp, peel, and whole fruits [84].

3.4.4 Molecular response to low doses of IR

As detailed in the previous sections, the radio-stimulative effect of gamma radiation on seeds encompasses a wide range of processes and responses, ranging from promoting germination to modifications in plant fruiting. This diversity of effects has led to the absence, to date, of a single or consensus mechanism that molecularly modulates these responses [28]. Apart from the damage (repairable or unrepairable) that IR causes at the DNA level (associated with higher doses, which finally led to mutations), IR also causes modifications in the regulation of the genome in processes related to oxidative stress, signal transduction, transcription factors, hormone response, metabolism transport, energy, development and morphogenesis, and cell cycle [26, 82, 85]. Due to the extensive nature of a section that would describe the background information available in the literature regarding this topic (including plant species, radiation dose, acute vs. chronic exposure, etc.), Table 2 presents some relevant reports of genes that modify their expression in response to low doses of IR in seeds. For further information, the reader is encouraged to review [21, 26, 85, 90].

Gen namePlant sp.DoseFunctionReference
Apetala 1 (AP1)Arabidospis thaliana3 cGy and 17 cGy (chronic exposure); 15 Gy (acute exposure)Promote floral meristem identity[86]
Ascobate peroxide (APX), Catalase (CAT), and Glutathione Reductase (GR)Oryza sativa25, 50, 100, and 200  GyAntioxidant defense[73]
Heat Shock Protein 90 (HSP90)Arabidopsis thaliana100, 250, 500, and 750 GySignal transduction, cell cycle, DNA repair, and stress response[87]
Lipid Transfer Protein (EARLI 1)Hordeum vulgare15, 20, and 25 GyGerminability and early seedling development[34]
Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA)Hordeum vulgare1.6, 2.6, and 4.2 μSv/hCell cycle regulation[77]
Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) and Guaiacol Peroxidase (GPOX)Hordeum vulgare2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 20, 25, and 50 GyAntioxidant defense[33]
Suppressor of Gamma Response 1 (SOG1)Arabidopsis thaliana1 to 540 mGy/hMaster regulator of DNA damage response[88]
Terpene Synthase 30 (TPS30)Oryza sativa100, 200, 300, 400, and 500 GySecondary metabolism[89]
X-Ray Repair Cross-Complementing Protein (XRCC)Oryza sativa100, 300, and 500 GyDNA damage response[59]

Table 2.

Seed gene expression modified by IR.

Advertisement

4. Effect on germination and growth of other physical agents

Much of the research on the effects of physical agents on seed growth and development is carried out in self-shielded equipment with 60Co as a gamma radiation emitting source (i.e., Gammacell 220R). However, there are other types of physical agents not necessarily derived from nuclear reactions that have also been used to study their possible radio-stimulating effect.

4.1 X-rays

X-rays correspond to a non-nuclear IR of electromagnetic nature (similar to gamma rays) that has also been used to modify the behavior and development of various plant species. Regarding their use as a radio-stimulant agent, shorter germination times have been reported in Hibiscus [91], increased vigor of coffee seedlings [92], increased leaf area in Phaseolus plants [93], and increased leaf and plant size in Tomato [25] in response to doses ranging from 0.1 Gy to doses greater than 100 Gy.

4.2 Protons

It corresponds to corpuscular radiation (hydrogen nuclei) typical of extraterrestrial environments (part of solar particles). The study of the effect of protons on the growth and development of plant species is crucial to evaluating potential species to be used in space missions or settlements [94]. In this regard, there are reports of higher germination rates and increases in chlorophyll and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) contents in soybean plants irradiated with protons [95], as well as stimulation of seedling growth and greater plant height [96] and root elongation [97] in rice seeds irradiated with low doses of this type of ionizing energy.

4.3 Electron beam

Low-energy electron beam (LEEB) beta radiation consists of a beam of accelerated electrons. This form of ionizing radiation operates within a range spanning from a few up to around 300 kGy. The accelerated electrons display enough energy to remove electrons from atoms or molecules producing ions [98]. LEEB application to lentil seeds accelerated seed germination, defined by the percentage of hypocotyl and leaf emergence at 3 days [99]. There are also reports that low doses of this type of radiation, applied to barley seeds, induced higher germination rates [100] while it improved the height and weight in wheat plants [101].

4.4 Non-thermal plasma (NTP)

By increasing the internal energy of a material, it will go from solid to liquid to gas and finally to an ionized gas state (where electrons separate from the elements), giving rise to the fourth state of matter or “plasma”, which has unique properties [102]. Depending on the conditions (working pressure, type of energy, amount of energy) required for plasma formation, it will have different properties [103], with non-thermal plasma (NTP) being the most studied for inducing changes at the seed or seedling level because the low temperatures generated do not alter the behavior of the material subjected to such plasma. Since the effect depends not only on the dose or energy imparted or absorbed by the irradiated material but also on the conditions under which the NTP state is induced or reached, it is complex to summarize the results obtained (and beyond the scope of this article). As an example, a report from 2005 studied the effect on the growth and development of tomato plants obtained from seeds irradiated with NTP [104], reporting higher seedling emergence, greater antioxidant enzyme activity, and a higher number of fruits and fruit biomass per plant. Stimulating effects of different doses and configurations of NTP have also been reported in cereals [105], legumes [106, 107], oilseeds [108], vegetable crops [109, 110], among others.

An alternative to the direct exposure of plant material (usually seeds) to NTP is the exposure of water to this type of energy, resulting in what is known as plasma-activated water (PAW) or plasma-treated water (PTW), which induces several chemical and physical modifications resulting in different biological effects on plant material [111]. The response to PAW involves change in redox potential, conductivity, pH and ROS and reactive nitrogen species content [112]. By using this technology, Vigna radiata seeds exposed to different treatments with PAW (different time exposition of water to NTP) resulted in the maximization of parameters such as germination rate and growth parameters, as well as an increased content of flavonoids and total phenols in seedlings [113]. Wheat seeds treated with PAW resulted in better germination, faster seedling growth, higher photosynthetic pigments in leaves, and soluble protein content in roots [114].

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

According to statistics, 90% of edible crops are cultivated from seeds [5]. Low germination and poor seedling growth often result in huge crop losses and therefore, developing strategies aimed at improving processes related to seed germination and crop establishment is a primary way to ensure food security [4, 115]. The necessity to develop strategies applied to seeds that aim to improve these processes while being environmentally friendly has driven studies on the use of low doses of IR (mainly gamma radiation) as a stimulating agent, a phenomenon called radio-stimulation or radio-hormesis. In the last two decades, increasing evidence has accumulated of the radio-stimulatory effect of gamma radiation (a safe, non-polluting, and sustainable form of ionizing radiation) on seed germination and associated processes.

The range or dose limit in which the stimulatory effect of gamma radiation is observed depends on intrinsic factors of the applied energy (LET, dose, dose rate) as well as the irradiated material (species; tissue; state of development, etc.). This makes it difficult to use transversal concepts regarding dose limits, that can be called “low doses” and rather, the stimulatory effect must be studied and defined on a case-by-case basis.

In the same way, the physiological processes and metabolic responses that are modified as a result of the application of stimulating doses of IR are also diverse and include changes in hormonal balance, activation of antioxidant protection systems, modifications of parameters associated with photosynthesis, stimulation of secondary metabolites, etc. However, despite decades of research, the precise mechanism of beneficial plant response to IR remains elusive [28], although there seems to be a consensus that all responses are associated (directly or indirectly) with changes in the content of ROS species.

Recently, the use of new techniques such as ion beam and especially the use of NTP have emerged as cost-effective and non-polluting alternatives capable of stimulating germination and modifying the development of some plant species [4].

Despite the advances and studies on the stimulating effect of gamma radiation on seed germination and eventually on the growth and development of plants, the use of this technique is still mostly associated with scientific studies and little progress has been made on its operational use. Therefore, it is necessary to continue researching to elucidate the response and molecular pathways that modulate the interaction between the ionizing radiation and plant development with the aim of making use of radio-stimulation as a real impact tool in the agroforestry sector.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Grant FONDECYT-PAI 7818I20007 granted by Research & Development National Agency (ANID).

References

  1. 1. Shoba Sivasankar S, Noel Ellis N, Jankuloski L, Ingelbrecht I, editors. Mutation Breeding, Genetic Diversity and Crop Adaptation to Climate Change. Wallingford, England: CABI; 2021
  2. 2. Kodym A, Afza R, Forster BP, Ukai Y, Nakagawa H, Mba C. Methodology for physical and chemical mutagenic treatments. In: Plant Mutation Breeding and Biotechnology. UK: CABI; 2012. pp. 169-180
  3. 3. Miller MW, Miller WM. Radiation hormesis in plants. Health Physics. 1987;52(5):607-616. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-198705000-00012
  4. 4. Bera K, Dutta P, Sadhukhan S. Seed priming with non-ionizing physical agents: plant responses and underlying physiological mechanisms. Plant Cell Reports. 2022;41(1):53-73. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-021-02798-y
  5. 5. Wang J, Zhang Y, Zhou L, Yang F, Li J, Du Y, et al. Ionizing radiation: Effective physical agents for economic crop seed priming and the underlying physiological mechanisms. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23(23):15212. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232315212
  6. 6. Beyaz R. Impact of gamma irradiation pretreatment on the growth of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) seedlings grown under salt and drought stress. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2020;96(2):257-2669. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2020.1688885
  7. 7. Mba C, Afza R, Shu QY. Mutagenic radiations: X-rays, ionizing particles and ultraviolet. In: Shu QY, Forster BP, Nakagawa H, editors. In Plant Mutation Breeding and Biotechnology. Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing; 2012. pp. 83-90
  8. 8. L’Annunziata MF. Radioactivity: Introduction and History, from the Quantum to Quarks. 2nd ed. London, England: Elsevier Science; 2016
  9. 9. IAEA. Radiation Biology: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. IAEA. [cited 2023 Jun 5];1. 2019. Available from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/8219/radiation-biology-a-handbook-for-teachers-and-students
  10. 10. Sankaranarayanan K. Estimation of the hereditary risks of exposure to ionizing radiation: History, current status, and emerging perspectives. Health Physics. 2001;80(4):363-369. DOI: 10.1097/00004032-200104000-00013
  11. 11. Barrachina Gomez M, Cerrolaza Asenjo JA, Garcia Alonso JM, Iranzo Martin JE, Lopez Perez B, Minguez Perres E, et al. 222 Q uestions about the Energy. Spain: Forum Atómico Espanol; 1993
  12. 12. Spencer-Lopes MM, Forster BP, Jankuloski L. Manual on Mutation Breeding. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2018
  13. 13. De Micco V, Arena C, Pignalosa D, Durante M. Effects of sparsely and densely ionizing radiation on plants. Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 2011;50(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s00411-010-0343-8
  14. 14. Araújo S, Paparella S, Dondi D, Bentivoglio A, Carbonera D, Balestrazzi A. Physical methods for seed invigoration: Advantages and challenges in seed technology. Frontier in Plant Science. 2016;7:646. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00646
  15. 15. Vanhoudt N, Cuypers A, Vangronsveld J, Horemans N, Wannijn J, Van Hees M, et al. Study of biological effects and oxidative stress related responses in gamma irradiated Arabidopsis thaliana plants. Radioprotection. 2011;46(6):S401-S407. DOI: 10.1051/radiopro/20116510s
  16. 16. Culligan KM, Robertson CE, Foreman J, Doerner P, Britt AB. ATR and ATM play both distinct and additive roles in response to ionizing radiation. The Plant Journal. 2006;48(6):947-961. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02931.x
  17. 17. Esnault M-A, Legue F, Chenal C. Ionizing radiation: Advances in plant response. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2010;68(3):231-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.01.007
  18. 18. Gudkov SV, Shilyagina NY, Vodeneev VA, Zvyagin AV. Targeted radionuclide therapy of human tumors. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2015;17(1):33. DOI: 10.3390/ijms17010033
  19. 19. Bruggeman PJ, Kushner MJ, Locke BR, Gardeniers JGE, Graham WG, Graves DB, et al. Plasma–liquid interactions: a review and roadmap. Plasma Sources Science and Technology. 2016;25(5):053002. DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/25/5/053002
  20. 20. Sartorio C, Angiolini M, Flammini D, Pietropaolo A, Agostini P, Alberghi C, et al. Preliminary assessment of radiolysis for the cooling water system in the rotating target of SORGENTINA-RF. Environments. 2022;9(8):106. DOI: 10.3390/environments9080106
  21. 21. Caplin N, Willey N. Ionizing radiation, higher plants, and radioprotection: From acute high doses to chronic low doses. Frontier in Plant Science. 2018;2018:9. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00847
  22. 22. Volkova PY, Duarte GT, Kazakova EA, Makarenko ES, Bitarishvili SV, Bondarenko VS, et al. Radiosensitivity of herbaceous plants to chronic radiation exposure: Field study in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Science Total Environment. 2021;777(146206):146206. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146206
  23. 23. Jan S, Parween T, Siddiqi TO, Mahmooduzzafar. Effect of gamma radiation on morphological, biochemical, and physiological aspects of plants and plant products. Environmental Reviews. 2012;20(1):17-39. DOI: 10.1139/a11-021
  24. 24. Majeed A, Muhammad Z, Ullah R, Ali H. Gamma irradiation I: effect on germination and general growth characteristics of plants–a review. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2018;50(6):2449-2453
  25. 25. De Micco V, Paradiso R, Aronne G, De Pascale S, Quarto M, Arena C. Leaf anatomy and photochemical behaviour of Solanum lycopersicum L. plants from seeds irradiated with low-LET ionising radiation. Scientific World Journal. 2014;2014:428141. DOI: 10.1155/2014/428141
  26. 26. Gudkov SV, Grinberg MA, Sukhov V, Vodeneev V. Effect of ionizing radiation on physiological and molecular processes in plants. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2019;202:8-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2019.02.001
  27. 27. Prabhat VK. Effects of gamma radiation on tomato seeds. Ijsdr.org. [cited 2023 Jun 5]. 2023. Available from: https://www.ijsdr.org/papers/IJSDR2010013.pdf
  28. 28. Volkova PY, Bondarenko EV, Kazakova EA. Radiation hormesis in plants. Current Opinion in Toxicology. 2022;30:100334. DOI: 10.1016/j.cotox.2022.02.007
  29. 29. Side THR, Abdurrakhman A, Djumali D, Herwati A, Yulaikah S, Supriyono S. Developing determination of gamma irradiation dose to increase sugarcane growth and yield. E3S Web Conference. 2023;373:03013. DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/202337303013
  30. 30. Aref IM, Khan PR, Al Sahli AA, Husen A, Ansari MKA, et al. Response of Datura innoxia Linn. To gamma rays and its impact on plant growth and productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy Science India Sect B Biol Sci. 2016;86(3):623-629. DOI: 10.1007/s40011-014-0485-6
  31. 31. Gutiérrez B, Koch L, Villegas D, Gonzalez J, Ly D, Molina M, et al. Análisis de Germinación de Semillas de Eucalyptus nitens Tratadas con Radiación Gamma: Indicios de Efecto Hormético. C&I Forestal. 2021;27(3):7-16. DOI: 10.52904/0718-4646.2021.554
  32. 32. Volkova PY, Clement G, Makarenko ES, Kazakova EA, Bitarishvili SV, Lychenkova MA. Metabolic profiling of γ-irradiated barley plants identifies reallocation of nitrogen metabolism and metabolic stress response. Dose-Response. 2020;18(1):1559325820914186. DOI: 10.1177/1559325820914186
  33. 33. Geraskin S, Churyukin R, Volkova P. Radiation exposure of barley seeds can modify the early stages of plants’ development. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2017;177:71-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2017.06.008
  34. 34. Volkova PY, Duarte GT, Soubigou-Taconnat L, Kazakova EA, Pateyron S, Bondarenko VS, et al. Early response of barley embryos to low- and high-dose gamma irradiation of seeds triggers changes in the transcriptional profile and an increase in hydrogen peroxide content in seedlings. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2020;206(2):277-295. DOI: 10.1111/jac.12381
  35. 35. Jaipo N, Kosiwikul M, Panpuang N, Prakrajang K. Low dose gamma radiation effects on seed germination and seedling growth of cucumber and okra. Journal of Physics Conference Series. 2019;1380(1):012106. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1380/1/012106
  36. 36. Song KE, Lee SH, Jung JG, Choi JE, Jun W, Chung J-W, et al. Hormesis effects of gamma radiation on growth of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). International Journal of Radiational Biology. 2021;97(7):906-915. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2021.1919783
  37. 37. El-Gazzar N, Mekki L, Heneidak S. ISSR markers associated with effects of gamma irradiation on growth and seed yield of M2 plants of Faba bean (Vicia Faba L). AJSRP. 2016;2(2):75-89. DOI: 10.12816/0025266
  38. 38. Beyaz R, Kahramanogullari CT, Yildiz C, Darcin ES, Yildiz M. The effect of gamma radiation on seed germination and seedling growth of Lathyrus chrysanthus Boiss. under in vitro conditions. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2016;162-163:129-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.05.006
  39. 39. Olasupo FO, Olumuyiwa Ilori C, Forster BP, Bado S. Mutagenic effects of gamma radiation on eight accessions of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.). American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2016;07(02):339-351. DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2016.72034
  40. 40. Antúnez-Ocampo OM, Cruz-Izquierdo S, Mendoza-Onofre LE, Sandoval-Villa M, Santacruz-Varela A, de La Cruz-Torres E, et al. Growth dynamics of morphological and reproductive traits of Physalis peruviana L. M1 plants obtained from seeds irradiated with gamma rays. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj Napoca. 2020;48(1):200-209. DOI: 10.15835/nbha48111745
  41. 41. Asare AT, Mensah F, Acheampong S, Asare-Bediako E, Armah J. Effects of gamma irradiation on agromorphological characteristics of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. moench.). Advanced Agriculture. 2017;2017:1-7. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2385106
  42. 42. Wang P, Zhang Y, Zhao L, Mo B, Luo T. Effect of gamma rays on Sophora davidii and detection of DNA polymorphism through ISSR marker. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017:8576404. DOI: 10.1155/2017/8576404
  43. 43. Qi W, Zhang L, Wang L, Xu H, Jin Q , Jiao Z. Pretreatment with low-dose gamma irradiation enhances tolerance to the stress of cadmium and lead in Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2015;115:243-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.02.026
  44. 44. Maherchandani N. Effects of gamma radiation on the dormant seed of Avena fatua L. Radiation Botany. 1975;15(4):439-443. DOI: 10.1016/0033-7560(75)90018-6
  45. 45. Majeed A, Ahmad H, Muhammad Z. Variation in chlorophyll contents and grain yield of Lepidium sativum L as induced by gamma irradiation. International Journal of Biological Sciences and Engineering. 2010;1(2):147-151
  46. 46. Abdel-Hady M, Okasha E, Soliman S, Talaat M. Effect of gamma radiation and gibberellic acid on germination and alkaloid production in Atropa belladonna L. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2008;2(3):401-405
  47. 47. Dubey A, Yadav J, Singh B. Studies on induced mutations by gamma irradiation in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Monch.). Progressive Agriculture. 2007;7(1-2):46-48
  48. 48. Moussa HR. Role of gamma irradiation in regulation of NO3 level in rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) plants. Russ. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2006;53:193-197
  49. 49. Hameed M, Naz N, Ahmad M, Islam-ud-Din R. Morphological adaptations of some grasses from the salt range. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2008;40(4):1571-1578
  50. 50. Ahuja S, Kumar M, Kumar P, Gupta VK, Singhal RK, Yadav A, et al. Metabolic and biochemical changes caused by gamma irradiation in plants. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 2014;300(1):199-212. DOI: 10.1007/s10967-014-2969-5
  51. 51. Hassanien EH, Abdeltawab FM, Elsouedy A, Sharabash MT, Mahmoud AA. Effect of gamma irradiation on growth, yield and chemical constituents for three tomato varieties and their crosses. In: El-Mashri SM, editor. Proceedings of the Second Arab Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy Part II: A and B. Cairo, Egypt; 1995. p. 1199
  52. 52. Mounir AM, El-Hefny AM, Mahmoud SH, El-Tanahy AMM. Effect of low gamma irradiation doses on growth, productivity and chemical constituents of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) tubers. Bulletin Natural Research Center. 2022;46(1). DOI: 10.1186/s42269-022-00838-5
  53. 53. Gunkel J, A. S. Ionizing radiations: biochemical, physiological and morphological aspects of their effect on plants. Encyclopedia in Plant Physics. 1961;16:555-611
  54. 54. Benedek M, Pannonhalmi K, Izsaki Z, Jeszenak G, M. M. Investigation on radioactive stimulation in tomatoes. Horticultural Abstracts. 1973;43:21-48
  55. 55. Alarkon K, Bozova L, Stoeva N. Index of earliness in tomato plants produced by irradiation of seeds and transplants with gamma rates. Rastenievydni Nauki. 1987;24(2):40-43
  56. 56. Voloozh D, Zham-Yansuren D. The effect of gamma irradiation of seed on the yield of outdoor tomatoes in Mongolia. Atomic Energia. 1977;41:149-151
  57. 57. Kim J-H, Baek M-H, Chung BY, Wi SG, Kim J-S. Alterations in the photosynthetic pigments and antioxidant machineries of red pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedlings from gamma-irradiated seeds. Journal of Plant Biology. 2004;47(4):314-321. DOI: 10.1007/bf03030546
  58. 58. Preuss SB, Britt AB. A DNA-damage-induced cell cycle checkpoint in Arabidopsis. Genetics. 2003;164(1):323-334. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/164.1.323
  59. 59. Hong MJ, Kim DY, Jo YD, Choi H-I, Ahn J-W, Kwon S-J, et al. Biological effect of gamma rays according to exposure time on germination and plant growth in wheat. Applied Science (Basel). 2022;12(6):3208. DOI: 10.3390/app12063208
  60. 60. Beckers GJM, Conrath U. Priming for stress resistance: From the lab to the field. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2007;10(4):425-431. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.06.002
  61. 61. van Hulten M, Pelser M, van Loon LC, Pieterse CMJ, Ton J. Costs and benefits of priming for defense in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2006;103(14):5602-5607. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0510213103
  62. 62. Wang X, Ma R, Cui D, Cao Q , Shan Z, Jiao Z. Physio-biochemical and molecular mechanism underlying the enhanced heavy metal tolerance in highland barley seedlings pre-treated with low-dose gamma irradiation. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):14233. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14601-8
  63. 63. Zhang L, Zheng F, Qi W, Wang T, Ma L, Qiu Z, et al. Irradiation with low-dose gamma ray enhances tolerance to heat stress in Arabidopsis seedlings. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2016;128:181-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.02.025
  64. 64. Mahmoud NS, Awad SH, Madani RMA, Osman FA, Elmamoun K, Hassan AB. Effect of γ radiation processing on fungal growth and quality characteristics of millet grains. Food Science & Nutrition. 2016;4(3):342-347. DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.295
  65. 65. Vanhoudt N, Horemans N, Wannijn J, Nauts R, Van Hees M, Vandenhove H. Primary stress responses in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to gamma radiation. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 2014;129:1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2013.11.011
  66. 66. Hallem M. Pre-exposure to gamma rays alleviates the harmful effect of salinity on cowpea plants. Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry. 2012;8(4):199-217
  67. 67. Oliveira NM, de Medeiros AD, de Nogueira M, Arthur V, Mastrangelo T, da Barboza Silva C. Hormetic effects of low-dose gamma rays in soybean seeds and seedlings: A detection technique using optical sensors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2021;187:106251. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106251
  68. 68. Singh B, Ahuja S, Singhal RK, Venu BP. Effect of gamma radiation on wheat plant growth due to impact on gas exchange characteristics and mineral nutrient uptake and utilization. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 2013;298(1):249-257. DOI: 10.1007/s10967-012-2342-5
  69. 69. Ahuja S, Singh B, Gupta VK, Singhal RK, Venu Babu P. Very low dose gamma irradiation stimulates gaseous exchange and carboxylation efficiency, but inhibits vascular sap flow in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2014;90(2):179-186. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2014.868615
  70. 70. Cohen I, Sapir Y, Shapira M. A conserved mechanism controls translation of Rubisco large subunit in different photosynthetic organisms. Plant Physiology. 2006;141(3):1089-1097. DOI: 10.1104/pp.106.079046
  71. 71. Chandorkar KR, Clark GM. Physiological and morphological responses of Pinus strobus L. and Pinus sylvestris L. seedlings subjected to low-level continuous gamma irradiation at a radioactive waste disposal area. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 1986;26(3):259-270. DOI: 10.1016/0098-8472(86)90038-9
  72. 72. McCabe J, Shelp B, Ursino DJ. Photosynthesis and photophosphorylation in radiation-stressed soybean plants and the relation of these processes to photoassimilate export. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 1979;19(4):253-261. DOI: 10.1016/0098-8472(79)90027-3
  73. 73. Macovei A, Garg B, Raikwar S, Balestrazzi A, Carbonera D, Buttafava A, et al. Synergistic exposure of rice seeds to different doses of γ-ray and salinity stress resulted in increased antioxidant enzyme activities and gene-specific modulation of TC-NER pathway. BioMed Research International. 2014;2014:676934. DOI: 10.1155/2014/676934
  74. 74. Ling A, Chia J, Hussein S, Harun A. Physiological responses of Citrus sinensis to gamma irradiation. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2008;5(1):12-19
  75. 75. Stoeva N, Bineva T. Gamma irradiation treatment: Growth, photosynthesis rate and content of plastid pigments. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology. 2001;2(2):299-303
  76. 76. Wi SG, Chung BY, Kim J-S, Kim J-H, Baek M-H, Lee J-W, et al. Effects of gamma irradiation on morphological changes and biological responses in plants. Micron. 2007;38(6):553-564. DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2006.11.002
  77. 77. Qi W, Zhang L, Feng W, Xu H, Wang L, Jiao Z. ROS and ABA signaling are involved in the growth stimulation induced by low-dose gamma irradiation in Arabidopsis seedling. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2015;175(3):1490-1506. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-014-1372-6
  78. 78. Gomes T, Xie L, Brede D, Lind O-C, Solhaug KA, Salbu B, et al. Sensitivity of the green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to gamma radiation: Photosynthetic performance and ROS formation. Aquatic Toxicology. 2017;183:1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2016.12.001
  79. 79. Ashraf M, Cheema A, Rashid M, Qamar Z. Effect of gamma rays on M1 generation in basmati rice. Pakistan Journal. 2003;35(5):791-795
  80. 80. Kreslavski VD, Los DA, Allakhverdiev SI, Kuznetsov VV. Signaling role of reactive oxygen species in plants under stress. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2012;59(2):141-154. DOI: 10.1134/s1021443712020057
  81. 81. El-Beltagi HS, Ahmed OK, El-Desouky W. Effect of low doses γ-irradiation on oxidative stress and secondary metabolites production of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) callus culture. Radiative Physics and Chemical Oxford England 1993. 2011;80(9):968-976. DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2011.05.002
  82. 82. Gicquel M, Taconnat L, Renou J-P, Esnault M-A, Cabello-Hurtado F. Kinetic transcriptomic approach revealed metabolic pathways and genotoxic-related changes implied in the Arabidopsis response to ionising radiations. Plant Science. 2012;195:106-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.06.015
  83. 83. Vardhan PV, Shukla LI. Gamma irradiation of medicinally important plants and the enhancement of secondary metabolite production. International Journal of Radiational Biology. 2017;93(9):967-979. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2017.1344788
  84. 84. Aly A, Eliwa N, AbdEl-Megid M. Stimulating effect of gamma radiation on some active compounds in eggplant fruits. Egypt Journal of Radiative Science Applications. 2019;2019:61-63. DOI: 10.21608/ejrsa.2019.10024.1066
  85. 85. Kim S-H, Song M, Lee KJ, Hwang S-G, Jang CS, Kim J-B, et al. Genome-wide transcriptome profiling of ROS scavenging and signal transduction pathways in rice (Oryza sativa L.) in response to different types of ionizing radiation. Molecular Biology Reports. 2012;39(12):11231-11248. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-012-2034-9
  86. 86. Kryvokhyzha MV, Krutovsky KV, Rashydov NM. Differential expression of flowering genes in Arabidopsis thaliana under chronic and acute ionizing radiation. International Journal of Radiational Biology. 2019;95(5):626-634. DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2019.1562251
  87. 87. Kozeko L, Talalaiev O, Neimash V, Povarchuk V. A protective role of HSP90 chaperone in gamma-irradiated Arabidopsis thaliana seeds. Life Science Space Research (Amst). 2015;6:51-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.lssr.2015.07.002
  88. 88. Kim J-H, Ryu TH, Lee SS, Lee S, Chung BY. Ionizing radiation manifesting DNA damage response in plants: An overview of DNA damage signaling and repair mechanisms in plants. Plant Science. 2019;278:44-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.10.013
  89. 89. Kim SW, Jung IJ, Kim SH, Choi H-I, Kang S-Y, Kim J-B. Physiological and molecular analysis of OsTPS30 by gamma irradiation. Journal of Plant Biotechnology. 2019;46(2):88-96. DOI: 10.5010/jpb.2019.46.2.088
  90. 90. Chang S, Lee U, Hong MJ, Jo YD, Kim J-B. High-throughput phenotyping (HTP) data reveal dosage effect at growth stages in Arabidopsis thaliana irradiated by gamma rays. Plants. 2020;9(5):557. DOI: 10.3390/plants9050557
  91. 91. Rezk AA, Al-Khayri JM, Al-Bahrany AM, El-Beltagi HS, Mohamed HI. X-ray irradiation changes germination and biochemical analysis of two genotypes of okra (Hibiscus esculentus L.). Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2019;12(1):393-402. DOI: 10.1080/16878507.2019.1680188
  92. 92. Dada KE, Animasaun DA, Mustapha OT, Bado S, Foster BP. Radiosensitivity and biological effects of gamma and X-rays on germination and seedling vigour of three Coffea arabica varieties. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation. 2022;2022:1582-1591. DOI: 10.1007/s00344-022-10643-z
  93. 93. Arena C, De Micco V, De Maio A. Growth alteration and leaf biochemical responses in Phaseolus vulgaris exposed to different doses of ionising radiation. Plant Biology (Stuttgart, Germany). 2014;16(Suppl. 1):194-202. DOI: 10.1111/plb.12076
  94. 94. Deoli NT, Hasenstein KH. Irradiation effects of MeV protons on dry and hydrated Brassica rapa seeds. Life Science Space Research (Amst). 2018;19:24-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.lssr.2018.08.004
  95. 95. Im J, Kim WJ, Kim SH, Ha B-K. Effects of proton beam irradiation on seed germination and growth of soybean (Glycine max L). Journal of Korean Physical Society. 2017;71(11):752-757. DOI: 10.3938/jkps.71.752
  96. 96. Kim S-K, Park S-Y, Kim K-R, Shin J-H, Kim S-Y, Kim H-Y, et al. Effect of proton beam irradiation on germination, seedling growth, and pasting properties of starch in rice. Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology. 2012;15(4):305-310. DOI: 10.1007/s12892-012-0063-5
  97. 97. Kumar V, Vishwakarma G, Chauhan A, Shitre A, Da BK, Nair J, et al. Use of proton beam as a novel tool for mutations in rice. BARC Newsletter. 2018;366:5-9
  98. 98. Lung H-M, Cheng Y-C, Chang Y-H, Huang H-W, Yang BB, Wang C-Y. Microbial decontamination of food by electron beam irradiation. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2015;44(1):66-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.03.005
  99. 99. Waskow A, Butscher D, Oberbossel G, Klöti D, Rudolf von Rohr P, Büttner-Mainik A, et al. Low-energy electron beam has severe impact on seedling development compared to cold atmospheric pressure plasma. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):16373. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-95767-0
  100. 100. Palomino G, Nepamuceno F, Villalobos-Pietrini R. A general description of barley coleoptile growth behavior under low LET radiations. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 1979;19(2):105-115. DOI: 10.1016/0098-8472(79)90015-7
  101. 101. Doroshkevich SY, Artemov KP, Tereshchenko NN, Zyubanova TI, Vorobyov MS, Akimova EE, et al. Presowing treatment of spring wheat seeds by a pulsed electron beam in the atmosphere. High Energy Chemistry. 2021;55(4):329-335. DOI: 10.1134/s0018143921040068
  102. 102. Bourke P, Ziuzina D, Boehm D, Cullen PJ, Keener K. The potential of cold plasma for safe and sustainable food production. Trends in Biotechnology. 2018;36(6):615-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.11.001
  103. 103. Mildaziene V, Ivankov A, Sera B, Baniulis D. Biochemical and physiological plant processes affected by seed treatment with non-thermal plasma. Plants. 2022;11(7):856. DOI: 10.3390/plants11070856
  104. 104. Meiqiang Y, Mingjing H, Buzhou M, Tengcai M. Stimulating effects of seed treatment by magnetized plasma on tomato growth and yield. Plasma Science and Technology. 2005;7(6):3143-3147. DOI: 10.1088/1009-0630/7/6/017
  105. 105. Dubinov AE, Lazarenko ER, Selemir VD. Effect of glow discharge air plasma on grain crops seed. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science IEEE Nuclear Plasma Science Society. 2000;28(1):180-183. DOI: 10.1109/27.842898
  106. 106. Será B, Stranák V, Serý M, Tichý M, Spatenka P. Germination of Chenopodium album in response to microwave plasma treatment. Plasma Science and Technology. 2008;10(4):506-511. DOI: 10.1088/1009-0630/10/4/22
  107. 107. Šerá B, Šerý M, Štrañák V, Špatenka P, Tichý M. Does cold plasma affect breaking dormancy and seed germination? A study on seeds of lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album agg.). Plasma. Science and Technology. 2009;11(6):750-754. DOI: 10.1088/1009-0630/11/6/22
  108. 108. Gholami A, Safa NN, Khoram M, Hadian J, Ghomi H. Effect of low-pressure radio frequency plasma on ajwain seed germination. Plasma Medicine. 2016;6(3-4):389-396. DOI: 10.1615/plasmamed.2017019157
  109. 109. Măgureanu M, Sîrbu R, Dobrin D, Gîdea M. Stimulation of the germination and early growth of tomato seeds by non-thermal plasma. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing. 2018;38(5):989-1001. DOI: 10.1007/s11090-018-9916-0
  110. 110. Štěpánová V, Slavíček P, Kelar J, Prášil J, Smékal M, Stupavská M, et al. Atmospheric pressure plasma treatment of agricultural seeds of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with effect on reduction of diseases and germination improvement. Plasma Processes and Polymers. 2018;15(2):1700076. DOI: 10.1002/ppap.201700076
  111. 111. Figueira FR, Doria ACOC, Khouri S, Maciel HS, Pessoa RS, Ramos MAR. Effect of storage temperature on pH and conductivity of reverse osmosis water treated with atmospheric plasma. Plasma Medicine. 2018;8(3):237-244. DOI: 10.1615/plasmamed.2018028327
  112. 112. Thirumdas R, Kothakota A, Annapure U, Siliveru K, Blundell R, Gatt R, et al. Plasma activated water (PAW): Chemistry, physico-chemical properties, applications in food and agriculture. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2018;77:21-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.007
  113. 113. Fan L Liu X, Ma Y, Xiang Q. Effects of plasma-activated water treatment on seed germination and growth of mung bean sprouts. Journal of Taibah University for Science. 2020;14(1):823-830. DOI: 10.1080/16583655.2020.1778326
  114. 114. Kučerová K, Henselová M, Slováková Ľ, Hensel K. Effects of plasma activated water on wheat: Germination, growth parameters, photosynthetic pigments, soluble protein content, and antioxidant enzymes activity. Plasma Processes and Polymers. 2019;16(3):1800131. DOI: 10.1002/ppap.201800131
  115. 115. Sperling L, McGuire S. Fatal gaps in seed security strategy. Food Security. 2012;4(4):569-579. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-012-0205-0

Written By

Daniel Villegas, Constanza Sepúlveda and Doris Ly

Submitted: 07 June 2023 Reviewed: 19 August 2023 Published: 27 October 2023