Back to all available

Nano-scale silicon intervention for improving abiotic stress resilience in rice: mechanistic insights and practical applications

agricultural-science
biotechnology
genetics
molecular-biology
plant-science

Abstract

Rice, a global food staple, is highly vulnerable to abiotic stresses such as drought, salinity, heat, and heavy metal toxicity. Silicon nanoparticles (SiNPs) have emerged as promising nano-interventions to enhance stress resilience by improving antioxidant defenses, photosynthesis, and ion homeostasis. Recent studies reveal that SiNPs regulate transporter genes (OsHMA3, OsLsi1, OsABCC1), activate transcription factors (DREB, NAC, WRKY), and stimulate metabolite accumulation (proline, phenolics, lignin) that mitigate oxidative damage and metal toxicity. Omics-based evidence further suggests roles in redox signaling, hormone pathways, and epigenetic regulation, though rice-specific datasets remain limited. This review integrates current insights into physiological, molecular, and metabolic mechanisms of SiNPs in rice, highlights food safety and environmental concerns, and outlines critical research gaps for field validation and regulatory acceptance.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].