The significant reduction in agricultural output and the decline in product quality are two of the most glaring negative impacts caused by plant pathogenic fungi (PPF). Furthermore, contaminated food or transit might introduce mycotoxins produced by PPF directly into the food chain. Eating food tainted with mycotoxin is extremely dangerous for both human and animal health. Using fungicides is the first choice to control PPF or their toxins in food. Fungicide resistance and its effects on the environment and public health are becoming more and more of a concern, despite the fact that chemical fungicides are used to limit PPF toxicity and control growth in crops. Fungicides induce target site alteration and efflux pump activation, and mutations in PPF result in resistance. As a result, global trends are shifting away from chemically manufactured pesticides and toward managing fungal plant diseases using various biocontrol techniques, tactics, and approaches. However, surveillance programs to monitor fungicide resistance and their environmental impact are much fewer compared to bacterial antibiotic resistance surveillance programs. In this review, we discuss the PPF that contributes to disease development in plants, the fungicides used against them, factors causing the spread of PPF and the emergence of new strains, the antifungal resistance mechanisms of PPF, health, the environmental impacts of fungicides, and the use of biocontrol agents (BCAs), antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), and nanotechnologies to control PPF as a safe and eco-friendly alternative to fungicides.

The demand for developing novel antimicrobial drugs has increased due to the rapid appearance and global spread of antibiotic resistance. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) offer distinct advantages over traditional antibiotics, such as broad-range efficacy, a delayed evolution of resistance, and the capacity to enhance human immunity. AMPs are being developed as potential medicines, and current computational and experimental tools aim to facilitate their preclinical and clinical development. Structural and functional constraints as well as a more stringent regulatory framework have impeded clinical translation of AMPs as possible therapeutic agents. Although around four thousand AMPs have been identified so far, there are some limitations of using these AMPs in clinical trials due to their safety in the host and sometimes limitations in the biosynthesis or chemical synthesis of some AMPs. Overcoming these obstacles may help to open a new era of AMPs to combat superbugs without using synthetic antibiotics. This review describes the classification, mechanisms of action and immune modulation, advantages, difficulties, and opportunities of using AMPs against multidrug-resistant pathogens and highlights the need and priorities for creating targeted development strategies that take into account the most cutting-edge tools currently available. It also describes the barriers to using these AMPs in clinical trials.

The appendix, an integral part of the large intestine, may serve two purposes. First of all, it is a concentration of lymphoid tissue that resembles Peyer’s patches. It is also the main location in the body for the creation of immunoglobulin A (IgA), which is essential for controlling intestinal flora’s density and quality. Second, the appendix constitutes a special place for commensal bacteria in the body because of its location and form. Inflammation of the appendix, brought on by a variety of infectious agents, including bacteria, viruses, or parasites, is known as appendicitis. According to a number of studies, the consequences of appendectomies may be more subtle, and may relate to the emergence of heart disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and Parkinson’s disease (PD), among other unexpected illnesses. A poorer prognosis for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection is also predicted by the absence of an appendix. Appendectomies result in gut dysbiosis, which consequently causes different disease outcomes. In this review, we compared the compositional differences between the appendix and gut microbiome, the immunological role of appendix and appendix microbiome (AM), and discussed how appendectomy is linked to different disease consequences.

There were errors in the original publication