4.8 Article

Identification of the Primary Lesion of Toxic Aluminum in Plant Roots

Journal

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 4, Pages 1402-1411

Publisher

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.114.253229

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [FT120100277, FT100100337, DE130100943]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I026584/1]
  3. International Synchrotron Access Program - Australian Government
  4. Australian Research Council [FT120100277, DE130100943] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  5. EPSRC [EP/I026584/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I026584/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the rhizotoxicity of aluminum (Al) being identified over 100 years ago, there is still no consensus regarding the mechanisms whereby root elongation rate is initially reduced in the approximately 40% of arable soils worldwide that are acidic. We used high-resolution kinematic analyses, molecular biology, rheology, and advanced imaging techniques to examine soybean (Glycine max) roots exposed to Al. Using this multidisciplinary approach, we have conclusively shown that the primary lesion of Al is apoplastic. In particular, it was found that 75 mu M Al reduced root growth after only 5 min (or 30 min at 30 mu M Al), with Al being toxic by binding to the walls of outer cells, which directly inhibited their loosening in the elongation zone. An alteration in the biosynthesis and distribution of ethylene and auxin was a second, slower effect, causing both a transient decrease in the rate of cell elongation after 1.5 h but also a longer term gradual reduction in the length of the elongation zone. These findings show the importance of focusing on traits related to cell wall composition as well as mechanisms involved in wall loosening to overcome the deleterious effects of soluble Al.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available