4.6 Article

Variation in root-to-shoot translocation of cadmium and zinc among different accessions of the hyperaccumulators Thlaspi caerulescens and Thlaspi praecox

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 178, Issue 2, Pages 315-325

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02376.x

Keywords

cadmium; compartmentation; hyperaccumulation; Thlaspi caerulescens; Thlaspi praecox; translocation; zinc

Categories

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/E/C/00004174] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Efficient root-to-shoot translocation is a key trait of the zinc/cadmium hyperaccumulators Thlaspi caerulescens and Thlaspi praecox, but the extent of variation among different accessions and the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Root-to-shoot translocation of Cd and Zn and apoplastic bypass flow were determined in 10 accessions of T. caerulescens and one of T. praecox, using radiolabels Cd-109 and Zn-65. Two contrasting accessions (Pr and Ga) of T. caerulescens were further characterized for TcHMA4 expression and metal compartmentation in roots. Root-to-shoot translocation of Cd-109 and Zn-65 after 1 d exposure varied 4.4 to 5-fold among the 11 accessions, with a significant correlation between the two metals, but no significant correlation with uptake or the apoplastic bypass flow. The F-2 progeny from a cross between accessions from Prayon, Belgium (Pr) and Ganges, France (Ga) showed a continuous phenotype pattern and transgression. There was no significant difference in the TcHMA4 expression in roots between Pr and Ga. Compartmentation analysis showed a higher percentage of Cd-109 sequestered in the root vacuoles of Ga than Pr, the former being less efficient in translocation than the latter. Substantial natural variation exists in the root-to-shoot translocation of Cd and Zn, and root vacuolar sequestration may be an important factor related to this variation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available