4.7 Article

Comparison of cadmium absorption, translocation, subcellular distribution and chemical forms between two radish cultivars (Raphanus sativus L.)

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 145, Issue -, Pages 258-265

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.042

Keywords

Cadmium; Radish; Cultivar; Absorption; Subcellular fraction; Chemical forms

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41271275]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cadmium (Cd) absorption and accumulation vary greatly not only among plant species but also among cultivars within the same species. In order to better understand the mechanisms of Cd absorption, transportation and distribution, we examined the differences of Cd absorption, translocation, subcellular distribution and chemical forms between L19, a Cd-tolerant genotype, and H4, a Cd-sensitive genotype, using kinetic analysis and soil culture experiment. Kinetic assays showed that the different Cd concentrations between the two cultivars might be ascribed to root absorption and translocation from root to shoot. The investigations of subcellular distribution and chemical forms verified that Cd concentrations of all subcellular fractions in H4 were all higher than in L19. Meanwhile, most of the Cd was associated with cell walls in the root of H4, but the Cd in the root of L19 and leaf of the two cultivars was mainly stored in soluble fraction, which could be one possible mechanism of tolerance to Cd toxicity. In addition, Cd fractions extracted by 1 M NaCl and 2% HAC were predominant in root and leaf of both cultivars and the concentrations and proportions extracted by water and 80% ethanol in root and 1 M NaCl in leaf were all higher in H4 than in L19. These results indicate that the Cd in H4 is more active than L19, which could be responsible for the sensitivity of H4 to Cd damage.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available