4.6 Article

Silicon alleviates cadmium toxicity in peanut plants in relation to cadmium distribution and stimulation of antioxidative enzymes

期刊

PLANT GROWTH REGULATION
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 45-52

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10725-010-9447-z

关键词

Antioxidant enzyme; Arachis hypogaea; Cadmium; Silicon; Subcellular distribution

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40971296]
  2. Natural Science Foundation for College of Anhui Province [KJ2009B073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon (Si) is generally considered a beneficial element for the growth of higher plants, especially for those grown under stressed environments. Recently, the mitigating role of Si in cadmium (Cd) stress has received some attention. However, its mechanisms involved remain poorly understood. We studied the effects of Si on tissue and subcellular distribution of Cd, as well as the activities of major antioxidant enzymes (SOD, POD and CAT) with two contrasting peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars (Luhua 11 and Luzi 101) differing in their Cd tolerance. The results showed that Cd exposure alone depressed plant growth and caused oxidative stress for both cultivars, and this toxicity was more obvious in Cd-sensitive cultivar (Luhua 11) than in Cd-tolerant cultivar (Luzi 101). Si supply significantly alleviated the toxicity of Cd in peanut seedlings; this was correlated with a reduction of shoot Cd accumulation, an alteration of Cd subcellular distribution in leaves, and a stimulation of antioxidative enzymes. The mechanisms of Si amelioration of Cd stress were cultivar and tissue dependent. For Luhua 11, Si-mediated inhibition of Cd transport from roots to shoots, reduction of Cd content in cell organelle fractions of leaves, and enhancement of the SOD, POD and CAT activities in roots, might responsible for the role of Si in alleviating Cd toxicity. For Luzi 101, Si alleviation of Cd toxicity is mainly attributed to the decrease in Cd concentration in shoot and stimulation of antioxidants systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据