4.7 Article

Characterization of As efflux from the roots of As hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata L.

期刊

PLANTA
卷 234, 期 6, 页码 1275-1284

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-011-1480-2

关键词

Arsenic; Arsenic efflux; P-deprived pre-culture; P-supplied pre-culture; Pteris

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [19710061]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41150110151]
  3. Kurita Water and Environmental Foundation
  4. Maekawa Houonkai Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19710061, 23710085] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In some plant species, various arsenic (As) species have been reported to efflux from the roots. However, the details of As efflux by the As hyperaccumulator Pteris vittata remain unknown. In this study, root As efflux was investigated for different phosphorus (P) supply conditions during or after a 24-h arsenate uptake experiment under hydroponic growth conditions. During an 8-h arsenate uptake experiment, P-supplied (P+) P. vittata exhibited much greater arsenite efflux relative to arsenate uptake when compared with P-deprived (P-) P. vittata, indicating that arsenite efflux was not proportional to arsenate uptake. In the As efflux experiment following 24 h of arsenate uptake, arsenate efflux was also observed with arsenite efflux in the external solution. All the results showed relatively low rates of arsenate efflux, ranging from 5.4 to 16.1% of the previously absorbed As, indicating that a low rate of arsenate efflux to the external solution is also a characteristic of P. vittata, as was reported with arsenite efflux. In conclusion, after 24 h of arsenate uptake, both P+ and P- P. vittata loaded/effluxed similar amounts of arsenite to the fronds and the external solution, indicating a similar process of xylem loading and efflux for arsenite, with the order of the arsenite concentrations being solution a parts per thousand(a) roots a parts per thousand(a) fronds.

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

4.7
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