4.4 Article

Lead (Pb)-induced biochemical and ultrastructural changes in wheat (Triticum aestivum) roots

期刊

PROTOPLASMA
卷 250, 期 1, 页码 53-62

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00709-011-0372-4

关键词

Pb toxicity; Oxidative damage; Biochemical alterations; Root ultrastructural changes; Cell wall disintegration; Mitochondrial damage

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The focus of the present study was to explore lead (Pb)-induced metabolic alterations vis-A -vis ultrastructural changes in wheat roots to establish Pb toxicity syndrome at a structural level. Pb (50-500 mu M) enhanced malondialdehyde (an indicator of lipid peroxidation) and hydrogen peroxide content, and electrolyte leakage, thereby suggesting reactive oxygen species-induced disruption of membrane integrity and oxidative stress in wheat roots. The activities of superoxide dismutases and catalases enhanced upon Pb exposure, whereas those of ascorbate and guaiacol peroxidases declined. Pb-induced metabolic disruption was manifested in significant alterations in wheat root ultrastructure as analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. Pb caused thinning of cell wall (at 50 mu M), formation of amoeboid protrusions and folds and intercellular spaces, and appearance of lesions and nicks/breaks (at a parts per thousand yen250 mu M Pb). Pb was deposited along the cell walls as dark precipitates. At a parts per thousand currency sign250 mu M Pb, the number of mitochondria increased significantly, whereas structural damage in terms of change of shape and disintegration was observed at a parts per thousand yen 250 mu M Pb. Pb reduced the size of nucleoli and induced puff formation (at 250 mu M), resulting in complete disintegration/disappearance of nucleolus at 500 mu M. The study concludes that Pb inhibited wheat root growth involving an ROS-mediated oxidative damage vis-A -vis the ultrastructural alterations in cell membrane and disruption of mitochondrial and nuclear integrity.

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

4.4
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