4.7 Article

Comparison of Cd subcellular distribution and Cd detoxification between low/high Cd-accumulative rice cultivars and sea rice

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109698

关键词

Cadmium; Sea rice; Root morphology; Subcellular distribution; Cd detoxification

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0800900]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Tianhe District in Guangzhou, China [2018CX008]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Shaoguan City in Guangdong Province, China [2017SGTYFZ30]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salt-tolerant rice cultivar (sea rice) is a research hotspot worldwide due to its high yield in high salinity soil. However, knowledge regarding the cadmium (Cd) effects on the growth of sea rice is limited. To determine the short-term and long-term impact of Cd stress, relatively low/high Cd-accumulative rice cultivars and sea rice were grown to compare their growth responses to Cd stress over time. The results showed that sea rice presented the highest Cd concentrations in the root, stem, and leaves under 32-days of Cd stress. Cd stress shortened and thickened the rice root, and decreased the proportion of root diameters in the 0-0.2 mm range. Cd stress remarkably increased the Cd and Fe concentration in dithionite citrate bicarbonate (DCB) extracts, and the DCB-Cd and DCB-Fe concentrations were the highest in sea rice. The subcellular distribution of Cd in the rice roots indicated that Cd accumulated the most in the soluble fraction and cell wall. The contents of pectin and hemicellulose 2 in the root cell wall of the low-Cd accumulative rice variety CL755 were higher than those in MXZ and sea rice. Collectively, this work provides a general understanding of the Cd effects on sea rice growth and indicates that sea rice has a relatively high Cd accumulation compared with the other two rice cultivars. However, the specifically-related mechanism remains to be further studied.

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