4.7 Article

Response difference of transgenic and conventional rice (Oryza sativa) to nanoparticles (γFe2O3)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 22, 页码 17716-17723

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4976-7

关键词

Nanoparticles; Transgenic rice; Phytohormones; Antioxidant system

资金

  1. Key National Natural Science Foundation of China [41130526]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371471]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nanoparticles (NPs) are an increasingly common contaminant in agro-environments, and their potential effect on genetically modified (GM) crops has been largely unexplored. GM crop exposure to NPs is likely to increase as both technologies develop. To better understand the implications of nanoparticles on GM plants in agriculture, we performed a glasshouse study to quantify the uptake of Fe2O3 NPs on transgenic and non-transgenic rice plants. We measured nutrient concentrations, biomass, enzyme activity, and the concentration of two phytohormones, abscisic acid (ABA) and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), and malondialdehyde (MDA). Root phytohormone inhibition was positively correlated with Fe2O3 NP concentrations, indicating that Fe2O3 had a significant influence on the production of these hormones. The activities of antioxidant enzymes were significantly higher as a factor of low Fe2O3 NP treatment concentration and significantly lower at high NP concentrations, but only among transgenic plants. There was also a positive correlation between the treatment concentration of Fe2O3 and iron accumulation, and the magnitude of this effect was greatest among non-transgenic plants. The differences in root phytohormone production and antioxidant enzyme activity between transgenic and non-transgenic rice plants in vivo suggests that GM crops may react to NP exposure differently than conventional crops. It is the first study of NPs that may have an impact on GM crops, and a realistic significance for food security and food safety.

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