4.6 Article

Zinc and cadmium accumulation in controlled crosses between metallicolous and nonmetallicolous populations of Thlaspi caerulescens (Brassicaceae)

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 157, 期 3, 页码 643-648

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00701.x

关键词

Thlaspi caerulescens; controlled crosses; zinc accumulation; cadmium accumulation; hyperaccumulation; genetic determinism; phytoextraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Growth and heavy metal (Zn and Cd) hyperaccumulation were investigated in metallicolous and nonmetallicolous Mediterranean populations of Thlaspi caerulescens (Brassicaceae), and in offspring from controlled crosses between these populations. Seeds for the growth and crossing experiments were collected from a number of sites varying in heavy metal contamination. Tissue Zn and Cd content was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Offspring from crosses between nonmetallicolous populations had the highest Zn concentration (c. 30 000 mug g(-1)), compared with 20 000 mug g(-1) for the nonmetallicolous parents. The metallicolous parents and the other crosses had only 10 000 mug g(-1). Offspring from crosses including a nonmetallicolous parent still had a significantly higher Zn uptake than the metallicolous parents. A trend towards a higher Cd uptake was observed in offspring from crosses with a metallicolous parent. We suggest that the most probable hypothesis is that the differences in Zn hyperaccumulation between crosses could be explained by a monogenic system with two alleles. The dominant allele would restrict Zn hyperaccumulation at 10 000 mug g(-1) whereas the recessive allele would be responsible for a two to three-fold increase in Zn hyperaccumulation. Alternatively, the existence of modifier genes could explain the differences between offspring from crosses between nonmetallicolous populations and their respective field parents. The results suggest that plant breeding applied to this species could help to improve Zn phytoextraction.

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