4.8 Article

Cadmium-induced changes in antioxidative systems, hydrogen peroxide content, and differentiation in Scots pine roots

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 127, 期 3, 页码 887-898

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1104/pp.010318

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate whether Cd induces common plant defense pathways or unspecific necrosis, the temporal sequence of physiological reactions, including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) production, changes in ascorbate-glutathione-related antioxidant systems, secondary metabolism (peroxidases, phenolics, and lignification), and developmental changes, was characterized in roots of hydroponically grown Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings. Cd (50 mum, 6 h) initially increased superoxide dismutase, inhibited the systems involved in H2O2 removal (glutathione/glutathione reductase, catalase [CAT], and ascorbate peroxidase [APX]), and caused H2O2 accumulation. Elongation of the roots was completely inhibited within 12 h. After 24 h, glutathione reductase activities recovered to control levels; APX and CAT were stimulated by factors of 5.5 and 1.5. Cell death was increased. After 48 h, nonspecific peroxidases and lignification were increased, and APX and CAT activities were decreased. Histochemical analysis showed that soluble phenolics accumulated in the cytosol of Cd-treated roots but lignification was confined to newly formed protoxylem elements, which were found in the region of the root tip that normally constitutes the elongation zone. Roots exposed to 5 mum Cd showed less pronounced responses and only a small decrease in the elongation rate. These results suggest that in cells challenged by Cd at concentrations exceeding the detoxification capacity, H2O2 accumulated because of an imbalance of redox systems. This, in turn, may have triggered the developmental program leading to xylogenesis. In conclusion, Cd did not cause necrotic injury in root tips but appeared to expedite differentiation, thus leading to accelerated aging.

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

4.8
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