4.7 Article

Arsenic accumulation and resistance mechanism in Panax notoginseng, a traditional rare medicinal herb

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 87, 期 1, 页码 31-36

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.11.049

关键词

Panax notoginseng; Arsenic (As); Speciation; Resistance; Subcellular distribution; Antioxidation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40801205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Panax notoginseng, a traditional rare Chinese medicinal herb, was recently found to bring health risk to consumers, mainly because soil in its major plantation area was contaminated by arsenic (As). We investigated the effect of soil As pollution on the growth and As uptake of pot-cultured P. notoginseng, and the associated mechanisms of As stressed response. Results showed that, comparing with P. notoginseng growing in a low-As soil, the root, stem, and leaf biomasses of those growing in a high-As soil significantly reduced by 0.75, 0.09 and 0.21 g seedling(-1), respectively. Arsenic concentrations in roots, stems and leaves of the seedlings growing in high-As soil were 22, 15 and 3 times higher than those growing in low-As soil, respectively. Regardless of the soil As concentration, As existed in plants mainly as As(III), suggesting that the reduction of As(V) is a key step in As metabolism. Arsenic was distributed primarily in cell walls (51.7% for plants growing in the low-As soil, and 51.5% in the high-As soil), followed by cytoplasm supernatant, with cell organelles containing the least As. Compared with plants growing in the low-As soil, those in the high-As soil had increased superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities in their roots, stems, and leaves, which would be associate with improving the resistance of P. notoginseng to As stress. The results suggest that there exists some special mechanisms of As-tolerance in P. notoginseng and the study is of significance in developing measures to reduce As in the herb. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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