Plant and Soil

, Volume 142, Issue 2, pp 203–210 | Cite as

Soil humic substances affect transport properties of tonoplast vesicles isolated from oat roots

  • R. Pinton
  • Z. Varanini
  • G. Vizzotto
  • A. Maggioni


The effect of a low molecular size (<5 KDa) humic fraction, essentially fulvic acids, on microsomal and tonoplast ion-stimulated ATPase activity was studied. After 20 min of pre-incubation with microsomal vesicles from oat roots, humic substances at organic C concentration of up to 0.5 μg cm-3 increased KCl-stimulated ATPase activity, while they inhibited enzyme activity at higher concentrations. Cl--stimulated ATPase activity of tightly sealed tonoplast-enriched vesicles was similarly affected by <5 KDa humic substances. This behaviour was not observed when gramicidin D was added to the assay medium. Proton transport by vesicles incubated up to 5 min with <5 KDa humic molecules was affected in a concentration-dependent manner, strongly resembling that observed for ATP hydrolysis, whereas it was severely reduced when the assay conditions were close to those used for measuring ATP hydrolysis (20 min pre-incubation of vesicles with humic substances). The transmembrane electrical potential was negatively affected, irrespective of the concentration of humic molecules. Furthermore, a 15-min pre-incubation strongly reduced the formation of a potential gradient. The size and concentrations of humic substances employed make an interaction with the vacuolar membrane of root cells plausible. The results show that the main target of humic molecules is the electrical membrane potential and suggest a possible way of interference of these naturally occurring substances with the biochemical mechanisms involved in plant mineral nutrition.

Key words

acridine orange Avena sativa L. humic substances oxonol VI proton gradient tonoplast ATPase transmembrane potential 



bovine serum albumin


bis-tris-propane (1,3-bis(tris(hydroxy-methyl)-methylamino)-propane)




ethylene glycol bis(β-aminoethyl ether)-N,N′-tetracetic acid


(N-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-N′-(2-ethanesulfonic acid))


iminodiacetic acid

oxonol VI

bis (3-propyl-5-oxoisoxazol-4-yl)pentamethine oxonol




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albuzio A and Ferrari G 1989 Modulation of the molecular size of humic substances by organic acids of the root exudates. Plant and Soil 113, 237–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cacco G and Dell'Agnola G 1984 Plant growth regulator activity of soluble humic complexes. Can. J. Soil Sci. 64, 225–228.Google Scholar
  3. Chaminade R 1966 Physiological effects of soil organic matter constituents on the metabolism of plants. Report of the FAO/IAEA Meeting. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Churchill K A and Sze H 1983 Anion-sensitive H+-pumping ATPase in membrane vesicles from oat roots. Plant Physiol. 71, 610–617.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dell'Agnola G and Ferrari G 1971 Effect of humic acids on anion uptake by excised barley roots. In Humus et Planta V, pp 567–569. Res. Inst. of Crop Prod., Prague, Ruzyně.Google Scholar
  6. DeNobili M, Contin M and Leita L 1990 Alternative method for determination of carboxyl groups of humic substances. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70, 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guminski S, Sulej J and Glabiszewski J 1983 Influence of sodium humate on the uptake of some ions by tomato seedlings. Acta Soc. Bot. Poloniae 52, 149–164.Google Scholar
  8. Hodges T K and Leonard R T 1974 Purification of a plasma membrane-bound adenosine triphosphatase from plant roots. Methods Enzymol. 32, 392–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee Y S and Bartlett R J 1976 Stimulation of plant growth by humic substances. J. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 40, 876–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lowry O H, Rosebrough N J, Farr A L and Randall R J 1951 Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 193, 265–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Maggioni A, Varanini Z, Nardi S and Pinton R 1987 Action of soil humic matter on plant roots: Stimulation of ion uptake and effects on (Mg2++K+)ATPase activity. Sci. Tot. Envir. 62, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. O'Donnel R W 1973 The auxin-like effects of humic preparations from leonardite. Soil Sci. 116, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Poapst P A, Genier C and Schnitzer M 1970 Effect of soil fulvic acids on stem elongation in peas. Plant and Soil 32, 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prat S 1963 Permeability of plant tissues to humic acids. Biol. Plant. 5, 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rasi-Caldogno F, Pugliarello M C and DeMichelis M I 1985 Electrogenic transport of protons driven by the plasma membrane ATPase in membrane vesicles from radish. Plant Physiol. 77, 200–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rea P A and Sanders D 1987 Tonoplast energization: Two H+-pumps, one membrane. Physiol. Plant. 71, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Samson G and Visser S A 1989 Surface-active effect of humic acids on potato cell membrane properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21, 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Serrano R 1985 Plasma Membrane ATPase of Plants and Fungi. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp 105–113.Google Scholar
  19. Stevenson F J 1982 Humus Chemistry. Wiley, New York. pp 264–284.Google Scholar
  20. Sze H 1985 H+-translocating ATPases: Advances using membrane vesicles. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 36, 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vaughan D and Linehan D J 1976 The growth of wheat plants in humic acid solutions under axenic conditions. Plant and Soil 44, 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vaughan D and Malcolm R E 1985 Influence of humic substances on growth and physiological processes. In Soil Organic Matter and Biological Activity. Eds. DVaughan and R EMalcolm. pp 37–75. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Vaughan D and McDonald I R 1971 Effects of humic acids on protein synthesis and ion uptake in beet discs. J. Exp. Bot. 22, 400–410.Google Scholar
  24. Vaughan D and Ord B G 1981 Uptake and incorporation of 14C-labelled soil organic matter by roots of Pisum sativum L. J. Exp. Bot. 32, 679–687.Google Scholar
  25. Vaughan D and Ord B G 1985 Soil organic acid. A perspective on its nature, extraction, turnover and role in soil fertility. In Soil Organic Matter and Biological Activity. Eds. DVaughan and R EMalcolm. pp 1–35. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Vaughan D, Cheshire M V and Mundie C M 1974 Uptake by beet root tissue and biological activity of 14C-labelled fractions of soil organic matter. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2, 126–129.Google Scholar
  27. Vaughan D, Malcolm R E and Ord B G 1985 Influence of humic substances on biochemical processes in plants. In Soil Organic Matter and Biological Activity. Eds. DVaughan and R EMalcolm. pp 77–108. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Vianello A, Dell'Antone P and Macri F 1982 ATP-dependent and ionophore-induced proton translocation in pea stem microsomal vesicles. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 689, 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Visser S A 1985 Physiological action of humic substances on microbial cells. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Visser S A 1987 Effect of humic substances on mitochondrial respiration and oxidative phosphorylation. Sci. Tot. Envir. 62, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walkley A and Black I A 1934 An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37, 29–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Pinton
    • 1
  • Z. Varanini
    • 1
  • G. Vizzotto
    • 1
  • A. Maggioni
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Produzione Vegetale e Tecnologie AgrarieUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations