DNA fingerprinting and assessment of some physiological changes in Al-induced Bryophyllum daigremontianum clones
- 101 Downloads
Aluminum (Al) is one of the most important stress factors that reduce plant productivity in acidic soils. Present work thereby analyzed Al-induced genomic alterations in Bryophyllum daigremontianum clones using RAPD and ISSR markers, and investigated responding changes in photosynthetic pigment (chlorophyll a, b, a/b, total chlorophyll and carotenoid) contents and total soluble protein amounts in plant leaves. The main reason for the use of bulbiferous spurs originated clone plants was to increase reliability and acceptability of RAPD and ISSR techniques in DNA fingerprinting. Raised 40 clone plants were divided into five separate groups each with eight individuals and each experimental group was watered with 0 (control), 0 (acid control), 50, 100 and 200 µM AlCl3-containing Hoagland solutions on alternate days for two and a half months. All plant soils except control group were sprayed with 0.2% sulfuric acid following watering days and this contributed acidic characteristic (pH 4.8) to soil structure. Increase in Al concentrations were accompanied by an increase in total soluble protein amounts, a decrease in photosynthetic pigment contents, and with appearance, disappearance and intensity changes at RAPD and ISSR band profiles. Out of tested RAPD1-25 and ISSR1-15 primers, RAPD8, RAPD9, ISSR2 and ISSR7 primers produced reproducible band profiles that were distinguishable between treatment and control groups. Findings showed that RAPD and ISSR fingerprints have been useful biomarkers for investigation of plant genotoxicity, especially in clone plants. Moreover, if these fingerprints are integrated with other physiological parameters they could become more powerful tools in ecotoxicology.
KeywordsRAPD ISSR Clone plant Genotoxicity Acidic soil DNA fingerprinting
This project is supported by Düzce University Research Fund. Project Number: 2015.05.01.376.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
- 2.Zahedi-Amiri Z, Taravati A, Hejazian LB (2018) Protective effect of Rosa damascena against aluminum chloride-induced oxidative stress. Biol Trace Elem Res 187:1–8Google Scholar
- 8.Vardar F, Unal M (2007) Aluminum toxicity and resistance in higher plants, review. Adv Mol Bio 1:1–12Google Scholar
- 16.Matsumoto H (2000) Cell biology of aluminum toxicity and tolerance in higher plants. Int Rev Cytol 200:1–46Google Scholar
- 22.Hoagland DR, Arnon DI (1950) The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Circ Calif Agric Exp Stn 347(2nd edit):32Google Scholar
- 32.Azmat R, Hasan S (2008) Photochemistry of light harvesting pigments and some biochemical changes under aluminium stress. Pak J Bot 40(2):779–784Google Scholar
- 35.Kosakivska I, Klymchuk D, Negretzky V, Bluma D, Ustinova A (2008) Stress proteins and ultrastructural characteristics of leaf cells of plants with different types of ecologıcal strategies. Gen Appl Plant Physiol 34(3–4):405–418Google Scholar
- 40.Rastgoo L, Alemzadeh A (2011) Biochemical responses of gouan (‘Aeluropus littoralis’) to heavy metals stress. Aust J Crop Sci 5(4):375–383Google Scholar
- 41.Zahid HS, Mujib A (2012) Accumulation of vincristine in calcium chloride elicitated Catharanthus roseus cultures. Nat Prod J 2(4):307–315Google Scholar
- 43.Shahrtash M, Mohsenzadeh S, Mohabatkar H (2010) Cadmium-induced genotoxicity detected by the random amplification of polymorphism DNA in the maize seedling roots. J Cell Mol Res 2(1):42–48Google Scholar
- 49.Bojorquez-Quintal JEA, Sánchez-Cach LA, Ku-González A, Santos-Briones C, Medina-Lara MF, Echevarría-Machado I, Muñoz-Sánchez JA, Sotomayor SMTH, Estévez MM (2014) Differential effects of aluminum on in vitro primary root growth, nutrient content and phospholipase C activity in coffee seedlings (Coffea arabica). J Inorg Biochem 134:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.Bowditch BM, Albright DG, Williams JGK, Braun MJ (1993) Use of randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers in comparative genome studies. Methods Enzymol 224:293–309Google Scholar