Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 4597–4608 | Cite as

Mercury heavy-metal-induced physiochemical changes and genotoxic alterations in water hyacinths [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.)]

  • Srinivasan Malar
  • Shivendra Vikram Sahi
  • Paulo J. C. Favas
  • Perumal Venkatachalam
Research Article

Abstract

Mercury heavy metal pollution has become an important environmental problem worldwide. Accumulation of mercury ions by plants may disrupt many cellular functions and block normal growth and development. To assess mercury heavy metal toxicity, we performed an experiment focusing on the responses of Eichhornia crassipes to mercury-induced oxidative stress. E. crassipes seedlings were exposed to varying concentrations of mercury to investigate the level of mercury ions accumulation, changes in growth patterns, antioxidant defense mechanisms, and DNA damage under hydroponics system. Results showed that plant growth rate was significantly inhibited (52 %) at 50 mg/L treatment. Accumulation of mercury ion level were 1.99 mg/g dry weight, 1.74 mg/g dry weight, and 1.39 mg/g dry weight in root, leaf, and petiole tissues, respectively. There was a decreasing trend for chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids with increasing the concentration of mercury ions. Both the ascorbate peroxidase and malondialdehyde contents showed increased trend in leaves and roots up to 30 mg/L mercury treatment and slightly decreased at the higher concentrations. There was a positive correlation between heavy metal dose and superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase antioxidative enzyme activities which could be used as biomarkers to monitor pollution in E. crassipes. Due to heavy metal stress, some of the normal DNA bands were disappeared and additional bands were amplified compared to the control in the random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) profile. Random amplified polymorphic DNA results indicated that genomic template stability was significantly affected by mercury heavy metal treatment. We concluded that DNA changes determined by random amplified polymorphic DNA assay evolved a useful molecular marker for detection of genotoxic effects of mercury heavy metal contamination in plant species.

Keywords

Genotoxicity Hyperaccumulation Mercury toxicity Oxidative stress Phytoremediation 

References

  1. Ahmad MA, Guar R, Gupta M (2012) Comparative biochemical and RAPD analysis in two varieties of rice (Oryza sativa) under arsenic stress by using various biomarkers. J Hazard Mater 217–218:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksakal O, Erturk FA, Sunar S, Bozari S, Agar G (2013) Assessment of genotoxic effects of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on maize by using RAPD analysis. Ind Crop Prod 42:552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alscher RG, Erturk NL (2002) Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants. Environ Exp Bot 53:1331–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asada K, Takahashi M (1987) Production and scavenging of active oxygen in chloroplasts. In: Kyle DJ, Osmond CB, Arntzen CJ (eds) Photo inhibition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 227–287Google Scholar
  5. Atienzar FA, Conradi M, Donkin ME, Evenden AJ, Jha AN (2000) Comparison of ultraviolet-induced genotoxicity detected by random amplified polymorphic DNA with chlorophyll fluorescence and growth in a marine macro algae (Palmaria palmate). Aquat Toxicol 50:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp C, Fridovich I (1971) Superoxide dismutase: improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Anal Biochem 44:276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beer JRF, Sizer IW (1952) A spectrophotometric method for measuring the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide by catalase. J Biol Chem 195:133–140Google Scholar
  8. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cenkci S, Yildiz M, Cigerci IH, Konuk M, Bozdag A (2009) Toxic chemicals-induced genotoxicity detected by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings. Chemosphere 76:900–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cenkci S, Cigerci IH, Yildiz M, Ozay C, Bozdag A (2010) Lead contamination reduces chlorophyll and genomic template stability in Brassica napa L. Environ Exp Bot 67:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen J, Shiyab S, Han FX, Monts DL, Waggoner AW, Su ZY (2009) Bioaccumulation and physiological effects of mercury in Pteris vittata and Nephrolepis exaltata. Ecotoxicology 18:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho UH, Park JO (2000) Mercury-induced oxidative stress in tomato seedlings. Plant Sci 156:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davenport SB, Gallego SM, Benavides MP, Tomarow ML (2003) Behaviour of antioxidant defense system in the adaptive response to salt stress in Helianthus annus L. J Plant Growth Regul 40:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1990) Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12:13–15Google Scholar
  15. Du X, Zhu YG, Liu WJ, Zhao XS (2005) Uptake of mercury (Hg) by seedlings of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown in solution culture and interactions with arsenate uptake. Environ Exp Bot 54:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng-tao LI, Jian-min QI, Gao-yang Z, Li-hui L, Ping-ping F, Fen TA, Jian-tang XU (2013) Effect of cadmium stress on the growth, antioxidative enzymes and lipid peroxidation in two kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) plant seedlings. J Inte Agri 12:610–620Google Scholar
  17. Gao S, Yang C, Tang L, Zhu J, Xu Y, Wang S, Chen F (2010) Growth and antioxidant responses in Jatropha curcas seedling exposed to mercury toxicity. J Hazard Mater 182:591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gill SS, Khan N, Tuteja N (2012) Cadmium at high dose perturbs growth, photosynthesis and nitrogen metabolism while at low dose it up regulates sulphur assimilation and antioxidant machinery in garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plant Sci 182:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Han FX, Banin A, Su Y, Monts DL, Plodinec MJ, Kingery WL (2002) Industrial age anthropogenic inputs of heavy metals into the pedosphere. Naturwissenschaften 89:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoagland R, Arnon DI (1950) The water-culture method of growing plants without soil. Calif Agric Exp Station Circ 347:1–32Google Scholar
  21. Hu R, Sunc K, Suc X, Pana Y, Zhang Y (2012) Physiological responses and tolerance mechanisms to Pb in two xerophils: Salsola passerina Bunge and Chenopodium album L. J Hazard Mater 205–206:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Israr M, Sahi SV (2006) Antioxidative responses to mercury in the cell cultures of Sesbania drummondii. Plant Physiol Biochem 44:590–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamal M, Ghaly AE, Mahmoud N, Cote R (2004) Phytoaccumulation of heavy metals by aquatic plants. Environ Int 29:1029–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Korpe DA, Aras S (2011) Evaluation of copper-induced stress on eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) seedlings at the molecular and population levels by use of various biomarkers. Mutat Res 719:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li B, Shi JB, Wang X, Meng M, Huang L, Qi XL, He B, Ye ZH (2013) Variations and constancy of mercury and methylmercury accumulation in rice grown at contaminated paddy field sites in three Provinces of China. Environ Pollut 181:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lichtenthaler HK (1987) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods Enzymol 148:350–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu W, Yang YS, Li PJ, Zhou QX, Xie LJ, Han YP (2009) Risk assessment of cadmium-contaminated soil on plant DNA damage using RAPD and physiological indices. J Hazard Mater 161:878–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malecka A, Piochalak A, Tomaszewska B (2009) Reactive oxygen species production and antioxidative defense system in pea root tissues treated with lead ions: the whole roots level. Acta Physiol Plant 31:1053–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manikandan R, Venkatachalam P (2011) Risk assessment of mercury ion heavy metal exposure on physiological and biochemical changes and DNA damage using RAPD analysis in Mentha arvensis seedlings. Plant Cell Biotechnol Mol Biol 12:41–50Google Scholar
  30. Marchiol L, Assolari S, Sacro P, Zerbia A (2004) Phytoremediation of heavy metals by Canola (Brassica napus) and radish (Raplanus sativus) grown on multi contaminated soil. Environ Pollut 132:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michael PI, Krishnaswamy M (2011) The effect of zinc stress combined with high irradiance matrix of pair wise combinations of primers. Nucleic Acids Res 18:7213–7218Google Scholar
  32. Miller G, Shulaev V, Mitter R (2008) Reactive oxygen signaling and abiotic stress. Plant Physiol 133:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mishra BB, Nanda DR, Misra BN (1987) Accumulation of mercury by Azolla and its effect on growth. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 39:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakano Y, Asada K (1987) Purification of ascorbate peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts: its inactivation in ascorbate depleted medium and reactivation by monodehydroascorbate radical. Plant Cell Physiol 28:131–140Google Scholar
  35. Pandey N, Archana (2013) Antioxidant responses and water status in Brassica seedlings subjected to boron stress. Acta Physiol Plant 35:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patra M, Sharma A (2000) Mercury toxicity in plants. Bot Rev 66:379–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prasad MNV, Freitas H (2003) Metal hyperaccumulation in plants—biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron J Biotechnol 6:275–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radotic K, Ducic T, Mutavdzic D (2000) Changes in peroxidase activity and isoenzymes in spruce needles after exposure to different concentrations of cadmium. Environ Exp Bot 44:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salt DE, Smith RD, Raskin I (1998) Phytoremediation. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Mol Biol 49:643–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tangahu BV, Abdullah RS, Basri H, Idris M, Anuar N, Mukhlisin M (2013) Phytotoxicity of wastewater containing lead (Pb) effects Scirpus grossus. Int J Phytoremediation 15:814–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Venkatachalam P, Srivastava AK, Raghothama KG, Sahi SV (2009) Genes induced in response to mercury-ion-exposure in heavy metal hyperaccumulator Sesbania drummondii. Environ Sci Technol 43:843–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Y, Greger M (2004) Clonal differences in mercury tolerance, accumulation and distribution in willow. J Environ Qual 33:1779–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkins DA (1978) The measurement of tolerance to endemic factors by means of root growth. New Phytol 80:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams J, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ (1990) DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res 18:6531–6535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zavoda J, Cutright T, Szpak J, Fallon E (2001) Uptake, selectivity, and inhibition of hydroponic treatment of contaminants. J Environ Eng 127:502–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang J, Cui S, Kirkham MB (1995) Protoplasmic factors, antioxidant responses and chilling resistance in maize. Plant Physiol Biochem 33:567–575Google Scholar
  47. Zhang FQ, Wang YS, Lou ZP, Dong JD (2007) Effect of heavy metal stress on antioxidative enzymes and lipid peroxidation in leaves and roots of two mangrove plant seedlings (Kandelia candel and Bruguiera gymnorrhiza). Chemosphere 67:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou ZS, Huang SQ, Guo K, Mehta SK, Zhang PC, Yang ZM (2007) Metabolic adaptation to mercury-induced oxidative stress in roots of Medicago sativa L. J Inorg Biochem 101:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srinivasan Malar
    • 1
  • Shivendra Vikram Sahi
    • 2
  • Paulo J. C. Favas
    • 3
  • Perumal Venkatachalam
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Genetic Engineering and Molecular Biotechnology Lab, Department of BiotechnologyPeriyar UniversitySalemIndia
  2. 2.Department of BiologyWestern Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  3. 3.School of Life Sciences and the EnvironmentUniversity of Trás-os-Montes Alto DouroVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations