Abstract
Mercury is one of the most toxic metals to various organisms, including humans. Genes involved in mercury metabolism have been cloned fromStaphylococcus aureus, and were modified here to be expressed in plants. Transgenic poplars containing both chimeric genes (p35S-merA andp35S-merB) were developed via two rounds of transformation usingnos-nptll andnos-hpt genes as selectable markers. Although expression levels varied among transgenic lines, tolerance to either ionic mercury or organic mercury matched well with the degree of expression revealed by northern hybridization. In culture, these trees were tolerant to 50 μM HgCl2 and 2 μM CH3HgCI. Variations in mercury tolerance among the transgenic lines indicates that vigorous selection is required to select the best clones for use in phytoremediation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
Becker D (1990) Binary vectors which allow the exchange of plant selectable marker and reporter genes. Nucl Acid Res18: 203
Bizily S, Rugh CL, Summers AO, Meagher RB (1999) Phytoremediation of methyl mercury pollution:merB expression inArabidopsis thaliana confers resistance to organomercurials. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA96: 6808–6813
Chaney RL, Brown SL, Li YM, Angle JS, Homer FA, Green CE (1995) Potential use of metal hyperaccumulators. Mining Environ Manage3: 9–11
Che D, Meagher RB, Heaton AC, Lima A, Rugh CL, Merkle SA (2003) Expression of mercuric ion reductase in eastern cotton-wood (Populus deltoides) confers mercuric ion reduction and resistance. Plant Biotechnol J1: 311–319
Choi Yl, Noh EW, Lee HS, Han MS, Lee JS, Choi KS (2005) An efficient and novel plant selectable marker based on organomercurial resistance. J Plant Biol48: 351–355
Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, Bevan MW (1987) GUS fusions: â-glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBOJ6: 3901–3907
Krämer U, Chardonnens AN (2001) The use of transgenic plants in the bioremediation of soils contaminated with trace elements. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol55: 661–672
Laddaga RA, Chu L, Misra TK, Silver S (1987) Nucleotide sequence and expression of the mercurial-resistance operon fromStaphylococcus aureus plasmid pJ258. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA84: 5106–5110
Lloyd G, McCown BH (1981) Commercially feasible micropropagation of mountain laurel,Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot tip culture. Proc Intl Plant Prop Soc30: 421–427
Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant15: 473–497
Peters SE, Hobman JL, Strike P, Ritchie DA (1991) Novel mercury resistance determinants carried by Inc J plasmids pMerPH and R391. Mol Gen Genet228: 294–299
Raskin I, Smith RD, Salt DE (1997) Phytoremediation of metals: Using plants to remove pollutants from the environment. Curr Opin Biotechnol8: 221–226
Revis NW, Osborne T (1989) Distribution of mercury species in soil from a mercury-contaminated site. Water Air Soil Pollut45: 105–113
Rugh CL, Senecoff JF, Meagher RB, Merkle SA (1998) Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury phytoremediation. Nat Biotechnol16: 925–928
Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NP, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I (1995) Phytoremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Nat Biotechnol13: 468–474
Satu L, Meagher RB, Kim TR, Heaton A, Montello P, Balish RS, Merkle SA (2007) Coupling two mercury resistance genes in eastern cottonwood enhances the processing of organomercury. Plant Biotechnol J5: 254–262
Southern EM (1975) Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments. J Mol Biol98: 503–517
Yang H, Narin J, Ozias-Akins P (2003) Transformation of peanut using a modified bacterial mercuric ion reductase gene driven by an actin promoter fromArabidopsis thaliana. J Plant Physiol160: 945–952
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Choi, Y.I., Noh, E.W., Lee, H.S. et al. Mercury-tolerant Transgenic Poplars Expressing Two Bacterial Mercury-metabolizing Genes. J. Plant Biol. 50, 658–662 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03030610
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03030610