Advertisement

Do heavy metals and metalloids influence the detoxification of organic xenobiotics in plants?

  • Peter SchröderEmail author
  • Lyudmila Lyubenova
  • Christian Huber
COST ACTION 859 • PHYTOREMEDIATION • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

Mixed pollution with trace elements and organic industrial compounds is characteristic for many spill areas and dumping sites. The danger for the environment and human health from such sites is large, and sustainable remediation strategies are urgently needed. Phytoremediation seems to be a cheap and environmentally sound option for the removal of unwanted compounds, and the hyperaccumulation of trace elements and toxic metals is seemingly independent from the metabolism of organic xenobiotics. However, stress reactions, ROS formation and depletion of antioxidants will also cause alterations in xenobiotic detoxification. Here, we investigate the capability of plants to detoxify chlorophenols via glutathione conjugation in a mixed pollution situation.

Materials and methods

Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis plants for the present study were grown under greenhouse conditions in experimental ponds. A Picea abies L. suspension culture was grown in a growth chamber. Cadmium sulphate, sodium arsenate and lead chloride in concentrations from 10 to 500 µM were administered to plants. Enzymes of interest for the present study were: glutathione transferase (GST), glutathione reductase, ascorbate peroxidase and peroxidase. Measurements were performed according to published methods. GST spectrophotometric assays included the model substrates CDNB, DCNB, NBC, NBoC and the herbicide Fluorodifen.

Results

Heavy metals lead to visible stress symptoms in higher plants. Besides one long-term experiment of 72 days duration, the present study shows time and concentration-dependent plant alterations already after 24 and 72 h Cd incubation. P. abies spruce cell cultures react to CdSO4 and Na2HAsO4 with an oxidative burst, similar to that observed after pathogen attack or elicitor treatment. Cd application resulted in a reduction in GSH and GSSG contents. When a heavy metal mixture containing Na2HAsO4, CdSO4 and PbCl2 was applied to cultures, both GSH and GSSG levels declined. Incubation with 80 µM arsenic alone doubled GSSG values. Based on these results, further experiments were performed in whole plants of cattail and reed, using cadmium in Phragmites and cadmium and arsenic in Typha as inducers of stress. In Phragmites australis, GST activities for CDNB and DCNB were significantly reduced after short-term Cd exposure (24 h). In the same samples, all antioxidant enzymes increased with rising heavy metal concentrations. Typha latifolia rhizome incubation with Cd and As leads to an increase in glutathione reductase and total peroxidase activity and to a decrease in ascorbate peroxidase activity. Measurements of the same enzymes in leaves of the same plants show increased GR activities, but no change in peroxidases. GST conjugation for CDNB was depressed in both cattail rhizomes and leaves treated with Cd. After As application increased, DCNB enzyme activities were detected.

Discussion

T. latifolia and P. australis are powerful species for phytoremediation because they penetrate a large volume of soil with their extensive root and rhizome systems. However, an effective remediation process will depend on active detoxifying enzymes, and also on the availability of conjugation partners, e.g. glutathione and its analogues. Species-specific differences seem to exist between the regulations of primary defence enzymes like SOD, catalase, peroxidases, whereas others prefer to induce the glutathione-dependent enzymes. As long as the pollutant mix encountered is simple and dominated by heavy metals, plant defence might be sufficient. When pollution plumes contain heavy metals and organic xenobiotics at the same time, this means that part of the detoxification capacity, at least of glutathione-conjugating reactions, is withdrawn from the heavy metal front to serve other purposes. In fact, glutathione S-transferases show strong reactions in stressed plants or in the presence of heavy metals. The spruce cell culture was a perfect model system to study short-term responses on heavy metal impact. Overall, and on the canopy level, this inhibitory effect might result in a lower detoxification capacity for organic pollutants and thus interfere with phytoremediation.

Conclusions

We present evidence that pollution with heavy metals will interfere with both the oxidative stress defence in plants, and with their ability to conjugate organic xenobiotics. Despite plant-species-dependent differences, the general reactions seem to include oxidative stress and an induction of antioxidative enzymes. Several processes seem to depend on direct binding of heavy metals to enzyme proteins, but effects on transcription are also observed. Induction of xenobiotic metabolism will be obtained at high heavy metal concentrations, when plant stress is elevated.

Recommendations and perspectives

Plants for phytoremediation of complex pollution mixtures have to be selected according to three major issues: uptake/accumulation capacity, antioxidative stress management, and detoxification/binding properties for both the trace elements and the organic xenobiotics. By way of this, it might be possible to speed up the desired remediation process and/or to obtain the desired end products. And, amongst the end products, emphasis should be laid on industrial building materials, biomass for insulation or biogas production, but not for feed and fodder. Each of these attempts would increase the chances for publicly accepted use of phytoremediation and help to cure the environment.

Keywords

Detoxification Heavy metals Inducible metabolism Multiple pollution Organic xenobiotics Phytoremediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for Lyudmila Lyubenova by a grant from the Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Arts in the frame of the BAYHOST programme is gratefully accepted. This cooperative work was stimulated by the activities of COST Action 859 “Phytotechnologies to promote sustainable land use and improve food safety”.

References

  1. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 73:248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman JOD, Randall RA, Blake-Kalff MMA (1997) Detoxification of xenobiotics by plants: chemical modification and vacuolar compartmentation. TIPS 2:144–151Google Scholar
  3. Dierickx P (1982) In vitro inhibition of glutathione S-transferases from rat liver by heavy metals. Enzyme 27:25–32Google Scholar
  4. Dixit V, Pandey V, Shyam R (2001) Differential antioxidative response to cadmium in roots and leaves of pea (Pisum sativum L.). J Exp Bot 52(358):1101–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon DP, Cole DJ, Edwards R (2001) Cloning and characterisation of plant theta and zeta class GSTs: implications for plant GST classification. Chemico-Biological Interactions 133:33–36Google Scholar
  6. Drotar A, Phelps P, Fall R (1985) Evidence for glutathione peroxidase activities in cultured plant cells. Plant Science 42:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franzius V (1994) Aktuelle Entwicklungen zur Altlastenproblematik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Umwelt Technologie Aktuell 6:443–449Google Scholar
  8. Langebartels C, Harms H (1986) Plant cell suspension cultures as test systems for an ecotoxicological evaluation of chemicals. Angew Bot 60:113–123Google Scholar
  9. Lyubenova L, Götz C, Golan-Goldhirsh A, Schröder P (2007) Direct effect of Cd on glutathione S-transferase and glutathione reductase from Calystegia sepium. Int J Phytorem 9(6):465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Memon AR, Schröder P (2009) Metal accumulation in plants and its implication in phytoremediation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:162–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Messner B, Berndt J (1990) Ascorbic acid and chlorophyll content in cell cultures of spruce (Picea abies): Changes by cell culture conditions and air pollutants. Z Naturforschung 45c:614–620Google Scholar
  12. Messner B, Schröder P (1999) Burst amplifying system in cell suspension cultures of spruce (Picea abies): Modulation of elicitor-induced release of hydrogen peroxide (oxidative burst) by ionophores and salicylic acid. Appl Botany 73:6–10Google Scholar
  13. Noctor G, Gomez L, Vanacker H, Foyer CH (2002) Interactions between biosynthesis, compartmentation and transport in the control of glutathione homeostasis and signalling. J Exp Bot 53(372):1283–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pambrun V, Marquot A, Racault Y (2008) Characterization of the toxic effects of cadmium and 3.5-dichlorophenol on nitrifying activity and mortality in biologically activated sludge systems—effect of low temperature. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:592–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Peel AE, Brice A, Marzin D, Erb F (1991) Cellular uptake and biotransformation of arsenic V in transformed human cell lines HeLa S3 and Hep G2. Toxicol. In Vitro 5:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scalla R, Roulet A (2002) Cloning and characterization of a glutathione S-transferase induced by a herbicide safener in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Physiol Plant 116(3):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schickler H, Caspi H (1999) Response of antioxidative enzymes to nickel and cadmium stress in hyperaccumulator plants of the genus Alyssum. Phys Plant 105:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schröder P (2001) The role of glutathione and glutathione S-transferases in plant reaction and adaptation to xenobiotics. In: Grill D (ed) Significance of glutathione to plant adaptation to the environment. Kluwer, Netherlands, pp 155–183Google Scholar
  19. Schröder P, Fischer C, Debus R, Wenzel A (2002) Reaction of detoxification mechanisms in suspension cultured spruce cells (Picea abies L. Karst.) to heavy metals in pure mixture and in soil eluates. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10(4):225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schröder P, Meier H, Debus R (2005) Detoxification of herbicides in Phragmites australis. Z Naturforsch 60c:317–324Google Scholar
  21. Shen G, Cao L, Lu Y, Hong J (2005) Influence of phenanthrene on cadmium toxicity to soil enzymes and microbial growth. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12(5):259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tully DB, Collins BJ, Overstreet JD, Smith CS, Dinse GE, Mumtaz MM, Chapin RE (2000) Effects of As, Cd, Cr, and Pb on gene expression regulated by a battery of 13 different promoters in recombinant HepG2 cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 168(2):79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vanacker H, Carver TLW, Foyer CH (1998) Pathogen-induced changes in the antioxidant status of the apoplast in barley leaves. Plant Phys 117:1103–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vitoria AP, Lea PJ, Azevedo RA (2001) Antioxidant enzyme responses to cadmium in radish tissues. Phytochemistry 57:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Schröder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lyudmila Lyubenova
    • 1
  • Christian Huber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Microbe–Plant Interactions, Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenGerman Research Center for Environmental HealthNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations