Plant and Soil

, Volume 203, Issue 1, pp 119–126 | Cite as

Phytochelatins as biomarkers for heavy metal stress in maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): combined effects of copper and cadmium

  • W.G. Keltjens
  • M.L. van Beusichem
Article

Abstract

Heavy metal contaminated soils often show increased levels of more than one metal, e.g. copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), lead (Pb) or nickel (Ni). In case such soils are used for crop production, prediction of yield reduction or quality decline due to heavy metals in the soil is inadequate when based only on chemical soil analysis. The use of biomarkers such as phytochelatins (PC), non-protein thiols specifically induced in plants upon exposure to heavy metals, may be an additional tool or diagnostic criterion in heavy metal research and in practice. In the present work, Cu and Cd uptake and induction of PC synthesis are studied with hydroponically grown maize and wheat plants exposed to mixtures of the two metals. We observed a close positive relationship between the concentrations of Cd and PC in the plant shoot material. A decreased shoot concentration of Cd after addition of Cu, due to metal competition at common root absorption sites, coincided with lower shoot PC levels. Also differences in metal uptake and xylary metal transport among the two plant species were reflected in corresponding differences in PC concentration. The observed direct relationship between shoot PC concentration and the degree of metal-induced growth inhibition makes the use of PC promising for the purpose tested for.

biomarker cadmium copper heavy metal PC PC-SH phytochelatin stress toxicity Triticum aestivum Zea mays 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahner B A, Price N M and Morel F M M 1994 Phytochelatin production by marine phytoplankton at low free metal ion concentrations: laboratory studies and field data from Massachusetts Bay. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 8433–8436.Google Scholar
  2. Boekhold A E 1992 Field scale behaviour of cadmium in soil. Ph.D. Thesis. Dept. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Cataldo D A, Garland T R and Wildung R E 1983 Cadmium uptake kinetics in intact soybean plants. Plant Physiol. 73, 844–848.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen Thomas H 1989 Cadmium soil sorption at low concentrations. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kopenhagen.Google Scholar
  5. De Knecht J A 1994 Cadmium tolerance and phytochelatin production in Silene vulgaris. Doctoral Thesis. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Girling C A and Peterson P J 1981 The significance of the cadmium species in uptake and metabolism of cadmium in crop plants. J. Plant Nutr. 3, 707–720.Google Scholar
  7. Grill E, Löffler S, Winnacker E L and Zenk M H 1989 Phytochelatins, the heavy-metal-binding peptides of plants, are synthesized from glutathione by a specific γ-glutamylcysteine dipeptidyl transpeptidase (phytochelatin synthase). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 6838–6842.Google Scholar
  8. Grill E, Winnacker E L and Zenk M H 1987 Phytochelatins, a class of heavy-metal-binding peptides from plants, are functionally analogous to metallothioneins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 84, 439–443.Google Scholar
  9. Harrison S I, Lepp N W and Phipps N A 1979 Uptake of copper by excised roots. II. Copper desorption from the free space. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 94, 27–34.Google Scholar
  10. Keltjens W G and Van Beusichem M L 1998 Phytochelatins as biomarkers for heavy metal toxicity in maize: Single metal effects of Copper and Cadmium. J. Plant Nutr. 21, 635–648.Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy C D and Gonsalves F A N 1989 The action of divalent Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu and Pb ions on the ATPase activity of a plasma membrane fraction isolated from roots of Zea mays. Plant Soil 117, 167–175.Google Scholar
  12. Klitsie C G M 1988 Cadmiumproblematiek in de Kempen (The cadmium problem in the Kempen). In PHLO-course 'soil Protection and Soil Pollution'. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.Google Scholar
  13. Novozamsky I, Lexmond Th M and Houba V J G 1993 A single extraction procedure of soil for evaluation of uptake of some heavy metals by plants. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 51, 47–58.Google Scholar
  14. Scheller H V, Huang B, Hatch E and Goldsbrough P B 1987 Phytochelatin synthesis and glutathione levels in response to heavy metals in tomato cells. Plant Physiol. 85, 1031–1035.Google Scholar
  15. Steffens J C 1990 The heavy metal-binding peptides of plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 41, 553–575.Google Scholar
  16. Tan K H 1996 Soil Sampling, Preparation and Analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Walinga I, Van Vark W, Houba V J G and Van der Lee J J 1989 Soil and Plant Analysis, Part 7: Plant Analysis Procedures. Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. 263 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • W.G. Keltjens
    • 1
  • M.L. van Beusichem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences; Sub-department of Soil Science and Plant NutritionWageningen Agricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations