Towards Understanding Plant Response to Heavy Metal Stress

Abstract

IntroductionMetals like zinc, iron and copper are essential micronutrients required for a wide range of physiological processes in all plant organs for the activities of various metal-dependent enzymes and proteins. However, they can also be toxic at elevated levels. Metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead are nonessential and potentially highly toxic. Once the cytosolic metal concentration in plant turns out of control, phytotoxicity of heavy metal inhibits transpiration and photosynthesis, disturbs carbohydrate metabolism, and drives the secondary stresses like nutrition stress and oxidative stress, which collectively affect the plant development and growth (Krämer & Clemens, 2005). Plants have developed a complex network of highly effective homeostatic mechanisms that serve to control the uptake, accumulation, trafficking, and detoxification of metals. Components of this network have been identified continuously, including metal transporters in charge of metal uptake and vacuolar transport; chelators involved in metal detoxification via buffering the cytosolic metal concentrations; and chaperones helping delivery and trafficking of metal ions (Clemens, 2001). This chapter summarizes heavy metal stress and detoxification in plant. Special focus is given to metallothionein, yet vacuolar metal transporters, phytochelatins as well as certain organic acids, amino acids, and chaperones are also addressed with recent advances. Besides, heavy metal-induced oxidative stress and tolerance as an example of abiotic stress cross-talk will be discussed.

Linking waterlogging tolerance with Mn2+ toxicity: a case study for barley

“…Thus, it is likely that different Mn 2+ tolerance mechanisms operate in different tolerant genotypes, i.e . exclusion and internal tissue tolerance mechanisms (Hall ; Yang & Chu ; Hossain et al . ).…”

Contribution of proteomic studies towards understanding plant heavy metal stress response

“…Plant response to HM stress has been reviewed extensively over the past decade (Sanita Di Toppi and Gabbrielli, 1999; Cobbett, 2000; Ma et al, 2001; Cobbett and Goldsbrough, 2002; Hall, 2002; Maksymiec, 2007; Sharma and Dietz, 2009; Verbruggen et al, 2009; Yang and Chu, 2011; Hossain et al, 2012a). However, review articles on application of proteomics in analyzing cellular mechanism for HM tolerance are limited (Ahsan et al, 2009; Luque-Garcia et al, 2011; Villiers et al, 2011).…”

Untitled

“…Наприклад, в асиміляційних органах P. italica впродовж морфогенезу листків рівень вторинних метаболітів пероксидного окиснення ліпідів виявився найнижчим і не перевищував контрольні показники більше, ніж у 1,4-1,8 раза. Напевно, це пов'язано з підвищеною інтенсивністю функціонування антиоксидантних систем, зокрема циклу Халівала-Асадa, та високим рівнем біосинтезу фітохелатинів і металотеонеїнів (Yang, Chu, 2011). Так, у наших попередніх дослідженнях (Danilchuk, Gryshko, 2003) показано, що в P. italica за меншого рівня забруднення важкими металами для захисту клітин асиміляційних органів використовується переважно аскорбінова кислота, тоді як за високого -ще й глутатіон.…”