| Literature DB >> 21193582 |
Cristina Caldelas1, Shuofei Dong, José Luis Araus, Dominik Jakob Weiss.
Abstract
Stable isotope signatures of Zn have shown great promise in elucidating changes in uptake and translocation mechanisms of this metal in plants during environmental changes. Here this potential was tested by investigating the effect of high Zn concentrations on the isotopic fractionation patterns of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Plants were grown for 40 d in a nutritive solution containing 3.2 μM (sufficient) or 2 mM (toxic) Zn. The Zn isotopic composition of roots, rhizomes, shoots, and leaves was analysed. Stems and leaves were sampled at different heights to evaluate the effect of long-distance transport on Zn fractionation. During Zn sufficiency, roots, rhizomes, and shoots were isotopically heavy (δ(66)Zn(JMC Lyon)=0.2‰) while the youngest leaves were isotopically light (-0.5‰). During Zn excess, roots were still isotopically heavier (δ(66)Zn=0.5‰) and the rest of the plant was isotopically light (up to -0.5‰). The enrichment of heavy isotopes at the roots was attributed to Zn uptake mediated by transporter proteins under Zn-sufficient conditions and to chelation and compartmentation in Zn excess. The isotopically lighter Zn in shoots and leaves is consistent with long-distance root to shoot transport. The tolerance response of P. australis increased the range of Zn fractionation within the plant and with respect to the environment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21193582 PMCID: PMC3060695 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq414
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Zinc content of the standards used in ICP-AES analyses
| Sample type | Zn content (μg g−1) | % Recovery | ||
| Certified | Measured | |||
| BCR-142R | Light sandy soil | 93±3 | 91±14 | 98 |
| BCR-482 | Lichen | 101±2 | 91±9 | 91 |
| BCR-60 | 313±8 | 309±13 | 98 | |
| BCR-62 | 16.0±0.7 | 13±3 | 82 | |
Data are represented as means ±SE.
Isotopic signature of the standards used in this study
| Reference material | Publication | δ66ZnJMC Lyon | |
| BCR-027 (blend ore) | 0.33±0.07 | 8 | |
| 0.23±0.06 | 4 | ||
| This study | 0.34±0.08 | 9 | |
| BCR-281 (rye grass) | 0.38±0.09 | 7 | |
| This study | 0.5±0.1 | 5 | |
| Romil | –9.01±0.08 | 6 | |
| –8.98±0.07 | Unknown | ||
| –9.0±0.1 | Unknown | ||
| This study | –9.1±0.1 | 12 | |
| London | 0.08±0.04 | 10 | |
| This study | 0.10±0.06 | 9 |
Samples were double-spiked and analysed by MC-ICP-MS (see Materials and methods), using the standard reference solution JMC 3-0749L. Data are compared with the literature. δ66Zn is expressed in ‰ and displayed as means ±2SD.
Effect of Zn levels on plant growth and photosynthetic traits of Phragmites australis
| Parameter | Control | Zn+ | t |
| Plant height (cm) | 106±4 | 79±3 | 5.8** |
| IRCC | 38.0±1.2 | 32.6±1.1 | 4.0** |
| 14±3 | 7.0±1.3 | 2.7* | |
| 0.18±0.05 | 0.08±0.01 | 2.4* | |
| 246±7 | 246±11 | 0.0 | |
| 0.80±0.01 | 0.79±0.01 | 0.8 | |
| 0.46±0.02 | 0.37±0.01 | 4.2** | |
| ΦPSII | 0.24±0.02 | 0.15±0.02 | 3.7** |
| ΦCO2 | 0.014±0.002 | 0.008±0.001 | 2.8* |
| qP | 0.52±0.02 | 0.39±0.04 | 2.6* |
| qN | 0.81±0.02 | 0.88±0.01 | –4.1** |
| NPQ | 2043±127 | 2652±141 | –3.1* |
| ETR (μmol m−2 s−1) | 122±9 | 75±9 | 3.7** |
| 3.9±0.8 | 1.9±0.3 | 2.6* |
Plants were grown in 3.2 μM (controls) or 2 mM Zn (Zn+). Data represent means ±SE, where n=8 for plant height and IRCC (df=14), and n=6 for the rest of the parameters (df=10). The variable gs was log-transformed. The t-test value (t) is indicated as significant at P <0.05 (*) or P <0.01 (**).
As, light-saturated net CO2 assimilation rate; Ci: intercellular CO2 concentration; E, transpiration rate; ETR, electron transport rate; Fv/Fm, maximum quantum yield; Fv'/Fm', relative quantum yield; gs, stomatal conductance to water; IRCC, index of relative chlorophyll content; qN and NPQ, non-photochemical quenching; qP, photochemical quenching; ΦCO2, quantum yield of CO2 fixation; ΦPSII, quantum yield of PSII photochemistry.
Concentration of Zn achieved in different plant sections
| Plant section | Zn content (mg g–1) | BCF | ||
| Controls | Zn+ | Controls | Zn+ | |
| Roots | ||||
| Living | 0.09±0.04 d | 12±6 h | 960±167 l | 93±19 p |
| Dead | 0.02±0.01 a | 14±7 h | 268±27 i | 105±27 n |
| Rhizomes | 0.02±0.01 a | 2.7±1.4 g | 274±46 i | 21±5 m |
| Shoots | ||||
| Low | 0.04±0.02 b | 3±2 g | 433±46 j | 25±3 o |
| High | 0.06±0.03 c | 2.3±1.1 g | 640±40 k | 17.2±1.3 p |
| Leaves | ||||
| Low | 0.05±0.03 b,c | 4±2 g | 583±79 j.k | 27±5 o |
| High | 0.04±0.02 b,c | 1.1±0.6 f | 490±48 j,k | 8.7±0.4 o |
| Youngest | 0.04±0.02 b | 0.5±0.2 e | 389±8 j | 3.7±0.2 o |
Plants were grown in 3.2 μM (controls) or 2 mM Zn (Zn+). Data represent means ±SE (n=4). The effect of plant section, Zn treatment, and their interaction was significant (P <0.001) according to two-way ANOVA (results not shown). Different letters indicate different groups according to Duncan post-hoc test on the log-transformed variables.
BCF, bioconcentration factor.
Fig. 1.Isotopic signature of the studied plant sections compared with solutions. Plants were supplied with 3.2 μM (control, A) or 2 mM Zn (Zn+, B). Data represent means ±SE (n=3). δ66Zn is expressed in ‰. (This figure is available in colour at JXB online.)
Fractionation between plant sections
| Sample | Δδ66Zni–j | t (df) | |
| Control | Zn+ | ||
| DR–LR | 0.02±0.03 | –0.5±0.2 | 1.91 (2.1) |
| RZ–DR | 0.03±0.01 | –0.3±0.2 | 2.03 (4) |
| LS–RZ | 0.05±0.04 | –0.2±0.1 | 1.40 (4) |
| LL–LS | –0.2±0.1 | 0.19±0.07 | –3.15 (4)* |
| HS–LL | 0.2±0.1 | –0.30±0.01 | 3.50 (4)* |
| HL–HS | –0.25±0.05 | 0.29±0.08 | –5.68 (4)** |
| YL–HL | –0.41±0.05 | –0.28±0.03 | –2.27 (4) |
| RZ–LR | 0.05±0.04 | –0.7±0.3 | 3.11 (4)* |
| HS–LS | –0.08±0.06 | –0.11±0.07 | 0.33 (4) |
| HL–LL | –0.09±0.08 | –0.01±0.08 | –0.68 (4) |
| YL–LR | –0.64±0.05 | –1.0±0.1 | 2.73 (4) |
| HS–LR | 0.02±0.08 | –1.0±0.2 | 4.57 (4)* |
Fractionation was calculated as Δδ66Zni-–j=δ66Znj–δ66Zni. Data represent means ±SE (n=3). The t-test value (t) is indicated as significant at P <0.05 (*) or P <0.01 (**).
LR, living roots; DR, dead roots; RZ, rhizomes; LS, low shoots; LL, low leaves; HS, high shoots; HL, high leaves; YL, youngest leaves.
Fig. 2.Isotopic discrimination of the studied plant sections with respect to nutritive solutions. Plants were supplied with 3.2 μM (control) or 2 mM (Zn+) Zn. Data represent means ±SE (n=3). The Δ66Zn is expressed in ‰ and was calculated as Δ66Zn=(δ66Znsource–δ66Znsample)/(1+δ66Znsample/103). The t-test value (t) is indicated as significant at P <0.05 (*) or P <0.01 (**). LR, living roots; DR, dead roots; RZ, rhizomes; LS, low shoots; LL, low leaves; HS, high shoots; HL, high leaves; YL, youngest leaves.
Pearson's correlation between δ66Zn and some photosynthetic performance parameters
| δ66Zn | ΦCO2 | qN | NPQ | ||
| 0.921* | 0.921* | 0.883* | –0.944* | –0.974** | |
| Significance (bilateral) | 0.027 | 0.026 | 0.047 | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
The δ66Zn was measured in high leaves. The correlation coefficient (r) is indicated as significant at P <0.05 (*) or P <0.01 (**).
Fv′/Fm′, relative quantum yield; gs. stomatal conductance to water; qN and NPQ, non-photochemical quenching; ΦCO2, the quantum yield of CO2 fixation.