| Literature DB >> 22389535 |
Katarzyna Hrynkiewicz, Grazyna Dabrowska, Christel Baum, Katarzyna Niedojadlo, Peter Leinweber.
Abstract
Single and joint ectomycorrhizal (+ Hebeloma mesophaeum) and bacterial (+ Bacillus cereus) inoculations of willows (Salix viminalis) were investigated for their potential and mode of action in the promotion of cadmium (Cd) and zinc (Zn) phytoextraction. Dual fungal and bacterial inoculations promoted the biomass production of willows in contaminated soil. Single inoculations either had no effect on the plant growth or inhibited it. All inoculated willows showed increased concentrations of nutritional elements (N, P, K and Zn) and decreased concentrations of Cd in the shoots. The lowest biomass production and concentration of Cd in the willows (+ B. cereus) were combined with the strongest expression of metallothioneins. It seems that biotic stress from bacterial invasion increased the synthesis of these stress proteins, which responded in decreased Cd concentrations. Contents of Cd and Zn in the stems of willows were combination-specific, but were always increased in dual inoculated plants. In conclusion, single inoculations with former mycorrhiza-associated B. cereus strains decreased the phytoextraction efficiency of willows by causing biotic stress. However, their joint inoculation with an ectomycorrhizal fungus is a very promising method for promoting the phytoextraction of Cd and Zn through combined physiological effects on the plant.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22389535 PMCID: PMC3283765 DOI: 10.1007/s11270-011-0915-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Water Air Soil Pollut ISSN: 0049-6979 Impact factor: 2.520
Specification of the ectomycorrhiza forming fungal and bacterial strains used as inoculum in the pot experiment
| Abbr. | Identification and acc. no. | Closest BLAST match in GenBank NCBI | % similarity | Source of isolation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fungus | Hm |
|
| 677/680 (99%) | Fruit body of |
|
| 664/668 (99%) | ||||
| Bacteria | B1 |
|
| 1419/1419 (100%) | Ectomycorrhizae of |
|
| 1419/1419 (100%) | ||||
| B2 |
|
| 1412/1412 (100%) | Ectomycorrhizae of | |
|
| 1412/1412 (100%) | ||||
| B3 |
|
| 1403/1403 (100%) | Ectomycorrhizae of | |
|
| 1403/1403 (100%) | ||||
| B4 |
|
| 1410/1410 (100%) | Fruit body of | |
|
| 1410/1410 (100%) |
Fig. 3Electrophoretic separation of total RNA isolated from the leaves of S. viminalis in 1.2% denaturating gel electrophoresis with formaldehyde, stained with etidium bromide. Lanes: 1 Ctr, 2 Hm, 3 B1, 4 B2, 5 B3, 6 B4, 7 Hm + B1, 8 Hm + B2, 9 Hm + B3, 10 Hm + B4, 11 negative Ctr (noninoculated plants growing at noncontaminated soil) (a). Hybridization northern of molecular probe MT1-labeled with digoxygenin to RNA isolated from the leaves of S. viminalis clone 87–101 growing in the pot experiment in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Description of lanes as in a (b). Differential expression of MT1 gene in various variants of inoculation. Description of columns as in a (c)
Fig. 1Biomass production (a) and percentage of EM root tips (b) of Salix viminalis clone 87–100 with and without (Ctr) inoculation with EM fungus H. mesophaeum and four B. cereus strains (B1, B2, B3 and B4) in heavy metal-polluted soil (n = 4; P ≤ 0.05)
Fig. 2Percentage of increase/decrease of the Cd and Zn content in the stems of Salix viminalis 78–101 after inoculation with the EM fungus Hebeloma mesophaeum and four strains of Bacillus cereus B1–B4 in contaminated soil
Foliar nutrient and Cd concentrations of S. viminalis clone 87–100 with or without (Ctr) inoculation by H. mesophaeum (Hm) and four B. cereus strains (B1, B2, B3 and B4) in the pot experiment with heavy metal-polluted soil (mean±S.D., n = 4)
| Foliar concentrations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (mg g−1) | P (mg g−1) | K (mg g−1) | Cd (μg g−1) | Zn (mg g−1) | |
| Ctr | 32.45 ± 0.85 | 3.80 ± 0.08 | 18.08 ± 0.13 | 10.34 ± 0.58 | 0.67 ± 0.80 |
|
| 28.67 ± 0.48***D | 3.75 ± 0.06 | 23.12 ± 0.30***I | 9.72 ± 0.03 | 0.80 ± 0.01***I |
|
| 35.90 ± 0.37***I | 3.40 ± 0.06***D | 16.94 ± 0.23***D | 6.99 ± 0.12***D | 0.695 ± 0.02 |
|
| 41.10 ± 0.26***I | 3.65 ± 0.12 | 25.32 ± 0.27***I | 6.41 ± 0.25***D | 0.74 ± 0.02**I |
|
| 34.96 ± 0.07**I | 3.41 ± 0.08***D | 19.50 ± 0.57**I | 7.67 ± 0.12***D | 0.81 ± 0.02***I |
|
| 35.88 ± 0.14***I | 3.29 ± 0.08**D | 21.72 ± 0.27***I | 9.19 ± 0.15**D | 0.87 ± 0.01***I |
|
| 33.31 ± 0.19 | 3.93 ± 0.05*I | 24.17 ± 0.58***I | 10.12 ± 0.03 | 0.77 ± 0.02**I |
|
| 32.88 ± 0.32 | 3.65 ± 0.05*D | 20.99 ± 0.74***I | 8.88 ± 0.29**D | 0.89 ± 0.02***I |
|
| 33.19 ± 0.58 | 3.69 ± 0.13 | 21.52 ± 0.37***I | 7.07 ± 0.06***D | 0.77 ± 0.03**I |
|
| 43.71 ± 1.31***I | 4.13 ± 0.13*I | 25.20 ± 0.99***I | 7.71 ± 0.22***D | 0.84 ± 0.04***I |
| Sufficient nutrition (mg g−1) (van den Burg | 17.1–25.3 | 1.0–4.4 | 7.0–17.6 | ||
I increase, D decrease
*P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001
Fig. 4Micrographs of H. mesophaeum isolated from the roots S. viminalis growing in heavy metal-contaminated soil in light microscope: simple and dichotomous EM root with white mantle and emanating hyphae [×50] (a), emanating hyphae with clamps [×400] (b). Micrographs in electron microscope (TEM): hyphal mantle and penetrating bacterial cells (white arrows) as well as visible plant cells (asterisk), (c) bacterial cell of B. cereus inside the plant cell with visible thick (black color) cell wall caused by accumulation of heavy metals in the bacterial cell wall (white arrows) (d and e)