| Literature DB >> 26512647 |
Anthea Johnson1, Naresh Singhal2.
Abstract
The contributions of mechanisms by which chelators influence metal translocation to plant shoot tissues are analyzed using a combination of numerical modelling and physical experiments. The model distinguishes between apoplastic and symplastic pathways of water and solute movement. It also includes the barrier effects of the endodermis and plasma membrane. Simulations are used to assess transport pathways for free and chelated metals, identifying mechanisms involved in chelate-enhanced phytoextraction. Hypothesized transport mechanisms and parameters specific to amendment treatments are estimated, with simulated results compared to experimental data. Parameter values for each amendment treatment are estimated based on literature and experimental values, and used for model calibration and simulation of amendment influences on solute transport pathways and mechanisms. Modeling indicates that chelation alters the pathways for Cu transport. For free ions, Cu transport to leaf tissue can be described using purely apoplastic or transcellular pathways. For strong chelators (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)), transport by the purely apoplastic pathway is insufficient to represent measured Cu transport to leaf tissue. Consistent with experimental observations, increased membrane permeability is required for simulating translocation in EDTA and DTPA treatments. Increasing the membrane permeability is key to enhancing phytoextraction efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: amendment; chelator; mechanism; membrane; model; permeability; phytoextraction; plant
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26512647 PMCID: PMC4632801 DOI: 10.3390/ijms161025264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Sensitivity coefficients for global, grouped and specific parameter comparison sets analyzed using Latin Hypercube Sampling.
| Comparison Set | Parameter † | Translocation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.346 *** | 0.057 *** | 0.175 *** | 0.207 ** | 0.183 * | ||
| 0 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.035 | 0.035 | ||
| 0 | 0.001 | 0.019 | 0.001 | 0 | ||
| 0.261 *** | 0.076 ** | 0.011 | 0.242* | 0.357 * | ||
| α | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.006 | |
| 0.280 *** | 0.823 *** | 0.756 *** | 0.508 *** | 0.416 *** | ||
| 0.105 ** | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.001 | 0.002 | ||
| 0.444 ** | 0.433 ** | 0.432 ** | 0.325 | 0.325 | ||
| Hydraulic conductivity: intact endodermis | 0.049 | 0.049 | 0.048 | 0.141 | 0.141 | |
| 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Kcw | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.012 | 0.012 | |
| 0.483 | 0.494 | 0.495 | 0.522 | 0.522 | ||
| Hydraulic conductivity: damaged endodermis | 0.019 *** | 0.026 | 0.026 | 0.162 | 0.162 | |
| 0.081 | 0.076 | 0.076 | 0.246 * | 0.244 * | ||
| 0.058 | 0.064 * | 0.062 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||
| 0.000 *** | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.08 | 0.077 | ||
| 0.841 *** | 0.831 *** | 0.834 *** | 0.422 *** | 0.427 *** | ||
| 0.950 *** | 0.931 *** | 0.491 *** | 0.430 ** | 0.183 | ||
| 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.070 * | 0.046 | 0.083 | ||
| 0.005 | 0.043 | 0.054 | 0.118 | 0.099 | ||
| 0.004 * | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.036 | 0.061 | ||
| 0.036 ** | 0.017 * | 0.376 ** | 0.370 * | 0.575 * | ||
| 0.004 *** | 0.009 *** | 0.206 *** | 0.158 *** | 0.505 *** | ||
| 0.090 * | 0.199 | 0.157 | 0.154 | 0.059 | ||
| 0.017 | 0.023 * | 0.000 * | 0 | 0.001 | ||
| 0.882 *** | 0.757 *** | 0.634 *** | 0.656 *** | 0.366 *** | ||
| 0.007 ** | 0.012 *** | 0.002 ** | 0.033 * | 0.069 | ||
| 0.963 *** | 0.905 *** | 0.893 *** | 0.322 *** | 0.678 | ||
| 0.006 | 0.06 | 0.023 | 0.163 | 0.082 | ||
| 0.007 | 0.024 | 0.043 *** | 0.227 * | 0.074 ** | ||
| 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.039 | 0.037 ** | 0.018 *** | ||
| vfactor | 0.02 | 0.008 | 0.002 ** | 0.251 * | 0.147 * | |
| Permeability and dispersivity | 0.883 *** | 0.931 *** | 0.732 *** | 0.724 *** | 0.734 *** | |
| 0.005 * | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.008 * | 0.008 | ||
| αcortex | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.005 * | 0.004 | |
| αxylem | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0.04 | 0.041 ** | 0.039 | |
| αleaf | 0.101 | 0.057 | 0.217 | 0.222 | 0.215 | |
| 0.398 *** | 0.115 | 0.046 *** | 0.006 | 0.000 * | ||
| 0.077 | 0.146 | 0.24 | 0.293 | 0.281 | ||
| 0.242 *** | 0.006 | 0.056 | 0.055 | 0.018 * | ||
| 0.02 | 0.001 | 0.000 *** | 0.004 | 0.006 | ||
| 0.263 ** | 0.733 *** | 0.658 *** | 0.643 *** | 0.696 *** |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; † Da—Apoplastic diffusion; Ds—Symplastic diffusion; vfactor—Flow velocity; KL—Sorption coefficient; α—Dispersivity; Pm—Permeability (plasma membrane and tonoplast); EDF—Endodermal damage fraction; Kpm, Kxl, Ksym, Kcw, Kcb—Hydraulic conductivity of the plasma membrane, xylem, symplast, cell wall and casparian band, respectively; Dacortex, Daendo, Daxylem, Daleaf—Apoplastic diffusion in the cortex, endodermis, xylem and leaf, respectively; Dscortex, Dsendo, Dsleaf—Symplastic diffusion in the cortex, endodermis and leaf, respectively; KLcortex, KLendo, KLxylem, KLleaf—Sorption coefficient in the cortex, endodermis, xylem and leaf, respectively; Pmembrane, Ptonoplast—Permeability of the plasma membrane and tonoplast, respectively; αcortex, αxylem, αleaf—Dispersivity in the cortex, xylem and leaf, respectively.
Figure 1Simulations of total Cu mass (µg/plant) in plant tissues calibrated against experimental results for amendment treatments: (a) control roots; (b) control shoots; (c) 0.157 mM citric acid roots; (d) 0.157 mM citric acid shoots; (e) EDTA roots; (f) EDTA shoots; (g) DTPA roots; (h) DTPA shoots; (i) 2 mM citric acid roots; (j) 2 mM citric acid shoots Lines show simulations with varying membrane permeability (Pm) and endodermal damage fraction (EDF) for simulated amendment treatments. Points without lines show experimental data presented previously [7,45].
Values of sensitive parameters for apoplastic diffusion (Da), sorption (KL), endodermal damage (EDF) and membrane permeability (Pm) calibrated with experimental data. For the uptake of Cu in Control and Citric acid treatments, both apoplastic and symplastic pathways are possible, while EDTA and DTPA treatments require symplastic transport.
| Treatment | Pathway | Fitted Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Apoplast | 3.1 × 10−5 | 0.0015 | 0.05 | 0 |
| Symplast | 0 | 1.5 | |||
| Citric acid (0.157 mM) | Apoplast | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.00085 | 0.05 | 0 |
| Symplast | 0 | 0.4 (0.2–0.5) | |||
| Citric acid (2 mM) | Apoplast | 1.4 × 10−5 | 0.0009 | 1 | 0 |
| Symplast | 0 | 0.6 (0.5–1) | |||
| EDTA | Symplast | 1.2 × 10−5 | 0.0002 | 0 | 2 |
| DTPA | Symplast | 0.9 × 10−5 | 0.0002 | 0 | 2 |
Summary of Cu speciation (% total Cu) for amendment treatments. Speciation was modeled using VisualMINTEQ v2.53.
| Treatment | [Cu2+] | [CuHPO4 (aq)] | [Cu-Citrate−] | [CuEDTA2−] | [CuDTPA3−] + [CuHDTPA2−] + [Cu2DTPA−] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 68.7 | 20.4 | 1.1 | n.a. | n.a. |
| Citric acid (0.157 mM) | 20.4 | 5.5 | 70.23 | n.a. | n.a. |
| Citric acid (2 mM) | 0.5 | 0.17 | 96.6 | n.a. | n.a. |
| EDTA (0.157 mM) | 0.64 | 0.18 | 0.087 | 98.8 | n.a. |
| DTPA (0.157 mM) | 0.012 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 86.5 + 7.5 + 6 |
n.a. = not applicable. Additional minor species are not shown.
Figure 2Influence of endodermal damage on simulated Cu accumulation by root and shoot tissue in control and chelator treatments, with Pm indicating varying levels of membrane permeability, from impermeable (Pm 0) to highly permeable (Pm 50).
Membrane permeability of Cu, amendment ligands and complex species estimated using Kow and KDMPC/water.
| Species | Log | Relative | Log | Relative | Log | Relative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cu | −1.11 a | 1.00000 | 0.77 | 1.000 | −1.111 | 1.0000 |
| Citric acid | −1.64 b | 0.28684 | 0.48 | 0.500 | −3.0164 | 0.0121 |
| CuCitric | −2.19 a | 0.06774 | 0.18 | 0.211 | −3.5694 | 0.0029 |
| EDTA | −3.86 c | 0.00157 | −0.72 | 0.028 | −2.052 | 0.1007 |
| CuEDTA | −5.03 a | 0.00009 | −1.36 | 0.006 | −3.225 | 0.0058 |
| DTPA | −4.9 b | – | −1.29 | – | −1.909 | – |
| CuDTPA | −5.22 a | 0.00005 | −1.46 | 0.004 | −2.219 | 0.0496 |
* Estimated using reported aqueous diffusivities assuming membrane diffusivity to be proportional to aqueous diffusivity; † Estimated using the equation (log K = 0.544log K + 1.377) of Lyman, Reehl and Rosenblatt [88]; ‡ Estimated using structural fragment pseudoregression coefficients of Vaes et al. [89]; a Molinspiration Property Calculator, Molinspiration Cheminformatics, Slovensky Grob, Slovak Republic, 2011; b [90]; c [91], KowWin® v1.67, Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse NY, 2000.
Figure 3Bilayer structure of phospholipid membrane (a); Exposure to Cu2+ reduces membrane fluidity resulting in densely-packed lipid regions [46] (b); and can also cause the formation of pores [55], indicated by blue arrows (c).
Figure 4Influence of membrane damage on permeability to ions and organic molecules. Lipophilic partitioning of organic substances occurs through lipid regions, while charged species diffuse slowly through transient aqueous cavities and, in damaged membranes, pores formed due to Cu2+ exposure.
Figure 5Modeled water and solute transport pathways in root and leaf tissue: (1) apoplastic transport; (2) membrane transport; (3) symplastic transport between cells; (4) symplastic transport across the endodermis; (5) apoplastic endodermal bypass flow; (6) xylem loading; (7) membrane damage; (8) sequestration to vacuole; (9) sorption to apoplastic sites; and (10) evaporation in spongy mesophyll. For clarity, plasmodesmata, which span cell walls and connect the cytoplasm of adjacent cells, are not shown. In root tissue, the endodermis acts as a barrier between cortical and stelar tissues, however, apoplastic bypass flow occurs where the casparian band encircling endodermal cells is damaged or not fully developed.
Initial estimates of model parameters for calibration with solute model.
| Treatment | Relative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 59 | 31 | 0.004 | 1 |
| Citric acid (0.157 mM) | 49 | 17 | 0.0016 | 0.20 |
| EDTA | 43 | 12 | 0.00016 | 0.006 |
| DTPA | 36 | 9 | 0.00015 | 0.05 |
| Citric acid (2 mM) | 47 | 14 | 0.00058 | – |