| Literature DB >> 31443183 |
Michiel Huybrechts1, Ann Cuypers1, Jana Deckers1, Verena Iven1, Stéphanie Vandionant1, Marijke Jozefczak1, Sophie Hendrix2.
Abstract
Anthropogenic pollution of agricultural soils with cadmium (Cd) should receive adequate attention as Cd accumulation in crops endangers human health. When Cd is present in the soil, plants are exposed to it throughout their entire life cycle. As it is a non-essential element, no specific Cd uptake mechanisms are present. Therefore, Cd enters the plant through transporters for essential elements and consequently disturbs plant growth and development. In this review, we will focus on the effects of Cd on the most important events of a plant's life cycle covering seed germination, the vegetative phase and the reproduction phase. Within the vegetative phase, the disturbance of the cell cycle by Cd is highlighted with special emphasis on endoreduplication, DNA damage and its relation to cell death. Furthermore, we will discuss the cell wall as an important structure in retaining Cd and the ability of plants to actively modify the cell wall to increase Cd tolerance. As Cd is known to affect concentrations of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and phytohormones, special emphasis is put on the involvement of these compounds in plant developmental processes. Lastly, possible future research areas are put forward and a general conclusion is drawn, revealing that Cd is agonizing for all stages of plant development.Entities:
Keywords: cadmium; cell cycle; cell wall; germination; oxidative stress; plant growth and development; reproduction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31443183 PMCID: PMC6718997 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20163971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Possible interference mechanisms of cadmium on the process of seed germination. Cadmium (Cd) negatively affects metabolic reactivation by reducing levels of hydrolyzing enzymes, starch mobilization and seed imbibition. Furthermore, it can alter redox signaling via calcium (Ca), mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) and transcription factors (TFs) and the level of phytohormones such as abscisic acid (ABA), auxin (AUX), giberrellic acid (GA) and ethylene (ET). Both are of major importance in the seed germination process. One-way arrows: indicate a stimulating effect, whereas T-shaped arrows represent an inhibitory effect. Two-way arrows signify an interaction and dashed lines indicate effects which are still uncertain.
Figure 2Schematic overview of important players affecting vegetative plant growth upon Cd exposure. Cadmium exposure is well known to affect concentrations of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and phytohormones, which are closely intertwined. Cadmium induces DNA damage, thereby activating the DNA damage response, which can either induce programmed cell death (PCD) or affect cell cycle progression, depending on the extent of DNA damage. In addition, Cd exposure induces cell wall modifications as a strategy to reduce Cd entry into cells. This in turn limits cell expansion, which is intertwined with the cell cycle and specifically endoreduplication. Cadmium-induced DNA damage and cell wall modifications could either result from its effects on ROS and phytohormone levels or arise through an alternative pathway. Together, Cd-induced PCD, cell cycle alterations and inhibition of cell expansion contribute to its negative effect on vegetative growth. One-way arrows indicate stimulating effects, whereas T-shaped arrows represent an inhibitory effect. Two-way arrows signify an interaction.
Overview of recent research articles (published since 2014) demonstrating Cd-induced DNA damage, arranged by plant species. Cadmium is shown to induce different types of DNA damage, including DNA strand breaks, chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in different plant species. Furthermore, it alters the expression of DNA repair genes and changes amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR), random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) profiles, thereby reducing the genomic template stability (GTS). ↑ and ↓ symbols indicate increases and decreases, respectively.
| Species | Organ | Cd Concentration | Exposure Duration | Effect | Detection Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Root tip | 50–200 µM | 2 h + 24 h recovery | Micronucleus formation | Microscopic analysis | Arya and Mukherjee, 2014 [ |
| Chromosomal aberrations | ||||||
| % tail DNA ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | |||||
| Root tip | 25 µM | 48 h | Chromosomal aberrations | Microscopic analysis | Silveira et al., 2017 [ | |
| Micronucleus formation | ||||||
| % DNA damage ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | |||||
| Root tip | 25 µM | 48 h | Number of nucleoli ↑ | Microscopic analysis | Lima et al., 2019 [ | |
|
| Root tip | 0.125–2.5 mg L−1 | 5 d | Altered expression DNA repair genes | qRT-PCR | Cui et al., 2017 [ |
| Root | 1.25–4 mg L−1 | 5 d | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | Cao et al., 2018 [ | |
| Altered expression DNA repair genes | qRT-PCR | |||||
| Leaf | 0.5–5 mg L−1 | 16 d | Altered AFLP profile | AFLP | Li et al., 2015 [ | |
| Leaf | 0.25–8 mg L−1 | 15 d | Microsatellite instability | SSR | Wang et al., 2016 [ | |
| Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | |||||
| Leaf | 5 µM | 72 h | Altered expression DNA repair genes | qRT-PCR | Hendrix et al., 2018 [ | |
|
| Leaf | 15–120 mg kg−1 soil | 30 d | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | Sudmoon et al., 2015 [ |
|
| Root | 2.5–20 mg kg−1 soil | 3–56 d | Altered % tail intensity | Comet assay (alkaline) | Lanier et al., 2019 [ |
|
| Root tip | 20–100 ppm | 24 h | Chromosomal aberrations | Microscopic analysis | Aslam et al., 2014 [ |
| Leaf | 20–100 ppm | 24 h | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | ||
|
| Root tip | 75–225 µM | 7 d | Altered RAPD profile (GTS ↓) | RAPD | Cenkci and Dogan, 2015 [ |
| Leaf | 5 µM | 15 d | DNA damage ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | Cao et al., 2014 [ | |
|
| Entire seedling | 15–120 mg kg−1 soil | 21 d | Altered RAPD profile (GTS ↓) | RAPD | Tanee et al., 2016 [ |
|
| Root tip | 25 µM | 48 h | Chromosomal aberrations | Microscopic analysis | Silveira et al., 2017 [ |
| Micronucleus formation | ||||||
| % DNA damage ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | |||||
|
| Root tip | 5–50 µM | 3–7 d | Chromosomal aberrations | Microscopic analysis | Talukdar, 2014 [ |
| Micronucleus formation | ||||||
|
| Leaf | 50 mg L−1 | 15 d | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | Venkatachalam et al., 2017 [ |
|
| Root and leaf | 10–15 µM | 7 d | % tail DNA ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | Tkalec et al., 2014 [ |
|
| Root tip | 50–200 µM | 48–96 h | Altered SRAP profil (GTS ↓) | SRAP | Zhang et al., 2015 [ |
|
| Shoot | 0.1–10 µM | 24–48 h | Altered ISSR profile (GTS ↓) | ISSR | Sorrentino et al., 2017 [ |
|
| Root | 2.5–20 mg kg−1 soil | 3–56 d | Altered % tail intensity | Comet assay (alkaline) | Lanier et al., 2019 [ |
| Root and leaf | 20–60 mg kg−1 soil | 2 weeks | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | Ghiani et al., 2014 [ | |
| Leaf | 2.5–20 mg kg−1 soil | 3–56 d | Tail moment ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) | Lanier et al., 2016 [ | |
|
| Root tip | 100–200 µM | 2 months | Altered RAPD profile | RAPD | Dogan et al., 2016 [ |
|
| Root tip | 50–200 µM | 2 h + 24 h recovery | Micronucleus formation | Microscopic analysis | Arya and Mukherjee, 2014 [ |
| Chromosomal aberrations | ||||||
| % tail DNA ↑ | Comet assay (alkaline) |
Overview of recent research articles (published since 2014) demonstrating Cd-induced effects on cell cycle-related parameters, arranged by plant species. Cadmium exposure is shown to reduce the mitotic index (i.e., the ratio between the number of cells undergoing mitosis and the total cell number), alter nuclear ploidy levels and affect the expression of cell cycle-related genes in different plant species. ↑ and ↓ symbols indicate increases and decreases, respectively. EdU: 5-ethynyl-2′-deoxyuridine; FCM: flow cytometry; qRT-PCR: quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; RT-PCR: reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction.
| Species | Organ | Cd Concentration | Exposure Duration | Effect | Detection Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Root tip | 50–200 µM | 2 h + 24 h recovery | Mitotic index ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Arya and Mukherjee, 2014 [ |
| Root tip | 25 µM | 48 h | Mitotic index ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Silveira et al., 2017 [ | |
|
| Root tip | 0.125–2.5 mg L−1 | 5 d | 2C ↓, 4C ↑, 8C ↑ | FCM | Cui et al., 2017 [ |
| Altered cell cycle phase distribution | ||||||
| Altered expression cell cycle-related genes | qRT-PCR | |||||
| Root | 1.25–4 mg L−1 | 5 d | 2C ↓, 4C ↑ | FCM | Cao et al., 2018 [ | |
| Altered expression of cell cycle-related genes | qRT-PCR | |||||
| Leaf | 5 µM | 3–12 d | Endoreduplication factor ↓ | FCM | Hendrix et al., 2018 [ | |
| Epidermal cell number and cell surface area ↓ | Microscopic analysis | |||||
| Altered expression of cell-cycle related genes | qRT-PCR | |||||
|
| Root tip | 20–100 ppm | 24 h | Mitotic index ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Aslam et al., 2014 [ |
|
| Root tip | 25 µM | 48 h | Mitotic index ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Silveira et al., 2017 [ |
|
| Root tip | 5–50 µM | 3–7 d | Mitotic index ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Talukdar, 2014 [ |
|
| Root | 200 µM | 7 d | Cortex cell length in elongation zone ↓ | Microscopic analysis | Zhao et al., 2014 [ |
| Cortex cell number in elongation zone ↓ | ||||||
| 7–11 d | Altered expression of cell cycle-related genes | RT-PCR | ||||
|
| Root tip | 50–200 µM | 5 d | Inhibition of S phase progression | EdU assay | Zhan et al., 2017 [ |