| Literature DB >> 36246290 |
Daniel González-Reguero1, Marina Robas-Mora1, Agustín Probanza1, Pedro A Jiménez1.
Abstract
Mercury (Hg) pollution is a serious environmental and public health problem. Hg has the ability to biomagnify through the trophic chain and generate various pathologies in humans. The exposure of plants to Hg affects normal plant growth and its stress levels, producing oxidative cell damage. Root inoculation with plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) can help reduce the absorption of Hg, minimizing the harmful effects of this metal in the plant. This study evaluates the phytoprotective capacity of four bacterial strains selected for their PGPB capabilities, quantified by the calculation of the biomercuroremediator suitability index (IIBMR), and their consortia, in the Lupinus albus var. orden Dorado. The oxidative stress modulating capacity in the inoculated plant was analyzed by measuring the activity of the enzymes catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), and glutathione reductase (GR). In turn, the phytoprotective capacity of these PGPBs against the bioaccumulation of Hg was studied in plants grown in soils highly contaminated by Hg vs. soils in the absence of Hg contamination. The results of the oxidative stress alleviation and Hg bioaccumulation were compared with the biometric data of Lupinus albus var. orden Dorado previously obtained under the same soil conditions of Hg concentration. The results show that the biological behavior of plants (biometrics, bioaccumulation of Hg, and activity of regulatory enzymes of reactive oxygen species [ROS]) is significantly improved by the inoculation of strains B1 (Pseudomonas moraviensis) and B2 (Pseudomonas baetica), as well as their corresponding consortium (CS5). In light of the conclusions of this work, the use of these strains, as well as their consortium, is postulated as good candidates for their subsequent use in phytostimulation and phytoprotection processes in areas contaminated with Hg.Entities:
Keywords: ascorbate peroxidase (APX); catalase (CAT); glutathione reductase (GR); heavy metal; phytoprotection; reactive oxygen species (ROS); superoxide dismutase (SOD)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36246290 PMCID: PMC9556840 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.907557
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Bacterial isolates according to their BMRSI in the presence of Hg (González et al., 2021b).
| Strain | HgCl2 tolerance | BMRSI | Strain origin | 16S rRNA identification |
| A1 | 140 | 6.54 |
|
|
| A2 | 140 | 7.30 |
|
|
| B1 | 140 | 7.20 |
|
|
| B2 | 140 | 6.92 |
|
|
Consortia formed to screen the strains in Table 1.
| CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | CS5 | CS6 | |
| Strains | A1 + B1 | A1 + A2 | A1 + B2 | B1 + A2 | B1 + B2 | A2 + B2 |
Hg speciation on study soils (Millán et al., 2007).
| Soil | Total Hg (mg/Kg) | Soluble Hg (mg/Kg) | Exchangeable Hg (mg/Kg) |
| Plot 6 (Soil +Hg) | 1710 | 0.609 | 7.3 |
| Plot 2 (Soil −Hg) | 5.03 | 0.0417 | 0.285 |
FIGURE 1Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA results for enzyme activity: CAT (A), SOD (B), APX (C), and GR (D). Data clusters for statistical treatment: “General”: dataset for plants grown in all growing matrixes; “Substrates +Hg”: dataset for plants in Hg supplemented vermiculite (“Vermiculite +Hg”) and soil with high Hg concentration (“Soil +Hg”); “Vermiculite +Hg”: dataset for plants in supplemented vermiculite; “Soil +Hg”: dataset of plants in soil with Hg high concentration. The bars indicate the standard error. Asterisks indicate the level of significance compared to control; *p-value ≤ 0.05, **p-value ≤ 0.003, and ***p-value ≤ 0.001.
FIGURE 2Comparison of the results of the enzymatic activity of CAT (A), SOD (B), APX (C), and GR (D) in plants grown in the substrate without Hg (smooth) vs. with a high concentration of Hg (double scratching). The bars indicate the standard deviation.
Comparison of the concentration of Hg in the plants tested in soils with high concentration of Hg.
| Treatment | Total (μg/g) | Aerial (μg/g) | Root (μg/g) |
| CONTROL− | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 |
| B1− | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 |
| B2− | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 |
| CS5− | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.01 |
| CONTROL+ | 10.23 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 10.01 ± 0.14 |
| B1+ | 9.52 ± 0.08 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 9.36 ± 0.14 |
| B2+ | 10.23 ± 0.03 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 10.07 ± 0.12 |
| CS5+ | 7.88 ± 0.06 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 7.75 ± 0.13 |
*Indicates significant differences with respect to their respective controls (p-value ≤ 0.001).
FIGURE 32D representation of the physiological and biometric variables of the plants according to the load factors of the PCA. (A) PCA1 vs. PCA2; (B) PCA1 vs. PCA3.
Three main components that describe the model.
| Component | Total | % variance | % acumulated |
| 1 | 5.666 | 40.471 | 40.471 |
| 2 | 4.206 | 30.045 | 70.516 |
| 3 | 2.337 | 16.696 | 87.212 |
FIGURE 42D projection of the main components: (A) PCA1 vs. PCA2 and (B) PCA1 vs. PCA3 of the biological treatment (B1, B2, and CS5). The “+” sign on the treatment refers to “soil with a high concentration of Hg”; the “–” sign above the treatment refers to “soil without Hg.”