BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2017 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2017 |Article ID 9504057 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9504057

Fahad Al-Qurainy, Salim Khan, Mohamed Tarroum, Mohammad Nadeem, Saleh Alansi, Aref Alshameri, "Biochemical and Genetical Responses of Phoenix dactylifera L. to Cadmium Stress", BioMed Research International, vol. 2017, Article ID 9504057, 9 pages, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9504057

Biochemical and Genetical Responses of Phoenix dactylifera L. to Cadmium Stress

Academic Editor: Paul W. Doetsch
Received13 Jun 2017
Revised08 Aug 2017
Accepted14 Aug 2017
Published19 Oct 2017

Abstract

The cadmium (Cd), a heavy metal, causes toxicity, which leads to hampering the growth and development of the plant. The molecular and biochemical approaches were used for the investigation of antioxidant system response and genotoxicity in date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) cv. Sagai in pot experiment having Cd. The root length was more affected than the shoot length as more accumulation of Cd occurs in roots. Fresh weights of root and shoot were reduced significantly in treated plants as compared to the control. The proline content was increased at low concentration of Cd (300 µM-CdCl2) than the medium and high concentrations (600 and 900 µM-CdCl2), respectively. The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) content was increased at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2 compared to the plants treated at 300 µM-CdCl2 and controls. Antioxidant enzymatic assay was performed under Cd stress and compared with control plants. The catalase (CAT) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities were found to be high in plants treated with CdCl2 at 300 µM compared to at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2, respectively. The genotoxicity of Cd was assessed using the inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) marker where all treated and control plants were clustered into three main groups based on genetic similarity. P. dactylifera plants were found to be more divergent at high Cd stress as compared to control and plants treated at low concentration of Cd.

1. Introduction

Heavy metals are inorganic chemical constituents which have mutagenic, cytotoxic, and genotoxic effects on plants, humans, and animals [14]. Cadmium (Cd) is considered in the top ten list of hazardous compounds by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov). Among the heavy metals, Cd is toxic to animals and plants due to its nonessentiality in living organism [5]. The food, which has contamination of Cd, is the main source of entry to humans via the food chain [6]. The high uptake of the bivalent cations to the aerial parts of the plant shifts its cellular phosphorylation state and causes a range of physiological disturbances and oxidative stresses in the cell [7, 8]. The plant may get the Cd from the phosphate fertilizer or sewage sludge as these are used for soil enhancement [911]. The older plants accumulate more heavy metals at their inactive sites such as cell walls and vacuoles [12]. The Cd inhibits the growth of lateral root formation in plants while the main root became brown, rigid, and twisted [13, 14]. The restricted activity of photosynthesis and chlorosis has been seen in many plant species under Cd stress [15, 16]. It interferes with the uptake and transport of various elements from the soil [17]. The functions and stability of the cell were affected under Cd stress as it binds to enzymes and membranes [18].

The mutagenic and cytotoxic nature of Cd causes DNA damage by producing reactive oxygen species [12]. Moreover, Cd binds to DNA bases and inhibits DNA mismatch repair [19, 20]. The genotoxic effect was varied among the plant organs of lettuce and tobacco as more effects were seen in the root and no changes were observed in the leaf [21, 22]. The genotoxicity of Cd varies from organ to organ as more DNA damage was seen in the roots of Nicotiana tabacum but no effect was seen in the leaves [22]. The oxidative DNA damage, chromosomal aberrations, DNA strand breaks, and induction of micronuclei have been observed in vivo and vitro under Cd stress [23]. Different molecular markers such as random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) [24], microsatellite (simple sequence repeat, SSR) [21], and inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) [25] have been used to assess the genotoxicity in plants caused by various heavy metals.

The cadmium is dispersed in environment through mining, smelting, phosphate fertilizers, sewage sludge, Ni-Cd batteries, plating, pigments, and plastics items. The environmental Cd goes in the soil with rain water and is taken up by the plant which then enters the food chain. The different level of Cd has been reported in the fruits of P. dactylifera from different countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, and Pakistan [2629]. However, P. dactylifera survives under extreme abiotic stresses, including high temperature, relatively high soil salinity levels, and drought [3033]. The response of antioxidant enzymes in general to metals and Cd can also vary in various tissues and among plant species [6, 34, 35]. The cadmium toxicity also causes oxidative damage in plants through generation of reactive oxygen species ROS [36, 37]. However, antioxidant system plays an important role in removal of ROS and provides tolerance to plants under abiotic stresses. The stress marker “proline” maintains the cellular homeostasis in the plants under Cd stress. The present study focuses on Cd tolerance in P. dactylifera using the biochemical and genetic approaches.

2. Materials and Methods

The pot experiment was performed in a growth chamber for Cd stress treatment on Sagai cultivar of P. dactylifera. The same size of pots was filled in a ratio (3 : 1) with a mixture of sand and peat moss. The seeds were washed with tap water three times and thereafter surface-sterilized with sodium hypochlorite solution (4.0% available chlorine) for 10 min. Further, these were rinsed thoroughly three times with autoclaved distilled water. One seed per pot was sown in plastic pot, watered at regular interval to keep moisture. The exposure of Cd was given to 2-month-old plants in solution form (100 ml per pot after two-week time intervals) to see its effect on antioxidant system and growth development. The three concentrations of CdCl2 were used as low (T1-300 µM), medium (T2-600 µM), and high (T3-900 µM) to treat the 2-month-old plants. The relative humidity (72%) and photoperiod with temperature 26-27°C for 16 h per day were maintained in the growth chamber for proper growth of the plants. The Cd treated and control plants were harvested after 90 days of treatment to perform molecular and biochemical parameters.

2.1. Estimation of Biomass

Fresh roots and leaves weights were measured after 90 days of Cd treatment. The shoot and root length were also measured.

2.2. Genomic DNA Isolation and Evaluation of Genotoxicity

The genomic DNA was isolated using the protocol developed by Khan et al. [38]. The PCR reaction was performed in 25 µL volume. The PCR bead (master mixture, GE health care) was used for the amplification of genomic DNA extracted from the control as well as treated samples. ISSR marker was used to assess the genotoxicity caused by Cd stress. The doubled distilled water was added in the master mixture followed by ISSR primer (Table 1) and template DNA. The PCR program was set in Veriti 96-well Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems, Singapore). First denaturation at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 38 cycles at 94°C for 1 min, 48°C for 1 min, 72°C for 1 min, and final extension at 72°C for 5 min, was carried out for the amplification. Agarose gel (1.3%) was prepared in 1x TBE buffer solution for electrophoresis.


Primer code Primer sequence (5′-3′)

OP-1AGTCAGTCAGTCAGTC
OP-2AGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGCTC
OP-3GAG AGA GAG AGA GAG AA
OP-4CTC TCT CTC TCT CTC TT
OP-5CTC TCT CTC TCT CTC TA
OP-6CTC TCT CTC TCT CTC TG
OP-7CAC ACA CAC ACA CAC AT
OP-8CAC ACA CAC ACA CAC AA
OP-9CAC ACA CAC ACA CAC AG
OP-10GTG TGT GTG TGT GTG TA
OP-11GTG TGT GTG TGT GTG TC
OP-12GTG TGT GTG TGT GTG TT
OP-13TCT CTC TCT CTC TCT CA
OP-14TCT CTC TCT CTC TCT CC
OP-15TCT CTC TCT CTC TCT CG

2.3. Proline Estimation

The proline estimation was performed according to the protocol of Hanson et al. [39]. The fresh leaf samples of 0.3 g were ground in 10 ml of sulphosalicylic acid (30% aqueous). The mixture was centrifuged at 9000 ×g for 15 min and, thereafter, 2 ml of supernatant was taken in another glass tube. An equal volume of acid ninhydrin and acetic acid were added in the above step and incubated for 1 h in boiling water. The reaction was stopped by putting it into the ice bath. The mixture was taken out from the ice bath and 4 ml of toluene was added and vortexed for 20 s. The upper phase was taken for the estimation of the proline using the spectrophotometer at 520 nm (Model UB-1800, Shimadzu, Japan).

2.4. Total Chlorophyll

Total chlorophyll was estimated in the fresh leaves according to the method of Arnon [40]. Leaves were chopped in small pieces (0.1 g) and 10 ml of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was added to each test tube. The incubation was completed at 65°C in oven for 120 minutes to release the whole chlorophyll in DMSO. The tubes were taken out from the oven and absorbance of the solution was recorded at 663 and 645 nm on a UV-vis spectrophotometer (Model UB-1800, Shimadzu, Japan). The content of chlorophyll was calculated as mg/g fresh weight.

2.5. Superoxide Dismutase (SOD) (EC 1.15.1.1)

Dhindsa et al. [41] method was used for the activity assay of superoxide dismutase. The fresh leaf samples (0.05 g) were chopped in small pieces and ground in 2.0 ml of extraction buffer containing 0.5 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.3), 0.3 mM-EDTA, 1% PVP (w/v), and 1% Triton x100 (w/v). The supernatant was taken after centrifugation for the assay of SOD activity. The absorbance of the reaction mixture along with blank was read at 560 nm, using the UV-vis spectrophotometer. A 50% reduction in color was considered as one enzyme unit (EU), and the activity was expressed in EU mg−1 protein min−1.

2.6. Catalase (CAT) (EC 1.11.1.6)

The CAT activity was determined by estimating degradation according to the method of Aebi [42]. The reaction was performed in 3.0 ml of reaction mixture containing 10 mM, 100 mM potassium phosphate buffer solution (pH 7.0), and 100 µl of enzyme extract. The decrease in absorbance of was recorded at 240 nm using the UV-vis spectrophotometer (Model UB-1800, Shimadzu, Japan). The enzyme activity was calculated using the extinction coefficient (0.036 mM−1 cm−1). One unit of CAT determines the amount necessary to decompose 1 µmol of per min at 25°C.

2.7. Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS)

The TBARS content was estimated in fresh leaves using the method described by Cakmak and Horst [43]. 0.5 g of fresh leaves was ground in 5.0 ml of 0.1% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid (TCA) at 4°C. The reaction mixture was taken in falcon tube and centrifuged at 12,000 ×g for 5 min. The 4.0 ml of 0.5% (w/v) TBA in 20% (w/v) TCA was added in 1.0 ml of supernatant taken from the above step. The mixture was kept for 30 min at 90°C in water bath. After incubation of mixture, the reaction was terminated by keeping it on ice bath. The reaction mixture was centrifuged at 10,000 ×g for 5 min, and absorbance of the supernatant was taken at 532 and 600 nm on a spectrophotometer (Model UB-1800, Shimadzu, Japan).

The amount of TBARS was calculated using an extinction coefficient of 155 mM cm−1 as follows: where is absorbance at 532 nm is absorbance at 600 nmV is extraction volumeW is fresh weight of tissues and methods.

2.8. Determination of Elements in Leaves and Roots

The leaf and root powders were digested according to the method developed by Price [44]. The fine powder of leaves and roots (200 mg) was taken in TECAM digestion flask in which 0.5 ml of sulphuric acid, 1.0 ml of perchloric acid, and 5.0 ml of nitric acid were added. The flasks were heated at 110°C and further temperature was increased gradually to 330°C. The samples were taken out and cooled down. Thereafter, samples were transferred to 50 ml calibrated flask and volume was made up with distilled water. The content of Cd along with other minerals (Mg, Ca, and K) was measured by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES).

2.9. Data Analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for data analysis obtained from treated and untreated samples. The significant differences among the treatment means were evaluated using Duncan’s multiple range test [45]. ISSR marker was used for the evaluation of genotoxicity caused by Cd stress. All primers data were combined into a binary matrix as absence (0) or presence (1) of the bands on agarose gel. The similarity matrix value was calculated using the NTSYS.pc software version 2.21 package between the control and treated P. dactylifera plants [46].

3. Results and Discussion

The heavy metals cause toxicity and also generate oxidative stress in plant cell by interfering with the antioxidant defense system [4749]. The cadmium affects the biomass and plant height in plant species such as Gossypium hirsutum and Cichorium pumilum [50, 51]. In our study, P. dactylifera plants were harvested at 90 days after Cd treatment to investigate its effect using the biochemical and molecular approaches. The root length and weight of P. dactylifera were decreased under Cd stress in a dose dependent manner (Figures 1 and 2). The root length was decreased significantly as 31.333, 28.333, and 26 cm at 300, 600, and 900 µM-CdCl2 in relation to control (37 cm). Similarly, root weight was also decreased significantly as 1.146, 1.045, and 0.922 g at 300, 600, and 900 µM-CdCl2 treatments as compared to control (1.263 g), respectively. However, shoot length was less affected at all Cd concentrations applied in the experiment. Shoot weight was decreased as 2.256 g and 2.168 g at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2 as compared to control (3.206 g) but result was found nonsignificant at low concentration of Cd application (Figures 3 and 4).

The proline content was increased (1283.055 µg/g FW) significantly in leaves of P. dactylifera plants treated at 300 µM-CdCl2 as compared to control (856.746 µg/g FW) (Figure 5). However, the response was found nonsignificant at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2 as compared to controls. The proline content was increased in Brassica juncea, Groenlandia densa, and Medicago sativa as the Cd concentration increased in the treatment [5254]. Total chlorophyll content was decreased in the leaf of P. dactylifera plant under Cd stress in a dose dependent manner in relation to controls (Figure 6). The chlorophyll content decreased in various plant species such as strawberry, faba bean, pakchoi, and mustard as the Cd concentration increased in the treatment [5557].

The antioxidant enzymes play important role under abiotic and biotic stresses to protect the cells from oxidative damage. The SOD and CAT activities were increased (178 and 29.400 U/mg protein/min) significantly in the leaf of P. dactylifera plants treated at 300 µM-CdCl2 (Figures 7 and 8) in relation to controls (99.770 and 14.541 U/mg protein/min). However, SOD activity was found nonsignificant at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2 in relation to control. Similarly, CAT and SOD activities were enhanced at low concentration of Cd stress, whereas it was decreased at high concentration of Cd in Lemna polyrhiza [58]. The CAT activity was decreased in many plant species under Cd stress including Amaranthus lividus [59], Phaseolus aureus [60], Lemna minor [61], and hybrid poplar [62] under the Cd stress. The SOD activity was increased under Cd stress in bean [63], pea [64], and wheat [65], whereas, in other plant species including Pisum sativum [65], Phaseolus vulgaris [66], and Helianthus annuus [67], the activities of both CAT and SOD were decreased.

The TBARS content was increased (0.067 and 0.876 nM/g FW) significantly in P. dactylifera leaves at 600 and 900 µM-CdCl2 concentrations as compared to control (0.045 nM/g FW); however, the result was found nonsignificant at 300 µM-CdCl2 as compared to the controls (Figure 9). Similarly, TBARS content was also increased under Cd stress in leaf and root of strawberry as reported by Muradoglu et al. [55]. Cd caused an enhancement of lipid peroxidation in Pisum sativum [68], H. annuus [67], and Phaseolus vulgaris [66].

The content of Cd along with other minerals was estimated in leaves and roots of P. dactylifera plants under various concentration of Cd treatment along with control plants. In our study, the accumulation of heavy metals was more in root organ as compared to the leaf organ (Table 2). As the Cd concentration increased in the treatment, the accumulation of Cd increased both in leaf and in root organs, and more accumulation (0.187 and 0.223 mg/g DW) was observed at high Cd concentrations (900 µM-CdCl2) as compared to controls (0.063 and 0.092 mg/g/DW) (Table 2). Our result was lined with previous work as carried out by Gichner et al. [68] as the roots have accumulated more Cd content than the above ground parts. The more Cd content was also accumulated in roots of Olea europaea L. cv. Chemlali and Helianthus annuus L. cv. Oleko under Cd stress (Zouari et al., 2016; De Maria et al., 2013) [55, 69, 70]. However, Pillay et al. [28] reported that the accumulation of Cd in leaves of P. dactylifera was more than the root organ. Similarly, the accumulation of magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and potassium (K) was also decreased in leaves and roots of P. dactylifera in a dose dependent manner. The content of manganese (Mn), potassium (K), and zinc (Zn) was decreased in roots as well in shoots of wheat at high level of Cd toxicity [71]. The mineral contents of iron (Fe), Mg, K, and Ca were decreased in wheat shoots in a dose dependent manner under excess Cd stress [72]. However, Cd ions may compete with Ca, Mg, or iron (Fe) in their transport across membranes [73] which may cause mineral deficiency in these organs.


Treatments (CdCl2)LeafRoot
MgCaKCdMgCaKCd

Control (0 µM)
300 µM
600 µM
900 µM

Mean of three replicates ± SD. The letters a, b, c, and d represent the significant values according to Duncan’s test ().

The individual P. dactylifera leaf was taken for the evaluation of genotoxicity under Cd stress. Fifteen ISSR primers were used for the evaluation of genotoxicity. Out of fifteen primers, twelve primers produced bright and reproducible bands which were used further for the comparison between and among the control and treated plants. In other ISSR primers, the obtained ISSR profiles were different at many loci between treated and control plants. The more polymorphism was observed among the treated plants at medium and higher concentration of Cd and it might be due to the mutations produced by Cd toxicity. Similarly, in other plant species, the polymorphism was also detected under Cd stress using the molecular markers [25, 7476]. However, some primers gave faint and nonreproducible bands in PCR amplification and were excluded from the data analysis. Genetic similarity was calculated among the control and treated plants using the NTSYS.pc software version 2.21. In our study, the plants treated at 300 µM-CdCl2 showed more genetic similarity (98.81%) to control plants. The genetic similarity (96.43%) was found among the plants treated at 300, 600, and 900 µM-CdCl2 and controls. A very low genetic similarity (92.86%) was observed between the plants treated at 300 and 900 µM-CdCl2.

All plants were clustered into three main groups according to genetic similarity (Figure 10). In the first group, controls and plants treated at low Cd concentration were clustered. In second and third groups, medium and high concentrations treated plants were clustered, respectively. Thus, genetic variation was produced in P. dactylifera plants at different concentration of Cd treatment and more effect was observed at its high concentration. The highest percentage of polymorphism was detected in the roots and shoots of Trifolium repens under As and Cd treatment as they caused genotoxicity and it was related to their concentrations [77]. The genotoxicity was assessed in germinated seeds of Eruca sativa under the Zn, Pb, and Cd stresses using the ISSR marker [25], whereas Cd showed more genotoxicity than the other two heavy metals. Thus, in conclusion, P. dactylifera plant grown under high concentration of Cd showed less genetic similarity, reduction in biomass, and chlorophyll content and lower root length than the plant under low Cd stress and controls. However, the enzymatic activities of CAT and SOD were found to be high in plants grown at low Cd stress than the high Cd stress and controls.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding the work through Research Group Project no. RGP-014.

References

  1. S. J. S. Flora, M. Mittal, and A. Mehta, “Heavy metal induced oxidative stress & its possible reversal by chelation therapy,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 501–523, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  2. A. Cirlaková, “Heavy metals in the vascular plants of Tatra mountains,” Oecologia Montana, vol. 18, pp. 23–26, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  3. N. Rascio and F. Navari-Izzo, “Heavy metal hyperaccumulating plants: how and why do they do it? And what makes them so interesting?” Plant Science, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 169–181, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. R. A. Wuana and F. E. Okieimen, “Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation,” ISRN Ecology, vol. 2011, Article ID 402647, 20 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. Rizwan, S. Ali, T. Abbas et al., “Cadmium minimization in wheat: A critical review,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 130, pp. 43–53, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. L.-P. Dai, Z.-T. Xiong, Y. Huang, and M.-J. Li, “Cadmium-induced changes in pigments, total phenolics, and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in fronds of Azolla imbricata,” Environmental Toxicology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 505–512, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. F. Ahkter and S. M. Macfie, “Species-Specific Relationship between Transpiration and Cadmium Translocation in Lettuce, Barley and Radish,” Journal of Plant Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. A. Meharg, “Integrated tolerance mechanisms: constitutive and adaptive plant responses to elevated metal concentrations in the environment,” Plant, Cell & Environment, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 989–993, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. S. E. Manahan, Environmental Chemistry, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1994.
  10. C. Baird, Environmental Chemistry, Freeman, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  11. N. J. Ward, Environmental Analytical Chemistry, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2000, Edited by F. W. Fifield, P. W. Haines.
  12. F. Fodor, “Physiological responses of vascular plants to heavy metals,” in Physiology and Biochemistry of Metal Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants, M. N. V. Prasad and K. Strzalka, Eds., pp. 149–177, Kluwer Academic, Dortrech, UK, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. A. Krantev, R. Yordanova, T. Janda, G. Szalai, and L. Popova, “Treatment with salicylic acid decreases the effect of cadmium on photosynthesis in maize plants,” Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 165, no. 9, pp. 920–931, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. S. K. Yadav, “Heavy metals toxicity in plants: an overview on the role of glutathione and phytochelatins in heavy metal stress tolerance of plants,” South African Journal of Botany, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 167–179, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. K. Lee, D. W. Bae, S. H. Kim et al., “Comparative proteomic analysis of the short-term responses of rice roots and leaves to cadmium,” The Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 167, no. 3, pp. 161–168, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. H. Miyadate, S. Adachi, A. Hiraizumi et al., “OsHMA3, a P1B-type of ATPase affects root-to-shoot cadmium translocation in rice by mediating efflux into vacuoles,” New Phytologist, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 190–199, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. P. Das, S. Samantaray, and G. R. Rout, “Studies on cadmium toxicity in plants: A review,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. W. Karcz and R. Kurtyka, “Effect of cadmium on growth, proton extrusion and membrane potential in maize coleoptile segments,” Biologia Plantarum, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 713–719, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. Y. H. Jin, A. B. Clark, R. J. C. Slebos et al., “Cadmium is a mutagen that acts by inhibiting mismatch repair,” Nature Genetics, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 326–329, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. Z. Hossain and F. Huq, “Studies on the interaction between Cd2+ ions and nucleobases and nucleotides,” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 90, no. 3-4, pp. 97–105, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Monteiro, C. Santos, R. M. Mann, A. M. V. M. Soares, and T. Lopes, “Evaluation of cadmium genotoxicity in Lactuca sativa L. using nuclear microsatellites,” Environmental and Experimental Botany, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 421–427, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. T. Gichner, Z. Patková, J. Száková, and K. Demnerová, “Cadmium induces DNA damage in tobacco roots, but no DNA damage, somatic mutations or homologous recombination in tobacco leaves,” Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, vol. 559, no. 1-2, pp. 49–57, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. D. Beyersmann and A. Hartwig, “Carcinogenic metal compounds: recent insight into molecular and cellular mechanisms,” Archives of Toxicology, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 493–512, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. F. Al-Qurainy, A. A. Alameri, and S. Khan, “RAPD profile for the assessment of genotoxicity on a medicinal plant; Erucax sativa,” Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 579–586, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  25. F. Al-Qurainy, “Application of inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR marker) to detect genotoxic effect of heavy metals on Eruca sativa (L.),” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 467–474, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  26. I. M. Aldjain, M. H. Al-Whaibi, S. S. Al-Showiman, and M. H. Siddiqui, “Determination of heavy metals in the fruit of date palm growing at different locations of Riyadh,” Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 175–180, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. M. Awadallah, A. H. Amrallah, and F. Grass, “Environmental and chemical studies on trace element levels in some Egyptian fruit and condiments in. Environmental Radiochemical Analysis,” The Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 330–342, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  28. A. E. Pillay, J. R. Williams, M. O. El Mardi, S. M. Hassan, and A. Al-Hamdi, “Monitoring of cadmium in "on" and "off" date palms,” Environment International, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 273–276, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. S. Waheed, N. Siddique, A. Rahman, S. Saeed, J. H. Zaidi, and S. Ahmad, “INAA and ETAAS of toxic element content of fruits harvested and consumed in Pakistan,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 262, no. 3, pp. 691–696, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. J. R. Furr and W. W. Armstrong, “Water and salinity problems of Abadan island date gardens,” Ann. Date growers Inst. Rept, vol. 52, pp. 14–17, 1975. View at: Google Scholar
  31. A. Zaid and P. F. de Wet, “Climatic requirements of date palm,” in Date Palm Cultivation, Food and Agriculture Organization Plant Production and Protection Paper No.156, A. Zaid, Ed., pp. 57–72, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  32. M. W. Yaish and P. P. Kumar, “Salt tolerance research in date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera L.), past, present, and future perspectives,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 6, article 348, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. M. W. Yaish, I. Antony, and B. R. Glick, “Isolation and characterization of endophytic plant growth-promoting bacteria from date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera L.) and their potential role in salinity tolerance,” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology, vol. 107, no. 6, article no. 14, pp. 1519–1532, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Mobin and N. A. Khan, “Photosynthetic activity, pigment composition and antioxidative response of two mustard (Brassica juncea) cultivars differing in photosynthetic capacity subjected to cadmium stress,” Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 601–610, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. S. Zhang, H. Zhang, R. Qin, W. Jiang, and D. Liu, “Cadmium induction of lipid peroxidation and effects on root tip cells and antioxidant enzyme activities in Vicia faba L.,” Ecotoxicology, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 814–823, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. G. H. Poghosyan, Z. H. Mukhaelyan, and P. H. Vardevanyan, “Influence of Cadmium Ions on Growth and Antioxidant System Activity of Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Seedlings,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 371–378, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. H. M. Tauqeer, S. Ali, M. Rizwan et al., “Phytoremediation of heavy metals by Alternanthera bettzickiana: Growth and physiological response,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 126, pp. 138–146, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. Khan, M. I. Qureshi, Kamaluddin, T. Alam, and M. Z. Abdin, “Protocol for isolation of genomic DNA from dry and fresh roots of medicinal plants suitable for RAPD and restriction digestion,” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 175–178, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  39. A. D. Hanson, C. E. Nelsen, A. R. Pedersen, and E. H. Everson, “Capacity for Proline Accumulation During Water Stress in Barley and Its Implications for Breeding for Drought Resistance1,” Crop Science, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 489, 1979. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. D. I. Arnon, “Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Photophenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris,” Plant Physiology, vol. 24, pp. 1–15, 1949. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. R. S. Dhindsa, P. Plumb-dhindsa, and T. A. Thorpe, “Leaf senescence: correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation, and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and catalase,” Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 93–101, 1981. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. H. Aebi, “[13] Catalase in vitro,” Methods in Enzymology, vol. 105, pp. 121–126, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. I. Cakmak and W. J. Horst, “Effect of aluminium on lipid peroxidation, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase activities in root tips of soybean (Glycine max),” Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 463–468, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. W. J. Price, Analytical atomic absorption spectrometry, Heyden, 1974.
  45. M. J. Crawley, Statistics: An Introduction Using R, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2005. View at: Publisher Site
  46. F. J. Rohlf, NTSYS-pc: numerical taxonomy system ver.2.21, Exeter Publishing Ltd, Setauket, NY, USA, 2010.
  47. P. L. Gratão, A. Polle, P. J. Lea, and R. A. Azevedo, “Making the life of heavy metal-stressed plants a little easier,” Functional Plant Biology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 481–494, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. P. Benavides, S. M. Gallego, and M. L. Tomaro, “Cadmium toxicity in plants,” Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21–34, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. U.-H. Cho and N.-H. Seo, “Oxidative stress in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to cadmium is due to hydrogen peroxide accumulation,” Plant Science, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 113–120, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. L. Liu, H. Sun, J. Chen, Y. Zhang, D. Li, and C. Li, “Effects of cadmium (Cd) on seedling growth traits and photosynthesis parameters in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.),” Plant OMICS, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 284–290, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  51. W. A. Khateeb, “Cadmium-Induced Changes in Germination, Seedlings Growth, and DNA Fingerprinting of in vitro Grown Cichorium pumilum Jacq,” International Journal of Biology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 65, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. M. Irfan, A. Ahmad, and S. Hayat, “Effect of cadmium on the growth and antioxidant enzymes in two varieties of Brassica juncea,” Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 125–131, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. D. D. Yilmaz and K. U. Parlak, “Changes in proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in Groenlandia densa under cadmium stress,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 417–423, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. S. Mahmood, S. A. Malik, A. Tabassum, U. Younis, and M. Athar, “Biometric and biochemical attributes of alfalfa seedlings as indicators of stress induced by excessive cadmium,” Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 546–553, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  55. F. Muradoglu, M. Gundogdu, S. Ercisli et al., “Cadmium toxicity affects chlorophyll a and b content, antioxidant enzyme activities and mineral nutrient accumulation in strawberry,” Biological Research, vol. 48, no. 1, p. 11, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. B. Piršelová, R. Kuna, P. Lukáč, and M. Havrlentová, “Effect of cadmium on growth, photosynthetic pigments, iron and cadmium accumulation of Faba Bean (Vicia faba cv. Aštar),” Agriculture, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 72–79, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. X. Chen, J. Wang, Y. Shi, M. Q. Zhao, and G. Y. Chi, “Effects of cadmium on growth and photosynthetic activities in pakchoi and mustard,” Bot Stud, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  58. R. John, P. Ahmad, K. Gadgil, and S. Sharma, “Antioxidative response of Lemna polyrrhiza L. to cadmium stress,” Journal of Environmental Biology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 583–589, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  59. S. Bhattacharjee, “Membrane lipid peroxidation, free radical scavangers and ethylene evolution in Amaranthus as affected by lead and cadmium,” Biologia Plantarum, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 131–135, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. B. P. Shaw, “Effects of mercury and cadmium on the activities of antioxidative enzymes in the seedlings of Phaseolus aureus,” Biologia Plantarum, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 587–596, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. B. S. Mohan and B. B. Hosetti, “Potential phytotoxicity of lead and cadmium to Lemna minor grown in sewage stabilization ponds,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 233–238, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. N. Nikolić, D. Kojic, A. Pilipovic et al., “Responses of hybrid poplar to cadmium stress: photosynthetic characteristics, cadmium and proline accumulation, and antioxidant enzyme activity,” Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 95–103, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  63. C. Cardinaels, C. Put, F. Van Asche, and H. Clijsters, “The superoxide dismutase as a biochemical indicator, discriminating between zinc and cadmium toxicity,” Biologia Plantarum, vol. 40, pp. 131–135, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  64. L. M. Sandalio, H. C. Dalurzo, M. Gómez, M. C. Romero-Puertas, and L. A. del Río, “Cadmium-induced changes in the growth and oxidative metabolism of pea plants,” Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 52, no. 364, pp. 2115–2126, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. M. T. Milone, C. Sgherri, H. Clijsters, and F. Navari-Izzo, “Antioxidative responses of wheat treated with realistic concentration of cadmium,” Environmental and Experimental Botany, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 265–276, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. A. Chaoui, S. Mazhoudi, M. H. Ghorbal, and E. El Ferjani, “Cadmium and zinc induction of lipid peroxidation and effects on antioxidant enzyme activities in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.),” Plant Science, vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 139–147, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. S. M. Gallego, M. P. Benavídes, and M. L. Tomaro, “Effect of heavy metal ion excess on sunflower leaves: Evidence for involvement of oxidative stress,” Plant Science, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 151–159, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. T. Gichner, Z. Patková, J. Száková, I. Žnidar, and A. Mukherjee, “DNA damage in potato plants induced by cadmium, ethyl methanesulphonate and γ-rays,” Environmental and Experimental Botany, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 113–119, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. M. Zouari, C. Ben Ahmed, N. Elloumi et al., “Impact of proline application on cadmium accumulation, mineral nutrition and enzymatic antioxidant defense system of Olea europaea L. cv Chemlali exposed to cadmium stress,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 128, pp. 195–205, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. S. De Maria, M. Puschenreiter, and A. R. Rivelli, “Cadmium accumulation and physiological response of sunflower plants to Cd during the vegetative growing cycle,” Plant, Soil and Environment, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 254–261, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  71. A. Jalil, F. Selles, and J. M. Clarke, “Effect of cadmium on growth and the uptake of cadmium and other elements by durum wheat,” Journal of Plant Nutrition, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1839–1858, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. G. Ouzounidou, M. Moustakas, and E. P. Eleftheriou, “Physiological and ultrastructural effects of cadmium on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) leaves,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 154–160, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. A. Llamas, C. I. Ullrich, and A. Sanz, “Cd2+ effects on transmembrane electrical potential difference, respiration and membrane permeability of rice (Oryza sativa L) roots,” Plant and Soil, vol. 219, no. 1-2, pp. 21–28, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. E. Lozano-Rodríguez, L. E. Hernández, P. Bonay, and R. O. Carpena-Ruiz, “Distribution of cadmium in shoot and root tissues,” Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 48, no. 306, pp. 123–128, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. H. Wang, L. He, J. Song et al., “Cadmium-induced genomic instability in Arabidopsis: Molecular toxicological biomarkers for early diagnosis of cadmium stress,” Chemosphere, vol. 150, pp. 258–265, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. R. Aslam, M. Y. K. Ansari, S. Choudhary, T. M. Bhat, and N. Jahan, “Genotoxic effects of heavy metal cadmium on growth, biochemical, cyto-physiological parameters and detection of DNA polymorphism by RAPD in Capsicum annuum L. - An important spice crop of India,” Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 465–472, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. A. Ghiani, P. Fumagalli, T. Nguyen Van, R. Gentili, and S. Citterio, “The combined toxic and genotoxic effects of Cd and As to plant bioindicator Trifolium repens L,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 6, Article ID e99239, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2017 Fahad Al-Qurainy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1131
Downloads717
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.