Differences and similarities in selenium biopathways in Astragalus, Neptunia (Fabaceae) and Stanleya (Brassicaceae) hyperaccumulators.
X-ray fluorescence microscopy computed tomography
histology
light microscopy
selenium two-dimensional mapping
synchrotron-based X-ray fluorescence microscopy
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Oct 2023
18 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
17
08
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
21
8
2023
entrez:
21
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Selenium hyperaccumulator species are of primary interest for studying the evolution of hyperaccumulation and for use in biofortification because selenium is an essential element in human nutrition. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the distributions of selenium in the three most studied hyperaccumulating taxa (Astragalus bisulcatus, Stanleya pinnata and Neptunia amplexicaulis) are similar or contrasting, in order to infer the underlying physiological mechanisms. This study used synchrotron-based micro-X-ray fluorescence (µXRF) techniques to visualize the distribution of selenium and other elements in fresh hydrated plant tissues of A. racemosus, S. pinnata and N. amplexicaulis. Selenium distribution differed widely in the three species: in the leaves of A. racemosus and N. amplexicaulis selenium was mainly concentrated in the pulvini, whereas in S. pinnata it was primarilylocalized in the leaf margins. In the roots and stems of all three species, selenium was absent in xylem cells, whereas it was particularly concentrated in the pith rays of S. pinnata and in the phloem cells of A. racemosus and N. amplexicaulis. This study shows that Astragalus, Stanleya and Neptunia have different selenium-handling physiologies, with different mechanisms for translocation and storage of excess selenium. Important dissimilarities among the three analysed species suggest that selenium hyperaccumulation has probably evolved multiple times over under similar environmental pressures in the US and Australia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Selenium hyperaccumulator species are of primary interest for studying the evolution of hyperaccumulation and for use in biofortification because selenium is an essential element in human nutrition. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the distributions of selenium in the three most studied hyperaccumulating taxa (Astragalus bisulcatus, Stanleya pinnata and Neptunia amplexicaulis) are similar or contrasting, in order to infer the underlying physiological mechanisms.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used synchrotron-based micro-X-ray fluorescence (µXRF) techniques to visualize the distribution of selenium and other elements in fresh hydrated plant tissues of A. racemosus, S. pinnata and N. amplexicaulis.
KEY RESULTS
RESULTS
Selenium distribution differed widely in the three species: in the leaves of A. racemosus and N. amplexicaulis selenium was mainly concentrated in the pulvini, whereas in S. pinnata it was primarilylocalized in the leaf margins. In the roots and stems of all three species, selenium was absent in xylem cells, whereas it was particularly concentrated in the pith rays of S. pinnata and in the phloem cells of A. racemosus and N. amplexicaulis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that Astragalus, Stanleya and Neptunia have different selenium-handling physiologies, with different mechanisms for translocation and storage of excess selenium. Important dissimilarities among the three analysed species suggest that selenium hyperaccumulation has probably evolved multiple times over under similar environmental pressures in the US and Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37602676
pii: 7246565
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcad110
pmc: PMC10583200
doi:
Substances chimiques
Selenium
H6241UJ22B
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
349-361Subventions
Organisme : Dutch Research Council
Pays : Netherlands
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.
Références
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Jan 23;6:2
pubmed: 25688247
Plant Physiol. 2018 Oct;178(2):507-523
pubmed: 30108140
New Phytol. 2018 Apr;218(2):432-452
pubmed: 28994153
Plant Physiol. 2003 Mar;131(3):1460-7
pubmed: 12644695
Planta. 2014 Feb;239(2):479-91
pubmed: 24233101
Front Plant Sci. 2015 Mar 02;6:113
pubmed: 25784919
Metallomics. 2020 Apr 1;12(4):514-527
pubmed: 32055807
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Dec 4;20(1):585
pubmed: 31801509
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012 Sep;404(5):1277-85
pubmed: 22392379
J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2005;18(4):309-18
pubmed: 16028492
Planta. 2014 Feb;239(2):267-75
pubmed: 24463931
J Synchrotron Radiat. 2016 Nov 1;23(Pt 6):1550-1560
pubmed: 27787262
New Phytol. 2015 Apr;206(1):231-242
pubmed: 25406635
Physiol Plant. 2014 Sep;152(1):70-83
pubmed: 24423113
Plant Physiol. 2020 Apr;182(4):1869-1882
pubmed: 31974126
Metallomics. 2022 Nov 23;14(11):
pubmed: 36099903
New Phytol. 2015 Jan;205(2):583-95
pubmed: 25262627
Plant Physiol. 2006 Sep;142(1):124-34
pubmed: 16920881
Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2012 Jan;14(1):1-10
pubmed: 22132825
Ann Bot. 2016 Feb;117(2):217-35
pubmed: 26718221
New Phytol. 2014 Mar;201(4):1183-1191
pubmed: 24491113
Plant J. 2009 Jul;59(1):110-22
pubmed: 19309459
New Phytol. 2007;173(3):517-525
pubmed: 17244046
Chem Rev. 2014 Sep 10;114(17):8499-541
pubmed: 25102317
Am J Bot. 2012 Dec;99(12):1930-41
pubmed: 23204487
New Phytol. 2018 Apr;218(2):407-411
pubmed: 29139134
Plant Physiol. 2012 Aug;159(4):1834-44
pubmed: 22645068
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
J Nucl Med. 2002 Oct;43(10):1343-58
pubmed: 12368373
Environ Pollut. 2012 Apr;163:117-26
pubmed: 22325439
Ann Bot. 2013 Oct;112(6):965-72
pubmed: 23904445
J Exp Bot. 2018 Aug 14;69(18):4469-4481
pubmed: 29931117