4.7 Article

Role of hematin and sodium nitroprusside in regulating Brassica nigra seed germination under nanosilver and silver nitrate stresses

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 259-270

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.12.017

关键词

Brassica nigra; Heme oxygenase; Nitric oxide; Silver nanoparticles stress; Seed germination

资金

  1. Research Assistance of Shahrekord University, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) are one of the most widely used nanomaterials, although the mechanisms of AgNP toxicity in terrestrial plants is still unclear. We compared the toxic effects of AgNPs and AgNO3 on Brassica nigra seed germination at physiological and molecular levels. Both AgNPs and AgNO3 inhibited seed germination, lipase activity, soluble and reducing sugar contents in germinating seeds and seedlings. These reductions were more pronounced in AgNP treatments than AgNO3 treatments. Application of 200-400 mg/L both AgNPs and AgNO3 increased transcription of heme oxygenase-1. However, at 800, 1600 mg/L, AgNPs or AgNO3 suppressed HO-1 expression. At 400 mg/L, AgNPs or AgNO3-induced inhibitory effects on seed germination and were ameliorated by the HO-1 inducer, hematin, or NO donor, sodium nitroprusside (SNP). Additionally, 4 mu M hematin and 400 mu M SNP were able to markedly boost the HO/NO system. However, the addition of the HO-1 inhibitor (ZnPPIX) or the specific scavenger of NO (cPTIO) not only reversed the protective effects conferred by hematin, but also blocked the up-regulation of HO activity. In addition, hematin-drived NO production in B. niger seeds under AgNPs was confirmed. Our results at physiological and molecular levels suggested that AgNPs were more toxic than AgNO3. Based on these results, for the first time, we suggest that endogenous HO is needed to alleviate AgNPs-induced germination inhibition, which might have a possible interaction with NO. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据