JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effects of Mercury and Arsenic on Growth of Arabidopsis thaliana
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effects of Mercury and Arsenic on Growth of Arabidopsis thaliana
Park Jong-Bum;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This experiment was carried out to investigate the effects of mercury and arsenic on the growth of Arabidopsis thaliana when treated with three different concentrations. When treated with mercury, there was no noticeable difference in the growth of the plant between the group treated with (the effluent standard established by the Ministry of Environment) and the group treated with the concentration 100 times higher. They both showed almost the same level of growth as that of the normal plant. But the group of the concentration 10 times higher showed significantly more growth compared with the normal plant. When treated with arsenic, the three different groups all showed a little more growth compared with the normal plant. Interestingly, the group of the concentration 10 times higher than the official standard concentration of arsenic showed the highest level of growth, significantly more than the normal plant. These results show that some amount of mercury and arsenic in the soil do not have much effect on the growth of Arabidopsis thaliana, and that optimum concentrations of mercury and arsenic can even stimulate the growth of the plant.
 Keywords
Arabidopsis thaliana;Mercury;Arsenic;Growth;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Nriagu, J, O. and J. M. Panyna, 1988, Quantitative assessment of worldwide con­tamination of air, water and soils by trace metals, Nature, 333, 134-139 crossref(new window)

2.
Thornalley, P. J. and M. Vasak, 1985, Possible role for metallothionein in protection against radiaton-induced oxidative stress: Kinetics and mechanism of its reaction with super­oxide and hydroxyl radicals, Biochem. Biophys. Acta., 827, 36-44

3.
Rugh, C. L., H. D. Wilde, N. M. Stack, D. M. Thompson, A. O. Summers .and R. B. Meagher, 1996, Mercuric ion reduction and resistance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana plants ex­pressing a modified bacterial merA gene, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 93, 3182-3189

4.
Salt, D, E., R C. Prince, I. J. Pickering and I. Raskin, 1995, Mechanisms of cadmium mobi­lity and accumulation in Indian mustard, Plant Physiol., 109(14), 1427-1433

5.
Cunningham, S. D. and D. W. Ow, 1996, Promises and prospects of phyto-remediation, Plant Physiol., 110, 15-719

6.
Meagher, R. B., 2000, Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 3, 153-162 crossref(new window)

7.
Ebbs, S. D. and L. V. Kochian, 1997, Toxicity of zinc and copper to Brassica species: Im­plications for phytoremediation, J. Environ. Qual., 26, 776-781 crossref(new window)

8.
Pyke, K., 1994, Arabidopsis-its use in the genetic and molecular analysis of plant mor­phogenesis, New Phytol., 128, 19-37 crossref(new window)

9.
Langridge, J., 1994, Arabidopsis thaliana, a plant Drosophila, BioEssays, 16, 775-778 crossref(new window)

10.
Park, Y. S. and J. B. Park, 2002, Effects of heavy metals on growth and seed germination of Arabidopsis thaliana, J. Environmental Science, 11, 319-325 crossref(new window)

11.
Park, J. B., 2004, Effects of cadmium on growth of Arabidopsis tlrdiana, J. Environmental Science, 12, 1103-1108

12.
Moon, B. Y., H. S. Chun, C. H. Lee and C. B. Lee, 1992, Mercury-specific effects on photo­synthetic apparatus of barley chloroplasts compared with copper and zinc Ions, J. Environmental Science, 1, 1-11

13.
Salt, D. E., R. C. Prince, I. J. Pickering and I. Raskin, 1995, Mechanism of cadmium mobility and accumulation In Indian mustard, Plant Physiol., 109, 1427-1433

14.
Salt, D. E. and U. Kramer, 1999, Mechanism of metal hyperaccumulation In plant, In Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean-up the Environment, Raskin, J. and B. D. Enslely (ed.), New York, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 231-246

15.
Dushenkof, S., D. Vasudev, Y. Kapulnik, D. Gleba, D. Fleisher, K. C. Ting and B. Ensley, 1997, Removal of uranium from water using terrestrial plants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 31, 3468-3474 crossref(new window)

16.
Heaton, A. C. P., C. L. Rugh, N. J. Wang, R. B. Meagher, 1998, Phytoremediation of mer­cury and methylmercury polluted soils using genetically engineered plants, J. Soil Contam., 7, 497-509 crossref(new window)

17.
Brooks, R. R., J. Lee, R. D. Reeves and T. Jaffre, 1977, Detection of nickeliferous rocks by analysis of herbarium specimens of indicator plants, J. Geochem. Explor., 7, 49-58 crossref(new window)

18.
Davis, M. A., S. G. Pritchard, R. S. Boyd and S. A. Prior, 2001, Developmental and induced responses of nickel-based and organic defences of the nickel-hyperaccumulating shrub, Psy­chotria douarrei, New Phytologist, 150, 49-58 crossref(new window)

19.
Vilet, C., C. R. Anderson and C. S. Cobbett, 1995, Copper-sensitive mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana, Plant Physiol., 109, 871-878 crossref(new window)

20.
Grill, E., E. L. Winnacker and M. H. Zenk, 1985, Phytochelatins: the principal heavy-metal complexing peptides of higher plants, Science, 230, 674-676 crossref(new window)

21.
Grill, E., E. L. Winnacker and M. H. Zenk, 1987, Phytochelatins, a class of heavy-metal binding peptides from plants, are functionally analogous to metallothioneins, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 84, 439-443

22.
Steffens, J. C., 1990, The heavy-metal bind­Ing peptides of plants, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 41, 553-575 crossref(new window)