Botanical Studies

An International Journal

Impact Factor 1.159

Botanical Studies Cover Image
Open Access

Structural and functional alterations in photosynthetic apparatus of plants under cadmium stress

Botanical StudiesAn International Journal201354:45

DOI: 10.1186/1999-3110-54-45

Received: 26 August 2013

Accepted: 1 October 2013

Published: 8 October 2013

Abstract

Cadmium is a potentially toxic heavy metal that hampers plant productivity by interfering with their photochemistry. Cd causes disturbances in a range of physiological processes of plants such as photosynthesis, water relations, ion metabolism and mineral uptake. Cd pronouncedly affects photosynthesis by alteration of its vital machinery in all aspects. Photosynthesis is a well organised and sequential process fundamental to all green plants and microorganisms which involves various components, including photosynthetic pigments and photosystems, the electron transport system and CO2 reduction pathways. Any damage at any level caused by Cd, critically affects overall photosynthetic capacity. Present review focuses on key effects of Cd on photosynthetic apparatus including chloroplast structure, photosynthetic pigments, Chl-protein complexes and photosystems resulting in overall decrease in efficiency of carbon assimilation pathway.

Keywords

Cadmium Photosynthesis Chlorophyll Chloroplast PSII PSI

Review

Introduction

The unprecedented increase in heavy metal pollution has become a matter of major concern over the globe (Jamali et al. 2007). Cadmium (Cd) stands 7th out of the 20 toxins and has no known biological function except in marine diatoms (Morel 2008). Cd is used and traded internationally as a metal and as a chemical compound throughout Asia, America, Europe, Australia and Africa (UNEP 2010). Indeed, Cd concentration is progressively increasing at an alarming rate (7 to 43 percent over the period of 100 years) in several European countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom (UNEP 2010). It has been estimated that major source of Cd release into the air are the production of nonferrous metals followed by iron and steel production, fossil fuel combustion, cement production and waste incineration (Pacyna and Pacyna 2001). Cd is constantly added and gets accumulated to the plough layer of soil through various natural and anthropogenic activities such as volcanic eruptions, mining, smelting, mismanagement of industrial waste and use of phosphate fertilizers (Grant 2011) and its addition to the arable land is a widely recognised problem. Cd is potentially toxic to all organisms including plants, animals and humans as well. Cd exposure, for instance, is associated with cancers of the prostate, lungs and testes, kidney tubule damages, rhinitis, emphysema, osteomalacia and bone fractures in humans (Nawrot et al. 2006). In plants, it results in many toxic symptoms such as inhibition of growth and photosynthesis, activation or inhibition of enzymes, disturbances in plant-water relations and ion metabolism, and formation of free radicals (Valentoviova et al. 2010).

Phytotoxicity induced by Cd has been well established and comprehensively studied (Wahid et al. 2009). Cd is taken up by roots through plasma membrane transporters such as ZIP (ZRT-IRT like protein; Zinc regulated transporter, Iron-regulated transporter) and NRAMP (natural resistance associated macrophage protein) in competition to the essential nutrients of plants (Kim et al. 2002) and consequently it is translocated to shoots thereby leading to growth diminution which in due part emanates from disturbed photosynthesis (Bazzaz et al. 1974). Figure 1 illustrates the effects of Cd as a potent inhibitor of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis inhibition may be attributed to diminished chlorophyll biosynthesis (Shukla et al. 2008), interrupted O2 - evolving reactions of PSII and altered electron flow around PSI and PSII (Mallick and Mohn 2003). Cd hampers Calvin cycle by slowing down activity of various enzymes hence resulting in decreased photosynthesis (Ying et al. 2010). Cd has also been known to show inhibitory effect on various enzymes such as ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Mobin and Khan 2007), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (Latif 2008), aldolase (Sheoran et al. 1990), fructose-6-phosphate kinase (Malik et al. 1992), fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (Sheoran et al. 1990), NADP+-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (Sheoran et al. 1990) and carbonic anhydrase (Mobin and Khan 2007).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1999-3110-54-45/MediaObjects/40529_2013_Article_39_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

An overview of effects of Cd exposure to plants at different levels in photosynthetic machinery. (a) Cd uptake in cells through plasma membrane transporters. (b) Alteration in organisation of oxygen evolving and light harvesting complexes, Cd also binds with QB pocket thus slows down electron flow from QA to QB.(c) Incorporation of Cd in chlorophyll molecule.

Stomatal closure due to entry of Cd into the guard cells in competition to Ca+2 (Perfus-Barbeoch et al. 2002) and reduction in stomata count per unit area are also characteristic symptoms of Cd stress resulting in lesser conductance to CO2 (Pietrini et al. 2010) which consequently leads to overall inhibition of photosynthesis.

The present review is an attempt to develop an orchestrated understanding of the mechanisms involved in altering and damaging various components of photosynthetic machinery by Cd thereby leading to effective loss in the anabolic reactions of plants.

Photosynthetic machinery under Cd stress

Chloroplast structure

Cd convincingly resulted in marked distortion of chloroplast ultrastructure leading to disturbed shape and inflated thylakoids (Najeeb et al. 2011). Chloroplast structure disturbance has been partly manifested by a notable decrease in chloroplast number and size, grana stacking, starch grain content and accumulation of plastoglobuli observed in various plants such as Picris divarticata (75 μM, 14 days after treatment (DAT)), Hordeum vulgare (5 μM, 15 DAT) and Brassica (Ying et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2011; Elhiti et al. 2012). Further, plants show differential aggregation of grana in young and older leaves. For instance in willow, older leaves showed swollen but organised thylakoids whereas young leaves appear to be more dense structured accompanied by tannin precipitation. Reed plant chloroplasts displayed a disturbed shape, wavy appearance of grana and stroma thylakoids and swollen intra thylakoidal space owing to lipid peroxidation, a consequence of increased lipid accumulation in thylakoids (Hakmaouia et al. 2007).

Disruption in chloroplast structure is also ensued due to increased peroxidation of membrane fatty acid and lipid contents resulting from enhanced lipooxygenase (LOX) activity (Remans 2010). LOX mediates polyunsaturated fatty acid oxidation including chloroplast membrane lipids such as monogalactosyldiacyl-glycerol (MGDG), digalactosyldiacyl-glycerol (DGDG) and phosphatidyl glycerol (PG) hence resulting in production of free radicals. LOX activity has been positively correlated with increased lipid peroxidation in plants such as Arabidopsis, Barley, Lupine and Phaseolus under Cd stress (Maksymiec and Krupa 2006; Tamas et al. 2009). A significant decrease has also been reported in the content of polaracyl lipids especially MGDG, DGDG and PG in tomato chloroplasts membranes (Djebali et al. 2005) which is considered to be indispensable for maintenance of membrane integrity.

Grana disorganization can be attributed to reduced MGDG level, as well as the decrease in 16:1 trans fatty acid content in MGDG and PG. In Brassica napus (50 μM, 15 DAT) leaves, remarkable decrease upto 80–84 % was observed in DGDG and MGDG respectively (Nouairi et al. 2005), which may possibly be a reason in disintegrated grana.

Cd induced pigment changes

Among the photosynthetic pigments enormous studies have been conducted till date on reduction in chlorophyll and carotenoids in plants exposed to Cd stress. Chlorophyll destruction in older leaves and its biosynthesis inhibition in newer ones have been known to be prime cause in leaf chlorosis in plants growing in Cd treated soils (Xue et al. 2013). Inhibition of chlorophyll biosynthesis enzymes and activation of its enzymatic degradation plays crucial role in net loss in chlorophyll content (Somashekaraiah 1992).

Aminolevulinate (ALA) is a crucial compound in chlorophyll biosynthesis and its synthesis is the rate-limiting and regulatory step. Cd inhibits ALA synthesis at the site of availability of glutamate for ALA synthesis and interferes by interacting with SH group of enzymes, δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (Mysliwa-Kurdziel and Strzalka 2002) and porphobilinogen deaminase, (Skrebsky et al. 2008) leading to the accumulation of chlorophyll biosynthesis intermediates like ALA and porphyrins. In fact ALA accumulation is considered to be a reason for generation of reactive oxygen species which alters redox status of plants and thus disturbing plant homeostasis as reported in Soybean (0-100 μM, 10 DAT) and Cucumis (0-1000 μM, 10 DAT) (Noriega et al. 2007; Goncalves et al. 2009). Additionally Cd reacts with protochlorophillide reductase, which causes photoreduction of protochlorophillide into chlorophyllide thus diminishing the raw material for chlorophyll synthesis (Stobart et al. 1985).

Cd also decreases uptake of nutrients such as Mn, Fe and Mg, hence a comparatively higher amount of cellular Cd interferes with Mg2+ insertion into protoporphyrinogen or may cause Chl destruction as consequence of Mg2+ substitution in both Chl a and b (Gillet et al. 2006).

Carotenoid content in plants exposed to Cd do not exhibit a set pattern and may either increase or decrease. The increase has been observed in many cases as in Cucumis sativus L. (Burzynski et al. 2007) and Zea mays L. (100 μM, 10 DAT) (Chaneva et al. 2010). On the contrary decrease was also observed in a few cases e.g. Pisum sativum (7 mg/kg, 20 DAT) (Hattab et al. 2009). Other leaf pigments including neoxanthin, lutein, violaxanthin were found to decrease in Lycopersicon esculentum and Spinacea oleracea plants (López-Millán et al. 2009; Fagioni et al. 2009).

In lower organisms, Cd exposure caused a significant drop in the amounts of phycobiliprotein viz. allophycocyanin, phycocyanin, and phycoerythrin e.g. Chlamydomonas (50 μM, for 24 hrs), Gracilaria (300 μM, 16 DAT) and Hypnea musciformis (300μM, 7DAT) that led to decrease in photosynthetic efficiency (Perrault et al. 2011; Santos et al. 2012; Bouzon et al. 2012).

Cd induced changes in chlorophyll-proteins complexes

Chl-proteins can be described as Chl a and Chl a/b multicofactor proteins for both photosystems (PS) bound to chlorophylls and carotenoids (Fromme et al. 2001). Cd effects on both the PS as well as degree of damage vary in the plant species even among cultivars and populations, depending on genotypic and ecotypic differences (Prasad 1995).

PSII core complex

Immunoblotting of Chl-protein complexes did not depict any changes in the level of polypeptides of PSII complexes comprising of CP 47, CP 43, D1 and D2 under Cd stress as demonstrated in rice (75 μM Cd, 28 DAT) and spinach (100 μM Cd, 30 DAT) (Pagliano et al. 2006; Fagioni et al. 2009). The same pattern was also observed in lower organisms i.e. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (50 μM, for 24 hrs) too (Perreault et al. 2011).

Cd toxicity may be attributed to both acceptor and donor side of PSII thus preventing photoactivation (Sigfridsson et al. 2004). On the donor side due to high affinity, Cd exchanges with Ca++ in Mn++/Ca++ cofactor present in oxygen evolving complex (Faller et al. 2005; Pagliano et al. 2006); the exchange leads to reduced kinetics of Hill reaction. On acceptor side Cd decreased the rate of electron transfer from QA to QB due to interaction with nonheme Fe and conformational modification of QB pocket (Geiken et al. 1998).

Further decrease in lipid content in chloroplasts specifically MGDG and DGDG (Nouairi et al. 2005), considered to be indispensable for PSII activity, causes structural disorganisation of PSII supramolecular structure (Quartacci et al. 2000).

Light harvesting complex (LHC) II

LHCII is the principle light harvesting pigment-protein complex of PSII which absorbs light energy and transfers it to the reaction centre. The native form of LHCII is a trimer composed of three Lhcb proteins: Lhcb1, Lhcb2 and Lhcb3 (Lucinski and Jackowski 2006). These LHCII aggregates play dynamic role in triggering the thermal dissipation of extra energy for efficient excitation quenching and display photoprotective role in case of overexcitation of reaction centre and antenna (Barros et al. 2009). Cd exposure results in dissipation of total mass of Lhcb1 and Lhcb2 and accounts for disorganization of trimer-forming monomers resulting in diminished LHCII aggregation complexes. This was indicated by infrared studies on Secale cereale exposed to Cd (50 μM, 7 DAT) where aggregate/trimeric ratio remained 73% of the control (Janik et al. 2010). Cd toxicity resulted in constrained dissipation of excitation energy which may have been induced by alterations in the quenching centre formation or inhibition of vibrational transfer of thermal energy between pigments and the protein skeleton (Gruszecki et al. 2009). In Spinacia oleracea L. Lhcb1.1 isomers of Lhcb1 were highly affected even in small exposure to stress (75 μM, 5 DAT) whereas others i.e. Lhcb2 and Lhcb3 were less affected (Fagioni et al. 2009). Differential level of expression in Lhcb2 was observed in case of two ecotypes of Sedum (hyperaccumulating and non-hyperaccumulating) which suggested temporal regulation of gene expression. Upon 24 hrs of Cd (2μ M) treatment non-hyperaccumulating ecotype exhibited higher expression level than hyperaccumulating, followed by a reversal of the situation after 8 days (Zhang et al. 2011).

Proteomic studies on Oryza sativa L. (7.5-75μM, 24 DAT) suggested contrasting results where LHCII content is not adversely affected suggesting that antenna complexes of PSII are less affected (Pagliano et al. 2006).

Lipid profiling of chloroplast is conducive to suggest that decrease in 16:1 trans fatty acid content in MGDG and PG, diminished LHCII oligomerization due to its specific binding in sn-2 position in the chloroplastic PG (Vassilev et al. 2004). Cadmium due to its high affinity gets substituted in pigment protein complexes causing conformational changes (Küpper et al. 2002) leading to incorrect binding of chlorophyll molecule to the protein matrix.

PSI core complexes

In some plants exposed to cadmium stress PSI instead of PSII is the prime site of damage. Previous studies suggested that Cd induced iron deficiency in cell organelles is possibly a reason for greater damage to PSI (Siedlecka and Baszyński 1993; Timperio et al. 2007). Prolonged deficiency of iron resulted in generation of reactive oxygen species in thylakoids which principally destroys iron-sulphur centres (PSI) and Lhca antennae (Michel and Pistorius 2004). In fact, observations suggesting damage to PSI have been reported in Cucumis sativus L. (10 μM, 35 DAT) (Sárvári 2005; Sárvári et al. 2008) and wheat (Atal et al. 1991). However in Pisum sativum extended stress treatment of Cd (0–10 mM, 12 DAT) led to equal damage to both PSI and PSII (Chugh and Sawhney 1999).

Proteomic and expression studies conducted on basal leaves of Spinacia oleracea L. (100 μM, 0–15 DAT) revealed presence of modified amino acids in polypeptide chains of PsaA/PsaB proteins corroborating the accumulation of incomplete monomeric units leading to disruption of PSI supercomplexes, reaction centre I and LHCI (Fagioni et al. 2009).

Cadmium induced changes in photosynthetic yield

The main effect of Cd, studied to date is hampering the photochemical activity of both PSI and PSII. The reports regarding this have always been contradictory in deciding the principal site of damage i.e. PSI or PSII. As observed in peas, Cd affects both the photosystems over a long period of stress (Chugh and Sawhney 1999). However, during initial stages Cd had more pronounced effect on the activity of PSII as observed in Thalspi caerulescence (Kupper et al. 2007) stating higher sensitivity of PSII to Cd toxicity (Wang et al. 2013).

The chlorophyll fluorescence induction parameters represent the use of non-invasive tool to understand the photosynthetic performance in vivo and to assess effects of stress on plants photochemistry (Baker et al. 2008). Table 1 depicts effects of Cd on some of the photosynthetic parameters [Chl (chlorophyll content), Fv/Fm (maximum quantum efficiency of PSII) and PN (Net photosynthetic rate)] which reflect lesions in plants photosynthetic yield as a consequence of damage to the photosystems and pigments (Wang et al. 2009). It is evident from the Table 1 that Cd decreased chlorophyll content, FV/FM and PN indicating impeded photosynthesis. However, PSII disruption as a consequence of Cd toxicity is reported to depend on the irradiance conditions. During high light intensity, direct damage to the PSII reaction centre occurs instead; this was termed as the 'sun reaction’. On the contrary, LHCII disruption due to exchange of Mg2+ with Cd in chlorophyll pigment is the prime cause of diminished PSII activity during dark phase and is referred as 'shade reaction’ (Kupper et al. 2007).
Table 1

Effects of Cd on photosynthetic parameters 1

Plant species

Cd concentration

% inhibition

Reference

Chl a

Chl b

Fv/Fm

Pn

Pisum sativum

6 mM, 7 DAT

31.00

32.30

--*

79.90

; Januškaitienė, 2012

Picris divarticata

75 μM, 10 DAT

10.84

1.29

--*

44.20

Ying et al. 2010

Zea mays

20 μM, 7 DAT

36.71

37.93

3.76

13.00

Wang et al. 2009

Ricinus communis

50 μM, 12 DAT

27.30

16.70

5.00

47.00

Liu et al. 2011

Lycopersicon esculentum

100 μM, 12 DAT

35.00

23.00

2.47

73.00

;López-Millán et al. 2009

Cucumis sativus

50 μM, 48 hrs

13.89

24.44

1.57

73.00

; Burzynski & Zurek, 2007

Phragmites australis

100 μM, 21 DAT

52.30

73.00

1.28

40.88

Pietrini et al. 2003

* Values are not available.

1Effective concentration of Cd causing reduction in chlorophyll pigments viz. Chl a and Chl b and non-invasive parameters viz. photosynthetic yield (Fv/Fm) and net CO2 assimilation rate (Pn).

Comparatively less information is known to us in case of PSI but still data exists which shows higher sensitivity to PSI photochemistry as in Pisum sativum plants (Wodala et al. 2012).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Cd affects photosynthesis either directly or indirectly thus decreasing the crop yield. We reviewed its inhibitory effect on pigments, lipids, photosystems proteins and chloroplasts. Summing up all we investigated net loss in photosynthesis. It can be said that much has been known about Cd toxicity to plants but numerous mechanisms remains debatable about its interaction with photosynthetic proteins i.e. D1 and D2 and oxygen evolving complexes. In particular, we should extend our knowledge towards PSI measurements to get an intricate knowledge on effect of Cd on photosynthesis. Strategies must be evolved on understanding the mechanism of Cd hyperaccumulation to uphold various phytoremediation strategies.

Abbreviations

Cd: 

Cadmium

ZIP: 

ZRT-IRT like protein

ZRT: 

Zinc regulated transporter

IRT: 

Iron-regulated transporter

NRAMP: 

Natural resistance associated macrophage protein

MGDG: 

Monogalactosyldiacyl-glycerol

LOX: 

Lipooxygenase

DGDG: 

Digalactosyldiacyl-glycerol

PG: 

Phosphatidyl glycerol

DAT: 

Days after treatment

ALA: 

Aminolevulinate

PS: 

Photosystems

LHC: 

Light harvesting complex.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Banasthali University

References

  1. Atal N, Saradhi PP, Mohanty P: Inhibition of the chloroplast photochemical reactions by treatment of wheat seedlings with low concentrations of cadmium: Analysis of electron transport activities and changes in fluorescence yield. Plant Cell Physiol 1991, 32: 943–951.Google Scholar
  2. Baker NR: Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2008, 59: 89–113. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092759View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros T, Royant A, Standfuss J, Dreuw A, Kühlbrandt W: Crystal structure of plant light-harvesting complex shows the active, energy-transmitting state. EMBO J 2009, 28: 298–306. 10.1038/emboj.2008.276PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzaz MB, Govindjee : Effects of cadmium nitrate on spectral characteristics and light reactions of chloroplasts. Environ Lett 1974, 6: 1–2. 10.1080/00139307409437339View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouzon ZL, Ferreira EC, dos Santos R, Scherner F, Horta PA, Maraschin M, Schmidt ÉC: Influences of cadmium on fine structure and metabolism of Hypnea musciformis (Rhodophyta, Gigartinales) cultivated in vitro. Protoplasma 2012, 249: 637–650. 10.1007/s00709-011-0301-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burzynski M, Zurek A: Effects of copper and cadmium on photosynthesis in cucumber cotyledons. Photosynthetica 2007, 45: 239–244. 10.1007/s11099-007-0038-9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaneva G, Parvanova P, Tzvetkova N, Uzunova A: Photosynthetic response of maize plants against cadmium and paraquat impact. Water Air Soil Pollut 2010, 208: 287–293. 10.1007/s11270-009-0166-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Chugh LK, Sawhney SK: Photosynthetic activities of Pisum sativum seedlings grown in presence of cadmium. Plant Physiol Biochem 1999, 37: 297–303. 10.1016/S0981-9428(99)80028-XView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Djebali W, Zarrouk M, Brouquisse R, Kahoui ES, Limam F, Ghorbel MH, Chaïbi W: Ultrastructure and lipid alterations induced by cadmium in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) chloroplast membranes. Plant Biol 2005, 7: 358–368. 10.1055/s-2005-837696View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Elhiti M, Yang C, Chan A, Durnin DC, Belmonte M, Ayele BT, Tahir M, Stasolla C: Altered seed oil and glucosinolate levels in transgenic plants over-expressing the Brassica napus shoot meristem less gene. J Exp Bot 2012, 63: 4447–4461. 10.1093/jxb/ers125View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagioni M, D’Amici GM, Timperio AM, Zolla L: Proteomic analysis of multiprotein complexes in the thylakoids membrane upon cadmium treatment. J Proteome Res 2009, 8: 310–326. 10.1021/pr800507xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Faller P, Kienzler K, Krieger-Liszkay A: Mechanism of Cd 2+ toxicity: Cd 2+ inhibits photoactivation of photosystem II by competitive binding to the essential Ca 2+ site. Biochim Biophys Acta 2005, 1706: 158–164. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2004.10.005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fromme P, Jordan P, Krauss N: Structure of photosystem. Biochim Biophys Acta 2001, 1507: 5–31. 10.1016/S0005-2728(01)00195-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Geiken B, Masojidek J, Rizzuto M, Pompili ML, Giardi MT: Incorporation of S-35 methionine in higher plants reveals that stimulation of the D1 reaction centre II protein turnover accompanies tolerance to heavy metal stress. Plant Cell Environ 1998, 21: 1265–1273. 10.1046/j.1365-3040.1998.00361.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillet S, Decottignies P, Chardonnet S, Le Maréchal P: Cadmium response and redoxin targets in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii : a proteomic approach. Photosynth Res 2006, 89: 201–211. 10.1007/s11120-006-9108-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goncalves JF, Nicoloso FT, Becker AG, Pereira LB, Tabaldi LA, Cargnelutti D, dePelegrin CMG, Dressler VL, da Rocha JBT, Schetinger MRC: Photosynthetic pigments content, δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and acid phosphatase activities and mineral nutrients concentration in cadmium-exposed Cucumis sativus L. Biologia 2009, 64: 310–318. 10.2478/s11756-009-0034-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant CA: Influence of phosphate fertilizer on cadmium in agricultural soils and crops. Agric Agri Food Canada 2011, 54: 143–155.Google Scholar
  18. Gruszecki W, Janik E, Luchowski R, Kernen P, Grudziński W, Gryczyński I: Supramolecular organization of the main photosynthetic antenna complex LHCII: a monomolecular study. Langmuir 2009, 25: 9384–9391. 10.1021/la900630aView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hakmaouia A, Atera M, Bókab K, Barónc M: Copper and cadmium tolerance, uptake and effect on chloroplast ultrastructure studies on Salix purpurea and Phragmites australis . Z Naturforsch C 2007, 62: 417–426.Google Scholar
  20. Hattab S, Dridi B, Chouba L, Kheder MB, Bousetta H: Photosynthesis and growth responses of pea Pisum sativum L. under heavy metals stress. J Environ Sci 2009, 21: 1552–1556. 10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62454-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Jamali MK, Kazi TG, Arain MB, Afridi HI, Jalbani N, Memon AR: Heavy metal contents of vegetables grown in soil, irrigated with mixtures of wastewater and sewage sludge in Pakistan, using ultrasonic-assisted pseudo-digestion. J Agron Crop Sci 2007, 193: 218–228. 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2007.00261.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Janik E, Maksymiec W, Mazur R, Garstka M, Gruszecki WI: Structural and functional modifications of the major light-harvesting complex II in cadmium or copper-treated Secale cereale . Plant Cell Physiol 2010,51(8):1330–1340. 10.1093/pcp/pcq093View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Januškaitienė I: The effect of cadmium on several photosynthetic parameters of pea ( Pisum sativum L.) at two growth stages. Agriculture 2012,1(99):71–76.Google Scholar
  24. Kim YY, Yang YY, Lee Y: Pb and Cd uptake in rice roots. Physiol Plant 2002, 116: 368–372. 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2002.1160312.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Küpper H, Šetlík I, Spiller M, Küpper FC, Prášil O: Heavy metal-induced inhibition of photosynthesis: targets of in vivo heavy metal chlorophyll formation. J Phycol 2002, 38: 429–441.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Küpper H, Parameswaran A, Leitenmaier B, Trtílek M, Šetlík I: Cadmium-induced inhibition of photosynthesis and long-term acclimation to cadmium stress in the hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens . New Phytol 2007, 175: 655–674. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02139.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Latif AA: Cadmium induced changes in pigment content, ion uptake, proline content and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity in Triticum aestivum seedlings. Aust J Bas App Sci 2008, 2: 57–62.Google Scholar
  28. Liu C, Guo J, Cui Y, Lu T, Zhang X, Shi G: Effects of cadmium and salicylic acid on growth, spectral reflectance and photosynthesis of castor bean seedlings. Plant Soil 2011, 344: 131–141. 10.1007/s11104-011-0733-yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. López-Millán AF, Sagardoy R, Solanas M, Abadía A, Abadía J: Cadmium toxicity in tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) plants grown in hydroponics. Environ Exp Botany 2009, 65: 376–385. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2008.11.010View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Luciński R, Jackowski G: The structure, functions and degradation of pigment-binding proteins of photosystem II. Acta Biochim Pol 2006, 53: 693–708.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Maksymiec W, Krupa Z: The effects of short-term exposition to Cd, excess Cu ions and jasmonate on oxidative stress appearing in Arabidopsis thaliana . Environ Exp Bot 2006, 57: 187–194. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2005.05.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Malik D, Sheoran IS, Singh R: Carbon metabolism in leaves of cadmium treated wheat seedlings. Plant Physiol Biochem 1992, 30: 223–229.Google Scholar
  33. Mallick N, Mohn FH: Use of chlorophyll fluorescence in metal-stress research: a case study with the green microalga Scenedesmus . Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2003, 55: 64–69. 10.1016/S0147-6513(02)00122-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Michel KP, Pistorius EK: Adaptation of the photosynthetic electron transport chain in cyanobacteria to iron deficiency: the function of IdiA and IsiA. Physiol Plant 2004, 120: 36–50. 10.1111/j.0031-9317.2004.0229.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mobin M, Khan NA: Photosynthetic activity, pigment composition and antioxidative response of two mustard ( Brassica juncea ) cultivars differing in photosynthetic capacity subjected to cadmium stress. J Plant Physiol 2007, 164: 601–610. 10.1016/j.jplph.2006.03.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Morel FMM: The co-evolution of phytoplankton and trace element cycles in the oceans. Geobiology 2008, 6: 318–324. 10.1111/j.1472-4669.2008.00144.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Mysliwa-Kurdziel B, Strzalka K: Influence of metals on the biosynthesis of photosynthetic pigments. In Physiology and biochemistry of metal toxicity and tolerance in plants. Edited by: Prasad MNV, Strzalka K. Netherlands: Springer; 2002:201–228.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Najeeb U, Jilanic G, Alia S, Sarward M, Xua L, Zhoua W: Insights into cadmium induced physiological and ultra-structural disorders in Juncus effusus L. and its remediation through exogenous citric acid. J Hazard Mater 2011, 186: 565–574. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.11.037View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nawrot TS, Hecke VE, Thijs L, Richart T, Kuznestsova T, Jin Y, Vangronsveld J, Roels HA, Staessen JA: Environmental exposure to cadmium and risk of cancer: A prospective population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2006, 7: 119–126. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70545-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Noriega GO, Balestrasse KB, Batlle A, Tomaro ML: Cadmium induced oxidative stress in soybean plants also by the accumulation of δ-aminolevulinic acid. Biometals 2007, 20: 841–851. 10.1007/s10534-006-9077-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Nouairi I, Ammar WB, Youssef NB, Daoud DBM, Ghorbal MH, Zarrouk M: Comparative study of cadmium effects on membrane lipid composition of Brassica juncea and Brassica napus leaves. Plant Sci 2005, 170: 511–519.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Pacyna JM, Pacyna EG: An assessment of global and regional emissions of trace metals to the atmosphere sources worldwide. Environ Rev 2001, 9: 269–298. 10.1139/a01-012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Pagliano C, Raviolo M, Vecchia FD, Gabbrielli R, Gonnelli C, Rascio N, Barbato R, Rocca NL: Evidence for PSII donor-side damage and photoinhibition induced by cadmium treatment on rice ( Oryza sativa L.). J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 2006, 84: 70–78. 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2006.01.012View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Perfus-Barbeoch L, Leonhardt N, Vavasseur A, Forestier C: Heavy metal toxicity: cadmium permeates through calcium channels and disturbs the plant water status. Plant J 2002, 32: 539–548. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01442.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Perreault F, Dionne J, Didur O, Juneau P, Popovic R: Effect of cadmium on photosystem II activity in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii : alteration of OJIP fluorescence transients indicating the change of apparent activation energies within photosystem II. Photosynth Res 2011, 107: 151–157. 10.1007/s11120-010-9609-xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pietrini F, Iannelli MA, Pasqualini S, Massacci A: Interaction of cadmium with glutathione and photosynthesis in developing leaves and chloroplasts of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex steudel. Plant Physiol 2003,133(2):829–837. 10.1104/pp.103.026518PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pietrini F, Zacchini M, Iori V, Pietrosanti L, Ferretti M, Massacci A: Spatial distribution of cadmium in leaves and on photosynthesis: examples of different strategies in willow and poplar clones. Plant Biol 2010, 12: 355–363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Prasad MNV: Cadmium toxicity and tolerance in vascular plants. Environ Exp Bot 1995, 35: 525–545. 10.1016/0098-8472(95)00024-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Quartacci MF, Pinzino C, Sgherri CLM, Vecchia FD, NavariIzzo F: Growth in excess copper induces changes in the lipid composition and fluidity of PSII-enriched membranes in wheat. Physiol Plant 2000, 108: 87–93. 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2000.108001087.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Remans T, Opdenakker K, Smeets K, Mathijsen D, Vangronsveld J, Cuypers A: Metal-specific and NADPH oxidase dependent changes in lipoxygenase and NADPH oxidase gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to cadmium or excess copper. Funct Plant Biol 2010, 37: 532–544. 10.1071/FP09194View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Santos RW, Schmidt ÉC, Martins RDP, Latini A, Maraschin M, Horta PA, Bouzon ZL: Effects of cadmium on growth, photosynthetic pigments, photosynthetic performance, biochemical parameters and structure of chloroplasts in the agarophyte Gracilaria domingensis (Rhodophyta, Gracilariales). Amer J Plant Sci 2012, 3: 1077–1084. 10.4236/ajps.2012.38129View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Sárvári É: Effects of heavy metals on chlorophyll-protein complexes in higher plants: Causes and consequences. In Handbook of photosynthesis. Edited by: Pessarakli M. USA pp: CRC Press, Boca Raton; 2005:865–888.Google Scholar
  53. Sárvári É, Cseh E, Balczer T, Szigeti Z, Záray G, Fodor F: Effect of Cd on the iron re-supply-induced formation of chlorophyll-protein complexes in cucumber. Acta Biol Szeged 2008,52(1):183–186.Google Scholar
  54. Sheoran IS, Signal HR, Singh R: Effect of cadmium and nickel on photosynthesis and the enzymes of photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle in pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan L.). Photosynth Res 1990, 23: 345–351. 10.1007/BF00034865View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Shukla UC, Murthy RC, Kakkar P: Combined effect of ultraviolet-B radiation and cadmium contamination on nutrient uptake and photosynthetic pigments in Brassica campestris L. seedlings. Environ Toxicol 2008, 23: 712–719. 10.1002/tox.20378View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Siedlecka A, Baszyński T: Inhibition of electron flow around photosystem I in chloroplasts of Cd-treated maize plants is due to Cd-induced iron deficiency. Physiol Plant 1993, 87: 199–202. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1993.tb00142.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Sigfridsson KGV, Bernat G, Mamedoy F, Styring S: Molecular interference of Cd 2+ with photosystem II. Biochim Biophys Acta 2004, 1659: 19–31. 10.1016/j.bbabio.2004.07.003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Skrebsky EC, Tabald LA, Pereira B, Rauber R, Maldaner J, Cargnelutti D, Gonçalves JF, Castro GY, Shetinger MRC, Nicoloso FT: Effect of cadmium on growth, micronutrient concentration, and δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and acid phosphatase activities in plants of Pfaffia glomerata . Braz J Plant Physiol 2008,20(4):285–294.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Somashekaraiah B, Padmaja K, Prasad A: Phytotoxicity of cadmium ions on germinating seedlings of mung bean ( Phaseolus mungo ): involvement of lipid peroxides in chlorophyll degradation. Physiol Plant 1992, 85: 85–89. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1992.tb05267.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Stobart AK, Griffith WT, Ameen-Bukhari J, Sherwood RP: The efffect of Cd 2+ on the biosynthesis of chlorophyll in leaves of barley. Physiol Plant 1985, 63: 293–298. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1985.tb04268.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Tamas L, Dudikova J, Durcekova K, Haluskova L, Huttova J, Mistrik I: Effect of cadmium and temperature on the lipoxygenase activity in barley root tip. Protoplasma 2009, 235: 7–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Timperio AM, D’Amici GM, Barta C, Loreto F, Zolla L: Proteomics, pigment composition, and organization of thylakoid membranes in iron-deficient spinach leaves. J Exp Bot 2007, 58: 3695–3710. 10.1093/jxb/erm219View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. UNEP: Final review of scientific information on cadmium. DTIE: UNEP Chemical Branch; 2010.Google Scholar
  64. Valentoviová K, Halušková L, Huttová J, Mistrík I, Tamás L: Effect of cadmium on diaphorase activity and nitric oxide production in barley root tips. J Plant Physiol 2010, 167: 10–14. 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.06.018View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Vassilev A, Lidon F, Scotti P, Da Graca M, Yordanov I: Cadmium-induced changes in chloroplast lipids and photosystem activities in barley plants. Biol Plant 2004, 48: 153–156.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Wahid A, Arshad M, Farooq M: Cadmium phytotoxicity: responses, mechanisms and mitigation strategies. In Advances in sustainable agriculture. Volume 1. Edited by: Lichtfouse E. Netherlands: Springer; 2009:371–403. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9654-9_17Google Scholar
  67. Wang H, Zhao SC, Liu RC, Zhou W, Jin JY: Changes of photosynthetic activities of maize ( Zea mays L.) seedlings in response to cadmium stress. Photosynthetica 2009, 47: 277–283. 10.1007/s11099-009-0043-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang F, Chen F, Cai Y, Zhang G, Wu F: Modulation of exogenous glutathione in ultrastructure and photosynthetic performance against Cd stress in the two barley genotypes differing in Cd tolerance. Biol Trace Elem Res 2011,144(1–3):1275–1288.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang X, Zhang ZW, Tu SH, Feng WQ, Xu F, Zhu F, Zhang DW, Du JB, Yuan S, Lin HH: Comparative study of four rice cultivars with different levels of cadmium tolerance. Biologia 2013, 68: 74–81. 10.2478/s11756-012-0125-7Google Scholar
  70. Wodala B, Eitel G, Gyula TN, Ördög A, Horváth F: Monitoring moderate Cu and Cd toxicity by chlorophyll fluorescence and P700 absorbance in pea leaves. Photosynthetica 2012, 50: 380–386. 10.1007/s11099-012-0045-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Xue XC, Gao HY, Zhang LT: Effects of cadmium on growth, photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll content in leaves of soybean seedlings. Biol Plant 2013,57(3):587–590. 10.1007/s10535-013-0318-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Ying RR, Qiu RL, Tang YT, Hu PJ, Qiu H, Chen HR, Shi TH, Morel JL: Cadmium tolerance of carbon assimilation enzymes and chloroplast in Zn/Cd hyperaccumulator Picris divaricata . J Plant Physiol 2010, 167: 81–87. 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.07.005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang M, Senoura T, Yang X, Chao Y, Nishizawa NK: Lhcb2 gene expression analysis in two ecotypes of Sedum alfredii subjected to Zn/Cd treatments with functional analysis of SaLhcb2 isolated from a Zn/Cd hyperaccumulator. Biotechnol Lett 2011, 33: 1865–1871. 10.1007/s10529-011-0622-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Parmar et al.; licensee Springer. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.