Evaluation of Some Defense Mechanisms in Crop Varieties Under Heavy Metal Stress

Research Article | Open Access

  • 1. Department of Biology, Eskisehir Technical University, Turkey
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Elif Öztetik, Department of Biology, Eskisehir Technical University, Science Faculty, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey

Today, heavy metal (HM) pollution is one of the most important ecological problems worldwide. Higher concentrations of HMs can lead to toxic effects in all organisms. Some HMs, such as Cd and Pb, although being non-essential and without physiological function, are very toxic even at very low concentrations, which cause some serious disruption in plant growth and productivity with a heavy losses in agricultural yield and crop production. Beside their negative impacts on plants, transfer of toxic elements to the food chain leads to several diseases which human beings faced. Therefore, to reduce the risk of contamination in human beings, HM tolerant varieties should be selected and use for phytoremediation purposes where necessary.In this study, the effects of HM stress onsome of those enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms, together with protein contents were investigated in two different crop varieties. The selected concentrations (0,150,300 µM) of single PbCl2 , CdCl2 and their combinations (PbCl2 + CdCl2 ) were applied in hydrophonic solution to examine the changes of glutathione (GSH), protein and glutathione S-transferase (GST) activities in the roots and shoots of Hordeum vulgare cv. Erginel and Triticum aestivum cv. Bezostaya varieties.Results indicates that, both single and combined treatments cause a difference at some extend depending on the plant, plant parts and concentrations of HMs. Observation of high levels in examined parameters according to control values indicatesa general adaptability to stress conditions.In line with our results, barley variety were found to be more tolerant to HM stress by comparing to wheat andcan be used for remediation purposes at contaminated sites as a plant agent.


Öztetik E (2019) Evaluation of Some Defense Mechanisms in Crop Varieties Under Heavy Metal Stress. Int J Plant Biol Res 7(1): 1110.


•    Antioxidant defense mechanisms; Crops; Heavy 
metals; Stress


HMs: Heavy Metals; GSH: Glutathione; GST: Glutathione S-Transferase; ROS: Reactive Oxygen Species; SOD: Superoxide Dismutase; APX: Ascorbate Peroxidase; GR: Glutathione Reductase; GPOX: Glutathione Peroxidase; MT: Metallothionein; PC: Phytochelatin


Heavy metals (HMs) are defined as metals having a specific density of more than 5g/cm3 , which affect the environment and living organisms adversely [1]. As reviewed by Tchounwou et al. [2], that metals like cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn) are essential nutrients that are required for various biochemical and physiological functions, although other metals such as aluminum (Al), antinomy (Sb), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), bismuth (Bi), cadmium (Cd), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), gold (Au), indium (In), lead (Pb), lithium (Li), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), platinum (Pt), silver (Ag), strontium (Sr), tellurium (Te), thallium (Tl), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and uranium (U) have no established biological functions and are considered as non-essential metals.

HMs are increasing day by day, due to increased population and related household wastes, wrong agricultural applications or fast industrilization [3,4]. As they cannot be destroyed or recycled in the environment, they tend to accumulate in water, soil and air [5,6]. The problem begins for human being at this point, because they are transferable from contaminated plants and other food sources to humans [7].

Beyond permissible limits, HMs cause oxidative stress by formation of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), such as hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), singlet oxygen (1 O2 ) and some others [8]. These species are especially dangerous to lipids, carbohydrates, proteins and DNA in the cells of all living organisms [9]. Among HMs, Pb (lead) and Cd (cadmium) are regarded as the most toxic environmental pollutants [7], as they display the most profound mobility in the soil environment through many applications, like mining operations and ore outcrops, metallurgy and electroplating, chemical industries, petroleum refining, etc. Therefore, both elements cause major threat to the agricultural system and contamination affects the crops grown in the area [10].

It is clear that, HMs cause not only physiological, but also biochemical changes in plants above threshold levels [11]. Even the difficulty of making sharp discrimination between physiological and biochemical changes, leaf chlorosis, turgor loss, decrease in seed germination rate and dysfunctional photosynthetic apparatus can be associated symptoms with physiological changes as indicated by several authors [12-14]. On the other hand, increased ROS production, lipid peroxidation (MDA levels), alterations in antioxidant systems, protein and enzyme synthesis can all be related to biochemical changes [15]. Both types of changes will definetely effect the regulation of plant metabolism and sometimes cause an irrepressible death [16]. However, plant organisms recruit some defense mechanisms to protect themselves against the dreadful effects of HMs through antioxidant enzymes (i.e. SOD, APX, GR, GST, etc.) and nonenzymatic antioxidants (i.e. selenium, tocopherol, ascorbate, GSH) [17].

Herein, the objectives of this study were to investigate the biochemical responses of crop varieties exposed to both Cd and Pb regimes, to study the relationship between oxidative stress and detoxification responses and to explore their tolerance ability under hydroponic systems.


Plant materials

Plant seeds (Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostaya and Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Erginel) were obtained from Transitional Zone Agricultural Research Institute (Eskisehir, Turkey), as both were registered varieties [18] and free of additives. At the beginning of germination, seeds were surface sterilized in 1% (v/v) NaOCl for 10 min, washed and immersed in tap water for 2h and then in distilled water for a further 2h. Some of the specifications of those varieties were given in Table 1.

Seed germination

Germination was tested on wet Whatman (No. 42mm) filter paper, where twenty seeds were placed in each petri dish (Figure 1A). For all seeds, filter papers were moistened with 3 ml of dH2 O and were settled in the dark growth chamber (NUVE TK-600) at 22°C (±1°C) for 3 days. Later, seeds exposed to 16h photoperiod for 7 days. Germinated seeds were counted on 10th day after initiation of treatments [19]. Seeds were considered as germinated when the radicle touched the seed bed.

Plant growth

After germination, the seedlings were transferred to plastic beakers containing 250 ml of Hoagland solution (including 2mM Ca(NO3 )2 , 1mM NH4 H3 PO4 , 3mM KNO3 , 0.5mM CuCl2 , 50mM KCl, 25mM H3 BO3 , 2mM ZnCl2 , 0.5mM (NH4 )6 MO7 O24, 1mM MgSO4 , 2mM MnCl2 and 20mM Na2 Fe-EDTA) [20]. The solution was aerated continuously and replaced with fresh solution weekly (Figure 1B). Ten plants were arranged in a beaker and beakers were arranged in a randomized block design with Pb and Cd treatment applied in triplets. After 3 days in growth chamber, different single PbCl2 and CdCl2 (0, 150 and 300 µM) and combined PbCl2 + CdCl2 (150 + 150 and 300 + 300 µM) solutions were applied into the nutrient medium. Plants were exposed to a 16h photoperiod for further 7 days. Seedlings were harvested on 10th day after the application of treatments. Subsequently, roots and shoots were separated and pulverized with liquid N2 for further analysis [19].

Preparation of plant cytosolic extract

Pulverized roots and shoots were extracted, in a ratio of 1:3 w/v, with 100 mM pH 7.0 phosphate buffer (including 0.05 mM DTE, 1 mM EDTA and 3.5 % (w/v) PVPP) at 4°C. The mixture was then homogenized for 4 × 30 s periods by Ultra-Turrax at 13500 rpm on ice. The crude homogenate was centrifuged at 15000 rpm for 30min. at 4°C. The pellet was discarded and the supernatant fraction was immediately subjected to protein determination and enzyme activity measurements [21].

Protein determination

The potein content was determined following the method of Lowry et al. [22], by using crystalline bovine serum albumin (BSA) as a standard. Aliquots of 0.1 to 0.5 ml of cytosol (from previous step) were taken into test tubes and were completed to a final volume of 0.5 ml with distilled water. Then, alkaline copper reagent was prepared by mixing 2% copper sulfate, 2% sodium potassium tartarate and 0.1 N NaOH containing 2% sodium carbonate in a ratio of 1:1:100, respectively. Afterwards, 2.5 ml of the alkaline copper reagent was added to each tube, mixed by vortex and allowed to stand undisturbed for 10 minutes at room temperature. Finally, 0.25 ml of 1N Folin Phenol reagent was added to each test tube mixed immediately within 8 seconds by vortex and incubated 30 minutes at room temperature. The intensity of color developed in each tube was measured at 660 nm.

GST activity determination

Enzyme activity assays were conducted at 25°C by using a spectrophotometer equipped with thermoregulated cell holder. The GST activities with 1-chloro-2,4 dinitrobenzene (CDNB) as substrate were determined spectrophotometrically at 340 nm according to the method of Habig et al. [23]. The reactions were started with the addition of cytosolic fractions obtained from wheats or barleys and followed for 3 min. The activity was calculated from the slopes of initial reaction rates using the ? values of CDNB of 9.6 mM-1cm-1 [24].

GSH determination

After pulverization of roots and shoots, they were homogenized in a ratio of 1:4 w/v, with 5% (w/v) TCA by using UltraTurrax at 13500 rpm for 90 s at 4°C. The homogenate was centrifuged at 4°C, 12000 rpm for 15 min and the pH of the supernatant was adjusted to 4.0 - 5.0 with 1M NaOH. The content of GSH in crude extract was determined according to Ellman procedure [25]. The absorbance of the reaction mixture was read at 412 nm with the help of the standard curve calibrated by using reduced GSH.

For the results presented here, each application was replicated three times for three independent experiments.


In the current study, the toxic impacts of different single and combined concentrations of Pb and Cd solutions were detected on Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Ergineland Triticum aestivum L. cv. Bezostaya varieties. With special attention to some biochemical parameters (such as GSH, protein contents and GST activities), obtained results were compared with the control samples both for shoots and roots. For more obvious comparison of HMs impact on tested parameters, values were expressed as a percentage of control values andthe absolute values for control samples from experiments are indicated in the legends of Figures 2-4.

Protein contents

Figure 2 shows the protein contents of all plant parts at the end of the exposure period with different single and combined Cd and Pb concentrations by comparing to control groups. The roots of both varieties have shown better protein levels according to the HM concentrations and the plant itself. In case of shoots, protein contents were found to be equal or higher to control samples for most of the concentrations tested (Figure 2).

HM treatments caused an increases of protein concentration in plant parts were sligthly dose dependent, except single Cd (150 and 300 µM) applications in Bezostaya roots. The highest protein concentrations were observed with 150 and 300µM of Pb + Cd treatment (128 and 135%, respectively) for Erginel root, for the same concentrations Bezostaya roots have 123 and 126% protein concentrations by comparing to the controls. Generally, single Cd applications were more effective than single Pb applications for applied concentrations on protein contents.

Protein degradation has been considered as an index of oxidative stress, because of enhanced level of protein oxidation and modification of cellular proteins, which is a common consequence of HM toxicity [26]. According to Patra et al. [27], proteins like metallothioneins (MTs) and phytochelatins (PCs) participate in detoxification against exess HMs. However, when they are overloaded, oxidative stress defense mechanisms recruited to overcome the existing metal toxicity.

Previous literature lists some decreasing or increasing contents of proteins in various plant organisms under different HM stresses [28-33]. In the current study, similar to findings of Chandra et al. [34], we observed increased protein contents in all plant parts for both varieties under HM treatments and also plants roots have been found to be higher protein contents than their corresponding shoots and control samples.

According to Shah and Dubey [35] HM stress has been shown to induce a variety of proteins resulting in an overall increase in protein content. It is also clear with our findings that, plants enhancing their protection capacity through encoding some proteins with defensive functions (like antioxidant enzymes involved in GSH and PC biosynthesis) to overcome HM stress.

GST activities

As shown in Figure 3, all HM treatments influenced the GST activities in plant varieties. Although, upon exposure to various HM concentrations, the extend of activity levels changes betweenplant parts and roots have shown better GST activity levels by comparing to their shoots.

Except single applications of Pb (150 and 300 µM) in Bezostaya shoots, all other treatments caused an increases of GST activities in adose dependent manner. While Erginel roots have shown the highest GST activities with 150 and 300µM combination treatments as 148 and 156% (respectively) of their controls, 138 and 145% activities were recorded in Bezostaya roots for the same concentrations. Comparison between single applications of Pb and Cd reveals that, single Cd treatments were more stimulatory on GST activitiesat least in the shoots of the plants.

As reviewed by Oztetik [36] in details, GSTs (EC generally constitute a dimeric enzymes and catalyse the conjugation of the thiol group of the GSH to diverse electrophilic centres on lipophilic molecules with the formation of rather less active end products. However, they have other roles, like GSH dependent peroxidases counteracting oxidative stress [37], GSH dependent isomerases [38] or non-catalytically acting as flavonoid-binding proteins [39] and stress signalling proteins [40]. After their importance understood with regard to their role in detoxification (including HMs) and environmental safety, today the number of reports related to plant GSTs increased tremendously [41-43].

Beside other ways of attack, HMs mainly exert their effects on enzymes through the displacement of essential metal ions from specific binding sites [44,45]. Therefore, some reports announcing the decrese in activities of metallo enyzmes (such as CAT) when plants treated with Pb or Cd [17,46]. Conversely, the same authors reported an increase in the activities of superoxide dismutases (SOD), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), guaiacol peroxidase (POD) and glutathione reductases (GR)) with metal treatments [17]. Although, by using different organisms and HMs (including Cd and Pb), increase in GST activities were also reported recently by several groups [47-50] and all coincide with our current results. On the other hand, recently relationships between Cd, GSH contents and GSTs in rice roots have been reported [51]. This finding is also confirming with our results, as in this study we observed high GSH contents (see GSH contents section) and GST activities in general with Cd treatments (but especially in Erginel shoots with 300µM Cd), suggesting that these two parameters of antioxidant defense system may be used as biomarkers of Cd induced stress.

GSH contents

In Figure 4, the results of individual treatments of the different single and combined concentrations of Cd and Pb on the GSH content of Bezostaya and Erginel roots and shoots are shown. In general, the roots of the plants slightly higher GSH levels, which is differing in range according to the concentrations of HM treatments and the plant itself. However, it seen that metals in the hydroponic environment influenced the GSH concentrations in the shoots of both species as well and GSH contents in HM treated samples were at least equal or higher than their respective controls (Figure 4). 

All HM treatments caused an increases of GSH concentration in plant parts weredose dependent. While 125 and 128% of increases were observed in GSH contents of Erginel roots (with 150 and 300µM of Pb + Cd treatment, respectively), the contents of GSH were found to be 120 and 122% for Bezostaya roots for the same concentrations, compared to the controls. However, the increase in GSH concentration with the application of single 300µM Cd was marked for Erginel shoots (118%), as it shown a higher value than combined applications of Pb + Cd for 150µM and and also more effective than Pb itself for the same concentrations. Similarly, all single Cd applications were more effective than single Pb applications for tested concentrations.

A small molecule GSH (γ-L-glutamyl-L-cysteinyl-glycine) works for the sake of cell protection in many ways. It is not only take part in PC synthesis or ascorbate and tocopherol regeneration reactions, but also involved in antioxidative defence in relation to redox capacity through glutathione peroxidase (GPOX) and glutathione reductase (GR) activities, acts as a source of amino acid for protein synthesis and have role as a co-substrate of GSTs in detoxification reactions [52]. Therefore, GSH protects plants from the deleterious effect of many stressors, including HMs.

According to Xiang et al. [53], elevation of GSH does not aways correlate with enhanced tolerance to HMs. However, there are several studies showing that the involvement of GSH in tolerance of plants to HM toxicity [54,55] available in the literature. For example, Freeman et al. [56], have reported that the increased GSH biosynthesis in Thlaspi showing tolerance to nickel (Ni). This and some other studies are in accordance with our results. In this study, we observed that the roots of the plants have shown moderately higher GSH levels by comparing to their corresponding shoots. This can be attributable to GSH’s other responsibilities in shoots under HM concentrations to protect cells, like PC synthesis as it accompanied with a decrease in GSH pool.


The current study showed that biochemical mechanisms were affected differently with varying concentrations of Pb and Cd metals in plants examined. However, the high levels of GSH and protein contents and GST activities by comparing to control samples are the signs of general adaptability to stress conditions elicited by metals. Therefore, these parameters (activities of GST, levels of GSH and protein) can be used as a biomarkers of environmental quality assessments. Although, further studies can be designed to generate some transgenic plants with ability of regulating GSH or PC synthesis pathways or usage of different biomarkers to search for molecules with protection against HMs.

On the other hand, Erginel (barley) variety were found to be more tolerant to HM stress by comparing to Bezostaya (wheat) according to results. Therefore, tolerant variety can be used for remediation purposes in soil contaminated by HMs, such as phytoextraction, phytostabilization, etc.


Author thanks to journal for accepting this article free of cost for evaluation and possible publication.


1. Jaishankar M, Tseten T, Anbalagan N, Mathew BB, Beeregowda KN. Toxicity, mechanism and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdiscip Toxicol. 2014; 7: 60-72.

2. Tchounwou PB, Yedjou CG, Patlolla AK, Sutton DJ. Heavy Metal Toxicity and the Environment. In: Luch A, editor. Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology. New York: Springer. 2012; 133-164.

3. Marichali A, Dallali S, Ouerghemmi S, Sebei H, Hosni K. Germination, morpho-physiological and biochemical responses of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) to zinc excess. Ind Crop Prod. 2014; 55: 248- 257.

4. Seneviratne M, Rajakaruna N, Rizwan M, Madawala HM, Ok YS, Vithanage M. Heavy metal-induced oxidative stress on seed germination and seedling development: a critical review. Environ Geochem Health. 2017.

5. Kravkaz-Kuscu IS, Sariyildiz T, Cetin M, Yigit N, Sevik H, Savaci G. Evaluation of the soil properties and primary forest tree species in Taskopru (Kastamonu) district. Fresen Environ Bull. 2018; 27: 1613- 1617.

6. Sevik H, Ozel, HB, Cetin M, Ozel HU, Erdem T. Determination of changes in heavy metal accumulation depending on plant species, plant organism, and traffic density in some landscape plants. Air Qual Atmos Health. 2018; 1-7.

7. Lou Y, Zhao P, Wang D, Amombo E, Sun X, Wang H, et al. Germination, Physiological Responses and Gene Expression of Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) Growing under Pb and Cd. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0169495.

8. O’Brien JA, Daudi A, Butt VS, Bolwell GP. Reactive oxygen species and their role in plant defence and cell wall metabolism. Planta. 2012; 236: 765-779.

9. Cuny D, Pignata ML, Kranner I, Beckett R. Biomarkers of pollutioninduced oxidative stress and membrane damage in lichens. In: Nimis PL, Scheidegger C, Wolseley PA, editors. Monitoring with Lichens - Monitoring Lichens. The Netherlands: Kluwer. 2002; 97-110.

10. Georgiadou EC, Kowalska E, Patla K, Kulbat K, Smolinska B, Leszczynska J, et al. Influence of Heavy Metals (Ni, Cu, and Zn) on Nitro-Oxidative Stress Responses, Proteome Regulation and Allergen Production in Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) Plants. Front Plant Sci. 2018; 9: 862.

11. Dubey RS. Metal toxicity, oxidative stress and antioxidative defense system in plants. In: Gupta SD, editor. Reactive Oxygen Species and Antioxidants in Higher Plants. USA: CRC Press. 2011;177-203.

12. Yourtchi MS, Bayat HR. Effects of cadmium toxicity on growth, cadmium accumulation and macronutrient content of durum wheat (Dena CV.). Int J Agric Crop Sci. 2013; 6: 1099-1103.

13. He J, Ji ZX, Wang QZ, Liu CF, Zhou YB. Effect of Cu and Pb pollution on the growth and antionxidant enzyme activity of Suaeda heteroptera. Ecol Eng. 2016; 87: 102-109

14. Lamalashmi DE, Kumar S, Singh B, Sharma KS, Beemrote A, Premabati DC, et al. Adaptation strategies and defence mechanisms of plants during environmental stress. In: Ghorbanpour M, Varma A, editors. Medicinal Plants and Environmental Challanges. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 2017; 359-413.

15. Farid M, Shakoor MB, Ehsan S, Ali S, Zubair M, Hanif MA. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of different plant species to Cd stress. Int J Chem Biochem Sci. 2013; 3: 53-60.

16. DalCorso G, Farinati S, Furini A. Regulatory networks of cadmium stress in plants. Plant Signal Behav. 2010; 5: 663-667.

17. Verma S, Dubey RS. Lead toxicity induces lipid peroxidation and alters the activities of antioxidant enzymes in growing rice plants. Plant Sci. 2003; 164: 645-655.

18. Transitional Zone Agricultural Research Institute.

19. Ozetik E. Biochemical and physiological responses of metal toxicity in some barley and wheat varieties from Central Anatolia. Bio Diver Conserv. 2016; 9: 12-25.

20. Hoagland DR, Arnon DI. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station. Berkeley. 1950.

21. Oztetik E. Biomarkers of ecotoxicological oxidative stress in an urban environment: using evergreen plant in industrial areas. Ecotoxicol. 2015; 24: 903-914.

22. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951; 193: 265-275.

23. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB. Glutathione S-transferases. The first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. J Biol Chem. 1974; 249: 7130-7139.

24. Habig WH, Jakoby WB. Assays for differentiation of glutathione S-transferases. Methods Enzymol. 1981; 77: 398-405.

25. Ellman GL. Tissue sulfhydryl groups. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1959; 82: 70-77.

26. Levine RL, Willians JA, Stadtman ER, Shacter E. Carbonyl assays for determination of oxidatively modified proteins. Methods Enzymol. 1994; 233: 346-357.

27. Patra M, Bhowmik N, Bandopadhyay B, Sharma A. Comparison of mercury, lead and arsenic with respect to genotoxic effects on plant systems and the development of genetic tolerance. Environ Exp Bot. 2004; 52: 199-223.

28. Arora A, Sairam RK, Srivastava GC. Oxidative stress and antioxidative system in plants. Curr Sci. 2002; 82: 1227-1238.

29. Palma JM, Sandalio LM, Javier Corpas F, Romero-Puertas MC, McCarthy I, del Río LA. Plant proteases protein degradation and oxidative stress: role of peroxisomes. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2002; 40: 521-530.

30. Singh S, Sinha S. Accumulation of metals and its effects in Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. (cv. Rohini) grown on various amendments of tannery waste. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety. 2005; 62: 118-127.

31. Ahmad P, Jhon R. Effect of Salt stress on growth and biochemical parameters of Pisum sativum L. Arch Agro Soil Sci. 2005; 51: 665-672.

32. Mittra B, Sharma S, Das AB, Henry SL, Das TK, Ghosh P, et al. Novel cadmium induced protein in wheat: Characterization and localization in root tissue. Biol Plant. 2008; 52: 343-346.

33. Lamhamdi M, Bakrim A, Aarab A, Lafont R, Sayah F. Lead phytotoxicity on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seed germination and seedlings growth. CR Biol. 2011; 334: 118-126.

34. Chandra R, Bharagava RN, Yadav S, Mohan D. Accumulation and distribution of toxic metals in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Indian mustard (Brassica campestris L.) irrigated with distillery and tannery effluents. J Hazard Mater. 2009; 162: 1514-1521.

35. Shah K, Dubey RS. Effect of cadmium on proline accumulation and ribonuclease activity in rice seedlings. Role of proline as a possible enzyme protectant. Biol Plant. 1997; 40: 121-130.

36. Oztetik E. A Tale of Plant Glutathione S-Transferases: Since 1970. Bot Rev. 2008; 74: 419-437.

37. Roxas VP, Smith RK, Allen ER, Allen RD. Overexpression of glutathione S-transferase/glutathione peroxidase enhances the growth of transgenic tobacco seedlings during stress. Nat Biotechnol. 1997; 15: 988-991.

38. Thom R, Dixon DP, Edwards R, Cole DJ, Lapthorn A. The structure of a zeta class glutathione S-transferase from A. thaliana: characterization of a GST with novel active site architecture and a putative role in tyrosine catabolism. J Mol Biol. 2001; 308: 949-962.

39. Mueller LA, Goodman CD, Silady RA, Walbot V. AN9, a petunia GST required for anthocyanin sequestration, is a flavonoid-binding protein. Plant Physiol. 2000; 123: 1561-1570.

40. Loyall L, Uchida K, Braun S, Furuya M, Frohnmeyer H. Glutathione and a UV light induced GST are involved in signalling to chalcone synthase in cell cultures. Plant Cell. 2000; 12: 1939-1950.

41. Cao Z, Mou R, Cao Z, Lin X, Ma Y, Zhu Z, et al. Quantitation of glutathione S-transferases in rice (Oryza sativa L.) roots exposed to cadmium by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry using isotopelabeled wing peptides as an internal standard. Plant Meth. 2017; 13: 64-76.

42. Kumar S, Trivedi PK. Glutathione S-Transferases: Role in combating abiotic stresses including arsenic detoxification in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2018; 9: 751.

43. Stavridou E, Voulgari G, Bosmali I, Chronopoulou EG, Cicero LL, Piero AR, et al. Plant Adaptation to Stress Conditions: The Case of Glutathione S-Transferases (GSTs). In: Vats S, editor. Biotic and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. New York: Springer. 2018; 173-202.

44. Van Assche F, Clijsters H. Effects of metals on enzyme activity in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 1990; 13: 195-206.

45. Sharma SS, Dietz KJ. The relationship between metal toxicity and cellular redox imbalance. Trends Plant Sci. 2009; 14: 43-50.

46. Dalcorso G, Farinati S, Maistri S, Furini A. How plants cope with cadmium: staking all on metabolism and gene expression. J Integr Plant Biol. 2008; 50: 1268-1280.

47. Haluskova L, Valentovicova K, Huttova J, Mistrik I, Tamas L. Effect of abiotic stresses on glutathione peroxidase and glutathione S-transferase activity in barley root tips. Plant Physiol Bioch. 2009; 47: 1069-1074.

48. Hu Y, Ge Y, Zhang C, Ju T, Cheng W. Cadmium toxicity and translocation in rice seedlings are reduced by hydrogen peroxide pretreatment. Plant Growth Regul. 2009; 59: 51-61.

49. Skorzynska-Polit E, Drazkiewicz M, Krupa Z. Lipid peroxidation and antioxidative response in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to cadmium and copper. Acta Physiol Plant. 2010; 32: 169-175.

50. Hossain MA, Hossain MD, Rohman MM, da Silva JAT, Fujita M. Onion major compounds (flavonoids, organosulfurs) and highly expressed glutathione-related enzymes: possible physiological interaction, gene cloning and abiotic stress response. In: Aguirre CB, Jaramillo LM, editors. Onion Consumption and Health. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 2012.

51. Zhang CH, Ge Y. Response of glutathione and glutathione S-transferase in rice seedlings exposed to cadmium stress. Rice Sci. 2008; 15: 73-76.

52. Oztetik E. An introduction to oxidative stress in plants and the role of non-enzymatic antioxidants. In: Anjum NA, Umar S, Ahmad A, editors. Oxidative stress in plants: causes, consequences and tolerance. New Delhi: IK Publications. 2012: 1-50.

53. Xiang C, Werner BL, Christensen EM, Oliver DJ. The biological functions of glutathione revisited in Arabidopsis transgenic plants with altered glutathione levels. Plant Physiol. 2001; 126: 564-574.

54. Mendoza-Cozatl D, Devars S, Loza-Tavera H, Moreno-Sanchez R. Cadmium accumulation in the chloroplast of Euglena gracilis. Physiol Plantarum. 2002; 115: 276-283.

55. Shao HB, Chu LY, Lu ZH, Kang CM. Primary antioxidant free radical scavenging and redox signaling pathways in higher plant cells. Int J Plant Sci. 2008; 4: 8-14.

56. Freeman JL, Persans MW, Nieman K, Albrecht C, Peer W, Pickering IJ, et al. Increased glutathione biosynthesis plays a role in nickel tolerance in Thlaspi nickel hyperaccumulators. Plant Cell. 2004; 16: 2176-2191.

Received : 08 Jan 2019
Accepted : 30 Jan 2019
Published : 01 Feb 2019
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X