Use of strain Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 for pre-sowing treatment of pea seeds (Pisum sativum L.) in the presence of heavy metals and glyphosphate

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The effect of the PGPB strain of bacteria Pseudomonas sp. was studied. OBA 2.4.1, resistant to NiCl2 (up to 3 mM), Pb(CH3COO)2 (up to 5 mM) and glyphosate (up to 8 mg/ml), on Pisum sativum L. plants at different concentrations of HMs and herbicide. It was found that the strain under study had a positive effect on the length of the roots of pea plant seedlings in the presence of HM, which indicates an increase in the plant’s resistance to stress caused by exposure to nickel and lead. However, this effect was not recorded in the experimental version with the addition of glyphosate, which confirmed its high toxicity. The results obtained indicate that the strain Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 promoted the growth of Pisum sativum L. under stress exposure to nickel and lead, which can be used in the development of complex-action biological products intended both to protect agricultural plants from the effects of heavy metals and to reclaim contaminated soils.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

L. R. Khakimova

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: lili-nigmatullina@bk.ru

Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics

Russian Federation, Ufa, 450054

O. V. Chubukova

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: lili-nigmatullina@bk.ru

Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics

Russian Federation, Ufa, 450054

Z. R. Vershinina

Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Ufa State Petroleum Technological University (USPTU)

Email: lili-nigmatullina@bk.ru

Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics

Russian Federation, Ufa, 450054; Ufa, 450064

References

  1. Коршунова Т.Ю., Бакаева М.Д., Кузина Е.В., Рафикова Г.Ф., Четвериков С.П., Четверикова Д.В., Логинов О.Н. // Прикл. биохимия и микробиология. 2021. V. 57. № 3. P. 211–227. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0555109921030089
  2. Ojuederie O.B., Babalola O.O. // Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017. V. 14. № 12. P. 1504. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121504
  3. Saharan B.S., Chaudhary T., Mandal B.S., Kumar D., Kumar R., Sadh P.K., Duhan J.S. // J. Xenobiot. 2023. V. 13. № 2. P. 252–269. https://doi.org/10.3390/jox13020019.
  4. Wu Z., Kong Z., Lu S., Huang C., Huang S., He Y., Wu L. // J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2019. V. 65. № 5. P. 254–264. https://doi.org/10.2323/jgam.2018.11.004.
  5. Adhikary A., Kumar R., Pandir R., Bhardwaj P., Wusirika R., Kumar S. // Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019. V. 142. P. 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.07.006.
  6. Tirry N., Kouchou A., El Omari B., Ferioun M., El Ghachtouli N. // J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2021. V. 19. № 1. P. 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-021-00254-8.
  7. Tahri Joutey N., Tirry N., Bahafid W., Sayel H., El Ghachtouli N. Bioremediation. Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in Heavy Metals Bioremediation // Ed. M. Kuddus. Adv. Res. Appl. Nov. Sci. Publ, 2018. 185–211 p.
  8. Maggi F., la Cecilia D., Tang F.H.M., McBratney A. // Sci. Total Environ. 2020. V. 717. P. 137167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137167
  9. Tang F.H.M., Lenzen M., McBratney A., Maggi F. // Nat. Geosci. V. 2021. № 14. 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00712-5
  10. Wang L., Deng Q., Hu H., Liu M., Gong Z., Zhang S. et al. // J. Hematol. Oncol. 2019. V. 12. № 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-019-0767-9
  11. Zoller O., Rhyn P., Rupp H., Zarn J.A., Geiser C. // Food Addit. Contam: Part B. 2018. V. 11. № 2. P. 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2017.1419509
  12. Li J., Chen W. J., Zhang W., Zhang Y., Lei Q., Wu S. et al. // J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022. V. 70. № 43. Р. 13945–13958. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c05612
  13. Kubsad D., Nilsson E.E., King S.E., Sadler-Riggleman I., Beck D., Skinner M.K. // Sci. Rep. 2019. V. 9. № 1. P. 6372. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42860-0
  14. Aitbali Y., Ba-M’hamed S., Elhidar N., Nafis A., Soraa N., Bennis M. // Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 2018. V. 67. P. 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2018.04.002
  15. Kittle R.P., McDermid K.J., Muehlstein L., Balazs G.H. // Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018. V. 127. P. 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.030
  16. Blot N., Veillat L., Rouz R., Delatte H. // PLoS One. 2019. V. 14. № 4. e0215466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215466
  17. Castrejón-Godínez M.L., Tovar-Sánchez E., Valencia-Cuevas L., Rosas-Ramírez M.E., Rodríguez A., Mussali-Galante P. // Microorganisms. 2021. V. 9. № 11. P. 2322. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112322
  18. Rossi F., Carles L., Donnadieu F., Batisson I., Artigas J. // J. Hazard. Mater. 2021. V. 420. P. 126651 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126651
  19. Masotti F., Garavaglia B.S., Piazza A., Burdisso P., Altabe S., Gottig N., Ottado J. // Sci. Total Environ. 2021. V. 774. P. 145761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145761
  20. Yu J., Jin B., Ji Q., Wang H. // J. Hazard Mater. 2023. V. 448. P. 130902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130902
  21. Zhao H., Tao K., Zhu J., Liu S., Gao H., Zhou X. // J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2015. V. 61. № 5. P. 165–170. https://doi.org/10.2323/jgam.61.165
  22. Ghaderitabar H., Mousavi A., Hatef Salmanian A., Hadi F. // Iran J. Biotechnol. 2020. V. 18. № 3. e2597. https://doi.org/10.30498/IJB.2020.204133.2597
  23. Khakimova L., Chubukova O., Vershinina Z., Maslennikova D. // BioTech. 2023. V. 12. № 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech12010005
  24. Вершинина З.Р., Чубукова О.В., Никоноров Ю.М., Хакимова Л.Р., Лавина А.М., Каримова Л.Р. и др. // Микробиология. 2021. V. 90. № 2. P. 191–203. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0026365621020154
  25. Чубукова О.В., Хакимова Л.Р., Акимова Е.С., Вершинина З.Р. // Микробиология. 2022. V. 91. № 5. P. 537–546. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0026365622100196
  26. Хакимова Л.Р., Чубукова О.В., Мурясова А.Р., Симороз Е.В., Чумакова А.К., Вершинина З.Р. // Таврический вестник аграрной науки. 2022. № 2(30). P. 155–163.
  27. Хакимова Л.Р., Чубукова О.В., Мурясова А.Р., Вершинина З.Р. // Биомика. 2022. V. 14. № 2. P. 101–110. https://doi.org/10.31301/2221-6197.bmcs.2022-7.
  28. Li D., Xu X., Yu H., Han X. // J. Environ. Manage. 2017. V. 196. P. 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.076
  29. Li J., Bai R., Chen W., Ren C., Yang F., Tian X., Xiao X., Zhao F. // J. Hazard Mater. 2023. V. 447. P. 130772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.130772
  30. An Q., Deng S., Liu M., Li Z., Wu D., Wang T., Chen X. // J. Environ. Manage. 2021. V. 299. P. 113641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113641
  31. Knuutinen J., Bomberg M., Kemell M., Lusa M. // Front Microbiol. 2019. V. 10. P. 2677. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02677
  32. Fawwaz Alfarras A., Hamid Al-Fahdawi M. // Arch. Razi Inst. 2022. V. 77. № 3. P. 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.22092/ARI.2022.357399.2036
  33. Михайловская Н.А., Барашенко Т.Б., Погирницкая Т.В., Дюсова С.В. // Почвоведение и агрохимия. 2022. № 2. P. 110–120.
  34. Шабаев В.П., Остроумов В.Е. // Агрохимия. 2021. № 11. P. 87–94. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002188121090106
  35. Tank N.M., Saraf М. // J. Basic Microbiology. 2009. V. 49. № 2. P. 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jobm.200800090
  36. Ma Y., Rajkumar M., Freitas H. // Chemosphere. 2009. V. 75. № 6. P. 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.056
  37. Sharma S., Saraf M. // Biol. Futur. 2023. V. 74. P. 3309–3325 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-023-00179-y
  38. Ge Y., Wen Z., He L., Sheng X. // Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. Int. 2023. V. 30. № 31. P. 76911–76922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27967-2

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. Adhesion of RFP-labeled bacterial cells on the surface of root hairs of germinated pea seeds under an AxioImager M1 fluorescence microscope (“CarlZeiss”, Germany)

Download (84KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. Growth of Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 strain at different concentrations of NiCl2 (a) and Pb(CH3COO)2 (b) and on glyphosate (c)

Download (303KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. Growth of Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 strain transformed with pJN105TurboRFP vector at different concentrations of NiCl2 (a) on Pb(CH3COO)2 (b) and glyphosate (c)

Download (309KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. Pea plants (a) and seedling root length (b) under NiCl2 stress: 1 – untreated seeds; 2 – pseudomonad-treated seeds; 3 – untreated seeds in the presence of 1 mM NiCl2; 4 – pseudomonad-treated seeds in the presence of 1 mM NiCl2; 5 – untreated seeds in the presence of 2 mM NiCl2; 6 – pseudomonad-treated seeds in the presence of 2 mM NiCl2. * Statistically significant differences from the control (p < 0.05)

Download (193KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. Pea plants (a) and seedling root length (b) under stress exposure to Pb(CH3COO)2: 1 – untreated seeds; 2 – seeds treated with Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 strain; 3 – untreated seeds in the presence of 1 mM Pb(CH3COO)2; 4 – seeds treated with pseudomonads in the presence of 1 mM Pb(CH3COO)2; 5 – untreated seeds in the presence of 2 mM Pb(CH3COO)2; 6 – seeds treated with pseudomonads in the presence of 2 mM Pb(CH3COO)2. * Statistically significant differences from the control (p < 0.05)

Download (204KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 6. Growth of pea plants (a) and root length of seedlings (b) under the stress of glyphosate: 1 – untreated seeds; 2 – seeds treated with Pseudomonas sp. OBA 2.4.1 strain; 3 – untreated seeds in the presence of 3 mg/ml of glyphosate; 4 – pseudomonas-treated seeds in the presence of 3 mg/mlml of glyphosate; 5 – untreated seeds in the presence of 6 mg/ml of glyphosate; 6 – pseudomonas-treated seeds in the presence of 6 mg/ml of glyphosate. * Statistically significant differences from the control (p < 0.05)

Download (200KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences