Skip to main content Accessibility help

Effect of low-dose chronic gamma exposure on growth and oxidative stress related responses in Arabidopsis thaliana

  • J. Barescut, H. Vandenhove (a1), N. Vanhoudt (a1), J. Wannijn (a1), M. Van Hees (a1) and A. Cuypers (a2)...


The biological responses induced by low-dose chronic gamma exposure of hydroponically grown Arabidopsis thaliana, irradiated during a full life cycle (seed to seed) were investigated. Applied dose rates were 2300, 375 and 85 µGray h-1. Plants (roots and shoots) were harvested after 24 day (inflorescence emergence), at 34 days (∼50% of flowers open) and at 54 days (silice ripening). Gamma exposure significantly reduced root weight compared to the control but no clear effect of dose rate level on root dry weight was observed. Leaf weight was significantly reduced at the highest irradiation level, only after 54 days exposure. ED-10 was estimated at 10 µGy h-1. Seed germination was not affected by gamma irradiation. For several of the stress enzymes studied enzyme capacity was generally stimulated at the low and intermediate gamma irradiation level compared to the control and highest irradiation level. No pattern was observed in concentration or reduction state of the non-enzymatic antioxidants, ascorbate and glutathione. Lipid peroxidation products in leaves were present highest at full flowering and decreased with exposure level at this growth stage. At the other two growth stages, lipid peroxidation products were unaffected by gamma treatment.



Hide All
[1] Bowler, C., Slooten, L., Vandenbranden S., De Rycke R., Botterman J., Sybesma C., van Montagu M. and Inzé D., The EMBO Journal 10 (1991) 1723–1732.
[2] Mittler, R., Vanderauwera S., Gollery M. and Van Breusegem F., Trends Plant Sci. 9 (2004) 490–498.
[3] Foyer, C.H. and Noctor G., Plant Cell Environ. 28 (2005) 1056–1071.
[4] Foyer, C.H. and Noctor G., Physiol. Plant. 119 (2003) 355–364.
[5] Bergmeyer H., Gawehn K. and Grassl M., in Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, edited by H. Bergmeyer (Academic Press, New York, 1974).
[6] Imberty A., Goldberg R. and Catesson A.M., Plant Sci. Letters 35 (1984) 103–108.
[7] McCord J. and Fridovich I., J. Biol. Chem. 244 (1969) 6049–6055.
[8] Hodges D.M., Andrews C.J., Johnson D.A. and Hamilton R.I., Physiol. Plant 98 (1996) 685–692.
[9] Anderson M.E., Methods Enzymol. 113 (1985) 548–555.
[10] Dhinsda, R.S., Plumb-Dhinsda, P. and Thorpe, T.A., J. Exp. Botany 32 (1981) 93–101.
[11] Koppen G., Toncelli L.M., Triest L. and Verschaeve L., Mech. Ageing Develop. 110 (1999) 13–24.
[12] Statsoft, Inc. STATISTICA (Data analysis software system), version 6. (2004).
[13] Onofri, A., Riv. It. Agromet. 3 (2005) 40–45.
[14] Garnier-Laplace, J. and Gilbin R., Derivation of predicted-no-effect-dose-rate values for ecosystes (and their sub-organisational levels) exposed to radioactive substances, EC-ERICA project, Deliverable 5. (2006).
[15] Wi, S.G., Chung B.Y., Kung J.S, Kim, J.H., Baek M.H., Lee J.W. and Kim Y.S., Micro 38 (2007) 553–564.


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed