title: Copper accumulation, translocation, and toxic effects in grapevine cuttings.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Although the ecotoxicological effects of copper (Cu) on grapevine are of global concern due to the intensive and long-term application of Cu-based fungicides in vineyards, comparatively little is known about the phytotoxicity, accumulation, and translocation of Cu in grapevines. Therefore, this study was to conduct a hydroponic experiment to determine the influence of solution Cu concentration not only on bioaccumulation and the translocation of Cu in grapevine roots, stems, and leaves, but also on the subsequent growth inhibition of the roots.
  
  
  METHODS
  Grapevine cuttings were grown for 30 days and then exposed to various Cu concentrations (0.1-50 μM) for 15 days. The dose-response profile was described by a sigmoid Hill equation. Optical microscopy was used to examine the cytotoxicity of Cu on the roots. In addition, bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and translocation factors (TFs) were calculated from the results of the hydroponic experiment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Copper was tolerated by grapevines at a concentration ≤1 μM. The median inhibition concentration (IC(50)) obtained from the Hill model was 3.94 μM (95% confidence interval, 3.65-4.24). From the light micrographs of root tip cells, signs of toxicity including increased vacuolization and plasmolysis were observed at solution Cu concentrations ≥10 μM. In addition, a higher Cu concentration was found in the roots (25-12,000 mg kg(-1)) than in the stems (5-540 mg kg(-1)) and leaves (7-46 mg kg(-1)), indicating a very limited translocation of Cu from the roots to the aboveground parts.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study investigated not only the macroscopic root growth and Cu accumulation by grapevine, but also the microscopic changes in root tissue at the cell level after the exposure experiment. Based on the BAFs and TFs, the grapevine could be considered a Cu-exclusive plant. For toxic effects on the exposure of roots to Cu, this study also revealed that root growth, as well as the histological changes in rhizodermal cells, can be used as phytotoxic indicators of grapevine under Cu stress.
authors.affiliation: Department of Agronomy, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan 60004, Republic of China.
authors.forename: Kai-Wei
authors.initials: KW
authors.lastname: Juang
authors.forename: Yung-I
authors.initials: YI
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Hung-Yu
authors.initials: HY
authors.lastname: Lai
authors.forename: Chiung-Huei
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Bo-Ching
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D003300:Copper / Q000493:pharmacokinetics* / Q000633:toxicity*; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D018517:Plant Roots / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism; D018547:Plant Stems / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism; D013054:Spectrophotometry, Atomic; D027843:Vitis / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism
chemical_list: D003300:Copper
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2004 Sep;94(2):153-8
references.pmid: 15158507
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Feb 13;421(6924):691-2
references.pmid: 12610596
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2001;111(2):293-302
references.pmid: 11202733
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2002;120(2):445-53
references.pmid: 12395858
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2008 Dec;156(3):1092-8
references.pmid: 18550238
references.citation: Ecotoxicology. 2011 Jun;20(4):827-35
references.pmid: 21409589
references.citation: Environ Toxicol Chem. 2009 Mar;28(3):662-7
references.pmid: 18980394
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2004 Oct;57(2):101-6
references.pmid: 15294434
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2007 Jan;66(7):1346-52
references.pmid: 16908050
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2003;123(2):229-38
references.pmid: 12628202
references.citation: Environ Toxicol. 2008 Oct;23(5):607-16
references.pmid: 18528911
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2007 Sep;149(1):10-7
references.pmid: 17321651
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2005 May;135(2):221-33
references.pmid: 15734582
references.citation: Chemosphere. 2006 Mar;62(9):1454-63
references.pmid: 16083944
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2007 Dec 15;388(1-3):35-42
references.pmid: 17889258
references.citation: Food Addit Contam. 2006 Mar;23(3):274-80
references.pmid: 16517529
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2009 Aug 1;407(16):4616-21
references.pmid: 19467695
references.citation: Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008 Aug;55(2):238-46
references.pmid: 18183449
references.citation: Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2009 Sep;72(6):1760-6
references.pmid: 19481262
references.citation: Bioresour Technol. 2008 Oct;99(15):7091-7
references.pmid: 18296043
references.citation: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2011 Jul;18(6):890-6
references.pmid: 21274641
references.citation: Environ Toxicol. 2002 Oct;17(5):478-86
references.pmid: 12242679
references.citation: Environ Pollut. 2010 May;158(5):1850-6
references.pmid: 19931959
references.citation: Ecotoxicology. 2010 Nov;19(8):1363-8
references.pmid: 20680456
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2005 Sep 15;348(1-3):82-92
references.pmid: 16162315