Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35519812›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2022

Stable Isotope Fractionation of Metals and Metalloids in Plants: A Review.

Matthias Wiggenhauser, Rebekah E T Moore, Peng Wang, Gerd Patrick Bienert, Kristian Holst Laursen, Simon Blotevogel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Matthias WiggenhauserGroup of Plant Nutrition, Department of Environmental System Science, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Rebekah E T MooreMAGIC Group, Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peng WangCollege of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China.
Gerd Patrick BienertCrop Physiology, Molecular Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany.
Kristian Holst LaursenPlant Nutrients and Food Quality Research Group, Plant and Soil Science Section and Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Simon BlotevogelLaboratoire Matériaux et Durabilité des Constructions (LMDC), UPS/INSA, Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse III, Toulouse, France.
Board of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology · CHImperial College London · GBLaboratoire Matériaux et Durabilité des Constructions · FRNanjing Agricultural University · CNTechnical University of Munich · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work critically reviews stable isotope fractionation of essential (B, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo), beneficial (Si), and non-essential (Cd, Tl) metals and metalloids in plants. The review (i) provides basic principles and methodologies for non-traditional isotope analyses, (ii) compiles isotope fractionation for uptake and translocation for each element and connects them to physiological processes, and (iii) interlinks knowledge from different elements to identify common and contrasting drivers of isotope fractionation. Different biological and physico-chemical processes drive isotope fractionation in plants. During uptake, Ca and Mg fractionate through root apoplast adsorption, Si through diffusion during membrane passage, Fe and Cu through reduction prior to membrane transport in strategy I plants, and Zn, Cu, and Cd through membrane transport. During translocation and utilization, isotopes fractionate through precipitation into insoluble forms, such as phytoliths (Si) or oxalate (Ca), structural binding to cell walls (Ca), and membrane transport and binding to soluble organic ligands (Zn, Cd). These processes can lead to similar (Cu, Fe) and opposing (Ca vs. Mg, Zn vs. Cd) isotope fractionation patterns of chemically similar elements in plants. Isotope fractionation in plants is influenced by biotic factors, such as phenological stages and plant genetics, as well as abiotic factors. Different nutrient supply induced shifts in isotope fractionation patterns for Mg, Cu, and Zn, suggesting that isotope process tracing can be used as a tool to detect and quantify different uptake pathways in response to abiotic stresses. However, the interpretation of isotope fractionation in plants is challenging because many isotope fractionation factors associated with specific processes are unknown and experiments are often exploratory. To overcome these limitations, fundamental geochemical research should expand the database of isotope fractionation factors and disentangle kinetic and equilibrium fractionation. In addition, plant growth studies should further shift toward hypothesis-driven experiments, for example, by integrating contrasting nutrient supplies, using established model plants, genetic approaches, and by combining isotope analyses with complementary speciation techniques. To fully exploit the potential of isotope process tracing in plants, the interdisciplinary expertise of plant and isotope geochemical scientists is required.

Indexed as

fractionationmetalloidsmetalsmultiple-collector-ICP-MSplant uptakeprocess tracingstable isotopestranslocation

Identifiers

PMID35519812
PMCPMC9063737
OpenAlexW4224275130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.