The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heavy metal‐induced accumulation of free proline in a metal‐tolerant and a nontolerant ecotype of Silene vulgaris
Abstract
Accumulation of free proline in response to Cu, Cd and Zn was studied in nontolerant and metal‐tolerant Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke. In the nontolerant ecotype these metals induced a massive accumulation of proline, especially in the leaves. When compared at equimolar concentrations in the nutrient solution, Cu was the most effective inducer, followed by Cd and Zn, respectively. However, when compared at equal toxic strength, as estimated from the degree of root growth inhibition, proline accumulation decreased in the order Cd > Zn > Cu. The threshold exposure levels for proline accumulation coincided with the highest no‐effect‐concentrations for root growth. In the metal‐tolerant ecotype the constitutive proline concentration in the leaves was 5 to 6 times higher than in the nontolerant ecotype. Exposure to Cu and Zn, however, was without any effect on the leaf proline concentration, even at exposure levels that caused a 50% root growth inhibition. Only Cd, when present at concentrations above the highest no‐effect‐concentration for root growth, induced a further increase of the leaf proline content. Reducing transpiration by placing the plants under a transparent polyethylene cover almost completely inhibited proline accumulation, even at metal accumulation rates in the leaves that caused a 10‐fold increase of the proline level in leaves of uncovered plants. The results demonstrate that metal‐induced proline accumulation depends on the development of a metal‐induced water deficit in the leaves. Differential metal‐induced proline accumulation in distinctly metal‐tolerant ecotypes is a consequence, rather than a cause of differential metal tolerance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies
Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P., & Teare, I. D. (1973) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/bf00018060 · Cited by 20,967
Cited by
Cadmium toxicity in plants: Impacts and remediation strategies
Haider, F. U., Liqun, C., Coulter, J. A., Cheema, S. A., Wu, J., Zhang, R., Wenjun, M., & Farooq, M. (2021) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887 · Cited by 1,541
Sharma, S. S., & Dietz, K.-J. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erj073 · Cited by 1,374
Self-citationPhysiological Aspects of Cadmium and Lead Toxic Effects on Higher Plants
Seregin, I. V., & Ivanov, V. B. (2001) · Russian Journal of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1023/a:1016719901147 · Cited by 598
Thakur, S., Singh, L., Wahid, Z. A., Siddiqui, M. F., Atnaw, S. M., & Din, M. F. M. (2016) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-016-5211-9 · Cited by 389
Are Grasses Really Useful for the Phytoremediation of Potentially Toxic Trace Elements? A Review
Rabêlo, F. H. S., Vangronsveld, J., Baker, A. J. M., van der Ent, A., & Alleoni, L. R. F. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.778275 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Schat, H., Sharma, S. S., & Vooijs, R.
- Venue
- Physiologia Plantarum
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-482
- ISSN
- 0031-9317 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3054
- OpenAlex
- W2165642297
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Heavy metal‐induced accumulation of free proline in a metal‐tolerant and a nontolerant ecotype of Silene vulgaris. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1997.tb01026.x
- The paper
- Schat, H., Sharma, S. S., & Vooijs, R. (1997). Heavy metal‐induced accumulation of free proline in a metal‐tolerant and a nontolerant ecotype of Silene vulgaris. Physiologia Plantarum. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1997.tb01026.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.