Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of Transgenic Indian Mustard Plants for Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Mine Tailings

Bennett, Lindsay E., Burkhead, Jason L., Hale, Kerry L., Terry, Norman, Pilon, Marinus, Pilon-Smits, Elizabeth A. H.·2003·Journal of Environment Quality

Abstract

Transgenic Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] plants overproducing the enzymes gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase (ECS) or glutathione synthetase (GS) were shown previously to have increased levels of the metal-binding thiol peptides phytochelatins and glutathione, and enhanced Cd tolerance and accumulation. Furthermore, transgenic Indian mustard plants overexpressing adenosine triphosphate sulfurylase (APS) were shown to have higher levels of glutathione and total thiols. These results were obtained with a solution culture. To better examine the phytoremediation potential of these transgenics, a greenhouse experiment was performed in which the transgenics were grown on metal-contaminated soil collected from a USEPA Superfund site near Leadville, Colorado. A grass mixture used for revegetation of the site was included for comparison. The ECS and GS transgenics accumulated significantly (P < 0.05) more metal in their shoot than wild-type (WT) Indian mustard, while the APS plants did not. Of the six metals tested, the ECS and GS transgenics accumulated 1.5-fold more Cd, and 1.5- to 2-fold more Zn, compared with wild-type Indian mustard. Furthermore, the ECS transgenics accumulated 2.4- to 3-fold more Cr, Cu, and Pb, relative to WT. The grass mixture accumulated significantly less metal than Indian mustard: approximately 2-fold less Cd, Cu, Mn, and Zn, and 5.7-fold less Pb than WT Indian mustard. All transgenics removed significantly more metal from the soil compared with WT Indian mustard or an unplanted control. While WT did not remove more metal than the unplanted control for any of the metals tested, all three types of transgenics significantly reduced the soil metal concentration, and removed between 6% (Zn) and 25% (Cd) of the soil metal. This study is the first to demonstrate enhanced phytoextraction potential of transgenic plants using polluted environmental soil. The results confirm the importance of metal-binding peptides for plant metal accumulation and show that results from hydroponic systems have value as an indicator for phytoremediation potential.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/jeq2003.0432

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Bennett, L. E., Burkhead, J. L., Hale, K. L., Terry, N., Pilon, M., & Pilon-Smits, E. A. H.
Venue
Journal of Environment Quality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
432
ISSN
  • 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2537
OpenAlex
W4246716963
Cited by
287
References
0
FWCI
14.34
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: Analysis of Transgenic Indian Mustard Plants for Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Mine Tailings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/jeq2003.0432
The paper
Bennett, L. E., Burkhead, J. L., Hale, K. L., Terry, N., Pilon, M., & Pilon-Smits, E. A. H. (2003). Analysis of Transgenic Indian Mustard Plants for Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Mine Tailings. Journal of Environment Quality. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2003.0432

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.