Next Article in Journal
DNA-Guided Metallization of Nanomaterials and Their Biomedical Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Thymosin Beta 4 Protects Hippocampal Neuronal Cells against PrP (106–126) via Neurotrophic Factor Signaling
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Heavy Metals, Their Phytotoxicity, and the Role of Phenolic Antioxidants in Plant Stress Responses with Focus on Cadmium: Review

by
Evgenia A. Goncharuk
* and
Natalia V. Zagoskina
*
K.A. Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 127276 Moscow, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2023, 28(9), 3921; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28093921
Submission received: 5 April 2023 / Revised: 24 April 2023 / Accepted: 2 May 2023 / Published: 6 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Chemistry)

Abstract

:
The current state of heavy metal (HM) environmental pollution problems was considered in the review: the effects of HMs on the vital activity of plants and the functioning of their antioxidant system, including phenolic antioxidants. The latter performs an important function in the distribution and binding of metals, as well as HM detoxification in the plant organism. Much attention was focused on cadmium (Cd) ions as one of the most toxic elements for plants. The data on the accumulation of HMs, including Cd in the soil, the entry into plants, and the effect on their various physiological and biochemical processes (photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, and water regime) were analyzed. Some aspects of HMs, including Cd, inactivation in plant tissues, and cell compartments, are considered, as well as the functioning of various metabolic pathways at the stage of the stress reaction of plant cells under the action of pollutants. The data on the effect of HMs on the antioxidant system of plants, the accumulation of low molecular weight phenolic bioantioxidants, and their role as ligand inactivators were summarized. The issues of polyphenol biosynthesis regulation under cadmium stress were considered. Understanding the physiological and biochemical role of low molecular antioxidants of phenolic nature under metal-induced stress is important in assessing the effect/aftereffect of Cd on various plant objects—the producers of these secondary metabolites are widely used for the health saving of the world’s population. This review reflects the latest achievements in the field of studying the influence of HMs, including Cd, on various physiological and biochemical processes of the plant organism and enriches our knowledge about the multifunctional role of polyphenols, as one of the most common secondary metabolites, in the formation of plant resistance and adaptation.

1. Introduction

Heavy metals (HMs) are among the most widespread compounds on our planet, the composition and content of which regulate physiological and biochemical processes in all living organisms, from microorganisms to human beings [1,2,3]. They participate in natural and manmade cycles of the planet’s ecosystem, engage actively in complexation, and are known to have different toxic effects on living systems [2,4]. Many of the HM molecules are considered persistent pollutants [5].
HMs are always present in the environment; however, humankind’s anthropogenic activities tend to increase their quantities (Figure 1).
This contributes to air and soil pollution, contamination of groundwater, rivers, and oceans, and affects the yield and quality of agricultural, fruit, food, and medicinal crops, as well as human health [3,6].
The HMs include mostly transition metals of the periodic table whose atoms have complex and labile outermost electron shells [5,7]. Their specific characteristic distinguishing them from other metals and metalloids is that they are stable and non-degradable, meaning they persist in the environment and cannot be removed by means of chemical or biological transformation [8]. The UN Global Monitoring Program set up in 1973 only listed three of the most hazardous HM pollutants—lead, mercury, and cadmium (Cd). Another seven metals, copper, tin, chromium, molybdenum, cobalt, and nickel, were later added to the list, as well as three metalloids—antimony, arsenic, and selenium [9]. These HMs are among the most aggressive factors contributing to biosphere pollution, their amounts released into the environment being significantly higher than the scope of their natural occurrence [8]. They occur in the environment in various forms, including as free cations or an array of chemical and physicochemical compounds forming under different conditions and defined by the source of pollution, type of environment, presence of specific organic and inorganic substances, pH of the environment, the HM’s redox potential and other factors [6,10]. It needs to be mentioned that naturally occurring HMs engage in biochemical cycles 100 times less often, on average, than HMs coming from manmade sources of pollution [11,12]. HM pollution of the environment resulting from industrial waste disposal occurs locally, unlike the pervasive pollution by compounds produced from burning fuels (up to 95% in the form of high-dispersed aerosols).
Cd is one of the HMs that are widely spread in the natural environment and toxic for many living organisms [2,10]. The metal was discovered in 1817 by a German physician, Friedrich Stromeyer, as an element found in low concentrations in the natural environment [13]. At present, Cd content in the biosphere has grown significantly in many countries of the world due to its widespread industrial application, its ability to accumulate, and its low decomposition rate [1,5]. The residence time of Cd in the soil is 1 to 3 years, and 2 years in the nearshore sediments, whereas in ocean water, it can stay over 7000 years [14,15].
Cd is discharged into the environment by industrial plants producing paints, disinfectants, and alkaline batteries, as well as at non-ferrous metal smelting and ore processing plants dealing with copper, lead, and especially zinc ores (Figure 2).
Heavy metals released in the process of non-ferrous metal smelting (and Cd is a byproduct of zinc production and has an antagonistic effect on zinc) create grave problems for soil health [5]. Additionally, even when toxic waste production sites are located at a significant distance from farming lands, they nonetheless increase both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks for human health related to Cd content in the crops [3,12].
The farming industry also contributes to Cd release into the environment, particularly in phosphate fertilizers that contain Cd as an impurity [16]. The development of a cost-efficient and sustainable production process for removing Cd from phosphates and their derivatives is still a major challenge. This can be explained by the surging price of raw materials and energy and competition among producers of phosphate fertilizers that are valued by farmers for their enhanced effectiveness [17].
Another source of Cd contamination is wastewater, where its content can be very high. This is especially the case in East African countries, India, China, Saudi Arabia, and the European continent [18,19,20]. Additionally, since contamination areas inevitably border densely populated regions, there is a need for proper wastewater treatment and control mechanisms. In this regard, studies of HM removal from the liquid phase are of particular interest, focusing on methods of hydrothermal conversion, pollutant content control, and improved wastewater treatment (including by algae) [21,22].
Cd contamination of the biosphere has toxic effects on plants. It inhibits their growth, destroys their root system, and causes chlorosis and leaf necrosis [7,22]. Among other negative effects are changes in physiological processes, including photosynthesis [23], plant respiration [8], water exchange [24], as well as uptake, transport, and absorption of mineral nutrients [25].
Cd uptake by plants inflicts great harm on human and animal health as it moves along food chains (Figure 1). It damages their respiratory, digestive, and excretory systems [2]. Moreover, Cd accumulates in the human body, and as people grow older, the changes in their metabolic processes become increasingly more pronounced [26].
Thus, Cd and other HMs are always present in our planet’s biosphere, and their content depends on contamination sources, exposure time, the absorptive capacity of the environment, and a number of other factors. Despite the scientific community’s eagerness to study these issues, there are still many unclear aspects related to HM effects on various living organisms, their uptake and distribution in tissues, as well as assessment and understanding of HMs’ tolerance and adaptation mechanisms. This scientific review summarizes the information on the influence of Cd, as one of the most toxic HMs, on physiological and biochemical processes in plants, and their antioxidant system, including phenolic antioxidants as one of the most common representatives of secondary metabolism in plants, which play an important role in adaptation processes.

2. Main Plant Groups in Terms of HM Tolerance

Although many of the HMs present in the environment are highly phytotoxic, plants manage to survive by resisting their toxic effects [2]. To some extent, this is the result of their physiological and biological characteristics, specificity to the uptake of certain metallic elements, and successful strategies of adaptation to the toxic effects of these exogenous molecules [4,7].
All plants are presently divided into three large groups based on their sensitivity to HM effects.
The first group includes plant accumulators. This group of plants is of great interest to researchers in terms of studying plant response to HM effects and their practical application for phytoremediation purposes [27,28]. The group includes various metallophyte floras that colonize geochemical anomaly areas and have developed, in the process of evolution, constitutive mechanisms of HM tolerance [27]. To help the plants adapt to heavy metal exposure, new ecotypes and populations are formed that have enhanced genetic tolerance to metals [29]. The plants can accumulate HMs in metabolically inert organs and organelles or incorporate them into chelated complexes transforming them into physiologically safe forms [27].
Most plants that are resistant to HM toxicity are characterized by increased absorption of metallic elements, which is accounted for by metal detoxification mechanisms [28]. The discovery of hyperaccumulator plant species, capable of absorbing 50 to 500 times higher concentrations of HMs compared to other plants, spurred the development of phytoextraction technology [30]. There are presently about 400 known hyperaccumulator species (0.2% of all angiosperms), mostly from the families Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Caryo phyllaceae, Cyperaceae, Cunoniaceae, Fabaceae, Flacourtiaceae, Lamiaceae, Poaceae, Violaceae, and Euphorbiaceae [31,32]. Due to the mentioned properties, these species are increasingly used for bioremediation of contaminated areas.
There have been instances of HM uptake decrease in plants when HM-resistant ecotypes had lower metal concentrations in their tissues than non-resistant populations. This was registered for Silene maritime and Silene paradoxa, two species resistant to zinc (Zn) and Cd [4,33,34]; for Silene cucubalus and Silene vulgaris, a resistance to copper (Cu) [35,36]; and for Festuca ovina and Aster alpines, a resistance to lead (Pb) and Cd [27]. Reduced metal accumulation in plant cells and tissues can be the result of its intake slowdown and deposition to the root surface though binding to the plant’s slime layers [7,37,38]. This mechanism would have been one of the most effective ways to prevent HM uptake by plants; however, its natural occurrence is extremely rare.
The second group is called indicator plants. HM content in them is the same as in the surrounding soil [37,38]. This group of plants can absorb high concentrations of metals and accumulate them in the shoots and leaves, which reflects pollutant concentrations in the soil. The plants can be used as indicators of HM presence and for assessment of soil contamination levels. Phytomonitoring and phytoindication are the primary application fields for these plant species. Bioindicators of Cd, lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni) pollution include Chara baltica, Cladophora, Coccotylus truncatus, Furcellaria lumbricalis, Polysiphonia fucoides, Stuckenia pectinate, and Zanichellia palustris [39]; among bioindicators of Cd, copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) are Phragmites australis, Typha capensis, Spartina maritima [40]; and bioindicators of Cd, cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) include Patella vulgata and Fucus serratus [41].
The third group consists of excluder plants. This type of tolerance strategy is characterized by low HM concentrations in the plant cells despite the high levels in the surrounding soil [42]. The plants of this group block metal transport to the shoot system while accumulating these molecules in the roots. They can be an effective tool for soil stabilization, curbing the further erosion-related spread of HMs and phytostabilization.
Phytostabilization involves HM accumulation in the plant’s root system or in the soil zone adjacent to the roots—the rhizosphere [43]. This alters the chemical composition of the soil solution and activates the processes of absorption and precipitation of these molecules by the soil absorbing complex (SAC) [44]. Moreover, the redox enzymes of plants facilitate HM transition into less toxic forms during phytostabilization [43]. Excluder plants are actively grown in contaminated areas to prevent pollutants from migrating to groundwater reservoirs [45].
Thus, considerable differences in plant tolerance to HM toxicity are derived from their physiological and biochemical characteristics as well as the mechanisms they use to interact with metal molecules and absorb them. The investigation of these mechanisms and optimization strategy development for plant organisms are among the most important and topical areas of scientific research.

3. Inactivation of HMs in Plants

The absorption and deactivation of HM contaminants after their uptake by plants are explained by the action of two types of mechanisms found in plants—constitutive mechanisms, which are part of plant homeostasis, and adaptive mechanisms, triggered by exposure to stress [23,24]. These mechanisms contribute to three main processes taking place in plants.
1. Limitation of HM uptake by plants and individual plant organs. It proceeds with the help of chelators—compounds found in the plant’s root exudates that are capable of binding to toxic metal ions. Organic acids, amino acids, and phenolic compounds are examples of chelating agents [7,24,37]. For example, the root exudates of sorghum and tomato plants contain malic and oxalic acids, which reduce the plant’s sensitivity to the toxic effects of HMs [46]. Plant genotypes that had malic acid in their root exudates exhibited tolerance to high concentrations of aluminum (Al) in the soil solution [47]. Under nickel stress, histidine and nitrogen oxide acted as chelating agents toward the contaminants in the xylem cells of the plant genus Alyssum [48]. An increase in the concentration of these compounds was also registered for other plant species when exposed to various HMs [49].
Changes in the pH of the rhizosphere are observed in the presence of HMs, and Cd in particular, for cereal grass cultivars—its acidity tends to increase, resulting in reduced uptake of HMs by the plant’s root system [50]. The increase in the medium pH is caused by the effects of various root exudates that bind to metals and precipitate them to the apoplast, blocking their entry into the cell [51]. Some wheat species have an effective secretory system and can grow under HM toxicity stress [47].
2. Inactivation of the HMs entering the plant. This process involves a more widely spread mechanism of coping with metal toxicity [22,28]. There are basically two ways how plants carry this out: one, by forming insoluble inorganic compounds, and two, via intracellular binding to organic substances to form insoluble or soluble complexes with low physiological activity, as well as strong complexes with specifically induced substances.
In the first case, particles containing HMs in the form of phosphates, silicates, and sulfides are deposited in the cell. Thus, insoluble copper compounds were found in spinach cell cytoplasm when the surrounding environment contained toxic quantities of this metal [52]. Studies have found microcrystalline zinc-containing particles of low solubility in the epidermis of Silene cucubalus as well as rhizodermis and pericycle cells of Allium cepa [53,54]. Dense zinc-containing globules were localized within vacuoles of root cortical cells of Deschampsia caespitosa [55]. The formation of inorganic inclusions and granules is a long-term HM detoxification mechanism employed by plants.
Inorganic insoluble complexes are typically formed in the cell walls of plants, where most of the absorbed HMs are accumulated. They can be viewed as an HM-immobilizing compartment protecting the cytoplasm and cellular organelles from their toxic effects.
In rice species, the capacity for Cd retention in the cell wall is based on pectate formation occurring when metals interact with the cell wall pectins containing high concentrations of uronic acid and pectin methyl esterase (PME) with pronounced activity [56]. Apart from pectic substances, HMs also bind to cell wall polysaccharides.
Besides HM binding and isolation capacity of various chelators, there are data confirming changes in the physicochemical properties of cell walls when the plant is exposed to HMs, for example, an increase in cell wall lignification and suberin deposition observed in both in vivo and in vitro experiments [57,58].
The capacity of a plant organism for resisting HM effects is not limited to the barrier function of its cell walls that have low selectivity for HMs. There are other protective mechanisms that are employed when higher concentrations of pollutants enter plant cells from the contaminated environment. One is the cell membrane (plasmalemma), known to activate its barrier function under stress; the cytoplasm is yet another example as the HM binding takes place there, and the metal complexes and free ions are transported to vacuoles [59,60]. For example, the formation in the cytoplasm of soluble slow-dissociating complexes that are stable compounds of metal and citric or malic acids, and their entry into the tonoplast, further release of the metal, formation of different complexes involving citrates and oxalates, and possible transfer to the vacuoles, can also be considered an HM tolerance mechanism [51].
3. Changes in the metabolic pathways as a stress response of plants to HM toxicity. This is yet another defense mechanism devised by plants to help them to survive and adapt. Intensification of biosynthesis of high-molecular-weight compounds, polyamines, metallothioneins, and stress proteins, as well as changes in the hormonal balance of plant tissues, were observed in stressed plants [7,37].
The formation of metal-binding compounds such as phytochelatins (PCs) and metallothioneins (MTs) is a specific response of plant cells to HM toxicity [23,52]. Phytochelatin-dependent detoxification of HM ions and subsequent PC-metal complexes within vacuoles are very important processes for plant survival under anthropogenic stress [58,61,62]. This protective mechanism helps to avoid pollutant binding to physiologically important proteins and facilitates metal transport into the vacuoles. Post-translational protein modifications, particularly protein degradation by the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS), are vitally important for cell homeostasis as well as plant interaction with the surrounding environment and plant response to HM stress [63]. It has been shown that the ubiquitin ligase gene participates in the regulation of tomato plant tolerance to Cd [64].
The favored ligands for HM binding are thiols present in glutathione and PCs [65]. An increase in glutathione content is viewed as a means of boosting the metal-binding capacity of plant cells, as well as strengthening cellular defense against the harmful effects of oxidative stress. However, increasing biosynthesis alone seems insufficient to achieve even a small enhancement of the plant’s HM tolerance capacity. The decisive factor here is a vacuolar transporter (YCF1) of glutathione conjugates: glutathione synthetase (GS); the overexpression of this gene confers higher capacity for HM accumulation in plant cells, as was demonstrated for Arabidopsis plants [66].
Along with PC accumulation, a decrease in the glutathione pool was observed, which is accounted for by its role in PC formation [23,58]. Such mobile electron donors as glutathione regulate protein activity in the metabolic and signaling pathways through redox processes involving amino acid residues, thus forming protein interaction networks [67,68]. Mobile electron donors and their related enzymes are often viewed as part of integrative redox systems.
Pollutant tolerance depends on the capacity for active HM binding, in particular Cd, by non-protein thiols, which was observed in the roots and shoots of maize, rice, barley, and Setaria viridis [69]. Glutathione is the precursor of PCs, and phytochelatin synthase (PCS) is known to catalyze their production [68]. PCS is a constitutively expressed enzyme that is subject to post-translational activation by metals. The formation of thiolates (such as Cd–GS2), which act as high-affinity substrates for the enzyme, seems to be sufficient for its activation. PC synthesis is presumed to be one of the main factors of Cd tolerance in plants wherein most of the metal is chelated in the roots (with the exception of hyperaccumulator plants). Researchers believe that Cd-binding by non-protein thiols is exceptionally tight and chemically stable and, therefore, can be considered one of the most important HM detoxification mechanisms, which can be different depending on the plant species [66,69].
It has also been reported that under HM stress, including Cd, the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade transfers the signals perceived by cell membrane surface receptors to cells by means of phosphorylation and dephosphorylation and targets various effector proteins or transcriptional factors so as to evoke a stress response. Various signal molecules can activate the MAPK cascade through differentially expressed genes, leading to the antioxidant system activation in order to regulate plant responses to HMs. Transcriptional factors, located downstream of MAPK, are key to regulating plant responses to HMs and improving HM tolerance and accumulation in plants. An understanding of how HMs activate the expression of genes related to the MAPK cascade pathway and then phosphorylate the transcriptional factors can help us develop a regulation network and investigate molecular mechanisms underlying plant tolerance to metal-induced stress and capacity to accumulate HMs [70].

4. Cd, Its Uptake by Plants and Interaction with Other Metals

Cd is one of the most toxic and highly mobile pollutants capable of accumulating in different organs of plants [71]. The threshold of phytotoxic concentration of Cd varies across plant species and ecotypes depending on the metal’s concentration and the time and routes of the plants’ exposure to it.
A number of plants have been identified as Cd hyperaccumulators that demonstrate positive correlations between Cd concentrations and their morphological parameters. Such plants are capable of accumulating up to 100 mg kg−1 dry weight (DW) (0.01%) of Cd in the shoot, which is greater by a factor of 100 than Cd accumulation rates in plants not considered hyperaccumulators [42,43]. Some plants are capable of accumulating even more Cd. For example, Arabis gemmifera can accumulate up to 6000 mg kg−1 dry weight (DW) of Cd when cultivated in Cd solution. The bioconcentration factor (BCF) of Cd in Chromolaena odorata [72,73], Chara aculeolata and Nitella opaca [73] was found to be greater than 1000.
The plant response to Cd stress depends on the Cd concentration plants are exposed to. For instance, exposure of Alternanthera bettzickiana (Amaranthaceae) plants to 0.5 mmol and 1 mmol Cd concentrations resulted in their increased growth, increased biomass, increased levels of photosynthetic pigments, and increased activity of various enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase, whereas exposure of the same plants to higher concentrations of Cd, such as 2 mmol, resulted in a decrease in all the same parameters [74].
Cd enters plants mostly through absorption by the roots [25], which is why it affects the roots more compared to the shoots [69]. Inhibition of root elongation has been shown to be one of the earliest and most distinct symptoms of Cd toxicity [59]. This effect has been attributed to associated decreased water content in root tissues, depolymerization of microtubules of the cell cytoskeleton, and the formation of chromosome aberrations, which result in lower mitotic activities of meristematic cells [75]. Cd exposure has been seen to cause the formation of a more compact root system in plants due to inhibition of the main root elongation and proliferation of lateral roots that are less affected by Cd pollution [23,27]. Cd stress has been noted to result in greater root diameter in trees [76], which is associated with an increase in the size of parenchymal cells and cortical tissue expansion [77]. Exposure to Cd has been reported to inhibit root growth in nitrogen-fixing plants as well as alter their root structure by way of significantly decreased (up to 70%) root nodule formation [76]. Additionally, the major visible symptoms of Cd-induced toxicity in plants included root browning [59,78]. Thus, the observed changes in morphometrical and morphological parameters of roots have been proposed to be possible indicators for evaluating the toxicity of Cd in plants.
Chlorosis, necrosis, and drying are toxic symptoms of Cd stress in the foliage of plants [7]. According to Shrivastav P. et al. [48], the concentration of Cd in the leaves in excess of 5–10 mg kg−1 DW is toxic and causes the abovementioned changes in plant morphology. Recent research indicates that Cd is transported from the soil only into the growth area of the leaf blades while not being readily remobilized to other plant organs or tissues, the way it happens with some biogenic elements [24,59]. It has been reported that Cd tends to accumulate more and cause more visible toxicity signs in older leaves than in younger ones [79]. It has also been noted that Cd relocation to leaves by xylem occurs at a much slower rate than its potential translocation via phloem as part of compounds [25].
In addition to soil contamination, air pollution can also be a source of Cd accumulation in plants through foliage, with the subsequent emission of some Cd through transpiration. In cases of significant air pollution, foliar concentrations of Cd can be even higher than Cd root uptake [80]. Uptake of Cd together with aerosol or hydrosol particles of technogenic origin occurs through the gas exchange mechanism facilitated by the leaf surface as well as its substomatal cavities and mesophyll airspaces [81]. In such cases, Cd is not absorbed into the symplast.
Thus, Cd is predominantly accumulated in plants through the roots wherever the pollutant is present in the soil. The contribution of foliar uptake of Cd is relatively low and of significance only in the areas where the atmosphere is highly polluted by human activities.
Cd toxicity in plants is defined by its interaction with important macro- and micronutrients such as zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), manganese (Mg), copper (Cu), and silicon (Si). At the same time, Cd competes with other divalent cations of metals, metalloids, and transitional elements for complexation with soluble organic ligands. The presence of such competing ions in the soil can lead to decreased soil Cd availability to plants [59,82]. It has also been reported that the use of fertilizers containing K, Mg, and Si, as well as iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides, significantly decreased the soil bioavailability of Cd due to ion-exchange reactions and adsorption processes [83]. The presence of Cd in the nutrient solution has been noted to inhibit the translocation of other metals from roots to the aerial parts of the plants, as well as to affect the formation of phytochelatins. It has been observed that responses to excessive Cd content can vary among plant species. Thus, the same Cd concentrations have been associated with decreased levels of Cu root uptake by ryegrass, corn, cabbages, and clovers, increased Cu root uptake by rice, and unchanged levels of Cu root uptake by pumpkins and cucumbers [84]. Disturbance of ion homeostasis can also be caused by the loss of ions by the roots, such as K ions, due to altered activity of membrane enzymes or membrane damage [50].
The exogenous Ca had an antagonistic effect on Cd accumulation in plants when introduced with a nutrient solution via calcium channels [83]. Cd toxicity has been reported to hinder signaling processes in plants leading to stomatal closure, declining transpiration rate, and overall stunted growth. In particular, inhibited stomatal closure has been reported in tobacco plants [85] and mung bean (Vigna radiata) [86].
Cd phytotoxicity has been found to be in direct relationship with the Zn content in plants due to Cd’s ability to replace Zn in the metal–protein complexes of enzymes [4]. In most cases, low Zn content in plants has been observed to induce higher Cd absorption rates, and the other way around [87]. With comparable concentration levels of these two antagonist metals, however, Zn uptake exceeded Cd uptake at least twofold [88]. In some plants capable of hyperaccumulating Cd in the shoots, Cd accumulation was not inhibited by Zn, suggesting that Zn has no influence on the absorption and translocation of Cd in the underground and aboveground plant organs [89,90]. There is evidence that high concentrations of Zn and Cd in the soil can lead to increased Cd concentration in the aboveground organs of plants [91]. All this is not only indicative of the antagonistic relationship between Cd and Zn, but also suggests that there is a specific and efficient Cd transport system in plants [59,90].
Speaking of other essential elements and their interactions with Cd in plants, it is important to note the ability of some of them, such as Si, to render active heavy metal chemical forms inactive through complexation, deposition, and conversion of metallic ions into non-phytotoxic forms in less biologically active tissues, such as epidermal or storage tissues [59,92].
There have been reports about the interaction of Cd and Fe. Fe deficiency was observed in the roots of Amaranthus mangostanus plants exposed to high-concentration Cd solution [93]. At the same time, hyperaccumulator plants have been reported to increase their absorption rates of Cd and Fe when exposed to both [94].
Inhibited enzyme activity has also been reported due to Cd exposure [7,23]. This is associated both with Cd binding to the functional SH-groups in proteins and the disrupted ionic balance caused by decreased absorption of Zn, Fe, Cu, and other metals, as well as their impaired transport [7,72]. Cd-induced inhibition of phytoenzymes, in turn, reduces K uptake in plants, loss of K by cell organelles, and stunted translocation of Fe to leaves and fruit [24,37].
In general, Cd stress affects the uptake of many essential elements (Fe, Mg, Si, Zn, Cu, Ca, etc.), and in most cases, Cd is antagonistic towards them, competing for membrane transport. Additionally, Cd has been reported to affect the translocation of elements absorbed by the plant from the soil solution [59,89,90]. The processes of Cd uptake and absorption, its competition with other metals, and the resulting uptake of either metal in each case largely depend on the growing conditions of plants, their species, and metal accumulating capacities.

5. The Effect of Cd on Physiological and Biochemical Processes in Plants

Excessive Cd accumulation in plants can affect photosynthesis [23], respiration [8,24], water exchange and uptake, transport, and absorption of mineral nutrients [25]. Visible symptoms of Cd toxicity, such as chlorosis of leaves, root rot, wilt, etc., usually develop when its total concentration in the soil exceeds 8 mg/kg, its bioavailable concentration exceeds 0.001 mg/kg, or Cd concentration in plant tissues reaches 3–30 mg/kg [95,96]. The mentioned changes are the result of disrupted or altered physiological and biochemical processes of the plant organism we will discuss in this paper.
Water exchange. As for Cd effects on such an important physiological process as water exchange, it has been noted that Cd toxicity changes the water status in plant tissues by reducing their water content, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate as a result of cell vacuolization, ‘shrinkage’ of intracellular space, reduction in the chloroplast number and increased cell size [97]. It has been shown that Cd alters the plasma membrane permeability, including to water, which results in the reduction in water content in plant tissues and water balance disruption [23]. Thus, plants colonizing ecologically challenged regions are characterized by the lower water content of tissues and a reduced transpiration rate, which affects the thermal regime of leaf tissues [98]. In many cases, changes in the plant’s water status can lead to a number of physiological modifications, reducing its osmotic regulation effectiveness and cell wall elasticity, and damaging the water absorption capacity of the root [99]. The decline of water absorption capacity of the plant’s root system is primarily caused by inhibition of its formation, linear growth arrest of the taproot, and the slowdown of photoassimilate transport from the shoots to the roots. This also accelerates root tip necrosis, increases cell lignification and suberization, and drives up the content of abscisic acid, causing stomatal closure [100,101].
Cd was also shown to inhibit the process of seed swelling and, therefore, to reduce their germination speed. Reduced water content in the sprouts resulted in a water deficit at the early stages of plant ontogenesis, which was observed for Medicago sativa and other crop plants [102], pea [103], and rice [104]. Cd-induced inhibition of seed swelling, smaller seed size, and lower speed of germination were common manifestations found in Ocimum basilicum [105].
Photosynthesis. The photosynthetic system is one of the most sensitive indicator systems of plant physiological status. Cd stress severely affects such parameters as photochemical efficiency and photosynthetic intensity, as well as chlorophyll content in plants [106].
It has been established that Cd inhibits photosynthetic processes significantly, reducing the chlorophyll content in plants and destabilizing chlorophyll–protein complexes, which leads to photosynthetic apparatus damage. A decline in the photosynthetic pigment content under metal stress was mostly observed in the total chlorophyll content, especially chlorophyll a, as compared to carotenoids [107]. These changes are thought to be the consequence of inhibited biosynthesis of chlorophyll and its degradation [23]. It has been reported that Cd also affects the chlorophyll content indirectly by inducing micronutrient deficiency. Thus, the symptoms of Cd toxicity in plants are often similar to iron deficiency manifestations. Cd causes disorganization of chlorophyll–protein complexes that are combined or substituted with newly formed Cd–chlorophyll complexes. Cd stress caused a decrease in iron citrate transporter expression in the xylem parenchyma cells of plant roots, disrupting iron trafficking to the shoots [108].
It is also known that Cd causes bond degradation within thylakoid pigment–multiprotein complexes, disrupting their donor–acceptor interactions (coordinate bonds) and affecting chloroplast stability. It has been observed that Cd affects the light phase of photosynthesis by disrupting electron transport mainly related to photosystem II (PSII), which is the result of Calvin cycle enzyme inhibition, changes in thylakoid membrane structure, damage to plastoquinone pool as well as decreased activity of ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase (FNR), reduced quantum efficiency of PSII and electron transfer rate [109]. However, Cd effects on plant photosynthetic performance are species-specific and largely defined by its concentration in the soil solution [23,110].
Respiration. Another important energy-producing process in plants is respiration. Cd stress was shown to inhibit respiratory enzyme activity, such as succinate dehydrogenase, succinate cytochrome reductase, cytochrome oxidase, etc., affecting respiratory intensity in plant cells. The negative effect of the metal on the plant respiratory process is manifested through the damaged activity of the Krebs cycle enzymes and electron transport chain function and is one of the reasons for Cd-induced seed germination damage [109]. It has been reported that oxygen absorption by tobacco roots and isolated cells decreases in Cd presence [111]. Respiratory function intensification was reported in barley and oats under Cd exposure, which is accounted for by the increased activity of several respiratory enzymes [50,112]. However, high Cd concentrations produced the opposite effect [110]. Thus, higher doses of pollutants caused a decline in respiration intensity in rice, maize, and barley plants, which resulted from activity inhibition of the key enzymes of glycolysis, the pentose phosphate pathway, and the Krebs cycle [113,114].
Nitrogen metabolism. Cd affects nitrogen assimilation, a process responsible for stable growth and reproductive performance of higher plants [115]. It has been shown that Cd inhibits nitrogen metabolism by hindering the activity of nitrate and nitrite reductase, two enzymes participating in nitrate ion assimilation [116]. Cd also inhibited the activity of enzymes involved in ammonium ion assimilation, which hinders root nodule formation in leguminous plants, in particular Lupinus albus, as a result of sucrose synthase suppression and lower nitrogen fixation [117].
Enzyme activity regulation. As mentioned above, Cd toxicity affects enzyme activity [118]. This can be the result of its non-specific interaction with various complexing protein groups. The protein molecule can change its configuration and ‘open up’ new active groups leading to the modification of its properties. Moreover, HM ions, and Cd in particular, are capable of binding to active sites of enzymes and blocking them, as well as displacing the metal ion, which is essential for enzymatic activity, from the active site of metalloenzymes. The inactivation constant for HMs has a broad range, and for Cd ions, it is 10−6–3 × 10−5 M. Cd interaction with enzymes is rather complicated as Cd ions are not needed for enzymatic activity in plants. Thus, studies of HMs’ toxic effects on plants have shown an increase in enzymatic activity at low metal concentrations, which reflects the general plant response to the presence of toxic ions in the environment. However, in the case of higher concentrations of metal ions, with more of them getting to coordination sites, they have mostly inactivating effects [7,54].
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation. It is known that ROS molecules are produced during respiration and photosynthesis in all plant cells (Figure 3).
In stress conditions, including Cd stress, the number of ROS produced by plants increases, such as superoxide anion radical O2•−, hydroperoxyl radical HO2, hydroxyl radical OH, hydrogen peroxide H2O2, and singlet oxygen 1O2 [119]. Free radical accumulation leads to the so-called ‘oxidative burst’ affecting metabolism, initiating pathological processes, causing necrotic lesions in vegetative and generative plant organs, and even plant death [120]. Increased ROS formation in the cells results in the oxidation of lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins, DNA and RNA damage, and cytoskeleton disorganization [119,121].
It has been shown that Cd stress affects gene expression, as observed in raps and mint plants [122,123], altering protein biosynthesis. It can induce or inhibit enzyme activity and launch lipid peroxidation (LPO) processes, increasing ROS content in plant cells [60,120].
Thus, a significant increase in LPO activity, as an indicator of the plant stress response, and high levels of H2O2 accumulation were observed in Asian rice (Oryza sativa) and common pea (Pisum Sativum) sprouts under metal-induced stress. Sprouts of thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), wheat (Triticum vulgare), cucumber (Cucumis sativus), quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), and basil (Ocimum basilicum) exhibited a significant increase in H2O2 and O2•− levels and malondialdehyde (MDA) content when exposed to Cd [105,124]. It has also been reported that the sprouts of adzuki bean (Vigna angularis) exhibited increased lipoxygenase activity when exposed to excess concentrations of Cd, while field mint (Mentha arvensis) showed increased levels of H2O2 and LPO byproducts [115,125,126]. In general, it has been demonstrated that ROS act as signaling molecules and mediate different plant cell responses to metal-induced stress.
Thus, it can be said that almost all physiological processes occurring within the plant organism are affected by the toxic effects of Cd (Figure 4).
However, plants continue to grow and colonize Cd-contaminated areas employing various adaptation mechanisms [118].

6. Phenolic Antioxidants (AO) and Their Role in Stress-Coping Strategies

Investigation of plant responses to different types of stress is one of the most dynamically growing areas of biological sciences, which is confirmed by a significant increase in the number of publications, especially in recent years [52,58]. Acute interest in this topic is encouraged by the environmental changes taking place on our planet, mounting anthropogenic pressure, and the increasingly broad use of plants and plant-based products for human life support and health protection [127,128].
ROS and antioxidants (AOs). It is known that environmental stress induced by various factors, including Cd as one of the most toxic HMs, affects the metabolic homeostasis of the plant organism [23,24]. This is the result, to a great extent, of an imbalance between ROS generation and removal (Figure 5).
ROS are highly reactive chemicals that are considerably cytotoxic to all types of cells and cell formations [7]. An increase in ROS production in cells leads to oxidative stress [129] and, as a result, to various pathological processes and plant diseases, necrosis of the vegetative and generative plant organs, and even plant death [130]. At the cell level, ROS activities cause nucleic acid damage through deoxyribose oxidation; breaking of peptide bonds; initiation of the LPO process leading to increased membrane viscosity and disrupted diffusion; and accumulation of damaged and self-assembling proteins. High levels of ROS can cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death [120,129,131].
ROS can be produced in many plant cell compartments, including chloroplasts, mitochondria, peroxisomes, and plasma membranes [120]. In the chloroplast, the chlorophyll pigments absorb light quanta and become excited to their triplet state; and if the triplet chlorophyll is not quenched efficiently, charge recombination occurs, producing excited molecules of singlet oxygen 1O2, which diffuse outside the chloroplast to reach the cell wall and cytosol [126]. The superoxide anion radical O2•− reacts with H+, producing the next free radical, hydroperoxyl radical HO2•−, which is far more stable and reactive and can easily penetrate biological membranes. Similarly, H2O2 can be produced through the dismutation of O2•−/HO 2•− [132]. Chemically, H2O2 acts as a weak acid that is highly diffusible and stable and could cross the plasma membrane via aquaporins [121,132]. Another important ROS, OH, can be produced by the Fenton reaction, hydroperoxide activity in sunlight, and inner-sphere electron transfer [126]. It should be noted that ROS conversions in plant cells (scavenging and neutralization) are performed by AO activity [118,119,126]. These metabolites are present in lower concentrations compared to the oxidized substrate and can effectively slow down or inhibit its oxidation.
AO is divided into enzymatic and non-enzymatic, or high-molecular-weight and low-molecular-weight. The former group is represented by superoxide dismutase, catalase, various peroxidases, and other enzymes, while the latter include low-molecular-weight compounds such as glutathione, ascorbic acid, carotenoids, tocopherols, and phenolic compounds [67,133]. Today, phenolics generate a lot of scientific and practical interest as a component of the plant AO system [134]. It is known that they are capable of interrupting oxidation reactions occurring via the free radical chain mechanism, acting as ‘traps’ for ROS, and can also chelate heavy metals and inhibit metal-catalyzed free-radical oxidation reactions [126,135].
Phenolic compounds: structure and properties. Phenolic compounds are an important class of secondary metabolites found in plants. Polyphenols are formed in almost all plant cells. However, they perform a variety of functions, one of which is plant protection against abiotic and biotic stressors [136,137].
Phenolics represent a heterogeneous group of molecules that have different structures, chemical properties, and biological activity [138]. They all have in common an aromatic ring bearing one (simple phenolic compounds) or more (polyphenols) hydroxyl groups, attached directly to a carbon atom in one (hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids) or more (flavonoids) benzene rings.
Most representatives of this diverse group of specialized metabolites are easily oxidized, which results in the formation of highly reactive intermediates such as semiquinone radicals or orthoquinones [138,139]. They inactivate free radicals, thus protecting plant cells against ROS. The AO activity of phenolic compounds depends on the number of OH groups in their molecules [140,141]. Thus, compounds with three or more hydroxyl groups have high AO activity. It is also essential that these groups be located at the C-3′ and C-4′ positions. Additionally, the 2,3-double bond in conjugation with a C-4′- oxo functional group or the presence of OH groups at the C-5′ and C-3 positions with a carbonyl group enhance the reactive capacity even more. Phenolic compounds are very diverse and classified according to their structure: from simple (hydroxybenzoic acids) to high-molecular-weight polymer molecules such as hydrolyzable and condensed tannins (proanthocyanidins) [136]. These secondary metabolites are generally found in plants in conjugated form rather than free, for example, with one or more sugar moieties linked by β-glycosidic bonds to the OH group (O-glycosides) or a carbon of the aromatic ring (C-glycosides). The sugar bonds can be monosaccharides, disaccharides, or even oligosaccharides, the most common being glucose, galactose, and rhamnose [127].
Phenol is the simplest phenolic compound which has one aromatic ring and one phenolic hydroxyl group. All the other phenolic compounds have a more complex structure (Figure 6).
Phenolic compounds with one aromatic ring include hydroxybenzoic acids such as vanillic, salicylic, protocatechuic, and gallic, as well as phenylpropanoids, including hydroxycinnamic, sinapic, and caffeic acids [138,139]. The formation of these metabolites in various plant species was discussed in a number of reviews. According to research data, the number of plant polyphenols exceeds 10,000 [139,142]. Additionally, new compounds continue to be identified due to the broadening of research methodology and active use of high-performance chromatography, mass spectrometry, and other techniques [143]. The processes of hydroxylation, methylation, glycosylation, and acylation of the two benzene rings, A and B, contribute greatly to the diversity of phenolic structural modifications.
Among the most structurally diverse and widespread phenolic compounds are flavonoids—representatives of the largest class of plant polyphenolic compounds with a 15-carbon basic skeleton (C3-C6-C3) that exhibit high AO activity [142]. Over 5000 flavonoids have been identified to date [144]. Their molecules contain two benzene rings connected by a 3-carbon linking chain and a various number of hydroxyl groups (Figure 6).
Despite structural similarities, flavonoids can differ in their properties depending on the positions of the carbon ions to which hydrogen substituents (-OH, -OCH3, -CH3) are attached, the presence of asymmetric carbons, and the oxidation (or reduction) level of the 3-carbon chain.
Significant progress has been achieved in the research of phenolic compound biosynthesis [145,146]. Phenolics are synthesized through two metabolic pathways—the shikimic acid pathway and the acetic acid pathway (also called acetate-malonate or polyketide) (Figure 7).
All the metabolites, enzymes, and genes involved in this process have been studied [137,147].
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and phenolic bio-AOs. Phenolic compounds are known to neutralize stress-induced changes in plants and modulate the ROS signaling cascade, which forms the basis of their regulatory functions [132,138]. This effect is based on their non-specific redox reactions with small molecules, radicals, and ions [137,144]. It is defined by polyphenols’ capacity to directly interact with free radicals and remove them from the sites of generation [132]. This is performed with the help of preventive and antiradical mechanisms [148]. The preventive mechanism inhibits processes leading to the formation of initiating radicals, while the antiradical mechanism involves AO compounds ‘intercepting’ radical anions and hydroxyl radicals, inhibiting the free radical oxidation reaction chain or interrupting the generation process that has already started.
Reactions between phenolic compounds and free radicals proceed at a very high rate and are accompanied by the formation of phenols of phenoxy radicals as reaction intermediates. Then, these unstable compounds can become derivatives of the parent phenolic compound or enter another cycle of redox reactions [148]. The phenoxy radical reactivity and the structure of compounds it transforms into depend on the structure of the original molecule as well as the reaction conditions.
As previously noted, one of the reaction mechanisms occurring between flavonoids and ROS (superoxide anion radical) is the one-electron reduction in the superoxide anion leading to the generation of hydrogen peroxide [149]. Flavonols are the most potent reducing agents that quench superoxide, in particular quercetin, as it bears a free catechol moiety. It has been established that quercetin and its derivatives, as representatives of the bioflavonoid class, play an important role in the adaptive reactions of plant organisms due to their capacity for ROS signal transduction, which is seen as their priority function [150].
It is known that phenolic compounds are involved in plant cell photoprotection mechanisms, and their biosynthesis is significantly activated by photosynthetically active radiation [151,152] and also when the redox equilibrium of photosynthetic reactions is upset [153,154]. It should be noted that not only flavonoids but also phenylpropanoids, including hydroxycinnamic acid derivatives, can absorb solar UV-B radiation [155].
The AO activity of phenolic compounds is also explained by their high metal-chelating capacity for metals that induce oxidative stress, protecting the cells from its effects [156,157,158]. This capacity is based on the presence of functional groups—one carbonyl and multiple hydroxyl groups [159]. Chelation of metal ions by some flavonoids (through the carbonyl group or π-electrons of these molecules) was successfully applied for the synthesis of anisotropic Au nanoparticles and quasispheroidal Ag nanoparticles from Lawsonia inermis [158]. Phenolic compounds were reported to participate in metal ion reduction by converting internal ketones to carboxylic acids [157,160]. This effect is supposed to depend on the secondary metabolite structure and the number of hydroxyl groups in their molecule [58,161]. It was also noted that the pH value of the reaction medium influenced the capacity of phenolic compounds, in particular flavonoids, for interaction with metal ions [162,163,164]. Furthermore, the properties of these secondary metabolites within the flavonoid–metal complex were different from those of the original compounds [165]. It has been shown that the resulting flavonoid–metal complexes have a higher potential for ROS binding and preventing lipid oxidation, because their flavonoid components exhibit higher reactivity towards superoxide anion radicals [166]. Flavonoids are also known to have a reducing power towards the ions of Fe (III) and Cu (II), upon which the evaluation method of phenolic electron-donating activity is based [163,167].
Additionally, it has been found that free flavonoids present in plant cells (in the form of aglycones) have higher complexing potential towards Cd compared to their glycoside forms, which has a significant influence on plant metal tolerance [168,169]. It has been noted that the polyphenol complexation of Cd increases the transport of this metal in the plant organism [135]. It should be mentioned that flavonoid complexes with HM ions can have varied stoichiometry. Quercetin, for example, can form complexes with different metal-to-quercetin ratios and varying lipophilicity values [170]. Thus, flavonoid-dominated complexes are more lipophilic than free flavonoids, whereas complexes with high metal content are more water-soluble. The stoichiometry of forming complexes determines the nature of their interaction with the phospholipid bilayer and can influence its physicochemical properties, and protective and AO effects [156,171].
There is yet another mechanism responsible for the AO potential of polyphenols. It has been reported that as lipid peroxide (LOOH) reacts with metal ions, its structure can be damaged, which leads to the O–O bond cleavage and generation of lipid alkoxyl radicals, which initiate free radical chain oxidation. Meanwhile, phenolic compounds inhibit the process of LPO by trapping lipid alkoxyl radicals. The process is defined by the structure of the phenolic compound, the hydroxyl group numbers, and the positions in its molecule [172].
Some phenolic compounds can be the source of ROS themselves, exhibiting prooxidant properties, the same as enzymatic AOs [169]. Thus, the formation of superoxide anions was observed at neutral pH values as a result of the auto-oxidation of a number of phenolic compounds found in plants, such as gossypol [173]. It has also been reported that flavan-3-ols found in tea plants, which are characterized by their meta-5,7-dihydroxy-substituted A-ring and catechol or pyrogallol B-ring, can easily be oxidized. This mechanism was studied in great detail [174]. The auto-oxidation of catechins, catalyzed by the endogenous enzymes polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase, can take place even when the enzymes are inactivated or removed. It has been noted that the main structures promoting auto-oxidative processes epicatechin and epigallocatechin, two of the chief catechins found in green tea, possessed a combination of an extended conjugated system, fused rings, and at least one conjugated carbonyl group [175].
Phenolic compounds and Cd. The investigation of Cd effects on polyphenol accumulation and levels of the plant stress response is among the most dynamically growing areas of plant biology [132,176]. In most cases, stressed plants experienced a significant rise in the content of these secondary metabolites (Table 1).
However, it depends on plant species characteristics, vegetation regime (light, salinity, UV radiation, etc.), metal dose, and length of exposure. It has been reported that the polyphenol content in the plants of the Asteraceae family (wild chamomile—Matricaria chamomilla) increased under metal-induced stress [177].
Moreover, even low Cd concentrations boosted their capacity for flavonoid accumulation, as shown for several plant organisms [178,179], and increased the polyphenolic pool in the plants of Vaccinium corybosum (Ericaceae family) [176] and Hypoxis hemerocallidea [179]. A similar trend was observed for callus cultures of Linum usitatissimum [57]. As for the callus culture of Camellia sinensis, characterized by a high capacity for phenolic compounds production, its cultivation in the Cd-containing medium increased the pooling of phenolics, including flavans [180]. At the same time, an increase in the formation of lipid peroxidation primary products (conjugated dienes) was observed, accompanied by a drop in secondary product content (malondialdehyde), which suggests a rapid cellular response of the stressed tea plant [181].
It has been shown that various ‘defense’ agents are produced by plants as a response to Cd stress, and this process is species-specific. Grasses, for example, synthesize tricine, while legume plants produce compounds with sulfhydryl groups and cabbages—compounds with both phenolic and sulfhydryl groups [182].
Table 1. The effects of Cd on phenolic content (PC) in plants.
Table 1. The effects of Cd on phenolic content (PC) in plants.
Plant SpeciesPlants’ OrgansConcentration
Cd
PCPC LevelReference
Matricaria chamomillRoots, shoots4.5 and 16.5 mg Cd/kg soilTotal PCIncrease[177]
Malva parvifloraRoots, shoots40 μM CdTotal PC, flavonoidsIncrease[179]
Vaccinium corymbosumIn vitro plantlets50 and 100 μM CdTotal PC,
chlorogenic acid
Increase[176]
Linum usitatissimumCallus culture15 мг/л CdTotal PCIncrease[57]
Camellia sinensisCallus culture25 мг/л CdTotal PC, flavansIncrease[180]
Prosopis glandulosaLeaf0.001 M CdTotal PCDecrease[183]
Gallic, vanillic, and caffeic acids, rutin, and kaempferol-3-O-glucosidesIncrease
Withania somniferaAboveground organs of seedlings100 and 300 µM CdTotal PC, flavonoidsIncrease[178]
In the case of Cd-induced stress, it is possible that the effect of secondary metabolite pooling in plants will be lacking. This can be explained by the plants’ use of other biochemical strategies, such as the synthesis of metallothioneins, which are known to be effective in bringing down Cd stress levels in various plant species [158,163]. Thus, the lack of polyphenol content increases in some Prosopis glandulosa Torr. plants (Fabaceae family) exposed to Cd stress can be the consequence of their AO system response damage due to high metal concentration effects, which is known to curb the plant’s capacity for the biosynthesis of these specialized metabolites [137,183].
In a number of cases, increased polyphenol accumulation in plant cells is accounted for by the activation of the key enzyme in their biosynthesis, phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL) (Figure 7). PAL helps to convert L-phenylalanine to cinnamic acid, one of the main precursors of all other phenolic compounds [58]. In HM-tolerant plants, for example, Cd stress led to an increase in PAL activity and the content of epidermal polyphenols, which act as chelators of metal ions and, through this, reduce the damaging effect of Cd. In some cases, the epidermal polyphenol content can decrease in the presence of Cd due to the disturbance of the AO system activity and the slowing down of the biosynthesis of new phenolic compounds [155]. The decrease observed in the pooling of quercetin, hydroxybenzoic and n-coumaric acids, together with PAL activity growth, suggests that secondary metabolites other than polyphenols are biosynthesized by the plants [183].
Anthocyanins and stress. Anthocyanins are among the most widespread flavonoids occurring in plants [184]. These compounds have AO properties, and since they are pooled predominantly in vacuoles close to ROS generation sites, they can rapidly enter into reactions with oxidative stress products. They, therefore, protect the plant against the inhibition of various physiological processes and promote plant adaptation to external factors [184,185].
It has been reported that anthocyanins are accumulated by various plant species exposed to HMs to an extent proportionate to pollutant emissions into the atmosphere [160,186]. It is believed that the biosynthesis of anthocyanins, which engage in oxygen radical detoxification processes, can be activated by the accumulation of such photolytic metabolites as superoxide anions, hydrogen peroxide, and singlet oxygen related to the activity of riboflavin, a photosensitizer, the content of which tends to increase under stress [160]. Anthocyanins are capable scavengers of superoxide radicals, which makes them effective endogenous AOs. They can reduce ROS toxicity and act as electron donors for peroxidase-mediated reactions, compensating for the lack of endogenous AOs, including ascorbic acid [187].
It has been demonstrated that HMs have an effect on the induction of anthocyanin biosynthesis. The most active metals in terms of inducing flavonoid accumulation are Cd and Cu. An increase in anthocyanin production was observed in wheat seedlings when exposed to Cd [147]. Additionally, the most stress-sensitive line exhibited a more intense induction capacity for anthocyanin biosynthesis, which is a prerequisite for successful stress coping. However, the AO properties of anthocyanins were eventually suppressed by high Cd concentrations, and their protective effect shrank.
Polyphenol biosynthesis genes and Cd. The biosynthesis of polyphenols, including anthocyanin flavonoids, and the role of enzymes and genes responsible for their formation are well documented [188]. The latter include phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), chalcone synthase (CHS), chalcone isomerase (CHI), anthocyanidin synthase (ANS), and others (Figure 8).
It has been shown that MYB, bHLH, WRKY, and a few other stress-responsive plant transcription factors regulate the expression of genes involved in the phenolic compound biosynthesis [189]. It has been reported that, under abiotic stress, anthocyanin accumulation in the top layer of plant epidermal cells is activated by the stress-induced ROS signal transduction with subsequent transcription of the regulatory factors that activate anthocyanin biosynthesis gene expression [178,190].
It is known that the molecular genetic basis of anthocyanin biosynthesis is common to various plant species, so the structural genes that code for the enzymes of this pathway are regulated by specific transcription factors. However, there are certain species-specific differences in their regulation mechanism [191,192], which allowed identifying anthocyanin biosynthesis patterns. Thus, an increase in the content of these secondary metabolites in stressed plants is accompanied by a higher transcript abundance of related genes encoding anthocyanin biosynthesis. This process depends on the stress type and intensity [193].
It has been shown that the upregulation of transcription of such genes as CHI, CHS, flavanone 3-hydroxylase (F3H), dihydroflavonol 4-reductase (DFR), and UDP-glucose: flavonoid 3-O-glucosyltransferase (UFGT) promotes anthocyanin biosynthesis in plants under metal-induced stress [147,189,194]. CHS gene activation in brassica napus (Brassicaceae family) under Cd stress was accompanied by the accumulation of anthocyanins, which act as metal chelators, reducing the damaging effect of the pollutant [195].
It has been established that the activation of genes inducing plant anthocyanin synthesis depends on the concentration of the HMs: it can only take place at low or moderate pollutant concentrations. At higher HM concentrations, the plants lose their ability to regulate genes effectively, which leads to their death [147]. It seems that the concentration dependence of this regulatory process is explained by strong oxidative stress caused by high metal concentrations and inhibiting plant capacity for the regulation of anthocyanin biosynthesis for protection and reparation purposes.
An increase in anthocyanin accumulation under Cd-induced toxic stress, together with the positive correlation between the pollutant content and flavonoid accumulation, suggests that their biosynthesis is a non-specific mechanism of plant adaptation to high metal concentrations, where the anthocyanin content can be used as an indicator of Cd contamination of the environment [196]. It has been assumed that anthocyanin synthesis activation is a stage of plant adaptation that determines the functioning of defense mechanisms under stress and promotes the acquisition of non-specific tolerance [187,195]. It has also been suggested that anthocyanins perform their protective function when stored inside vacuoles as vacuolar reserves [184,185]. Thus, according to the researchers working in this field of science, it can be concluded that anthocyanins are capable of additive interaction with other protective compounds founds in plants to eliminate the consequences of HM-induced stress and increase plants’ tolerance to their toxic effects.

7. Conclusions

Heavy metals are one of the most toxic compounds that are accumulated in significant quantities in the environment due to man-made human activity. Their impact leads to significant changes in the metabolism and viability of all inhabitants of our planet, from microorganisms to humans. The damaging effect of heavy metals is caused both by their direct action on the object, and is “mediated” by entering the body through food chains. In the latter case, it causes significant and even irreparable harm to the body, due to its “unpreparedness” and lack of protection systems.
The review provides information on the effects of HMs on metabolic processes and plant viability. The processes of inactivation and compartmentalization of these pollutants are reported. Much attention is paid to Cd as one of the most toxic representatives of HMs, the amount of which in the environment of many countries of the world has increased significantly in recent years due to anthropogenic human activity. It is this fact that explains the great attention paid by scientists of various specialties (biologists, ecologists, pharmacologists, and physicians) to the study of its effect on various biosystems.
Despite the significant progress in Cd research, many aspects of its action are still unclear. This concerns the mechanisms of receipt and inactivation of this pollutant in various representatives of the plant kingdom, which is important both for preserving their viability and productivity. Knowledge of physiological and biochemical processes, including under conditions of effective formation of reactive oxygen species in cells under the action of Cd, is necessary to develop a strategy for regulating plant adaptation, as follows from the material presented in the review. Phenolic antioxidants play an important role—they prevent the development of oxidative stress in plant cells caused by HMs, including Cd. By participating in the processes of complexation with pollutants, they prevent their absorption by plant tissues and reduce the negative consequences of anthropogenic activity. The stability of various plant objects, as well as their pharmacological value, depends on the regulation of the accumulation of polyphenols in plants, including their representatives, such as anthocyanins. Proceeding from this position, one of the important and relevant directions for further research may be the study of the accumulation and composition of these compounds of secondary metabolism, as well as the transcriptional and regulatory ability of plant tissues under the action of HMs.
All of the above allows us to conclude that due to the increase in the anthropogenic load on agrocenoses, further study of low-molecular-weight ligands, which include phenolic antioxidants, should be considered as an actively developing promising direction when conducting systematic monitoring of the elemental composition of plants. In addition, it plays an important role in improving the elemental status of plant products while maintaining its environmental safety.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; methodology, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; software, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; validation, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; formal analysis, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; investigation, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; resources, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; data curation, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; writing—review and editing, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; visualization, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; supervision, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; project administration, E.A.G. and N.V.Z.; funding acquisition, E.A.G. and N.V.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by assignments 122042600086-7 of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koller, M.; Saleh, H.M. Introductory chapter: Introducing heavy metals. In Heavy Metals, 2nd ed.; Saleh, H.M., Aglan, R., Eds.; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, H.; Reynolds, M. Cadmium exposure in living organisms: A short review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maqsood, Q.; Hussain, N.; Mumtaz, M.; Bilal, M.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Novel strategies and advancement in reducing heavy metals from the contaminated environment. Arch. Microbiol. 2022, 204, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Muszyńska, E.; Labudda, M. Dual role of metallic trace elements in stress biology—From negative to beneficial impact on plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cimboláková, I.; Uher, I.; Lakticova, K.; Vargová, M.; Kimáková, T.; Papajová, I. Heavy metals and the environment. Environ. Factors Affect. Hum. Health 2020, 10, 29–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jaiswal, A.; Verma, A.; Jaiswal, P. Detrimental effects of heavy metals in soil, plants, and aquatic ecosystems and in humans. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 2018, 37, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ghori, N.H.; Ghori, T.; Hayat, M.Q.; Imadi, S.R.; Gul, A.; Altay, V.; Ozturk, M. Heavy metal stress and responses in plants. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 1807–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, W.; Chen, D.; Zhang, X.; Liu, D.; Cheng, Y.; Shen, F. Role of plant respiratory burst oxidase homologs in stress responses. Free Radic. Res. 2018, 52, 826–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Vodianitskii Iu, N. On hazardous heavy metals/metalloids in soils. Bull. Soil Inst. VV Dokuchaev. 2011, 68, 56–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McLaughlin, M.J.; Smolders, E.; Zhao, F.J.; Grant, C.; Montalvo, D. Chapter One Managing cadmium in agricultural systems. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D., Ed.; Elesevier: Newark, DE, USA, 2021; Volume 166, pp. 1–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Addae, E.; Yirenya-Tawiah, D.; Nyame, F. Heavy metals concentration and distribution in soils and vegetation at Korle Lagoon area in Accra, Ghana. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2017, 3, 1405887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Latif, A.; Bilal, M.; Asghar, W.; Azeem, M.; Ahmad, M.I.; Abbas, A.; Ahmad, M.Z.; Shahzad, T. Heavy metal accumulation in vegetables and assessment of their potential health risk. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2018, 5, 2380–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lata, S.; Kaur, H.P.; Mishra, T. Cadmium bioremediation: A review. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2019, 10, 4120–4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Robards, K.; Worsfold, P. Cadmium: Toxicology and analysis. A review. Analyst 1991, 116, 549–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yunus, K.; Zuraidah, M.A.; John, A. A review on the accumulation of heavy metals in coastal sediment of Peninsular Malaysia. Ecofem. Clim. Chang. 2020, 1, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ulrich, A.E. Cadmium governance in Europe’s phosphate fertilizers: Not so fast? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Samrane, K.; Bouhaouss, A. Cadmium in phosphorous fertilizers: Balance and trends. Rasayan J. Chem. 2022, 15, 2103–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, B.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Yang, W.; Wang, W. Visualization analysis of graphene and its composites for heavy metal wastewater applications. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 27752–27760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nunes, N.; Ragonezi, C.; Gouveia, C.S.; Pinheiro de Carvalho, M.Â. Review of sewage sludge as a soil amendment in relation to current international guidelines: A heavy metal perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alamrani, N.A.; Almutairi, F.M.; Alatawi, N.M.; Mogharbel, A.T.; Al-Aoh, H.A.; Hajri, A.K.; Keshk, A.A.; Elsayed, N.H. Assessment and management of heavy metals pollution in Tabuk region Saudi Arabia, improvement for future development: A review. Wulfenia 2022, 29, 32–51. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, H.; Watson, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lu, H.; Liu, Z. Environment-enhancing process for algal wastewater treatment, heavy metal control and hydrothermal biofuel production: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 298, 122421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qin, S.; Liu, H.; Nie, Z.; Rengel, Z.; Gao, W.; Li, C.; Zhao, P. Toxicity of cadmium and its competition with mineral nutrients for uptake by plants: A review. Pedosphere 2020, 30, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ivanov, A.A.; Kosobryukhov, A.A. Ecophysiology of plants under cadmium toxicity: Photosynthetic and physiological responses. In Plant Ecophysiology and Adaptation under Climate Change: Mechanisms and Perspectives I.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 429–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zulfiqar, U.; Ayub, A.; Hussain, S.; Waraich, E.A.; El-Esawi, M.A.; Ishfaq, M.; Ahmad, M.; Ali, M.; Maqsood, M.F. Cadmium toxicity in plants: Recent progress on morpho-physiological effects and remediation strategies. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 212–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khaliq, M.A.; James, B.; Chen, Y.H.; Saqib, H.S.A.; Li, H.H.; Jayasuriya, P.; Guo, W. Uptake, translocation, and accumulation of Cd and its interaction with mineral nutrients (Fe, Zn, Ni, Ca, Mg) in upland rice. Chemosphere 2019, 215, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Suhani, I.; Sahab, S.; Srivastava, V.; Singh, R.P. Impact of cadmium pollution on food safety and human health. Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 2021, 27, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Baker, A.J.M.; McGrath, S.P.; Reeves, R.D.; Smith, J.A.C. Metal hyperaccumulator plants: A review of the ecology and physiology of a biological resource for phytoremediation of metal-polluted soils. In Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Water; Terry, N., Banuelos, G., Eds.; Phytoremediation of contaminated soils; Lewis Publisher: London, UK, 2020; pp. 85–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seregin, I.V.; Kozhevnikova, A.D. Low-molecular-weight ligands in plants: Role in metal homeostasis and hyperaccumulation. Photosyn. Res. 2021, 150, 51–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Hasnaoui, S.E.; Fahr, M.; Keller, C.; Levard, C.; Angeletti, B.; Chaurand, P.; Smouni, A. Screening of native plants growing on a Pb/Zn mining area in eastern Morocco: Perspectives for phytoremediation. Plants 2020, 9, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Yan, A.; Wang, Y.; Tan, S.N.; Mohd Yusof, M.L.; Ghosh, S.; Chen, Z. Phytoremediation: A promising approach for revegetation of heavy metal-polluted land. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bech, J. Special Issue on “Metallophytes for soil remediation”—Preface. Environ. Geochem. Health 2021, 43, 1319–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Devi, R.; Behera, B.; Raza, M.B.; Mangal, V.; Altaf, M.A.; Kumar, R.; Singh, B. An insight into microbes mediated heavy metal detoxification in plants: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 914–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mathys, W. Enzymes of heavy-metal-resistant and non-resistant populations of Silene cucubalus and their interaction with some heavy metals in vitro and in vivo. Physiol. Plant 1975, 33, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arnetoli, M.; Vooijs, R.; Gonnelli, C.; Gabbrielli, R.; Verkleij, J.A.; Schat, H. High-level Zn and Cd tolerance in Silene paradoxa L. from a moderately Cd-and Zn-contaminated copper mine tailing. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 156, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lolkema, P.C.; Vooijs, R. Copper tolerance in Silene cucubalus. Planta 1986, 167, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Koszelnik-Leszek, A.; Bielecki, K. Physiological responses of nonmetallicolous and serpentine Silene vulgaris ecotypes cultivated in different soils. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2021, 47, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Feki, K.; Tounsi, S.; Mrabet, M.; Mhadhbi, H.; Brini, F. Recent advances in physiological and molecular mechanisms of heavy metal accumulation in plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 64967–64986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yaashikaa, P.R.; Kumar, P.S.; Jeevanantham, S.; Saravanan, R. A review on bioremediation approach for heavy metal detoxification and accumulation in plants. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 301, 119035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zalewska, T.; Danowska, B. Marine environment status assessment based on macrophytobenthic plants as bio-indicators of heavy metals pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 118, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Phillips, D.P.; Human, L.R.D.; Adams, J.B. Wetland plants as indicators of heavy metal contamination. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Miramand, P.; Bentley, D. Heavy metal concentrations in two biological indicators (Patella vulgata and Fucus serratus) collected near the French nuclear fuel reprocessing plant of La Hague. Sci. Total Environ. 1992, 111, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sheoran, V.; Sheoran, A.S.; Poonia, P. Factors affecting phytoextraction: A review. Pedosphere 2016, 26, 148–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McGrath, S.P.; Zhao, F.J. Phytoextraction of metals and metalloids from contaminated soils. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. García-Sánchez, M.; Košnář, Z.; Mercl, F.; Aranda, E.; Tlustoš, P.A. Comparative study to evaluate natural attenuation, mycoaugmentation, phytoremediation, and microbial-assisted phytoremediation strategies for the bioremediation of an aged PAH-polluted soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ali, N.; Hadi, F. Phytoremediation of cadmium improved with the high production of endogenous phenolics and free proline contents in Parthenium hysterophorus plant treated exogenously with plant growth regulator and chelating agent. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 13305–13318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bali, A.S.; Sidhu, G.P.S.; Kumar, V. Root exudates ameliorate cadmium tolerance in plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 18, 1243–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rodrigues, M.; Ganança, J.F.T.; da Silva, E.M.; dos Santos, T.M.; Slaski, J.J.; Zimny, J.; Pinheiro de Carvalho, M.Â. Evidences of organic acids exudation in aluminium stress responses of two Madeiran wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) landraces. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 2019, 66, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shrivastav, P.; Prasad, M.; Singh, T.B.; Yadav, A.; Goyal, D.; Ali, A.; Dantu, P.K. Role of nutrients in plant growth and development. In Contaminants in Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 43–59. ISBN 978-3-030-41551-8. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dar, M.I.; Naikoo, M.I.; Green, I.D.; Sayeed, N.; Ali, B.; Khan, F.A. Heavy metal hyperaccumulation and hypertolerance in Brassicaceae. In Plants under Metal and Metalloid Stress; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 263–276. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kaznina, N.M.; Titov, A.F. The influence of cadmium on physiological processes and productivity of Poaceae plants. Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2014, 4, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sidhu, G.P.S.; Bali, A.S.; Bhardwaj, R. Role of organic acids in mitigating cadmium toxicity in plants. In Cadmium Tolerance in Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 255–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Katarína, K.; Elena, M.; Josef, J. Plant responses to stress induced by toxic metals and their nanoforms. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 479–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dueck, T.A.; Wolting, H.G.; Moet, D.R.; Pasman, F.J.M. Growth and reproduction of Silene cucubalus Wib. intermittently exposed to low concentrations of air pollutants, zinc and copper. New Phytol. 1987, 105, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yadav, V.; Arif, N.; Kováč, J.; Singh, V.P.; Tripathi, D.K.; Chauhan, D.K.; Vaculík, M. Structural modifications of plant organs and tissues by metals and metalloids in the environment: A review. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 159, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Steveninck, V.R.F.M.; Steveninck, V.M.E.; Fernando, D.R.; Horst, W.J.; Marschner, H. Deposition of zinc phytate in globular bodies in roots of Deschampsia caespitosa ecotypes; a detoxification mechanism? J. Plant Physiol. 1987, 131, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Haiying, Y.; Guo, J.; Li, Q.; Zhang, X.; Huang, H.; Huang, F.; Li, T. Characteristics of cadmium immobilization in the cell wall of root in a cadmium-safe rice line (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 2020, 241, 125095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goncharuk, E.A.; Zagoskina, N.V. Reaction of cells of long-lived flax varieties with contrasting resistance to the action of cadmium ions. Bulletin of Kharkiv National Agrarian University. Ser. Biol. 2016, 3, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
  58. Šamec, D.; Karalija, E.; Šola, I.; Bok, V.V.; Salopek-Sondi, B. The role of polyphenols in abiotic stress response: The influence of molecular structure. Plants 2021, 10, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sterckeman, T.; Thomine, S. Mechanisms of cadmium accumulation in plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2020, 39, 322–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kosakivska, I.V.; Babenko, L.M.; Romanenko, K.O.; Korotka, I.Y.; Potters, G. Molecular mechanisms of plant adaptive responses to heavy metals stress. Int. J. Cell Biol. 2021, 45, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hasan, M.K.; Cheng, Y.; Kanwar, M.K.; Chu, X.Y.; Ahammed, G.J.; Qi, Z.Y. Responses of plant proteins to heavy metal stress—A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhao, F.J.; Tang, Z.; Song, J.J.; Huang, X.Y.; Wang, P. Toxic metals and metalloids: Uptake, transport, detoxification, phytoremediation, and crop improvement for safer food. Mol. Plant 2022, 15, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Martí-Guillén, J.M.; Pardo-Hernández, M.; Martínez-Lorente, S.E.; Almagro, L.; Rivero, R.M. Redox post-translational modifications and their interplay in plant abiotic stress tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1027730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ahammed, G.J.; Li, C.X.; Li, X.; Liu, A.; Chen, S.; Zhou, J. Overexpression of tomato RING E3 ubiquitin ligase gene SlRING1 confers cadmium tolerance by attenuating cadmium accumulation and oxidative stress. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 173, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dou, X.; Dai, H.; Twardowska, I.; Wei, S. Hyperaccumulation of Cd by Rorippa globosa (Turcz.) Thell. from soil enriched with different Cd compounds, and impact of soil amendment with glutathione (GSH) on the hyperaccumulation efficiency. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 255, 113270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Gieroń, Ż.; Sitko, K.; Zieleźnik-Rusinowska, P.; Szopiński, M.; Rojek-Jelonek, M.; Rostański, A.; Rudnicka, M.; Małkowski, E. Ecophysiology of Arabidopsis arenosa, a new hyperaccumulator of Cd and Zn. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 412, 125052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Pradedova, E.V.; Nimaeva, O.D.; Salyaev, R.K. Redox processes in biological systems. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 64, 822–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hendrix, S.; Jozefczak, M.; Wójcik, M.; Deckers, J.; Vangronsveld, J.; Cuypers, A. Glutathione: A key player in metal chelation, nutrient homeostasis, cell cycle regulation and the DNA damage response in cadmium-exposed Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 154, 498–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kaznina, N.; Batova, Y.; Repkina, N.; Laidinen, G. Cadmium treatment effects on the growth and antioxidant system in barley plants under optimal and low temperatures. Acta Agric. Slov. 2018, 111, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, S.; Han, X.; Lu, Z.; Qiu, W.; Yu, M.; Li, H.; He, Z.; Zhuo, R. MAPK Cascades and Transcriptional Factors: Regulation of Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. He, S.Y.; He, Z.L.; Yang, X.E.; Stoella, P.J.; Baligar, V.C. Soil biogeochemistry, plant physiology, and phytoremediation of cadmium-contaminated soils. Adv. Agron. 2015, 134, 135–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tanhan, P.; Kruatrachue, M.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Chaiyarat, R. Uptake and accumulation of cadmium, lead and zinc by Siam weed [Chromolaena odorata (L.) King & Robinson]. Chemosphere 2007, 68, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sooksawat, N.; Meetam, M.; Kruatrachue, M.; Pokethitiyook, P.; Nathalang, K. Phytoremediation potential of charophytes: Bioaccumulation and toxicity studies of cadmium, lead and zinc. J. Environ. Sci. 2013, 25, 596–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Tauqeer, H.M.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, Q.; Saeed, R.; Iftikhar, U.; Ahmad, R.; Farid, M.; Abbasi, G.H. Phytoremediation of heavy metals by Alternanthera bettzickiana: Growth and physiological response. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 126, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Seth, C.S.; Misra, V.; Chauhan, L.K.S.; Singh, R.R. Genotoxicity of cadmium on root meristem cells of Allium cepa: Cytogenetic and Comet assay approach. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2008, 71, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hussain, A.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M. Morphological and physiological responses of plants to cadmium toxicity. In Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants; Hasanuzzaman, M., Prasad, M.N.V., Fujita, M., Eds.; Elsever: London, UK, 2019; pp. 47–72. [Google Scholar]
  77. Madhu, P.M.; Sadagopan, R.S. Effect of heavy metals on growth and development of cultivated plants with reference to cadmium, chromium and lead–a review. J. Stress Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 16, 84–102. [Google Scholar]
  78. Lux, A.; Martinka, M.; Vaculík, M.; White, P.J. Root responses to cadmium in the rhizosphere: A review. J. Exp. Bot. 2011, 62, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, W.; Wu, F.; Ding, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, F.; Wang, Y.; Yang, X. Cadmium accumulation and tolerance in seven ornamental willow genotypes. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 101, 644–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kumar, P.; Goud, E.L.; Devi, P.; Dey, S.R.; Dwivedi, P. Heavy Metals: Transport in Plants and Their Physiological and Toxicological Effects. In Plant Metal and Metalloid Transporters; Kumar, K., Srivastava, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bano CAmist, N.; Singh, N.B. Morphological and Anatomical Modifications of Plants for Environmental Stresses. In Molecular Plant Abiotic Stress; Roychoudhury, A., Tripathi, D., Eds.; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Amirahmadi, E.; Ghorbani, M.; Moudrý, J. Effects of Zeolite on Aggregation, Nutrient Availability, and Growth Characteristics of Corn (Zea mays L.) in Cadmium-Contaminated Soils. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Weijie, X.; Shuzhen, H.; Khan, M.A.; Yu, C.; Linlin, X.; Zebin, R.; Liu, H.; Zhenhua, C.; Shengwei, C.; Ye, Z.; et al. Effect of water and fertilization management on Cd immobilization and bioavailability in Cd-polluted paddy soil. Chemosphere 2021, 276, 130168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhang, Z.; Rengel, Z.; Meney, K. Cadmium accumulation and translocation in four emergent wetland species. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2010, 212, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Su, Y.Y.; Cheng, Y.Q.; Qin, C.; Ahmed, N.; Mu, Y.H.; Mustafad, N.S.; Ashraf, M.; Zhang, L.X. Exogenous acetylcholine alleviates cadmium-induced phytotoxicity by modulating photosynthetic metabolism and antioxidant potential in tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana). Photosynthetica 2020, 58, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aqeel, M.; Khalid, N.; Tufail, A.; Ahmad, R.Z.; Akhter, M.S.; Luqman, M.; Javed, M.T.; Irshad, M.K.; Alamri, S.; Hashem, M.; et al. Elucidating the distinct interactive impact of cadmium and nickel on growth, photosynthesis, metal-homeostasis, and yield responses of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) varieties. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 27376–27390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Adil, M.F.; Sehar, S.; Han, Z.; Lwalaba, J.L.W.; Jilani, G.; Zeng, F.; Chen, Z.-H.; Shamsi, I.H. Zinc alleviates cadmium toxicity by modulating photosynthesis, ROS homeostasis, and cation flux kinetics in rice. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 265, 114979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Du, J.; Zeng, J.; Ming, X.; He, Q.; Tao, Q.; Jiang, M.; Gao, S.; Li, X.; Lei, T.; Pan, Y.; et al. The presence of zinc reduced cadmium uptake and translocation in Cosmos bipinnatus seedlings under cadmium/zinc combined stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 151, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lasat, M.M.; Kochian, L.V. Physiology of Zn hyperaccumulation in Thlaspi caerulescens. In Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soil and Water; Terry, N., Bañuelos, G., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 159–169. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sytar, O.; Ghosh, S.; Malinska, H.; Zivcak, M.; Brestic, M. Physiological and molecular mechanisms of metal accumulation in hyperaccumulator plants. Physiol. Plant Copy 2021, 173, 148–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Guidi Nissim, W.; Palm, E.; Mancuso, S.; Azzarello, E. Trace element phytoextraction from contaminated soil: A case study under Mediterranean climate. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9114–9131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. García-Gómez, C.; Fernández, M.D. Impacts of metal oxide nanoparticles on seed germination, plant growth and development. Compr. Anal. Chem. 2019, 84, 75–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zou, R.; Wang, L.; Li, Y.C.; Tong, Z.; Huo, W.; Chi, K.; Fan, H. Cadmium absorption and translocation of amaranth (Amaranthus mangostanus L.) affected by iron deficiency. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Liu, Z.; Chen, W.; He, X. Evaluation of hyperaccumulation potentials to cadmium (Cd) in six ornamental species (compositae). Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 1464–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Dong, Q.; Liu, Y.; Liu, G.; Guo, Y.; Yang, Q.; Shi, J.; Hu, L.; Liang, Y.; Yin, Y.; Cai, Y.; et al. Aging and phytoavailability of newly introduced and legacy cadmium in paddy soil and their bioaccessibility in rice grain distinguished by enriched isotope tracing. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 125998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kaur, B.; Singh, B.P.; Devashree, Y. Heavy Metal Sequestration in Plants. In Heavy Metals in Plants Physiological to Molecular Approach; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 215–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Naeem, A.; Zafar, M.; Khalid, H.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Ahmad, Z.; Ayub, M.A.; Qayyum, M.F. Cadmium-Induced Imbalance in Nutrient and Water Uptake by Plants. In Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants; Elsevier: London, UK, 2019; pp. 299–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Urazgildin, R.V.; Kulagin, A.Y. Damage, Adaptations, and Strategies of Tree Species in Technogenesis Conditions: Structural and Functional Levels of Realization of Adaptive Potential. Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2022, 12, 441–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wani, K.I.; Zehra, A.; Choudhary, S.; Naeem, M.; Aftab, T. Cadmium, a Nonessential Heavy Metal: Uptake, Translocation, Signaling, Detoxification, and Impact on Amino Acid Metabolism. In Plant Metal and Metalloid Transporters; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Hatamian, M.; Nejad, A.R.; Kafi, M.; Souri, M.K.; Shahbazi, K. Growth characteristics of ornamental Judas tree (Cercis siliquastrum L.) seedling under different concentrations of lead and cadmium in irrigation water. Acta Sci. Pol. Hort Cultus 2019, 18, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kozhevnikova, A.D.; Seregin, I.V.; Aarts, M.G.M.; Schat, H. Intra-specific variation in zinc, cadmium and nickel hypertolerance and hyperaccumulation capacities in Noccaea caerulescens. Plant Soil 2020, 452, 479–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Popa, C.; Petrus, M.; Bratu, A.M. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Sprouts Respiratory Responses to Cadmium Stress Using IR LPAS. Molecules 2022, 27, 1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yan, L.; Zhou, N.; Guo, X.; Dong, Q.; Gu, W.; Wang, K.; Yang, Y. Nutrition and Safety Evaluation of Hydroponic-cultured Pea SproutunderLead and Cadmium Stress. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 474, p. 22031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mostofa, M.G.; Rahman, M.M.; Ansary, M.M.U.; Fujita, M.; Phan, L.-S. Tran Interactive effects of salicylic acid and nitric oxide in enhancing rice tolerance to cadmium stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fattahi, B.; Arzani, K.; Souri, M.K.; Barzegar, M. Effects of cadmium and lead on seed germination, morphological traits, and essential oil composition of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 138, 111584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Szopiński, M.; Szopiński, M.; Sitko, K.; Gieroń, Ż.; Rusinowski, S.; Corso, M.; Hermans, C.; Verbruggen, N.; Małkowski, E. Toxic effects of Cd and Zn on the photosynthetic apparatus of the Arabidopsis halleri and Arabidopsis arenosa pseudo-metallophytes. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. An, M.J.; Wang, H.; Fan, H.; Ippolito, J.A.; Meng, C.; Yulian, E.; Li, Y.; Wang, K.; Wei, C. Effects of modifiers on the growth, photosynthesis, and antioxidant enzymes of cotton under cadmium toxicity. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 1196–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Grajek, H.; Rydzyński, D.; Piotrowicz-Cieślak, A.; Herman, A.; Maciejczyk, M.; Wieczorek, Z. Cadmium ion-chlorophyll interaction–Examination of spectral properties and structure of the cadmium-chlorophyll complex and their relevance to photosynthesis inhibition. Chemosphere 2020, 261, 127434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Bansal, P.; Sharma, P. Effect of Pb2+ and Cd2+ on respiration and mitochondrial electron transport chain in germinating pea seeds (Pisum sativum L.). Indian J. Environ. Ecoplann. 2000, 3, 249–254, ISSN 00063134. [Google Scholar]
  110. Janeeshma, E.; Kalaji, H.M.; Puthur, J.T. Differential responses in the photosynthetic efficiency of Oryza sativa and Zea mays on exposure to Cd and Zn toxicity. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2021, 43, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Zhu, X.; Gui, X.; Ma, C.; Peng, W.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, W.; Hua, D.; et al. Evaluation of the cadmium phytoextraction potential of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) and rhizosphere micro-characteristics under different cadmium levels. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Özyiğit, İ.İ.; Baktibekova, D.; Hocaoglu-Ozyigit, A.; Kurmanbekova, G.; Chekirov, K.; Yalcin, I.E. The effects of cadmium on growth, some anatomical and physiological parameters of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int. J. Life Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 4, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kalai, T.; Chaoui, A.; Khamassi, K.; Jaime, A.; Silva, T.; Naceur, M.B.B.; Gouia, H.; Ben-Kaab, L.B. Cadmium and copper stress affect seedling growth and enzymatic activities in germinating barley seeds. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 765–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Banerjee, A.; Roychoudhury, A. Explicating the cross-talks between nanoparticles, signaling pathways and nutrient homeostasis during environmental stresses and xenobiotic toxicity for sustainable cultivation of cereals. Chemosphere 2021, 286, 131827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zaid, A.; Mohammad, F.; Fariduddin, Q. Plant growth regulators improve growth, photosynthesis, mineral nutrient and antioxidant system under cadmium stress in menthol mint (Mentha arvensis L.). Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2020, 26, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hussain, S.; Khaliq, A.; Noor, M.A.; Tanvee, M.; Hussain, H.A.; Hussain, S.; Shah, T.; Mehmood, T. Metal toxicity and nitrogen metabolism in plants: An overview. In The Carbon and Nitrogen Cycling in Soil; Datta, R., Meena, R.S., Pathan, S.I., Ceccherini, M.T., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2020; pp. 221–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Lebrazi, S.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Rhizobium-Legume Symbioses: Heavy metal effects and principal approaches for bioremediation of contaminated soil. In The Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R.S., Yadav, A.D.G.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2018; pp. 205–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Haider, F.U.; Liqun, C.; Coulter, J.A.; Cheema, S.A.; Wu, J.; Zhang, R.; Wenjun, M.; Farooq, M. Cadmium toxicity in plants: Impacts and remediation strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 211, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Juan, C.A.; Pérez de la Lastra, J.M.; Plou, F.J.; Pérez-Lebeña, E. The chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ROS) revisited: Outlining their role in biological macromolecules (DNA, lipids and proteins) and induced pathologies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 4642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Mittler, R.; Zandalinas, S.I.; Fichman, Y.; Van Breusegem, F. Reactive oxygen species signalling in plant stress responses. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2022, 23, 663–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sachdev, S.; Ansari, S.A.; Ansari, M.I.; Fujita, M.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Abiotic stress and reactive oxygen species: Generation, signaling, and defense mechanisms. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Fu, Y.; Mason, A.S.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, B.; Xiao, M.; Fu, D.; Yu, H. MicroRNA-mRNA expression profiles and their potential role in cadmium stress response in Brassica napus. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Azimychetabi, Z.; Nodehi, M.S.; Moghadam, T.K.; Motesharezadeh, B. Cadmium stress alters the essential oil composition and the expression of genes involved in their synthesis in peppermint (Mentha piperita L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 168, 113602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bamagoos, A.A.; Alharby, H.F.; Abbas, G. Differential uptake and translocation of cadmium and lead by Quinoa: A multivariate comparison of physiological and oxidative stress responses. Toxics 2022, 10, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ahanger, M.A.; Aziz, U.; Sahli, A.A.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Ahmad, P. Combined kinetin and spermidine treatments ameliorate growth and photosynthetic inhibition in Vigna angularis by up-regulating antioxidant and nitrogen metabolism under cadmium stress. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.H.M.B.; Zulfiqar, F.; Raza, A.; Mohsin, S.M.; Mahmud, J.A.; Fujita, M.; Fotopoulos, V. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under abiotic stress: Revisiting the crucial role of a universal defense regulator. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Eseberri, I.; Trepiana, J.; Léniz, A.; Gómez-García, I.; Carr-Ugarte, H.; González, M.; Portillo, M.P. Variability in the beneficial effects of phenolic compounds: A review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Roy, A.; Khan, A.; Ahmad, I.; Alghamdi, S.; Rajab, B.S.; Babalghith, A.O.; Alshahrani, M.Y.; Islam, S.; Islam, M.R. Flavonoids a bioactive compound from medicinal plants and its therapeutic applications. Biomed. Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 5445291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jakubczyk, K.; Dec, K.; Kałduńska, J.; Kawczuga, D.; Kochman, J.; Janda, K. Reactive oxygen species-sources, functions, oxidative damage. Pol. Merkur. Lek. Organ Pol. Tow. Lek. 2020, 48, 124–127. [Google Scholar]
  130. Sies, H.; Belousov, V.V.; Chandel, N.S.; Davies, M.J.; Jones, D.P.; Mann, G.E.; Murphy, M.P.; Yamamoto, M.; Winterbourn, C. Defining roles of specific reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cell biology and physiology. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2022, 23, 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Locato, V.; De Gara, L. Programmed cell death in plants: An overview. In Plant Programmed Cell Death: Methods and Protocols; De Gara, L., Locato, V., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–8. ISBN 978-1-4939-7668-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Sharma, A.; Shahzad, B.; Rehman, A.; Bhardwaj, R.; Landi, M.; Zheng, B. Response of phenylpropanoid pathway and the role of polyphenols in plants under abiotic stress. Molecules 2019, 24, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Kolupaev, Y.E.; Karpets, Y.; Yastreb, T.O.; Shemet, S.A.; Bhardwaj, R. Antioxidant system and plant cross-adaptation against metal excess and other environmental stressors. In Metal Toxicity in Higher Plants; Landi, M., Shemet, S.A., Fedenko, V.S., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 21–67. ISBN 978-1-53616-790-0. [Google Scholar]
  134. Dumanović, J.; Nepovimova, E.; Natić, M.; Kuča, K.; Jaćević, V. The significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense system in plants: A concise overview. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 552969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Mongkhonsin, B.; Nakbanpote, W.; Hokura, A.; Nuengchamnong, N.; Maneechai, S. Phenolic compounds responding to zinc and/or cadmium treatments in Gynura pseudochina (L.) DC. extracts and biomass. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 109, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Belščak-Cvitanović, A.; Durgo, K.; Huđek, A.; Bačun-Družina, V.; Komes, D. Overview of polyphenols and their properties. In Polyphenols: Properties, Recovery, and Applications; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 3–44. ISBN 978-0-12-813573-0. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Rana, B.; Chahal, K. Phenolic Compounds Under Stress. In Plant Metabolites under Environmental Stress, 1st ed.; Hithamani, G., Naveen, J., Pushpalatha, H.G., Eds.; Apple Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 203–218. ISBN 9781003304869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Olszowy, M. What is responsible for antioxidant properties of polyphenolic compounds from plants? Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 144, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Soto-Hernandez, M.; Garcia-Mateos, R.; Palma-Tenango, M. Plant Physiological Aspects of Phenolic Compounds; BoD—Books on Demand: Nordstedt, Germany, 2019; 120p, ISBN 978-1-78985-640-8. [Google Scholar]
  140. Platzer, M.; Kiese, S.; Herfellner, T.; Schweiggert-Weisz, U.; Miesbauer, O.; Eisner, P. Common trends and differences in antioxidant activity analysis of phenolic substances using single electron transfer based assays. Molecules 2021, 26, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Al-Mamary, M.A.; Moussa, Z. Antioxidant activity: The presence and impact of hydroxyl groups in small molecules of natural and synthetic origin. In Antioxidants—Benefits, Sources, Mechanisms of Action; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 318–377. ISBN 978-1-83968-866-9. [Google Scholar]
  142. Dias, M.C.; Pinto, D.C.G.A.; Silva, A.M.S. Plant flavonoids: Chemical characteristics and biological activity. Molecules 2021, 26, 5377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Santos, S.A.O.; Félix, R.; Pais, A.C.S.; Rocha, S.M.; Silvestre, A.J.D. The quest for phenolic compounds from macroalgae: A review of extraction and identification methodologies. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wen, W.; Alseekh, S.; Fernie, A.R. Conservation and diversification of flavonoid metabolism in the plant kingdom. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 55, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Chalaker-Scott, L.; Fuchigami, L.H. The role of phenolic compounds in plant stress responses. In Low Temperature Stress Physiology in Crops; CRC press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. De la Rosa, L.A.; Moreno-Escamilla, J.O.; Rodrigo-García, J.; Alvarez-Parrilla, E. Phenolic compounds. In Postharvest Physiology and Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables; Woodhead publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Shoeva, O.Y.; Khlestkina, E.K. Anthocyanins participate in the protection of wheat seedlings against cadmium stress. Cereal Res. Commun. 2018, 46, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Moazzen, A.; Öztinen, N.; Ak-Sakalli, E.; Koşar, M. Structure-antiradical activity relationships of 25 natural antioxidant phenolic compounds from different classes. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Jovanovic, S.V.; Steenken, S.; Tosic, M.; Marjanovic, B.; Simic, M.G. Flavonoids as antioxidants. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1994, 116, 4846–4851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Brunetti, C.; Fini, A.; Sebastiani, F.; Gori, A.; Tattini, M. Modulation of Phytohormone Signaling: A Primary Function of Flavonoids in Plant–Environment Interactions. Front.Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Yoon, H.I.; Kim, H.Y.; Kim, J.; Oh, M.-M.; Son, J.E. Quantitative Analysis of UV-B Radiation Interception in 3D Plant Structures and Intraindividual Distribution of Phenolic Contents. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Golovatskaya, I.F.; Laptev, N.I. Effect of UV-B radiation on plants growth, active constituents, and productivity. In Plants and Their Interaction to Environmental Pollution; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 25–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Horn, P.J. Where do the electrons go? How numerous redox processes drive phytochemical diversity: Redox processes in phytochemistry. Phytochem. Rev. 2021, 20, 367–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Igamberdiev, A.U.; Bykova, N.V. Mitochondria in photosynthetic cells: Coordinating redox control and energy balance. Plant Physiol. 2022, 191, 2104–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ferreyra, M.L.F.; Serra, P.; Casati, P. Recent advances on the roles of flavonoids as plant protective molecules after UV and high light exposure. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 173, 736–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tarakhovsky, Y.S.; Kim, Y.A.; Abdrasilov, B.S.; Muzafarov, E.N. Flavonoids: Biochemistry. Biophysics, Medicine; Synchrobook: Pushchino, Russia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  157. Juárez-Maldonado, A.; González-Morales, S.; Cabrera-De la Fuente, M.; Medrano-Macías, J.; Benavides-Mendoza, A. Nanometals as promoters of nutraceutical quality in crop plants. In Impact of Nanoscience in Food Industry; Grumezescu, A.M., Holban, A.M., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 277–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Nobahar, A.; Carlier, J.D.; Miguel, M.G.; Costa, M.C. A review of plant metabolites with metal interaction capacity: A green approach for industrial applications. BioMetals 2021, 34, 761–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Gebre, S.H. Bio-inspired synthesis of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles: The key role of phytochemicals. J. Clust. Sci. 2022, 34, 665–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Anjitha, K.S.; Sameena, P.P.; Puthur, J.T. Functional aspects of plant secondary metabolites in metal stress tolerance and their importance in pharmacology. Plant Stress 2021, 2, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Agati, G.; Azzarello, E.; Pollastri, S.; Tattini, M. Flavonoids as antioxidants in plants: Location and functional significance. Plant Sci. 2012, 196, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Slabbert, N.E. Complexation of Condensed Tannins with Metal Ions. In Plant Polyphenols; Hemingway, R.W., Laks, P.E., Eds.; Basic Life Sciences; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 421–436. ISBN 978-1-4613-6540-2. [Google Scholar]
  163. Benzie, I.F.F.; Devaki, M. The ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP) assay for non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity: Concepts, procedures, limitations and applications. In Measurement of Antioxidant Activity and Capacity: Recent Trends and Applications; Apak, R., Capanoglu, E., Shahidi, F., Eds.; Wiley: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 77–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Spiegel, M.; Cel, K.; Sroka, Z. The mechanistic insights into the role of pH and solvent on antiradical and prooxidant properties of polyphenols—Nine compounds case study. Food Chem. 2023, 407, 134677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Mucha, P.; Skoczyńska, A.; Małecka, M.; Hikisz, P.; Budzisz, E. Overview of the Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities of Selected Plant Compounds and Their Metal Ions Complexes. Molecules 2021, 26, 4886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Karak, P. Biological Activities of Flavonoids: An Overview. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2019, 10, 1567–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Pulido, R.; Bravo, L.; Saura-Calixto, F. Antioxidant activity of dietary polyphenols as determined by a modified ferric reducing/antioxidant power assay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 3396–3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Kao, T.H.; Chen, B.H. Functional components in soybean cake and their effects on antioxidant activity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 7544–7555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Eghbaliferiz, S.; Iranshahi, M. Prooxidant activity of polyphenols, flavonoids, anthocyanins and carotenoids: Updated review of mechanisms and catalyzing metals. Phytother. Res. 2016, 30, 1379–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Corrente, G.A.; Malacaria, L.; Beneduci, A.; Furia, E.; Marino, T.; Mazzone, G. Experimental and theoretical study on the coordination properties of quercetin towards aluminum(III), iron(III) and copper(II) in aqueous solution. J. Mol. Liq. 2021, 325, 115171–115182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Karonen, M. Insights into Polyphenol–Lipid Interactions: Chemical Methods, Molecular Aspects and Their Effects on Membrane Structures. Plants 2022, 11, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Milić, B.L.; Djilas, S.M.; Canadanovic-Brunet, J.M. Antioxidative activity of phenolic compounds on the metalion breakdown of lipid peroxidation system. Food Chem. 1998, 61, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Pandeya, D.; Campbell, L.M.; Puckhaber, L.; Suh, C.; Rathore, K.S. Gossypol and related compounds are produced and accumulate in the aboveground parts of the cotton plant, independent of roots as the source. Planta 2023, 257, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Zha, M.; Lian, L.; Wen, M.; Ercisli, S.; Ren, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, L. The Oxidation Mechanism of Flavan-3-ols by an Enzymatic Reaction Using Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics Combined with Captured o-Quinone Intermediates of Flavan-3-ols by o-Phenylenediamine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 5715–5727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Tan, J.; de Bruijn, W.J.C.; van Zadelhoff, A.; Lin, Z.; Vincken, J.P. Browning of Epicatechin (EC) and Epigallocatechin (EGC) by Auto-Oxidation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 13879–13887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Manquián-Cerda, K.; Cruces, E.; Escudey, M.; Zúñiga, G.; Calderón, R. Interactive effects of aluminum and cadmium on phenolic compounds, antioxidant enzyme activity and oxidative stress in blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) plantlets cultivated in vitro. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 150, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Kováčik, J.; Dresler, S.; Sowa, I.; Babula, P.; Antunes, E. Calcium-enriched biochar modulates cadmium uptake depending on external cadmium dose. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 313, 120178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Pandey, A.; Agrawal, M.; Agrawal, S.B. Ultraviolet-B and Heavy Metal-Induced Regulation of Secondary Metabolites in Medicinal Plants: A Review. Metabolites 2023, 13, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Zoufan, P.; Azad, Z.; Rahnama Ghahfarokhie, A.; Kolahi, M. Modification of Oxidative Stress through Changes in Some Indicators Related to Phenolic Metabolism in Malva Parviflora Exposed to Cadmium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 187, 109811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Zubova, M.; Nechaeva, T.; Kartashov, A.; Zagoskina, N. Regulation of the phenolic compounds accumulation in the tea-plant callus culture with a separate and combined effect of light and cadmium ions. Biol. Bull. 2020, 47, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Zagoskina, N.V.; Zubova, M.Y.; Nechaeva, T.L.; Zhivukhina, E.A. Action of cadmium ions on culture in vitro of tea (Camellia Sinensis L.) plant. Visn. Khar’kivs’kogo Natsional’nogo Agrar. Univ. 2015, 3, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  182. Jamla, M.; Khare, T.; Joshi, S.; Patil, S.; Penna, S.; Kumar, V. Omics approaches for understanding heavy metal responses and tolerance in plants. Curr. Plant Biol. 2021, 27, 100213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. González-Mendoza, D.; Troncoso-Rojas, R.; Gonzalez-Soto, T.; Grimaldo-Juarez, O.; Ceceña-Duran, C.; Duran-Hernandez, D.; Gutiérrez-Miceli, F. Changes in the phenylalanine ammonia lyase activity, total phenolic compounds, and flavonoids in Prosopis glandulosa treated with cadmium and copper. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018, 90, 1465–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Yan, W.; Li, J.; Lin, X.; Wang, L.; Yang, X.; Xia, X.; Ke, Q. Changes in plant anthocyanin levels in response to abiotic stresses: A meta-analysis. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2022, 16, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Xu, Z.; Rothstei, S.J. ROS-Induced anthocyanin production provides feedback protection by scavenging ROS and maintaining photosynthetic capacity in Arabidopsis. Plant Signal Behav. 2018, 13, e1451708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Mukherjee, S.; Chatterjee, N.; Sircar, A.; Maikap, S.; Singh, A.; Acharyya, S.; Paul, S. A Comparative Analysis of Heavy Metal Effects on Medicinal Plants. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2022, 195, 2483–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Kapoor, D.; Singh, S.; Kumar, V.; Romero, R.; Prasad, R.; Singh, J. Antioxidant enzymes regulation in plants in reference to reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS). Plant Gene 2019, 19, 100182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Bai, S.; Tao, R.; Tang, Y.; Yin, L.; Ma, Y.; Ni, J.; Teng, Y. BBX16, a B-box protein, positively regulates light-induced anthocyanin accumulation by activating MYB10 in red pear. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 1985–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Naing, A.H.; Kim, C.K. Abiotic stress-induced anthocyanins in plants: Their role in tolerance to abiotic stresses. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 172, 1711–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Altangerel, N.; Ariunbold, G.O.; Gorman, C.; Alkahtani, M.H.; Borrego, E.J.; Bohlmeyer, D.; Scully, M.O. In vivo diagnostics of early abiotic plant stress response via Raman spectroscopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 3393–3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Adzhieva, V.F.; Babak, O.G.; Shoeva, O.Y.; Kilchevsky, A.V.; Khlestkina, E.K. Molecular-genetic mechanisms underlying fruit and seed coloration in plants. Vavilov J. Genet. Breed. 2015, 19, 561–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Glagoleva, A.Y.; Shmakov, N.A.; Shoeva, O.Y.; Vasiliev, G.V.; Shatskaya, N.V.; Börner, A.; Khlestkina, E.K. Metabolic pathways and genes identified by RNA-seq analysis of barley near-isogenic lines differing by allelic state of the Black lemma and pericarp (Blp) gene. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Shoeva, O.Y.; Gordeeva, E.I.; Khlestkina, E.K. The Regulation of Anthocyanin Synthesis in the Wheat Pericarp. Molecules 2014, 19, 20266–20279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Chaves-Silva, S.; Dos Santos, A.L.; Chalfun-Júnior, A.; Zhao, J.; Peres, L.E.; Benedito, V.A. Understanding the genetic regulation of anthocyanin biosynthesis in plants–tools for breeding purple varieties of fruits and vegetables. Phytochemistry 2018, 153, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Chen, Y.Y.; Lu, H.Q.; Jiang, K.X.; Wang, Y.R.; Wang, Y.P.; Jiang, J.J. The Flavonoid Biosynthesis and Regulation in Brassica napus: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Fahad, S.; Saud, S.; Chen, Y.; Wu, C.; Wang, D. (Eds.) Abiotic Stress in Plants; BoD–Books on Demand: Nordstedt, Germany, 2021; p. 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Distribution of heavy metals in the environment.
Figure 1. Distribution of heavy metals in the environment.
Molecules 28 03921 g001
Figure 2. Sources of cadmium (Cd) in the biosphere.
Figure 2. Sources of cadmium (Cd) in the biosphere.
Molecules 28 03921 g002
Figure 3. Stress as an important factor leading to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species in plant cells and the consequences of their action.
Figure 3. Stress as an important factor leading to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species in plant cells and the consequences of their action.
Molecules 28 03921 g003
Figure 4. The penetration of cadmium into plants leads to changes in its morphology and metabolism.
Figure 4. The penetration of cadmium into plants leads to changes in its morphology and metabolism.
Molecules 28 03921 g004
Figure 5. Effect of cadmium (Cd) on the balance of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plant cells.
Figure 5. Effect of cadmium (Cd) on the balance of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plant cells.
Molecules 28 03921 g005
Figure 6. Structural formulas of the main classes of phenolic compounds (from PubChem).
Figure 6. Structural formulas of the main classes of phenolic compounds (from PubChem).
Molecules 28 03921 g006
Figure 7. The biosynthesis pathways of phenolics in plants.
Figure 7. The biosynthesis pathways of phenolics in plants.
Molecules 28 03921 g007
Figure 8. The role of phenolic compounds in protecting plants from the action of cadmium (Cd).
Figure 8. The role of phenolic compounds in protecting plants from the action of cadmium (Cd).
Molecules 28 03921 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Goncharuk, E.A.; Zagoskina, N.V. Heavy Metals, Their Phytotoxicity, and the Role of Phenolic Antioxidants in Plant Stress Responses with Focus on Cadmium: Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 3921. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28093921

AMA Style

Goncharuk EA, Zagoskina NV. Heavy Metals, Their Phytotoxicity, and the Role of Phenolic Antioxidants in Plant Stress Responses with Focus on Cadmium: Review. Molecules. 2023; 28(9):3921. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28093921

Chicago/Turabian Style

Goncharuk, Evgenia A., and Natalia V. Zagoskina. 2023. "Heavy Metals, Their Phytotoxicity, and the Role of Phenolic Antioxidants in Plant Stress Responses with Focus on Cadmium: Review" Molecules 28, no. 9: 3921. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28093921

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop