Abstract
Abstract Selenium (Se) is an essential micronutrient for humans, animals, and certain lower plants, but at higher concentrations Se becomes toxic to organisms. The boundary between the Se beneficial effect and its toxicity is narrow and depends on its chemical form, applied concentration, and other environmentally regulating factors. Due to the potential risk of toxicity in higher concentration, the aim of this study was to estimate the impact of increased concentrations of different forms of Se on the response of the wheat–soil–earthworm system. Soil, earthworms, and wheat grains were exposed to the Se in form of selenite and selenate in concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg kg −1 . As an indicator of oxidative stress in wheat, lipid peroxidation levels (LPO) and total H 2 O 2 content were determined, while antioxidative response was determined by catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), and glutathione reductase (GR) activities. The biomarker responses in earthworms were determined by acetylcholinesterase (AChE), carboxylesterase (CES), and antioxidative enzymes (CAT and glutathione S‐transferase) activities. Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms, while selenate application was more efficient, indicating higher bioaccumulation of this Se form. Both Se forms did not cause significant changes in the LPO level and H 2 O 2 content, while GPX activities were elevated in all treatments, suggesting that oxidative stress was not induced in wheat. In earthworms, Se significantly reduced activities of AChE and CAT at some concentrations, while CES activity was increased at all concentrations applied. This study showed significant impact of Se on measured biochemical responses in wheat and earthworms, indicating the disruption of homeostasis. Obtained results can serve as basis for further studies on Se effects and will help in including different aspects necessary for understanding of Se impact on different components of soil ecosystems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Selenite increased selenium content in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- selenitee1
- Outcome
- Se contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms”
e1“Soil, earthworms, and wheat grains were exposed to the Se in form of selenite and selenate in concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg kg −1 .”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenate increased selenium content in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- selenatee1
- Outcome
- Se contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms”
e1“Soil, earthworms, and wheat grains were exposed to the Se in form of selenite and selenate in concentrations of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg kg −1 .”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenate was more efficient than selenite for selenium bioaccumulation in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- selenatee0
- Outcome
- bioaccumulatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Selenitee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“selenate application was more efficient, indicating higher bioaccumulation of this Se form”
e1“Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither selenium form significantly changed wheat lipid peroxidation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Se formse0
- Outcome
- LPO levele0
- Direction
- did not cause significant changese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both Se forms did not cause significant changes in the LPO level and H 2 O 2 content”
e1“As an indicator of oxidative stress in wheat, lipid peroxidation levels (LPO) and total H 2 O 2 content were determined”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither selenium form significantly changed wheat hydrogen peroxide content.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Se formse0
- Outcome
- H 2 O 2 contente0
- Direction
- did not cause significant changese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both Se forms did not cause significant changes in the LPO level and H 2 O 2 content”
e1“As an indicator of oxidative stress in wheat, lipid peroxidation levels (LPO) and total H 2 O 2 content were determined”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat GPX activity rose under every selenium treatment.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Gene
- GPXe0
- Outcome
- GPX activitiese0
- Direction
- elevatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GPX activities were elevated in all treatments”
e1“As an indicator of oxidative stress in wheat, lipid peroxidation levels (LPO) and total H 2 O 2 content were determined, while antioxidative response was determined by catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), and glutathione reductase (GR) activities”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer that the selenium treatments did not induce oxidative stress in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- oxidative stress was not inducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suggesting that oxidative stress was not induced in wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenite increased selenium content in earthworms.
- Taxon
- earthwormsCrassiclitellatae0
- Treatment
- Selenitee0
- Outcome
- Se contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenate increased selenium content in earthworms.
- Taxon
- earthwormsCrassiclitellatae0
- Treatment
- selenatee0
- Outcome
- Se contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Selenite and selenate increased Se content in the wheat and earthworms”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenium reduced earthworm AChE activity at some concentrations.
- Taxon
- earthwormsCrassiclitellatae0
- Treatment
- See0
- Outcome
- AChEe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- at some concentrationse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In earthworms, Se significantly reduced activities of AChE and CAT at some concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenium reduced earthworm CAT activity at some concentrations.
- Taxon
- earthwormsCrassiclitellatae0
- Treatment
- See0
- Outcome
- CATe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- at some concentrationse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“In earthworms, Se significantly reduced activities of AChE and CAT at some concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Selenium increased earthworm CES activity at every applied concentration.
- Taxon
- earthwormsCrassiclitellatae1
- Treatment
- See1
- Outcome
- CES activitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- at all concentrations appliede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“while CES activity was increased at all concentrations applied”
e1“In earthworms, Se significantly reduced activities of AChE and CAT at some concentrations”
The same questions in other papers
selenium atom · physiology: oxidative · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.