Next Article in Journal
EGR1 Is Implicated in Right Ventricular Cardiac Remodeling Associated with Pulmonary Hypertension
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Bacillus subtilis T6-1 on the Rhizosphere Microbial Community Structure of Continuous Cropping Poplar
Previous Article in Journal
Differences in Extracellular NAD+ and NMN Metabolism on the Surface of Vascular Endothelial Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Recent Advances in Bacterial Amelioration of Plant Drought and Salt Stress
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Utilization of Legume-Nodule Bacterial Symbiosis in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils

1
Department of Molecular Biology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Konstantynów Street 1I, 20-708 Lublin, Poland
2
Laboratory of Biocontrol, Application and Production of EPN, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Konstantynów Street 1J, 20-708 Lublin, Poland
3
Institute of Physical Culture Studies, Medical College, University of Rzeszów, Cicha Street 2a, 35-326 Rzeszów, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 10 April 2022 / Revised: 24 April 2022 / Accepted: 25 April 2022 / Published: 27 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria: Mechanisms and Applications)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The legume–rhizobium symbiosis is one of the most beneficial interactions with high importance in agriculture, as it delivers nitrogen to plants and soil, thereby enhancing plant growth. Currently, this symbiosis is increasingly being exploited in phytoremediation of metal contaminated soil to improve soil fertility and simultaneously metal extraction or stabilization. Rhizobia increase phytoremediation directly by nitrogen fixation, protection of plants from pathogens, and production of plant growth-promoting factors and phytohormones.

Abstract

With the increasing industrial activity of the growing human population, the accumulation of various contaminants in soil, including heavy metals, has increased rapidly. Heavy metals as non-biodegradable elements persist in the soil environment and may pollute crop plants, further accumulating in the human body causing serious conditions. Hence, phytoremediation of land contamination as an environmental restoration technology is desirable for both human health and broad-sense ecology. Legumes (Fabaceae), which play a special role in nitrogen cycling, are dominant plants in contaminated areas. Therefore, the use of legumes and associated nitrogen-fixing rhizobia to reduce the concentrations or toxic effects of contaminants in the soil is environmentally friendly and becomes a promising strategy for phytoremediation and phytostabilization. Rhizobia, which have such plant growth-promoting (PGP) features as phosphorus solubilization, phytohormone synthesis, siderophore release, production of beneficial compounds for plants, and most of all nitrogen fixation, may promote legume growth while diminishing metal toxicity. The aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive description of the main effects of metal contaminants in nitrogen-fixing leguminous plants and the benefits of using the legume–rhizobium symbiosis with both wild-type and genetically modified plants and bacteria to enhance an efficient recovery of contaminated lands.

1. Introduction

Legumes (family Fabaceae), i.e., species that produce seeds in a pod, constitute the third largest family of flowering plants, consisting of more than 20,000 species. They include herbaceous plants, trees, shrubs, and creepers, with only a limited number used as human food [1]. Meeting the increasing demand for food is now an increasingly prominent issue. In this context, legume crops can play a significant role in human and animal nutrition [2]. The most common legumes used for human consumption include the following: faba bean (Vicia faba L.); bean (Faseolus vulgaris L.); mung bean (Vigna radiata L.), peas (Pisum sativum L.); chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.); lentis (Lens esculenta Medik.); peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.); lupin (Lupinus ssp.); cowpea (Vigna anguiculata L.); soybean (Glycine max L.) [3,4]. They provide a sustainable and affordable alternative to meat and are considered the second most important food source after cereals. They are an excellent source of superior quality protein with 20–45% of protein, complex carbohydrates (±60%) and dietary fiber (5–37%). Legumes do not have cholesterol and are generally low in fat, except for soybeans (±47%), peanuts (±45%) and chickpeas (±15%) and provide essential minerals and vitamins [5]. Furthermore, legumes also have medicinal functions due to their content of beneficial bioactive compounds, which play a role in the prevention of some diseases [6,7]. Increased consumption of grain legumes, and dietary supplements based on legumes, is associated with numerous beneficial health effects [8,9,10].
Legumes are also well known to offer indirect/direct benefits to agroecosystems. Numerous studies confirm that legumes can be cover crops (CCs). Legume CCs exert several positive effects, i.e., they improve soil fertility, prevent soil erosion, provide soil protection, and reduce weed infestation [11,12,13]. Legume crops are commonly used as green manure [14]. They enrich the soil with nitrogen (N) and thus provide a better environment for subsequent crops improving their growth and productivity [15]. Legumes can fix substantial amounts of free atmospheric nitrogen via symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing rhizobacteria (NFB) [16]. The availability of nitrogen from NFB reduces the need for N fertilizers in the legume crop to almost zero, saving costs related to the purchase and application of fertilizers (mineral or organic) [7,17]. The inclusion of legumes in crop rotations is a sustainable approach to reducing N fertilizer requirements and increasing subsequent crop yields [18,19]. Legume CCs reduce erosion risks by physically protecting the soil surface, improving soil structural properties, and increasing the soil organic carbon (C) concentration. An increase in organic C in the soil is one of the main factors contributing to increased soil stability, because organic C can bind soil particles and form stable macroaggregates [20]. In addition, legumes can be a useful means to control weeds in agroecosystems [11]. They can be planted with the crop or planted during the fallowing period, providing weed suppression through competition for light, soil water, and nutrients by creating a physical and chemical barrier [21,22]. Due to their environmental and socioeconomic benefits, legumes can be introduced in modern cropping systems to increase crop diversity and reduce use of external inputs [3,23].
Among the many environmental benefits provided by legumes, climate mitigation is worth mentioning, as these plants can contribute to reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O), compared to agricultural systems based on mineral N fertilization [24]. Legume crops emit around five to seven times less GHG per unit area compared to other crops, and significantly reduce N2O emission [25]. Legumes are considered appropriate crops for the recovery of marginal lands, especially heavy metal contaminated soils, through symbiosis with Rhizobacteria. They can be used as pioneer plants in areas where other plants are unable to grow [20,26].
The contamination of soil with heavy metals (HMs) is one of the most pressing environmental problems in Europe and throughout the world, especially in highly industrialized regions. HMs are non-degradable and can persist in the soil for a prolonged period, which poses a long-term threat for the environment. The industrialized economy, human population growth, and anthropogenic activities have led to a significant increase in the production and release of HMs into the environment in recent decades [27,28,29,30]. The nature of pollution is quite varied north-east Europe and eastern-central Europe are less affected by high concentrations of HMs, while most soil samples in Western Europe and the Mediterranean have concentrations above the threshold values of at least one kind of HM [31]. Contamination of soil with HMs poses a significant risk to both agroecosystems and human health through the food chain [32]. Phytoremediation, i.e., the use of plants to clean up contaminated areas, has emerged as an alternative to address this global concern [33,34]. Several legumes, especially Anthyllis, Cytisus, Lotus, Lupinus, Genista, Glycine, Ononis, Ornithopus, Pisum, several species of Trifolium, and Vicia, have been proposed as relevant species for phytoremediation [35], which in this case is called biorhizoremediation [36]. This technology is a natural and environmentally friendly method offering a real economic alternative for HM removal in contrast to physicochemical processes [37,38]. HMs in the environment are of both natural and anthropogenic origin. Natural sources of heavy metal contamination include rock weathering, soil erosion, forest fires, and volcanic activity; however, the most important sources are anthropogenic processes, including extensive mining, smelting, metallurgy, the industrial wastewater discharge, and coal combustion. Agriculture is an additional source of HM pollution, especially the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) [37,39,40,41,42]. Unlike organic pollutants, HMs once introduced into the environment cannot be broken down or biodegraded. Therefore, increased bioaccumulation of HMs is now being perceived as an imminent threat to the ecosystem and environment [43,44,45]. Numerous studies show the negative effect of HMs on the biological properties of soil, which in turn affect its long-term chemical and physical properties and the ability to support plant growth [46,47,48]. HMs affect the diversity and activity of soil microorganisms, inhibiting their growth and reproduction rate [49,50]. Moreover, the activity of enzymes in sites contaminated with HMs is reduced [51,52]. Contamination of soil by HMs is a global issue of growing importance due to their toxicity to human health [53,54,55,56]. Metals accumulate in the food chain through uptake at the primary producer level (plant roots take up HM ions) and then through consumption at the consumer level [57].
Ingestion of plant contaminated with HMs causes serious human health problems, such as carcinogenic effects, weak immunological mechanisms, mental growth retardation, cardiovascular complications, and other serious diseases of the liver, lung, kidney, and nervous system [58,59]. They additionally have an impact on cell organelles and components, such as cell membrane, mitochondria, nuclei, and lysosomes. Metal ions have emerged to interact with DNA and nuclear proteins, causing DNA damage [60]. The key roles in toxicity and carcinogenicity are played by arsenic (As), cadmium (Ca), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), and mercury (Hg). Due to their high degree of toxicity, they belong to the priority metals for human health and cause multiple organ damage, even at lower levels of exposure [61].
Attention is increasingly being paid to methods of HM removal from soil that are beneficial to the environment and contribute to sustainable development. These include the use of bioremediation carried out by microorganisms, plants, or a combination of both organisms for the treatment of HM polluted soils [62,63]. The emphasis is that phytoremediation-based strategies are green technologies that are cost-effective and can be used as long-term solutions [64,65,66]. Thus, the aim of this review is to provide comprehensive information about the main effects of metal contaminants on nitrogen-fixing leguminous plants, the metal tolerance/resistance mechanism of the legume–rhizobium symbiotic system, including the use of genetically modified symbionts, in HM contaminated soils, and the benefits of biorhizoremediation in efficient restoration of HM contaminated lands.

2. Toxic Effect of Metal Stress on Plants

Heavy metals in low concentration play an important role in plant development processes. Some of them for example cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), and cooper (Cu) are essential micronutrients for proper growth and are involved in important metabolic processes in plants [67,68]. Furthermore, HMs are also considered cofactors of various cellular enzymes, and actively participate in several oxidation-reduction reactions [69,70]. Although HMs are naturally present in soils, when they exceed their threshold concentrations, their actions are considered toxic to plant development [62,71], as presented in Table 1. Some of the direct toxic effects caused by high metal concentrations include the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), causing oxidative stress, inhibiting cytoplasmic enzymes, and causing damage to cell structures (e.g., DNA, proteins, lipids) [72,73]. Furthermore, excessive concentrations of HMs inhibit such physiological processes as photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, mineral nutrition, biomass production and may consequently cause plant death [70,74,75,76]. The toxicity of metals has an adverse effect on the roots, reducing the plant’s ability to absorb water and nutrients. Consequently, disturbance in the functioning of roots and leaves affect such processes as flowering, fruiting, and seed formation [77].
HM ions present in the soil are taken along with nutrients in the water and incorporated into plant tissues. Plant roots play the most vital role in the uptake and translocation of HMs. Metals first enter the root cells with the help of transporters and are then transported into the shoot system [110]. Exposed to HMs, plants have developed mechanisms to detoxify the adverse effect of HMs, i.e., avoidance and tolerance. The avoidance strategy refers to the ability of plants to limit the uptake of HMs. In this strategy, an important role is played by mycorrhizas, extracellular exudates (organic acids and amino acids) and the cell wall. In turn, the tolerance strategy involves intracellular defense, once HM ions enter the cytosol. This is achieved mainly through chelation by complexation of HM ions with ligands. Phytochelatins (PCs) and metallothioneins (MTs) are among the most common peptide ligands [111,112,113,114,115]. In plant–microbe interaction, PCs and MTs as metal-binding proteins (MBPs) increase the accumulation and tolerance/resistance of HMs [116]. During HM binding, the HM absorption occurs. Then, HMs are translocated into roots and shoot from the rhizosphere zone, where their various intracellular mechanisms and cytosolic approaches are used for HM detoxification by PCs [117]. After chelation, the complexes of ligands with HMs are transported to the vacuole where those complexes are stored without toxicity [114,115,116]. In plants, there are four MT genes present: in roots (MT1 gene), in leaves (MT2 gene), in ripe fruit (MT3 gene), and in seeds (PEC/pecMT gene). Activation of the MT4 gene causes an increase in tolerance to metal ions, both Cu and Zn, in the leaves and roots of host plant [118,119]. Moreover, during various stress conditions including HM stress, plants and their plant growth-promoting (PGP) rhizobacteria (PGPB) adopt to different mechanisms of defense, such as the compartmentalization, the formation of complexes, exclusion, as well as the secretion of MBPs [116].
Plants uptake HMs from the rhizospheric system into roots mainly through two pathways, (1) the symplastic pathway (active transport through the plasma membrane of cell roots via specific ion channels or (2) the apoplastic pathway (passive diffusion) between cell walls [120,121]. The uptake and translocation of HMs in plants take place through specialized transporters located in the plasma membrane of root cells. These transporters represent several families, i.e., zinc–iron permease (ZIP), HM transport ATPase, natural resistant associated macrophage protein (NRAMP), cation diffusion facilitator (CDF) and ATP-binding cassette (ABC) [122,123,124]. Transporters of the ZIP family are involved in HM accumulation processes including the uptake, transport, and detoxification of many cations (e.g., Zn, Fe, Cd, Cu, Mn) from root to shoot [125,126]. ATPases are involved in the transport of HMs in long-distance root-to-shoot translocation (such as Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb) and play a key role in metal homeostasis and tolerance [127]. NRAMP are also involved in the transport of divalent metal ions including Mn, Zn, Cu, Fe, Cd, Ni, and Co, which participate in the control of homeostasis in plant [128,129]. The CDF family is also known as metal tolerance proteins (MTP) involved in the translocation of metals (such as Zn, Cd, Co, Fe, Ni and Mn), from the cytoplasm to the vacuole [130,131]. The ABC protein family serves as membrane-intrinsic active pumps that consume ATP to function. They are involved in transmembrane transport of a wide range of molecules, such as lipids, phytohormones, carboxylates, chlorophyll catabolites, and HMs (As, Cd, Hg, Al) [132].
The use of legume plants in phytoremediation of metal-contaminated soils represents a very important area of research exploiting the maximum of Rhizobacteria symbiosis advantages [38]. Regarding HMs sensitivity, plants can be classified as tolerant and/or hyperaccumulator species [133,134]. Plants suitable for phytoremediation have important characteristics, such as rapid growth, high biomass, and accumulation of high levels of HMs [135]. The use of some legume plants in biorhizoremediation has been well documented, as presented in Table 2.
Further legume plants are being sought for the use in phytoremediation. Albizia lebbeck L., Bauhinia purpurea L., Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. ex DC., Milettia peguensis Ali. and Pongamia pinnata may be successfully used for HM phytoextraction processes, especially when they grow in urban forests watered by untreated industrial wastewater containing HMs. These selected tree species showed favorable uptake of HMs, translocation, and HM storage in different plant parts as accumulators, without the addition of chelating agents and/or organic adjustment. Thus, it may be an eco-friendly and sustainable way for reduction in multiple urban problems such as toxicity of untreated industrial wastewater, air pollution through urban forestry [163], and saving fresh water used for irrigation.

3. Legume–Rhizobium Symbiotic System for Stress Condition Tolerance

3.1. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobia Assisted Legumes for Metal Phytoremediation

HM contamination in combination with phosphorus (P) and nitrogen limitation are primary factors inhibiting revegetation of contaminated lands, limiting water retention, and resulting in periodic erosion, and loss of nutrients and organic matter [164,165]. However, some soil features, such as pH, may have a larger influence on individual plant species than HM contamination due to their effect on metal bioavailability [165]. Moreover, HM contamination of field soils is less phytotoxic to plants and symbiotic bacteria than laboratory contaminated and polluted soil at equivalent concentration of total HMs, especially in the case of soils with neutral or alkaline pH (e.g., calcareous). The bacteria are more tolerant in even highly contaminated field soils, and they can be selected for survival in the soil with less bioavailable metals [166,167,168,169]. Hence, legumes with NFB become a natural choice when searching for plants that can grow on devastated and/or contaminated soils with poor nutritional values. The fixation of atmospheric N2 into ammonia by NFB as PGPB are essential for plant growth and productivity, especially in soils with N and P deficiency [170]. The genera Rhizobium is one of the most effective P-solubilizers [171]. Furthermore, other NFB properties, e.g., the siderophore production to increase Fe uptake, enhance bioavailability of metals and its subsequent removal form soil [172,173], and protection of plants against pathogens [172] as well as release of volatile substances such as acetoin and 2,3-butanediol [174], are important for PGP, especially in a HM contaminated environment, become the basis of using the legume–rhizobium symbiotic system for phytoremediation. In addition, to protect plants and microorganisms from HM phytotoxicity, field soils should be alkaline calcareous [175,176,177]. Interestingly, such NFB as bradyrhizobia alkalize the growth environment [178,179]. In addition, the old, degenerated nodules can be the main nutrient source for both microorganisms and legumes in poor and devastated soils such as calamite tailings [133,137].

3.2. Nitrogen Fixation Bacteria

NFB are the most numerous representation of the phyto-microbial population in legume nodules, belonging to α-rhizobia (Alphaproteobacteria represented by Bradyrhizobium and Rhizobium genera) and β-rhizobia (Betaproteobacteria such as Burkholderia and Cupriavidus) [180]. Although both rhizobium groups are evolutionarily distant, their symbiotic (nod and nif) genes are remarkably similar pointing to lateral transfer [181,182,183]. Interestingly, legume root nodules may also contain many different microorganisms (bacteria and fungi called non-rhizobium endophytes, NRE) as an additive to NFB [170,184,185]. Legumes are capable of establishment of mutually beneficial symbioses with either rhizobia or mycorrhiza that provide the host plant with water and minerals. Rhizobial and mycorrhizal invasion share a common plant-specific genetic program controlling the early host interaction [186]. Moreover, fungi may change the bacterial community and function as PGP improving shoot nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (K) levels [187]. Additionally, N2-fixing Burkholderia are able to degrade various wastes such as acetone, ethanol, hexane, methylterbutylester, petrol and toluene [188], thus helping to clean up the soil.
The N-fixing effectiveness depends on the NFB strain. Both the nodulation process and the N fixation function are genetically controlled [188]. Many NFB strains can nodulate a wide range of different plant species, while some strains may nodulate even one specific legume plant [179,189,190,191,192,193,194]. The nodulation and N-fixation functions of NFB can be improved by selection of rhizobia and host plants or by genetic modification. In particular, NFB can be selected for their efficiency, competitiveness among natural bacterial populations, and adaptivity to the contaminated environment where they are introduced for nodulation [188]. Noteworthy, lateral gene transfers play a significant role in bacterial adaptation to the living environment. In soils with no legumes, there are non-symbiotic rhizobial strains that can often become effective symbionts upon acquisition of symbiotic genes from inoculant strains [195]. For example, bradyrhizobia are abundant in many field soils where leguminous plants are absent, frequently acting as endophytes of various plants [196]. The symbiotic genes of NFB are conserved. The nod and nif genes evolved independently in comparison with housekeeping genes, suggesting a different origin. Possibly, they were acquired via lateral transfer. The nodulation nod A, B, C genes likely originate from outside, since their G+C concentration is significantly lower than the average G + C concentration of rhizobia [197].

3.3. Mechanism of the Legume–Rhizobium Interaction

When legumes are planted in field soil, an interaction between the legumes and NFB present in the ground establishes through a complex signal factor exchange initiated by secreting aromatic plant flavonoids. In the soil, the flavonoids are recognized by compatible rhizobial species [198,199,200], which produce lipochitooligosaccharide compounds, also called Nod factors (myc/nod factors) which are detected by LysM type receptors on the host legume plant [201,202]. It is worth emphasizing that the rhizobial symbiosis only occurs with legumes and non-legume Parasponia plants just through Nod factor recognition by the LysM type receptors [203]. Bradyrhizobium is responsible for symbiosis with Parasponia plants which suggest that bradyrhizobia may have been the ancestor of all rhizobial bacteria [204,205].
Nod factors and symbiotic exopolysaccharides (EPSs) activate multiple responses in the host leguminous plant preparing the legume to receive the invading rhizobia [206]. This triggers calcium spikes in the inner cortical cells, causing the formation of nodule primordia in dividing root cells [207,208]. The recognition of the Nod factor by the legume plant also causes curling of root hair forming infection threads, which trap the attached rhizobia and create a curled colonized root hair [209]. Legume root cells in the inner cortex incorporate the invading microorganisms in host membrane-bound compartments, which mature into structures called symbiosomes. In the nodule, incorporated bacteria develop into bacteroids that may terminally differentiate into NFB bacteroid forms that are capable of N fixation [198,206]. However, in the nodule there are also undifferentiated bacteroids which are not capable of N fixation. Interestingly, during invasion and symbiosis, rhizobia can avoid innate immune response of the legume plant to survive within the symbiosome compartment [206]. However, the environment inside nodules can be a challenge for NFB due to the alterations in osmolarity, oxygen concentration and oxidative stress, the reduced pH, the influence of plant peptides [198] and the HM intake by plant roots.

3.4. The Rhizobial Tolerance to Various Stress Conditions

Bacterial genes involved in adaptation to varying stress conditions inside nodules are critical for the establishment of a functional symbiotic relationship [198]. The presence of high osmotic or salt stress conditions induces transcription of genes involved in nodulation (nod and nif genes) and N fixation (fix genes) by NodD2 in Rhizobium tropici strains [210,211]. Additionally, increased salt contents regulate EPS production in Sinorhizobium meliloti [212]. Moreover, NFB can produce periplasmatic cyclic β(1-2)-linked glucan when they grow in hypotonic conditions [198]. The inability to produce the glucan through mutating the ndvB gene in Rhizobium meliloti resulted in sensitivity to hypotonic conditions and inhibited nodule formation in Medicago truncatula Gaertn. [213]. However, the production the symbiotically important polysaccharide succinoglycan (EPS-1) by NFB might provide enough osmoprotectant to facilitate survival in the absence of cyclic β(1-2) glucan in ndvB mutants [214]. Another way of protection against high osmolarity is the accumulation of ions such as K, by NFB [215,216]. Increased K levels enhance nitrogenase activity in Bradyrhizobium sp. (32H1 strain) cultured under low oxygen stress [217]. Therefore, the osmotic stress tolerance is linked with signal regulation of nitrogenase in bacteroids via the regulation of the K content [198,215].
Another important bacterial challenge is the low oxygen concentration in the nodule. The strict adjustment of oxygen levels to optimal for N fixation in bacteroids is created by a diffusion barrier [218]. The oxygen regulation leads to several signaling and physiological alterations in the bacterium cell, promoting symbiosis and N fixation. A low oxygen level activates the two-component system (hFixL-FxkR) with 3 proteins (hFix1, FnrN and NifA) acting as oxygen sensors, which enhances the transcription of most genes involved in N fixation [219,220,221]. The hFix1 protein induces the expression of FnrN in the meristem zone (I) and the invasion zone (II), which then induces the expression of fixNOQP genes in the N fixation zone (III) when oxygen levels are almost anaerobic creating microaerobic stress conditions [222]. The gene induction in microaerobic conditions is necessary for nitrogenase production, and protein function. Microaerobic stress acts as a signal for legume–rhizobium symbiosis [198].
Moreover, in nodules, NFB struggle with ROS, which is another strategy to protect plants. However, ROS generation by legumes is beneficial for establishment of symbiosis [223,224]. ROS are the plant response to Nod factor recognition and are mainly associated with the NADPH oxidase activity [225]. NFB use many mechanisms to eliminate potential damage from ROS, including catalase production [223,226]. However, when catalase is over-expressed in S. meliloti, abnormal formation of infection thread and delayed development of nodules are observed [226]. Therefore, ROS may play significant role in the development of infection threads, or they induce physiological alterations in NFB that are necessary for symbiotic process [227]. ROS encoded for PvRbohB genes in Phaseolus vulgaris are important for symbiosis, especially when NFB exposed to oxidative stress produce increasing quantities of EPS [228,229]. EPS production seems to be involved in the tolerance of different stresses encountered by microorganisms. Moreover, the EPS-1 fraction is responsible for removal of H2O2 from the environment [230]. Therefore, oxidative stress promotes EPS production, which is necessary for ROS tolerance and essential for symbiotic interaction. The production of H2O2 by plants is a response to symbiotic formation promoting creation of a symbiotic signal [198].
The ability to tolerate acidic pH stress conditions is particularly important for the use of legumes for biorhizoremediation. During growth, plants can excrete acidic compounds into surrounding field soil, thereby decreasing the pH of the environment by as much as 2 pH units [231]. It is predicted that the bacteroid and peri-bacteroid zones are acidic, reaching a pH of 4.5 [232]. Furthermore, the curled colonized root hair is a space with local acidic stress [233]. The response of NFB to acidic pH is regulated via large networks of multiple genes [234]. This response is predominantly regulated through a two-component RSI system (actR/S and ChvI/exoS/exoR) which finally controls the regulation of cytoplasmic pH or the production and modification of extracellular compounds for pH tolerance components [235,236,237]. The regulation of intracellular K efflux proteins is significant for pH tolerance. K levels regulating nitrogenase activity and leading to the accumulation of K+ in acidic stress function as a symbiotic signal [217]. Additionally, glutathione (GSH), which is involved in tolerance of various stress conditions such as pH and ROS stresses, is produced in high quantities in acidic conditions [238,239]. Furthermore, acidic tolerant NFB strains produce more symbiotically important EPS-1 than acid-sensitive strains in non-stress conditions [240,241]. EPS-1 production regulated by the RSI system is required not only for acidic pH tolerance but also for survival in the nodules and is necessary for symbiotic signaling [198,241,242,243] The succinylation of EPS is also a crucial step for the symbiotic signaling and formation [244].
Plants also produce anti-microbial peptides (AMPs) also called nodule-specific cysteine (NCR) peptides with anti-microbial activity against microorganisms including rhizobia [245,246,247]. However, protein BacA, i.e., a transporter for AMPs, in S. meliloti and BclA in Bradyrhizobium sp. are involved in tolerating the challenge with NCRs. Mutants with bacA gene deletion were hypersensitive to NCRs present in nodules [246,248]. NCR recognition may be a signal for NFB facilitating adaptation to conditions inside plants, enhancing the production of polysaccharides necessary for symbiotic interaction and induction of physiological and morphological changes in NFB for differentiation of bacteroids necessary for nitrogen fixation [198].

3.5. The Legume–Rhizobium Symbiosis in Heavy Metal Stress Response

Using multiple mechanisms, NFB help legumes growing in metal stress conditions through increased HM tolerance/resistance and PGP ability. Rhizobia isolated from native legumes growing in HM contaminated field soils are predominantly HM tolerant. Isolates effective in N fixation are identified as Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium and Sinorhizobium species tolerant to several HMs and metalloids such as Ni, Co, and Cr [36,149,165,169]. Some strains directly promoted root growth in legumes, e.g., Lotus corniculatus L., and non-legume Arabidopsis thaliana L. under metal stress. Interestingly, the metal treated nodules showed structural changes, including increased phenol accumulation and wall thickening with higher concentrations of celluloses, calloses, glycoproteins, hemicelluloses, and pectins [169]. NFB are also beneficial to legumes through the synthesis of phytohormones such as abscisic acid (ABA) and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) [150]. Almost 80% of NFB are capable of producing IAA, an important auxin affecting division and differentiation of plant cells, which stimulates plant growth and performance of nodules in the symbiotic relationship [249]. For example, Agrobacterium tumefaciens (CCNWGS0286 strain) isolated from nodules of Robinia pseudoacacia L. growing in Zn-Pb mine tailings, was able to overproduce IAA in the presence of Cu and Zn significantly enhancing legume growth in comparison with inoculation of an A. tumefaciens mutant with lower IAA production [250]. Moreover, Bianco and Defez [251] showed that recombinant Rhizobium species such as S. meliloti overproducing IAA, improved the N fixation ability in Medicago plants compared to wild-type (WT) strain.
Three IAA synthetic pathways in NFB have been detected: indole-3-acetamide (IAM), tryptamine (Tra), and indole-3-pyruvic acid (IPyA) pathways [252]. IAA induces the activity of some critical enzymes such as citrate synthase and α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase in the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle which delivers energy necessary for N fixation. R. leguminosarum bv. viciae, R. trifolii and S. meliloti mutants deficient in the dct gene encoding the dicarboxylic acid transport factor and S. meliloli mutants without such genes as gltA encoding citrate synthetase and icd coding for isocitrate dehydrogenase were unable to fix N2 [165]. However, such stress environmental factors as oxidation and dilution can reduce the influence of IAA to the threshold level required for growth promotion [253]. Nonetheless, low IAA concentrations (around 10−8 M) exert a beneficial stimulating effect on the improvement of root development as well as nutrient and mineral uptake by plants and enhancement of bacterial colonization and nodulation [254,255]. In turn, a high IAA concentration inhibits nodulation due to the increase in the ethylene level, which halts the growth of the root system [255,256]. Furthermore, plants with nodules contained higher IAA levels than non-nodulated ones [257], and this is partly related to the high production of IAA by NFB in nodules [255]. Therefore, IAA may be involved in controlling the number of nodules [258] and the efficiency of nodulation [259]. It is worth emphasizing that IAA transport may also be affected by Nod factors, and in some NFB such as R. leguminosarum and S. meliloti, flavonoids were able to promote IAA synthesis, showing that bacterial IAA production and transport could be regulated by specific host legumes [165,252,260].
NFB are likely to contain various metal tolerance/resistance systems to maintain metal homeostasis both in the bacteria and in plant cells. For example, some metal resistant species of Rhizobium increase the concentrations of some substances such as amino acid-like thiol, EPS, GSH, proline, and urease as well as cell inclusions upon exposure to Cd, Cu, Ni and Zn [261,262,263]. Furthermore, an increase in metal concentrations induces the transfer of naturally occurring plasmids with MH tolerance/resistance genes between NFB. The plasmid transfer plays a key role in conferring augmented metal tolerance/resistance [264]. However, there are many genes related to metals resistance/homeostasis in whole genome sequences [165]. NFB isolated from natural sites contaminated with HMs often present tolerance to multiple pollutants as they have adapted to stressful conditions [265]. This adaptation is most likely related to the acquisition of genes responsible for resistance to HMs and stimulation of broad-legume-range resistance plasmid transfer to bacteria in HM contaminated site and/or promoting the efficient transformation and incorporation of crucial genes for the adaptation [266]. In bacteria, the resistance genes such as cnr/nre, PbrA and CadA, cadA (PIB-2-ATPase), nreB (Sma1641), Sma1163 (P1B-5-ATPase), P1B-type ATPases and others, and 14 loci (gene annotation corresponds to Rlv 3841 genome) encoded enzymes responsible for the tolerance/resistance mechanism of Co/Ni, Pb, Cd, Cd/ZN, Ni, Ni/Fe, Cu/Zn, and Ni/Co, respectively. The genes are involved in HM detoxification through active efflux and sequestration [267,268]. Mutants with deletion of the resistance genes bbecome sensitive to the presence of corresponding HMs in the environment [38].
The rhizobium–legume interaction is a positive cooperation which aids growth of leguminous plants in various intractable conditions such as degraded, acidic and/or contaminated soils, particularly field soils with high HM concentration. The symbiotic process has evolved to demand a complex signal exchange between the legume and the rhizobial bacteria. In this process, the bacterial responses to various stresses such as low pH, oxidative stress, osmotic stress, and HMs play a significant role in symbiotic signaling pathways. The stress tolerance/resistance responses have been co-opted by the legume host and the bacterial symbionts to establish functional symbiosis [198], guarantee health growth, and most of all survive harsh living conditions.

4. Phytoremediation by Legume and Associated Rhizobia

4.1. Legume Growth, Nodulation, and Nitrogen Fixation under Heavy Metal Stress

Legumes colonized by NFB successfully compete with other non-legume plants in metal toxic sites due to their wide-ranging capacities for N fixation in the presence of HMs, which consequently promotes the root and shoot elongation and biomass of the crop [38,152,269] as well as rhizobial stress condition tolerance as mentioned above. Bai et al. [270] detected that all growth parameters and leaf catalase and peroxidase of plant species were significantly greater in a legume plant such as R. pseudoacacia L. than in non-legume ones such as Rhus chinensis Mill., which is typical phytoremediative non-legume species in soil environments polluted by HMs in China. Negative effect of the soil contamination on all growth parameters was significantly stronger in the non-legume than in the legume plant. The legume plant produced greater total plant, leaf, and root biomass.
Plants with associated microorganisms growing in HM contaminated sites need to possess some level of tolerance/resistance to HM toxicity in order to survive. However, it should be mentioned that most rhizobia and legume plants are quite sensitive to excessive HMs such as Zn or Cd in field soils. For the metal non-tolerant legumes, toxic metals inhibit the nodule formation, the nodulation efficiency, and/or symbiotic N fixation [36,133,149,271]. Therefore, soil amendments, including excess limestone for making calcareous soil, and high phosphate and organic matter for improving field soil fertility, are imperative to reduce phytotoxicity in soil before legume planting and rhizobia inoculation [272]. Because there are no completely HM-tolerant WT legumes, Chaney et al. [273] proposed to introduce liming and fertilization steps to protect legumes hosts from phytotoxicity in the field soil making soil HMs less phytoavailable for the rhizobium–legume symbiosis. This procedure is likely to result in legumes and related rhizobia with sufficient inherent or selected HM resistance/tolerance to HMs to develop on phytostabilized soils contaminated with HMs [165,273]. Nevertheless, metal-resistant/tolerant rhizobia are isolated from native legumes, e.g., Medicago, Trifolium, Viciae, Lotus, and Lupinus, growing in HM contaminated field soils, e.g., Pb/Zn mine tailings (China) and Aznalcóllar pyrite mine (Spain) contaminated with 4.5 million m3 of slurries composed of acidic waters loaded with toxic metals and metalloids such as, Sb, Zn, Pb, Cu, Co, Tl, Bi, Cd, Ag, Hg and Se [29,169,269,274,275]. In all cases, isolated Rhizobium species formed effective normal-sized pink nodules on their host plant roots. Moreover, Carrasco et al. [274] while confirming the presence of the HM resistance genes in some Rhizobium strains by PCR and Southern blot hybridization, noticed that the first steps in nodule formation appear to be influenced more by HMs than by N2 binding. Therefore, another procedure for the implementation of phytoextraction strategies may be used through the identification of legumes and/or associated NFB species, to enable tolerating enormous quantities of HMs in the soil and absorb large amounts of at least one metal [143].

4.2. The Success of Biorhizoremediation of Heavy Metals

The success of phytoremediative plant species predominately depended not only on the tolerant/resistant properties, but also on fast plant growth rates, high biomass production, the ability of HM accumulation in plant biomass, and the ability to obtain N by symbiotic relationship with NFB [149,276,277,278,279]. The symbiosis between metal-tolerant/resistant NFB and legumes greatly influence the efficiency of phytoremediation through promoting plant growth, thus enhancing plant biomass under metal stress conditions [280,281]. Furthermore, highly biological N fixation can relieve the toxic effect of HMs, compensate the HM stress, and enhance survival and adaptation in the HM contaminated land in the reclamation process [282,283]. Thus, the use of legumes with associated NFB, presented in Figure 1, as a pioneering symbiotic plants for phytoremediation has the following benefits [284,285]:
  • Improve the soil properties to allow other plants to grow through immobilization of contaminants, enhancing organic content, and modifying rhizosphere population;
  • Increase diversity of microorganisms, especially rhizobacteria and arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi to improve and stabilize the ecology of the polluted and contaminated field soils;
  • Provide additional nitrogen and phosphorus compounds to the field soil to improve its fertility and ability to support biological growth;
  • Improve plant living conditions to allow legumes and other plants to grow in HM and other stress conditions;
  • Promote plant growth.
Phytostabilization and phytoextraction are dominant applications of HM remediation by legumes [165]. Due to the participation of rhizobia, the uptake of metals by both roots and shoots increases with increasing biomass. Wherein, in the most tested plants, the enhancement of shoot biomass is much greater than the enhancement of root biomass and simultaneously the concentration of HMs in roots is still larger than in the shoots [36,142,144,149,159,286]. However, there are some Lupinus and Astragalus species that accumulate higher concentration of HMs in shoots than in roots [275,287]. It is particularly important to emphasize that the HM concentration in shoots of most of the legume plants used for biorhizoremediation is below the threshold allowed for animal grazing [133]. On the other hand, there are some HM hyperaccumulators among the legumes, such as Lupinus and Astragalus species. Lupinus albus L. growing in acidic soil can accumulate Zn in both shoots (748.3 mg/kg–3.61 g/kg) and roots (up to 4.65 g/kg), in a concentration exceeding the amount allowed for consumption by animals (500 mg/kg) [149,287,288]. Similarly, the accumulation of Cu by Lupinus luteus in both shoots (52.1 mg/kg) and roots (150.7 mg/kg) exceeds the Cu norm for animal consumption (40 mg/kg) [149,165]. Furthermore, some Astragalus species, e.g., A. sinicus Thunb. and A. bisulcatus Hook., hyperaccumulate Se (up to 6 g/kg in leaves and 1 g/kg in fruit and seeds) [275,289,290]. Consequently, these plants are not suitable for animal consumption, but they are useful for phytoremediation [165]. However, there are some reasonable and helpful disposal and utilization methods for getting rid of plant biomass containing HMs after phytoremediation [291].
Moreover, there are some legumes that can accumulate different metals in different plant parts at the same time, e.g., Cytisus scoparius L. growing in high metal contents accumulates Zn and Pb in its roots, Zn in the aerial part and excluding mostly Cd from its tissues. In this case, C. scoparius L. behaves like a Zn accumulator plant, while simultaneously, it also behaves like a Pb phytostabilizer and as a Cd excluder species [139]. Interestingly, Vázquez et al. [147] detected that the percentage of total Cd adsorbed by the cell wall of white lupin ranged from 29 to 47% in leaves, 38 to 51% in stems and from 26 to 42% in roots depending on the Cd supply. Cd induces the synthesis of elevated levels of PCs in lupin plants, mainly in roots, with PC3 being the major PC. The number of Cd complexed by thiols accounted for approximately 20% of the total Cd in leaves, 40% in stems and 20% in roots. Therefore, cell-wall retention could account for more than twice the amount of Cd complexed by PCs in leaves and roots. In stems, both mechanisms contributed equally to Cd detoxification. Thus, white lupin plants use cell-wall binding and then, the PC production, as effective mechanisms of Cd detoxification.
The symbiotic NFB support plant growth by adsorption and tolerance/resistance to HMs and toxic metalloids. NFB colonized nodules can enhance HM accumulation in root nodules, while non-symbiotic rhizobia living free in the rhizosphere may reduce HM toxicity in the contaminated field soils by biosorption, chelation, immobilization, and precipitation. Furthermore, upon the onset of legume–rhizobium symbiosis, the nodules can serve as HM buffer areas, which provide plants with additional storage space for HMs and reduce the risk of the plant being directly exposed to HMs [165]. Moreover, nodules with high NFB concentration may also be effective as biosorbents and storage for HMs in comparison with nodule-free plants. For example, the Cd, Cu and Pb uptake by Mimosa punica L. nodulated by Cuprividus taiwanensis from family Burkholderiaceae was 70%, 12% and 86%, respectively, higher than that of non-nodulated plants showing the effectiveness of using nodulated legumes for HM removal [12,165]. Interestingly, Saadani et al. [160] showed that legume inoculation significantly increased their biomass production, as well as N and P content. Moreover, in a crop rotation system, the use of NFB-legume symbiosis product as a green manure before cultivation of edible greens such as lettuce positively affected soil fertility due to a higher content of organic matter that quickly decomposed in the soil. The improvement of soil fertility increased lettuce yield and its N and P content. Furthermore, inoculated legumes extracted and accumulated more HM than non-inoculated legumes. The symbiosis between legume and NFB plays the role of organic trap for HMs, making HMs unavailable for following crops. The lettuce HM content, such as Zn and Cd, in edible parts was significantly decreased. The legume–NFB symbiosis enhances non-legume crop yield and limits HMs translocation to food chain [160]. Therefore, NFB inoculation improves the HM contaminated soil remediation efficiency of the legume plants, especially in the context of environmental protection.
In addition, NFB can improve both HM resistance and phytoextraction capacity of symbiotic plants [292]. For example, extracellular EPSs produced by NFB act as a first protective barrier which immobilizes HM ions from the cytoplasm, especially the loosely bound EPSs, which have a rough surface and a lot of honeycomb pores, promoting immobilization of HMs [293]. Additionally, there are the ion-selective ATPase pumps which conserve the HM transfer system in NFB [294,295,296]. NFB can also change the properties of root absorption, enhance the quantities of root exudates, and enhance the amount of plant growth regulator enzymes such as 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase [150,297]. Moreover, NFB can also stimulate the plant to synthesize antioxidant enzymes in roots, such as catalase and superoxide dismutase (SOD), and peroxidase in shoots to clean up the deleterious effects of HMs and re-establish homeostatic conditions [163,267,298,299,300].

4.3. The Enhancement of Heavy Metal Stress Response by other PGPB in Addition to the Legume–Rhizobium Symbiosis

It is important to mention that legume-based phytoremediation can also be improved by inoculation with a consortium of metal-tolerant/resistant NFB and other PGP rhizobacteria assisting phytoextraction of HMs with well-documented PGP activity such as Actinomycetes sp., Azotobacter sp., Arthrobacter sp., Bacillus sp., Enterobacter sp., Leifsonia sp., Klebsiella sp., Kocuria sp., Proteus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Serratia sp., Sporosarcina sp. and Thlaspi sp. [30,116]. For example, co-inoculation of M. lupina L. with S. meliloti (CCNWSX0020 strain) and Pseudomonas putida (UW4) resulted in larger plant biomass and higher total Cu accumulation than single inoculation with NFB [150]. Similarly, co-inoculation of V. faba L., Lens culinaris Medik., Sulla coronaria L., and Lablab purpureus L. with consortia of NFB and non-NFB such as Bradyrhizobium sp. (750 strain), Pseudomonas sp. (Az13) and Ochrobactrum cytisi (Azn6) are also effective in improving plant growth, pod yield, and accumulating more HMs in comparison with non-inoculated ones when grown in HM stress conditions [37,149,151]. In another study, Cr-tolerant rhizobacteria were isolated from the Cr contaminated rhizosphere area. The rhizobacteria were used as additional inoculating microorganism with Bradyrhizobium sp. vigna for Vigna radiata L. in Cr polluted soil. The inoculated legumes were found to exhibit an increase in biomass, root and shoot length compared to non-inoculated ones grown in the same conditions. Moreover, the inoculated legumes had a significant increase in Cd, Cr, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn accumulation in comparison with non-inoculated legumes [301,302]. Similarly, co-inoculation of R. pseudoacacia L. by non-NFB such as Variovorax sp., Streptomyces sp., and Rhodococcus sp. with Mesorhizobium loti enhanced phytoremediation in Cd, Zn and Pb contaminated soil [303].
The production of auxins such as IAA, cytokines, and gibberellins by many PGPB exerts additional significant effects on root growth and its architecture [304]. Furthermore, non-nitrogen fixing PGPB which have HM detoxification potential, produce, and secrete MBPs such as PCs, MTs, Cd-binding peptides, cysteines (gcgcpcgcg), and histidines (ghhphg). MBPs increase the accumulation and tolerance of HMs by PGPB through the synthesis of metal-binding proteins [116]. It is worth noting that besides bacteria, MBPs are also produced by some fungi such as yeast Candida glabrata, and Schizosaccharomyces pombe, and red mold Neurospora crassa [116]. These yeast and molds as well as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus sp., Gloeophyllum sepiarium and Rhizopus oryzae are used in HM remediation of contaminated sites [173]. Therefore, the improving plant–microbe interaction and introducing both useful rhizospheric bacteria and fungi are essential to increase biomass production and HM plant tolerance [302]. NFB and other PGP rhizobacteria act together as a community both within the root nodule and rhizosphere to succor health and survival of plants in HM contaminated soils. The bacteria and the legumes cooperate in the effective removal of HMs from the soil.

5. Genetic Engineering in Improvement of Leguminous Plants and Their Rhizobial Partners for Phytoremediation

5.1. General Strategies of Plant Transgenesis for Increasing HM Tolerance and Accumulation

Phytoremediation shows great promise for a cleanup of HM polluted soil; however, several drawbacks, such as the slow growth of hyperaccumulators or the low metal accumulation ability of high biomass plants should be addressed. In addition to the exploration of plant–microbe interactions or nanotechnology, the solution may lie in genetic engineering of plants and their microsymbionts toward optimization of the metal remediation potential [305]. So far, many transgenic plants have successfully improved phytoremediation efficiency, including legumes (Table 3) [306,307]. Transgenesis consists in insertion of gene(s) from another organism, even distantly related, into the genome of recipient cells. It allows modification of plants with desirable traits that are not observed in the original line in a relatively short time. Hence, it seems an attractive prospect in the attempt to increase HM tolerance and accumulation in fast-growing plants, as engineering hyperaccumulators towards production of higher biomass seems to be less applicable. Transgenic plants intended for phytoremediation can be generated by nuclear or chloroplast transformation. The latter strategy is relatively rare; however, it has been successfully applied, as in the case of stimulation of phytoremediation of Hg by chloroplast-transgenic tobacco [308]. The advantages of chloroplast transformation include reduction in the gene silencing effect, avoidance of optimization of codons of bacterial transgenes, and limitation of the risk of gene transfer to the environment [309].
The success of plants in phytoremediation depends on their capability of metal uptake, translocation from the root to the shoot or other parts, and sequestration in specific cell compartments. Thus, genes coding for metal transporters in plants, such as ZRT/IRT-related proteins (ZIP), ATP-binding cassette transporters (ABC), or cation diffusion facilitators (CDF), are widely used for enhancement of metal accumulation [310,311]. Research has demonstrated that overexpression of genes coding for metal transporters in plants can significantly improve metal accumulation (e.g., [312,313,314,315]). In turn, the capacity of plants to cope with HM toxicity is facilitated by detoxification of excess metals entering cell cytosol through complexation by metal ligands, compartmentation, and antioxidant activity. Hence, studies focused on enhancement of metal tolerance typically involve overexpression of metal-binding proteins, especially MTs and PCs (e.g., [316,317,318]). MTs, which are widespread in nature, display high affinity for metal ions due to the presence of clusters of cysteine residues having thiol groups [319]. In plants, MTs are divided into 4 classes; each of them has a different cysteine composition and plays a specific function in the cell. In turn, PCs are metal-binding peptides that are 5–17 amino-acid-long and they are synthesized from glutathione [320]. Due to the variety of their unique structures, they offer higher metal specificity and affinity than MTs. This explains the interest in the use of PC-encoding genes in improving HM stress tolerance in plants. However, the presence of ɤ bonds in PCs makes their biosynthesis dependent on the activity of specific enzymes, with phytochelatin synthetase (PCS) and c-glutamyl cysteine synthetase (c-GCS) as the key enzymes; thus, genes coding for these enzymes are common targets for genetic manipulation. Another common strategy of plant transgenesis for bioremediation is overexpression of genes encoding antioxidant enzymes and ROS scavengers, with most promising ATP-sulfurylase (ATPS), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), and glutathione S-transferase (GST) [321,322,323].
Other genes, which are less commonly harnessed to improve phytoremediation, are those related to DNA repair and expression, as in the case of M. truncatula Gaertn. overexpressing the DNA repair gene MtTdp2α with an attenuated Cu effect and potato overexpressing the StDREB transcription factor with increased tolerance to Cd and Cu [324,325]. In addition, the latest reports show a possibility of modulating the epigenetic regulation of HM-responsive genes for stimulation of HM tolerance in plants [311]. For example, overexpression of the SlRING1 gene, coding for ubiquitin ligase, resulted in enhanced tolerance to Cd in tomato plants by limiting Cd accumulation and alleviating oxidative stress [326]. Gene stacking refers to combining and simultaneous expression of multiple genes into a host plant. Compared to single-gene transgenic plants, dual-gene plant mutants often showed significantly higher HM tolerance and accumulation, as in the case of A. thaliana L. overexpressing genes coding for PC and GST as well as Brassica juncea L. (Indian mustard) overexpressing genes coding for selenocysteine methyltransferase and ATPS [327,328].
Medicago truncatula Gaertn. is a model legume plant used in investigations of root symbiotic associations and abiotic stress tolerance [329]. Medicago spp., which are most often subjected to transgenesis aimed at increasing the phytoremediation potential, exhibit high tolerance to various HMs, as they are able to accumulate metals in roots. Importantly, the convenient procedure for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation yields stable fully transgenic plants or composite plants, in which only roots are transformed while the aerial part is genetically unchanged [330,331]. Generation of composite legumes is sometimes preferred as a way for limitation of transgene spread in the environment and prevention of translocation of metals from roots to shoots, which is important in phytostabilization. Root-specific expression of introduced genes can also be obtained using nodulation-specific promoters, e.g., nifH [332].
Table 3. Transgenic leguminous plants for improving of a heavy metal phytoremediation efficiency.
Table 3. Transgenic leguminous plants for improving of a heavy metal phytoremediation efficiency.
Gene (s)Gene FunctionGene OriginGene HostEffect Comparing to the Wild-Type (WT) ControlReferences
GST
and
CYP2E1
Glutathione S-transferase
Cytochrome 450 2E1
HumanMedicago sativa L.Improved tolerance of plants towards Cd/trichloroethylene (TCE) mixture[333]
GST
and
CYP2E1
Glutathione S-transferase
Cytochrome 450 2E1
HumanM. sativa L.Improved tolerance of plants towards Hg/TCE mixture. Ameliorated plant growth with a longer root system enhanced accumulation of pullulans[334]
MtTdp2αTyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase IIMedicago truncatula Gaertn.M. truncatula Gaertn.Improved Cu tolerance. Reduction in necrosis volume, decrease in double strand breaks in DNA[324]
mt4aMetallothioneinArabidopsis thaliana L.M. truncatula (composite plants)Increased Cu tolerance, reduction in oxidative stress. Improved nodulation[119]
mt4aMetallothioneinA. thaliana L.M. truncatula (composite plants)Enhanced Cu tolerance, reduction in oxidative stress. Improved plant growth and nodulation[332]
ATPSATP sulfurylaseA. thaliana L.M. sativa L.Increased tolerance towards a mixture of Cd, Ni, W, Cu, and Pb. Enhanced metal uptake and accumulation in roots and shoots[322]

5.2. Transgenesis of Rhizobia for Improving Phytoremediation in Symbiosis with Legumes

Molecular mechanisms and genetic determinants of metal tolerance in rhizobia have been extensively studied [38]. Rhizobia are generally more tolerant to HMs than their legume partners; however, the use of these metal-binding bacteria alone for bioremediation does not prevent recycling of toxic metals to the soil. Instead, rhizobia with improved traits associated with metal uptake and plant growth promotion are regarded as drivers in stimulation of phytoremediation in legumes [285,335]. The use of legumes in association with transgenic rhizobia for phytoremediation was initially called “symbiotic engineering” [336]. This approach, using the advantages of both leguminous plant and their microsymbionts, allows further improvement of HM uptake and tolerance as well as symbiotic performance of partners, not achieved by using selected bacteria living in nature (Table 4). A pioneer experiment in this field was performed by Sriprang et al. [337], who introduced an Arabidopsis gene coding for MT (MTL4) to the genome of Mesorhizobium huakuii subsp. rengei B3 under the control of the nifH and nolB promoters. The expression of MTL4 increased the accumulation of Cd both in free-living cells (in low oxygen conditions) and in Astragalus sinicus Thunb. nodules (1.7–2.0-fold). It was calculated that 1 nodule absorbed up to 1.4 nmol Cd from the polluted soil; however, the different concentrations of this metal did not directly influence the accumulation level. Next, a gene from Arabidopsis thaliana L. coding for PCS (PCSAt) was fused with the nifH promoter and introduced to the Mesorhizobium huakuii B3 strain. The expression of the transgene increased the ability of free-living bacteria to accumulate Cd in a range from 9- to 19-fold; however, in a symbiotic relationship with A. sinicus Thunb., the transgenic rhizobia increased Cd accumulation approx. 1.5-fold, compared to the non-transformed control [338]. Overexpression of both PCSAt and MTL4 genes in M. huakuii B3 resulted in additive accumulation of Cu in free-living cells, with an up to 25-fold increase in its concentration. Nevertheless, the rise in the Cu content in the A. sinicus roots was up to three-fold higher compared to the control native bacteria, suggesting that the accumulation of this metal is limited by other factors [339]. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of the multicopy PCSAt gene in free-living M. huakuii B3 cells resulted in to an approx. seven-fold increase in Cd accumulation, compared to these possessing only a single copy [338]. Recently, studies on Cd phytoremediation by a legume–rhizobium system, where both partners contained transgenes, were carried out by Tsyganow et al. [340]. They used two Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae strains expressing different pea MT encoding genes (PsMT1 and PsMT2) for inoculation of a pea (Pisum sativum L.) mutant with increased Cu tolerance and accumulation or WT plants as a control. With and without Cd treatment, both transgenic strains differed in their effect on plant growth, Cd content, and histological organization of nodules, which suggests a specific expression pattern and function of the introduced genes. Generally, the strain containing PsMT1 was more efficient in increasing plant biomass with the native pea and limiting Cd content in shoots of both native and mutant plants. On the other hand, the plant inoculated with the PsMT2 containing strain accumulated the highest amount of this metal in the plant roots, which is promising for probable future application.
Transgenic rhizobia have also been generated for increasing Cu phytostabilization in legumes [341]. Cu resistance genes from Pseudomonas fluorescens (copAB), under the control of the nifH promoter, were overexpressed in Ensifer medicae. The recombinant strain in symbiotic relationships with M. truncatula Gaertn. alleviated the toxic effect generated by Cu at a moderate concentration and accumulated two-fold higher amounts of Cu in the root nodules than the native strain. In addition, the Cu content in the plant roots was significantly higher than in the shoots, which makes the plasmid containing nifH/copAB genes a promising tool for improving phytostabilization. The same plasmid was also used by Pajuello et al. [342] in a double genetically modified symbiotic system. The composite M. truncatula Gaertn plants expressing an Arabidopsis gene encoding MT (mt4a) exhibited higher tolerance towards Cu with reduced oxidative stress and enhanced nodulation, compared to native plants. Inoculation of these with E. medicae expressing copAB genes had an additive phytostabilization effect, enhancing Cu accumulation in roots without its increase in shoots. Similar experiments, in which both symbiotic partners were genetically modified for improvement of Cu phytostabilization by the legume/rhizobium system was also carried out by Pérez-Palacios et al. [332].
Symbiotic relationships of the red clover Trifolium pretense L. with recombinant R. leguminosarum expressing the S-adenosylmethionine methyltransferase gene (CrarsM) as a novel approach to arsenic bioremediation was investigated by Zhang et al. [343]. The engineered rhizobial strains had capability of methylating As in both free-living and symbiotic state. In fact, the products of arsenic methylation are generally less toxic than inorganic As, and some of them can undergo volatilization; however, higher plants do not have the ability to carry out this reaction, while As methylation by indigenous microbes in soil is limited. Therefore, As methylation by rhizobia in nodules, which are specific compartments providing their high survival capability, constitute a promising way for improvement of arsenic phytoremediation in leguminous plants.
Table 4. Summary of studies using transgenic rhizobia in association with leguminous plants for heavy metal phytoremediation.
Table 4. Summary of studies using transgenic rhizobia in association with leguminous plants for heavy metal phytoremediation.
Gene(s)Genome FunctionGene OriginGene HostLegume PartnerEffect Comparing to the Wild-Type (WT) ControlReferences
MTL4MetallothioneinArabidopsis thaliana L.Mesorhizobium huakuii subsp. rengei B3Astragalus sinicus Thunb.Increased Cd accumulation in free-living cells and nodules[337]
PCsPhytochelatin synthaseA. thaliana L.Mesorhizobium huakuii subsp. rengei B3A. sinicus Thunb.Increased Cd accumulation in free-living cells and nodules[338]
MTL4 and/or
AtPCS
Metallothionein
Phytochelatin synthase
A. thaliana L.Mesorhizobium huakuii subsp. rengei B3A. sinicus Thunb.Increased Cd accumulation in free-living cells and root nodules in hydroponic culture. Additive effect in the case of expression of both genes. Increased Cd accumulation in nodules and roots of A. sinicus in rice paddy soil[339]
PsMT1MetallothioneinPisum sativum L.Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciaePisum sativum SGE (WT) or
Pisum sativum SGECdt (mutant with increased tolerance to Cd)
Positive effect on WT plant biomass during growth in the presence of Cd. Reduction in the Cd content in shoots of both WT and mutant plants, proper organization of nodules[340]
PSMT2MetallothioneinP. sativum L.R. leguminosarum bv. viciaePisum sativum SGE (WT) or
P. sativum SGECdt (mutant with increased tolerance to Cd)
Increased Cd accumulation in mutant plants[340]
copABCu+-ATPasePseudomonas fluorescensEnsifer medicae MA11Medicago truncatula L.Alleviation of the toxic effect of Cu in plants. Increased plant growth, nodule numbers, nitrogen contents, and photosynthetic efficiency. Increased Cu accumulation in nodules and roots with decreased accumulation in shoots[341]
copABCopper resistance proteins;
Cu+-ATPase
P. fluorescensE. medicae MA11M. truncatula composite mutant expressing mt4a gene coding metallothioneinEnhanced Cu tolerance in plants. Improved Cu accumulation in roots, diminished Cu translocation from roots to shoots[332]
CrarsMS-adenosyl
methionine
methyl-
transferase
Chlamydomonas reinhardtiiRhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii R3Trifolium pratense L.Capability to methylate As by free-living bacteria and in symbiosis with plants. Methylated As forms detected both in nodules and shoots. Lesser amounts of methylated As species were volatilized.[343]

5.3. Other Genetic Engineering Methods to Be Used for Improving Bioremediation in Legumes

An alternative technology to the conventional transgenesis is cisgenesis or intragenesis, which has been developed for improvement of crops to overcome the safety concerns about the presence of foreign DNA [344]. Cisgenesis is based on introduction of unchanged genes and their regulatory elements from the same species as the host, while intragenesis refers to a new combination of genes and regulatory elements from the species pangenome. These techniques are regarded to be valuable, especially in increasing the production of biomass of natural metal hyperaccumulators; however, their application in plants is still limited, as extensive knowledge of the genetics of modified plants is required. However, a cis-hybrid E. meliloti strain has recently been created via transfer of a symbiotic megaplasmid pSymA from a donor of the same species. The hybrid strain showed a phenotype consistent with the parental strains, proving the feasibility of the large-scale genome modification of bacteria for maximization of biotechnological applications [345]. In fact, genomes with multipartite structures such as those present in rhizobia are particularly interesting for use in cisgenesis; however, many functional dependencies between co-adapted replicons should be taken under consideration [346,347].
Introduction of natural resistance plasmids from a highly resistant host to its close relatives exhibiting high symbiotic performance is usually mentioned as another promising strategy of increasing HM tolerance and accumulation in legumes. A suitable candidate for creation of novel bacterial strains for use in As bioremediation could be the pSinA plasmid derived from highly metallotolerant non-symbiotic Ensifer sp. Analyses have revealed that pSinA encodes gene clusters for arsenic resistance and arsenite oxidation (ars and aio genes, respectively), and transfer of this broad-range self-replicon via conjugation to other bacteria resulted in acquisition of HM resistance and As oxidation traits [348].
Enhancement of the phytoremediation potential of plants can also be conducted by gene silencing. It is a conserved defense mechanism that knocks down the gene expression based on RNA interference, which is mediated by siRNA and miRNA [349]. In contrast to native plants, Arabidopsis plants with a silenced gene encoding arsenate reductase showed the ability to translocate As from roots to shoots, which enhanced their capability of this metal accumulation [350]. Similarly, increased Cd translocation to shoots was caused by silencing a gene coding for the OsNRAMP5Cd transporter in rice [351]. To date, there have been no reports on the application of gene silencing for enhancement of bioremediation in legumes. However, Zhou et al. [352] have reported identification of several miRNAs involved in the response to HM stress of M. truncatula.
With the advent of the genome editing technology CRISPR/Cas9 (clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats) facilitating highly specific gene knockouts, site-directed gene insertion, or gene expression modulation, improvement of plant crops has gained a new perspective [353]. Despite some limitations in using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology in plants, especially the high lethality of Cas9, it is generally accepted that it will accelerate genetic manipulation of plants to increase the efficiency of the legume/rhizobium system for phytoremediation by customizing desired improvements, especially when the classical gene transfer or overexpression method fails [134,311]. It was also suggested that implementation of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in rhizobia can improve legume/rhizobium interactions leading to stimulation of plant growth, e.g., by targeting genes responsible for overcoming of the ethylene effect inhibiting root growth [335]. So far, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully used for modulation of natural metal accumulating crop plants toward production of safe crops growing on contaminated soil. For example, it was demonstrated that knocking out the metal transporter gene OsNramp5 with the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 system yielded rice lines with low Cd content without affecting the yield [354].

6. Conclusions and Further Perspective

Legumes with associated rhizobia are an elite group for novel and effective soil restoration, including mine lands, decreasing the mobility of heavy metals and preventing their dispersion to another ecosystem compartments. Legumes and rhizobia interact with each other in various complex manners, including metal-tolerance or metal-resistance mechanisms, plant growth-promoting properties, nitrogen fixing ability, phytohormone production, and phosphorus solubilization. These rhizobium traits most likely with rhizosphere PGPB and mycorrhizal fungi promote legume growth in heavy metal contaminated soils by increasing legume yields, heavy metal accumulation in legumes, nitrogen and phosphorus content in both legumes and contaminated lands.
Moreover, genetic engineering is a powerful tool for development of plants with desirable traits facilitating an effective clean-up of contaminated soils, especially given the development of innovative technologies. Transgenesis is the most exploited technique; however, some results of introduction of foreign genes, especially these encoding the antioxidant machinery, are rather contradictory and confusing, pointing out morphological and physiological alterations in transgenic plants or a lack of effects in metal tolerance. Additionally, transgenic plants are usually regarded as a danger for ecosystems due to their potential of outcrossing with wild relatives or uncontrolled spread. Therefore, their application, even only in field tests, is limited in some countries. This has accelerated the development of new more acceptable techniques, such as cisgenesis. Recently, the plant genome editing approach has received considerable attention from biotechnologists. As a highly precise method of genetic engineering, gene editing results in tiny changes in the genome, which are indistinguishable from naturally occurring mutations. Therefore, there is a hope that plants with improved genomes will not be associated with GMOs and will not be subject to the same stringent regulations as GMOs. Understanding the gene functions and dissection of the signaling network responsible for ameliorating the toxic effect of HMs is a determining factor in the genetic engineering approach. It has been confirmed that the mechanisms of HM detoxification and accumulation in plants involve a high number of different genes, which may be regarded as the main limitation of the genetic engineering approach. Nevertheless, technological breakthroughs involving modern multi-omics analysis and gene editing methods will provide better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying the process of phytoremediation.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Piotr Malinowski for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ABA Abscisic acid
ABCATP-binding cassette
ACC1-aminocyclopropane 1-carboxylic acid
AMPsAnti-microbial peptides
APX Ascorbate peroxidase
ATPS ATP-sulfurylase
C-GCSc-glutamyl cysteine synthetase
CCsCover crops
CDFCation diffusion facilitator
EPSExopolysaccharides
EPS-1Polysaccharide succinoglycan
GHGGreenhouse gases
GMO Genetically modified organism
GSHGlutathione
GSTGlutathione S-transferase
HM Heavy metal
IAAIndole-3-acetic acid
IAMIndole-3-acetamide
IPyAIndole-3-pyruvic acid
MBPsmetal-binding proteins
HMHeavy metal
MTMetallothionein
MTPMetal tolerance proteins
NFBNitrogen fixating bacteria
NRAMPNatural resistant associated macrophage protein
NRENon-rhizobium endophytes
PC Phytochelatin
PCSPhytochelatin synthetase
PGPPlant growth-promoting
PGPBBeneficial plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
ROSReactive oxygen species
SODSuperoxide dismutase
TCATricarboxylic acid
TCE Trichloroethylene
TraTryptamine
WTWild-type
ZIP Zinc–iron permease

References

  1. Lewis, G.P.; Schrire, B.; Mackinder, B.; Lock, M. Legumes of the World; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Voisin, A.S.; Guéguen, J.; Huyghe, C.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Magrini, M.B.; Meynard, J.M.; Mougel, C.; Pellerin, S.; Pelzer, E. Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: An overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Semba, R.D.; Ramsing, R.; Rahman, N.; Kraemer, K.; Bloem, M.W. Legumes as a sustainable source of protein in human diets. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 28, 100520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maphosa, Y.; Jideani, V.A. The Role of Legumes in Human Nutrition. In Functional Food-Improve Health through Adequate Food; Hueda, M.V., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tharanathan, R.N.; Mahadevamma, S. Grain legumes—A boon to human nutrition. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 14, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zander, P.; Amjath-Babu, T.S.; Preissel, S.; Reckling, M.; Bues, A.; Schläfke, N.; Kuhlman, T.; Bachinger, J.; Uthes, S.; Stoddard, F.; et al. Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Duranti, M. Grain legume proteins and nutraceutical properties. Fitoterapia 2006, 77, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Butkutė, B.; Benetis, R.; Padarauskas, A.; Cesevičienė, J.; Dagilytė, A.; Taujenis, L.; Rodovičius, H.; Lemežienė, N. Young herbaceous legumes—A natural reserve of bioactive compounds and antioxidants for healthy food and supplements. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2017, 90, 346–353. [Google Scholar]
  10. Budhwar, S.; Chakraborty, M. Novel Dietary and Nutraceutical Supplements from Legumes. Sustain. Agro. Rev. 2020, 45, 53–70. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kocira, A.; Staniak, M.; Tomaszewska, M.; Kornas, R.; Cymerman, J.; Panasiewicz, K.; Lipińska, H. Legume Cover Crops as One of the Elements of Strategic Weed Management and Soil Quality Improvement. A Review. Agriculture 2020, 10, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. White, P.M.; Williams, G.; Viator, H.P.; Viator, R.P.; Webber, C.L. Legume Cover Crop Effects on Temperate Sugarcane Yields and Their Decomposition in Soil. Agronomy 2020, 10, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sharma, P.; Singh, A.; Kachlon, C.S.; Brar, A.S.; Grover, K.K.; Dia, M.; Steiner, R.L. The Role of Cover Crops towards Sustainable Soil Health and Agriculture—A Review Paper. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1935–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Meena, B.L.; Fagodiya, R.K.; Prajapat, K.; Dotaniya, M.L.; Kaledhonkar, M.J.; Sharma, P.C.; Meena, R.S.; Mitran, T.; Kumar, S. Legume Green Manuring: An Option for Soil Sustainability. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R., Das, A., Yadav, G., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 387–408. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kakraliya, S.K.; Singh, U.; Bohar, A.; Choudhary, K.K.; Kumar, S.; Meena, R.S.; Jat, M.L. Nitrogen and Legumes: A Meta-analysis. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R.S., Das, A., Yadav, G.S., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 277–314. [Google Scholar]
  16. Velázquez, E.; García-Fraile, P.; Ramírez-Bahena, M.-H.; Rivas, R.; Martínez-Molina, E. Bacteria Involved in Nitrogen-Fixing Legume Symbiosis: Current Taxonomic Perspective. In Microbes for Legume Improvement; Khan, M.S., Musarrat, J., Zaidi, A., Eds.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  17. Reinprecht, Y.; Schram, L.; Marsolais, F.; Smith, T.H.; Hill, B.; Pauls, K.P. Effects of Nitrogen application on nitrogen fixation in common bean production. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Preissel, S.; Reckling, R.; Schläfke, N.; Zander, P. Magnitude and farm-economic value of grain legume pre-crop benefits in Europe: A review. Field Crops Res. 2015, 175, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Carranca, C.; Torres, M.O.; Madeira, M. Underestimated role of legume roots for soil N fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1095–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Shaver, T.M.; Lindquist, J.L.; Shapiro, C.A.; Elmore, R.W.; Francis, C.A.; Hergert, G.W. Cover crops and ecosystem services: Insights from studies in temperate soils. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 2449–2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Mirsky, S.B.; Curran, W.S.; Mortensen, D.A.; Ryan, M.R.; Shumway, D.L. Timing of Cover-Crop Management Effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller crimper. Weed Sci. 2011, 59, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elsalahy, H.; Döring, T.; Bellingrath-Kimura, S.; Arends, D. Weed Suppression in Only-Legume Cover Crop Mixtures. Agronomy 2019, 9, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Köpke, U.; Nemecek, T. Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crops Res. 2010, 115, 217–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jensen, E.S.; Peoples, M.B.; Boddey, R.M.; Gresshoff, P.M.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Alves, B.J.; Morrison, M.J. Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 329–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Jeuffroy, M.H.; Baranger, E.; Carrouée, B.; Chezelles, E.D.; Gosme, M.; Hénault, C.; Schneider, A.; Cellier, P. Nitrous oxide emissions from crop rotations including wheat, oilseed rape and dry peas. Biogeosciences 2013, 10, 1787–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Abdu, N.; Abdullahi, A.A. Review of heavy metal remediation of contaminated soils (ii): Legume-rhizobia symbiosis, mycorrhiza and other microbes: A review. Niger. J. Sci. 2017, 16, 775–780. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gerhardt, K.E.; Huang, X.-D.; Glick, B.R.; Greenberg, B.M. Phytoremediation and rhizoremediation of organics oil contaminants: Potential and challenges. Plant Sci. J. 2009, 176, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Szatmári, G.; Pásztor, L. Maps of heavy metals in the soils of the European Union and proposed priority areas for detailed assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 565, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, Z.; Shu, W.; Lan, C.; Wong, M. Soil seed bank as an input of seed source in revegetation of lead/zinc mine tailings. Restor. Ecol. 2001, 9, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Manoj, S.R.; Karthik, C.; Kadirvelu, K.; Arulselvi, P.I.; Shanmugasundaram, T.; Bruno, B.; Rajkumar, M. Understanding the molecular mechanisms for the enhanced phytoremediation of heavy metals through plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 254, 109779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tóth, G.; Hermann, T.; Da Silvac, M.R.; Montanarella, L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ. Int. 2016, 88, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mandal, S.M.; Bhattacharyya, R. Rhizobium–Legume Symbiosis: A Model System for the Recovery of Metal-Contaminated Agricultural Land. In Toxicity of Heavy Metals to Legumes and Bioremediation; Zaidi, A., Wani, P., Khan, M., Eds.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 115–127. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Sajad, M.A. Phytoremediation of heavy metals—concepts and applications. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 869–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Neilson, S.; Rajakaruna, N. Phytoremediation of Agricultural Soils: Using Plants to Clean Metal-Contaminated Arable Land. In Phytoremediation; Ansari, A., Gill, S., Gill, R., Lanza, G., Newman, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Denmark, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gómez-Sagasti, M.T.; Marino, D. PGPRs and nitrogen-fixing legumes: A perfect team for efficient Cd phytoremediation? Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 81. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pajuelo, E.; Dary, M.; Palomares, A.J.; Rodriguez-Llorente, I.D.; Carrasco, J.A.; Chamber, M.A. Biorhizoremediation of heavy metals toxicity using rhizobium-legume symbioses. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation: Towards Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Agriculture. Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture; Dakora, F.D., Chimphango, S.B.M., Valentine, A.J., Elmerich, C., Newton, W.E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 42, pp. 101–104. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lebrazi, S.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Rhizobium-legume symbioses: Heavy metal effects and principal approaches for bioremediation of contaminated soil. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R., Das, A., Yadav, G., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 205–233. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fagorzi, C.; Checcucci, A.; DiCenzo, G.C.; Debiec-Andrzejewska, K.; Dziewit, Ł.; Pini, F.; Mengoni, A. Harnessing Rhizobia to Improve Heavy-Metal Phytoremediation by Legumes. Genes 2018, 9, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bradl, H.B. Heavy Metals in the Environment: Origin, Interaction and Remediation; Elsevier: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Luo, H.S.; Xue, Y.; Wang, Y.L.; Cang, L.; Xu, B.; Ding, J. Source identification and apportionment of heavy metals in urban soil profiles. Chemosphere 2015, 127, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, U.K.; Kumar, B. Pathways of heavy metals contamination and associated human health risk in Ajay River basin, India. Chemosphere 2017, 174, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Masindi, V.; Muedi, K.L. Environmental Contamination by Heavy Metals. In Heavy Metals; Hosam El-Din, M., Aglam, S., Aglam, R.F., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 115–132. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dudka, S.; Miller, W.P. Accumulation of potentially toxic elements in plants and their transfer to human food chain. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 1999, 34, 681–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mohammed, A.S.; Kapri, A.; Goel, R. Heavy metal pollution: Source, impact, and remedies. In Biomanagement of Metal-Contaminated Soils. Environmental Pollution; Khan, M., Zaidi, A., Goel, R., Musarrat, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pujari, M.; Kapoor, D. Heavy metals in the ecosystem: Sources and their effects. In Heavy Metals in the Environment; Kumar, V., Sharma, A., Cerdà, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Friedlová, M. The influence of heavy metals on soil biological and chemical properties. Soil Water Res. 2010, 5, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Nagajyoti, P.C.; Lee, K.D.; Sreekanth, T.V.M. Heavy metals, occurrence and toxicity for plants: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2010, 8, 199–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Arora, S.; Jain, C.K.; Lokhande, R.S. Review of Heavy Metal Contamination in Soil. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Res. 2017, 3, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Crowley, D. Impacts of Metals and Metalloids on Soil Microbial Diversity and Ecosystem Function. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium ISMOM, Pucón, Chile, 24–28 November 2008; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chu, D. Effects of heavy metals on soil microbial community. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 113, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Angelovičová, L.; Bobulská, L.; Fazekašová, D. Toxicity of heavy metals to soil biological and chemical properties in conditions of environmentally polluted area middle Spiš (Slovakia). Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2015, 10, 193–201. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, Y.P.; Shi, J.Y.; Wang, H.; Lin, Q.; Chen, X.C.; Chen, Y.X. The influence of soil heavy metals pollution on soil microbial biomass, enzyme activity, and community composition near a copper smelter. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2007, 67, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Järup, J. Hazards of heavy metal contamination. Br. Med. Bull. 2003, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Morais, S.; Costa, F.G.; de Lourdes Pereira, M. Heavy metals and human health. In Environmental Health—Emerging Issues and Practice; Oosthuizen, J., Ed.; InTechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 227–246. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rai, P.K.; Lee, S.S.; Zhang, M.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kim, K.-H. Heavy metals in food crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management. Environ. Int. 2019, 25, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Alengebawy, A.; Abdelkhalek, S.T.; Qureshi, S.R.; Wang, M.-G. Heavy Metals and Pesticides Toxicity in Agricultural Soil and Plants: Ecological Risks and Human Health Implications. Toxics 2021, 9, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Asati, A.; Pichhode, M.; Nikhil, K. Effect of Heavy Metals on Plants: An Overview. Int. J. Appl. Innov. Eng. Manag. 2016, 5, 56–66. [Google Scholar]
  58. El-Kady, A.A.; Abdel-Wahhab, M.A. Occurrence of trace metals in foodstuffs and their health impact. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 75, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Briffa, J.; Sinagra, E.; Blundell, R. Heavy metal pollution in the environment and their toxicological effects on humans. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, S.; Shi, X. Molecular mechanisms of metal toxicity and carcinogenesis. Mol. Cell. Biochem. 2001, 222, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tchounwou, P.B.; Yedjon, C.G.; Patlolla, A.K.; Sutton, D.J. Heavy Metal Toxicity and Environment. In Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology; Luch, A., Ed.; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 133–164. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chibuike, G.U.; Obiora, S.C. Heavy Metal Polluted Soils: Effect on Plants and Bioremediation Methods. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2014, 2014, 752708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Wang, L.; Rinklebe, J.; Tack, F.M.G.; Hou, D. A review of green remediation strategies for heavy metal contaminated soil. Soil Use Manag. 2021, 27, 936–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mosa, K.A.; Saadoun, I.; Kumar, K.; Helmy, M.; Dhankher, O.P. Potential Biotechnological Strategies for the Cleanup of Heavy Metals and Metalloids. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Chandra, R.; Saxena, G.; Kumar, V. Phytoremediation of Environmental Pollutants: An Eco-Sustainable Green Technology to Environmental Management. In Advances in Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Industrial Waste; Chandra, R., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ullah, A.; Heng, S.; Munis, M.F.H.; Fahad, S.; Yang, X. Phytoremediation of heavy metals assisted by plant growth promoting (PGP) bacteria: A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 117, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rengel, Z. Heavy Metals as Essential Nutrients. In Heavy Metal Stress in Plants; Prasad, M.N.V., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; Volume 1, pp. 271–294. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wuana, R.A.; Okieimen, F.E. Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils: A Review of Sources, Chemistry, Risks and Best Available Strategies for Remediation. ISRN Ecol. 2011, 2011, 402647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Lopez, M.L.; Narayan, M.; Saupe, G.; Gardea-Torresdey, J. The biochemistry of environmental heavy metal uptake by plants: Implications for the food chain. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2009, 41, 1665–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Arif, N.; Yadav, V.; Singh, S.; Singh, S.; Ahmad, P.; Mishra, R.K.; Sharma, S.; Tripathi, D.K.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K. Influence of High and Low Levels of Plant-Beneficial Heavy Metal Ions on Plant Growth and Development. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Oves, M.; Khan, S.; Qari, H.; Felemban, N.; Almeelbi, T. Heavy Metals: Biological Importance and Detoxification Strategies. J. Bioremed. Biodegrad. 2016, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  72. Valko, M.; Morris, H.; Cronin, M.T.D. Metals, Toxicity and Oxidative Stress. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 1161–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Wu, X.; Cobbina, S.J.; Mao, G.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, L. A review of toxicity and mechanisms of individual and mixtures of heavy metals in the environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2016, 23, 8244–8259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, H.F.; Gray, C.; Mico, C.; Zhao, F.J.; McGrath, S.P. Phytotoxicity and bioavailability of cobalt to plants in a range of soils. Chemosphere 2009, 75, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shah, F.U.R.; Ahmad, N.; Masood, K.R.; Peralta-Videa, J.R.; Ahmad, F.D. Heavy Metal Toxicity in Plants. In Plant Adaptation and PhytoremediaKhantion; Ashraf, M., Ozturk, M., Ahmad, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 71–97. [Google Scholar]
  76. Khan, M.R.; Khan, M.M. Effect of Varying Concentration of Nickel and Cobalt on the Plant Growth and Yield of Chickpea. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 1036–1046. [Google Scholar]
  77. Yadav, S. Heavy metals toxicity in plants: An overview on the role of glutathione and phytochelatins in heavy metal stress tolerance of plants. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2010, 76, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Jibril, S.A.; Hassan, S.A.; Ishak, C.F.; Megat Wahab, P.E. Cadmium Toxicity Affects Phytochemicals and Nutrient Elements Composition of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Adv. Agric. 2017, 2017, 1236830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Nascimento, V.; Nogueira, G.; Monteiro, G.; Júnior, W.; Numes de Freitas, J.M.; Neto, C. Influence of Heavy Metals on the Nitrogen Metabolism in Plants. In Nitrogen in Agriculture; Ohyana, T., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 120–197. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hayat, M.T.; Nauman, M.; Nazir, N.; Ali, S.; Bangash, N. Environmental Hazards of Cadmium: Past, Present, and Future. In Cadmium Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants: From Physiology to Remediation; Hasanuzzaman, M., Prasad, M.N.V., Fujita, M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 163–183. [Google Scholar]
  81. Nazar, R.; Iqbal, N.; Masood, A.; Khan, M.I.R.; Syeed, S.; Khan, N.A. Cadmium Toxicity in Plants and Role of Mineral Nutrients in Its Alleviation. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 3, 1476–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Rout, J.R.; Ram, S.S.; Das, R.; Chakraborty, A.; Sudarshan, M.; Sahoo, S.L. Copper-stress induced alterations in protein profile and antioxidant enzymes activities in the in vitro grown Withania somnifera L. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013, 19, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Fernandes, J.C.; Henriques, F.S. Biochemical, physiological, and structural effects of excess copper in plants. Bot. Rev. 1991, 57, 246–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Adrees, M.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Abbas, F.; Farid, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Irshad, M.K.; Bharwana, S.A. The effect of excess copper on growth and physiology of important food crops: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 8148–8162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Shakya, K.; Chettri, M.K.; Sawidis, T. Impact of Heavy Metals (Copper, Zinc, and Lead) on the Chlorophyll Content of Some Mosses. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2008, 54, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Manivasagaperumal, R.; Vijayarengan, P.; Balamurugan, S.; Thiyagarajan, G. Effect of copper on growth, dry matter yield and nutrient content of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. J. Phytol. 2011, 3, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  87. Mukhopadhyay, M.; Das, A.; Subba, P.; Bantawa, P.; Sarkar, B.; Ghosh, P.; Mondal, T.K. Structural, physiological, and biochemical profiling of tea plantlets under zinc stress. Biol. Plant. 2013, 57, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rout, G.; Das, P. Effect of Metal Toxicity on Plant Growth and Metabolism: I. Zinc. Agron. EDP Sci. 2003, 23, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Warne, M.S.J.; Heemsbergen, D.; Stevens, D.; McLaughlin, M.; Cozens, G.; Whatmuff, M.; Broos, K.; Barry, G.; Bell, M.; Nash, D.; et al. Modeling the toxicity of copper and zinc salts to wheat in 14 soils. Envirol. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kaur, H.; Garg, N. Zinc toxicity in plants: A review. Planta 2021, 253, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Abedin, M.J.; Cotter-Howells, J.; Meharg, A.A. Arsenic uptake and accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.) irrigated with contaminated water. Plant Soil 2002, 240, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Finnegan, P.M.; Chen, W. Arsenic Toxicity: The Effects on Plant Metabolism. Front. Physiol. 2012, 3, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Abbas, G.; Murtaza, B.; Bibi, I.; Shahid, M.; Niazi, N.K.; Khan, M.I.; Amjad, M.; Hussain, M.; Natasha, N. Arsenic Uptake, Toxicity, Detoxification, and Speciation in Plants: Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular Aspects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Armendariz, A.L.; Talano, M.A.; Travaglia, C.; Reinoso, H.; Oller, A.L.W.; Agostini, E. Arsenic toxicity in soybean seedlings and their attenuation mechanisms. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 98, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ghasemi, F.; Heidari, R.; Jameii, R.; Purakbar, L. Effects of Ni2+ toxicity on Hill reaction and membrane functionality in maize. J. Stress Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 8, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rahman, H.; Sabreen, S.; Alam, S.; Kawai, S. Effects of nickel on growth and composition of metal micronutrients in barley plants grown in nutrient solution. J. Plant Nutr. 2005, 28, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bhalerao, S.A.; Sharma, A.S.; Poojar, A.C. Toxicity of Nickel in Plants. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2015, 3, 345–355. [Google Scholar]
  98. Lan, M.M.; Khan, C.; Liu, S.J.; Qiu, R.L.; Tang, Y.T. Phytostabilization of cd and pb in highly polluted farmland soils using ramie and amendments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Kushwaha, A.; Hans, N.; Kumar, S.; Rani, R. A critical review on speciation, mobilization and toxicity of lead in soil-microbe-plant system and bioremediation strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 1035–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ali, M.; Nas, F.S. The effect of lead on plants in terms of growing and biochemical parameters: A review. MOJ Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2018, 3, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Anjum, S.A.; Askraf, U.; Khan, I.; Tanverr, M.; Shahid, M.; Shakoor, A.; Wang, L. Phyto-Toxicity of Chromium in Maize: Oxidative Damage, Osmolyte Accumulation, Anti-Oxidative Defense and Chromium Uptake. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Scoccianti, V.; Crinelli, R.; Tirillini, B.; Mancinelli, V.; Speranza, A. Uptake and toxicity of Cr (III) in celery seedlings. Chemosphere 2006, 64, 1695–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Stambulska, U.Y.; Baylijak, M.M.; Lushchak, V.I. Chromium(VI) Toxicity in Legume Plants: Modulation Effects of Rhizobial Symbiosis. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 8031213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hu, X.; Wei, X.; Ling, J.; Chen, J. Cobalt: An Essential Micronutrient for Plant Growth? Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 768523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mahey, S.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, M.; Kumar, V.; Bhardwaj, R. A critical review on toxicity of cobalt and its bioremediation strategies. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. de Oliveira Jucoski, G.; Cambraia, J.; Ribeiro, C.; de Oliveira, J.A.; de Paula, S.O.; Oliva, M.A. Impact of iron toxicity on oxidative metabolism in young Eugenia uniflora L. plants. Acta Physiol. Plant 2013, 35, 1645–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chatterjee, C.; Gopal, R.; Dube, B.K. Impact of iron stress on biomass, yield, metabolism and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Sci. Hortic. 2006, 108, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kleiber, T.; Graje, K.M. Tomato reaction on excessive manganese nutrition. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 21, 118–125. [Google Scholar]
  109. Kovácik, J.; Babula, P.; Hedbavny, J.; Švec, P. Manganese-induced oxidative stress in two ontogenetic stages of chamomile and amelioration by nitric oxide. Plant Sci. 2014, 215, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. McLaughlin, M.J.; Smolders, E.; Degryse, F.; Rietra, R. Uptake of Metals from Soil into Vegetables. In Dealing with Contaminated Sites; Swartjes, F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 325–367. [Google Scholar]
  111. Cobbett, C.; Goldsbrought, P. Phytochelatins and Metallothioneins: Roles in Heavy Metal Detoxification and Homeostasis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Hall, J.L. Cellular mechanisms for heavy metal detoxification and tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dalvi, A.A.; Bhalerao, S.A. Response of Plants towards Heavy Metal Toxicity: An overview of Avoidance, Tolerance and Uptake Mechanism. Ann. Plant Sci. 2013, 2, 362–368. [Google Scholar]
  114. Gupta, D.K.; Vandenhove, H.; Inouhe, M. Role of Phytochelatins in Heavy Metal Stress and Detoxification Mechanisms in Plants. In Heavy Metal Stress in Plants; Gupta, D., Corpas, F., Palma, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  115. Yaashikaa, P.R.; Senthil Kumar, P.; 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]
  116. Sharma, P.; Pandey, K.A.; Udayan, A.; Kumar, S. Role of microbial community and metal-binding proteins in phytoremediation of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 326, 124750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Polak, N.; Read, D.S.; Jurkschat, K.; Matzke, M.; Kelly, F.J.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Stürzenbaum, S.R. Metalloproteins and phytochelatin synthase may confer protection against zinc oxide nanoparticle induced toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2014, 160, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Huang, G.Y.; Wang, Y.S.; Ying, G.G. Cadmium-inducible BgMT2, a type 2 metallothionein gene from mangrove species (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza), its encoding protein shows metal-binding ability. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2011, 405, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Perez-Palacios, P.; Doukkali, B.; Caviedes, M.A.; Pajuelo, E. Expression of the seed-specific metallothionein mt4a in plant vegetative tissues increases Cu and Zn tolerance. Plant Sci. 2010, 178, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Peer, W.A.; Baxter, I.R.; Richards, E.L.; Freeman, J.L.; Murphy, A.S. Phytoremediation and hyperaccumulator plants. In Molecular Biology of Metal Homeostasis and Detoxification; Tamas, M.J., Martinoia, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; Volume 1, pp. 299–340. [Google Scholar]
  121. Thakur, S.; Singh, L.; Wahid, Z.A.; Siddiqui, M.F.; Atnaw, S.M.; Din, M.F.M. Plant-driven removal of heavy metals from soil: Uptake, translocation, tolerance mechanism, challenges, and future perspectives. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Williams, L.E.; Pittman, J.K.; Hall, J.L. Emerging mechanisms for heavy metal transport in plants. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg BBA 2000, 1465, 104–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Singh, S.; Parihar, P.; Singh, R.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M. Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Role of Transcriptomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics, and Ionomics. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Yan, A.; Wang, Y.; Tan, S.N.; Mohd Yusof, L.M.; Ghosh, S.; Chen, Z. Phytoremediation: A Promising Approach for Revegetation of Heavy Metal-Polluted Land. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Guerinot, M.L. The ZIP family of metal transporters. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2000, 1465, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Ajeesh Krishna, T.P.; Maharajan, T.; Roch, G.V.; Savarimuthu, I.; Ceasar, S.A. Structure, Function, Regulation and Phylogenetic Relationship of ZIP Family Transporters of Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Takahashi, R.; Bashir, K.; Ishimaru, Y.; Nishizawa, N.K.; Nakanishi, H. The role of heavy-metal ATPases, HMAs, in zinc and cadmium transport in rice. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 1605–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nevo, Y.; Nelson, N. The NRAMP family of metal-ion transporters. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 2006, 1763, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Chen, Y.; Li, G.; Yang, J.; Zhao, X.; Sun, Z.; Hou, H. Role of Nramp transporter genes of Spirodela polyrhiza in cadmium accumulation. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 227, 112907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Gustin, J.L.; Zanis, M.J.; Salt, D.E. Structure and evolution of the plant cation diffusion facilitator family of ion transporters. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011, 11, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Ricachenevsky, F.K.; Menguer, P.K.; Sperotto, R.A.; Williams, L.E.; Fett, J.P. Roles of plant metal tolerance proteins (MTP) in metal storage and potential use in biofortification strategies. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Hwang, J.-U.; Song, W.-Y.; Hong, D.; Ko, D.; Yamaoka, Y.; Jang, S.; Yim, S.; Lee, E.; Khare, D.; Kim, K.; et al. Plant ABC Transporters enable many unique aspects of a terrestrial plant’s lifestyle. Mol. Plant 2016, 9, 338–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Lafuente, A.; Caviedes, M.Á. Legume–Rhizobium Symbioses as a Tool for Bioremediation of Heavy Metal Polluted Soils. In Biomanagement of Metal-Contaminated Soils. Environmental Pollution; Khan, M., Zaidi, A., Goel, R., Musarrat, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 20, pp. 95–123. [Google Scholar]
  134. Rai, K.K.; Pandey, N.; Meena, R.P.; Rai, S.P. Biotechnological strategies for enhancing heavy metal tolerance in neglected and underutilized legume crops: A comprehensive review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Nedjimi, B. Phytoremediation: A sustainable environmental technology for heavy metals decontamination. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mohamad, R.; Maynaud, G.; Le Quéré, A.; Vidal, C.; Klonowska, A.; Yashiro, E.; Cleyet-Marel, J.-C.; Brunel, B. Ancient Heavy Metal Contamination in Soils as a Driver of Tolerant Anthyllis vulneraria Rhizobial Communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Sujkowska-Rybkowska, M.; Ważny, R. Metal resistant rhizobia and ultrastructure of Anthyllis vulneraria nodules from zinc and lead contaminated tailing in Poland. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2018, 20, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Gratão, P.L.; Vara Prasad, M.N.; Cardoso, P.F.; Lea, P.J.; Azevedo, R.A. Phytoremediation: Green technology for the clean up of toxic metals in the environment. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 17, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Lago-Vila, M.; Arenas-Lago, D.; Rodríguez-Seijo, A.; Andrade, M.L.; Vega, F.A. Ability of Cytisus scoparius for phytoremediation of soils from a Pb/Zn mine: Assessment of metal bioavailability and bioaccumulation. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Guo, J.; Chi, J. Effect of Cd-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobium on plant growth and Cd uptake by Lolium multiflorum Lam. and Glycine max (L.) Merr. in Cd-contaminated soil. Plant Soil 2014, 375, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Reichman, S.M. The Potential use of the legume-rhizobium symbiosis for the remediation of arsenic contaminated sites. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 2587–2593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Younis, M. Responses of Lablab purpureus–Rhizobium symbiosis to heavy metals in pot and field experiments. World J. Agric. Res. 2007, 3, 111–122. [Google Scholar]
  143. Brunet, J.; Repellin, A.; Varrault, G.; Terryna, N.; Zuily-Fodila, Y. Lead accumulation in the roots of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): A novel plant for phytoremediation systems? Comptes Rendus Biol. 2008, 331, 859–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wani, P.; Khan, M.; Zaidi, A. Impact of zinc-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on lentil grown in zinc-amended soil. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 28, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ijilmassi, B.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; Boulahyaoui, H.; Kricha, A.; Boubekri, K.; Udupa, S.; Kumar, S.; Amri, A. Assessment of genetic diversity and symbiotic efficiency of selected rhizobia strains nodulating lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Plants 2020, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Sujkowska-Rybkowska, M.; Rusaczonek, A.; Kochańska-Jeziorska, A. Exploring apoplast reorganization in the nodules of Lotus corniculatus L. growing on old Zn-Pb calamine wastes. J. Plant Physiol. 2022, 268, 153561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Vázquez, S.; Agha, R.; Granado, A.; Sarro, M.J.; Esteban, E.; Peñalosa, J.M.; Carpena, R.O. Use of White Lupin Plant for Phytostabilization of Cd and As Pollute Acid Soil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2006, 177, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Fumagalli, P.; Comolli, R.; Ferre, C.; Ghiani, A.; Gentili, R.; Citterio, S. The rotation of white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) with metal-accumulating plant crops: A strategy to increase the benefits of soil phytoremediation. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Dary, M.; Chamber-Pérez, M.A.; Palomares, A.J.; Pajuelo, E. “In situ” phytostabilisation of heavy metal polluted soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with metal resistant plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kong, Z.; Glick, B.R.; Duan, J.; Ding, S.; Tian, J.; McConkey, B.J.; Wei, G. Effects of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase-overproducing Sinorhizobium meliloti on plant growth and copper tolerance of Medicago lupulina. Plant Soil 2015, 391, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Ghnaya, T.; Mnassri, M.; Ghabriche, R.; Wali, M.; Poschenrieder, C.; Lutts, S.; Abdelly, C. Nodulation by Sinorhizobium meliloti originated from a mining soil alleviates Cd toxicity and increases Cd-phytoextraction in Medicago sativa L. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Nonnoi, F.; Chinnaswamy, A.; García de la Torre, V.S.; Coba de la Peña, T.; Lucas, M.M.; Pueyo, J.J. Metal tolerance of rhizobial strains isolated from nodules of herbaceous legumes (Medicago spp. and Trifolium spp.) growing in mercury-contaminated soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 61, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Shen, G.; Ju, W.; Liu, Y.; Guo, X.; Zhao, W.; Fang, L. Impact of Urea Addition and Rhizobium Inoculation on Plant Resistance in Metal Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Wani, P.A.; Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A. Effect of metal-tolerant plant growth-promoting Rhizobium on the performance of pea grown in metal-amended soil. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2008, 55, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wani, P.A.; Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A. Effects of heavy metal toxicity on growth, symbiosis, seed yield and metal uptake in pea grown in metal amended soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2008, 81, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Muro-Gonzáles, D.A.; Mussali-Galante, P.; Valencia-Cuevas, L.; Flores-Trujillo, K.; Tovar-Sachez, E. Morphological, physiological, and genotoxic effects of heavy metal bioaccumulation in Prosopis laevigata reveal its potential for phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 40187–40204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Băbău, A.M.C.; Micle, V.; Damian, G.E.; Sur, I.M. Sustainable Ecological Restoration of Sterile Dumps Using Robinia pseudoacacia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 14021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Dadea, C.; Russo, A.; Tagliavini, M.; Mimmo, T.; Zerbe, S. Tree Species as Tools for Biomonitoring and Phytoremediation in Urban Environments: A Review with Special Regard to Heavy Metals. Arboric. Urban For. 2017, 43, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Yang, B.; Shu, W.; Ye, Z.; Lan, C.; Wong, M. Growth and metal accumulation in vetiver and two Sesbania species on lead/zinc mine tailings. Chemosphere 2003, 52, 1593–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Saadani, O.; Jebara, S.H.; Fatnassi, I.C.; Chiboub, M.; Mannai, K.; Zarrad, I.; Jebara, M. Effect of Vicia faba L. var. minor and Sulla coronaria (L.) Medik associated with plant growth-promoting bacteria on lettuce cropping system and heavy metal phytoremediation under field conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 8125–8135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ibañez, S.; Medina, M.; Agostini, E. Vicia: A green bridge to clean up polluted environments. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Gospodarek, J.; Nadgórska–Socha, A. Chemical composition of broad beans (Vicia faba L.) and development parameters of black bean aphid (Aphis fabae Scop.) under conditions of soil contamination with oil derivatives. J. Elem. 2016, 21, 1359–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Kanwal, A.; Ali, S.; Farhan, M. Heavy metal phytoextraction potential of indigenous tree species of family fabaceae. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2019, 21, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Wong, M.H. Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal contaminated soils. Chemosphere 2003, 50, 775–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Hao, X.; Taghavi, S.; Xie, P.; Orbach, M.J.; Alwathanini, H.A.; Rensing, C.; Wei, G. Phytoremediation of Heavy and Transition Metals Aided by Legume-Rhizobia Symbiosis. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2014, 16, 179–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Renella, G.; Chaudri, A.; Brookes, P. Fresh additions of heavy metals do not model long-term effects on microbial biomass and activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Smolders, E.; McGrath, S.P.; Lombi, E.; Karman, C.C.; Bernhard, R.; Cools, D.; Van den Brande, K.; van Os, B.; Walrave, N. Comparison of toxicity of zinc for soil microbial processes between laboratory-contamined and polluted field soils. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 2592–2598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Smolders, E.; Buekers, J.; Oliver, I.; McLaughlin, M.J. Soil properties affecting toxicity of zinc to soil microbial properties in laboratory-spiked and field-contaminated soils. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2004, 23, 2633–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Sujkowska-Rybkowska, M.; Kasowska, D.; Gediga, K.; Banasiewicz, J.; Stępkowski, T. Lotus corniculatus-rhizobia symbiosis under Ni, Co and Cr stress on ultramafic soil. Plant Soil 2020, 451, 459–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Martíınez-Hidalgo, P.; Hirsch, A.M. The nodule microbiome: N2–fixing rhizobia do not live alone. Phytobiomes 2017, 1, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Rodrígez, H.; Fraga, R. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol. Adv. 1999, 17, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ma, Y.; Prasad, M.N.; Rajkumar, M.; Freitas, H. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and endophytes accelerate phytoremediation of metalliferous soils. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ojuederie, O.B.; Babalola, O.O. Microbial and plant-assisted bioremediation of heavy metals polluted environments: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Chen, X.H.; Koumoutsi, A.; Scholz, R.; Eisenreich, A.; Schneider, K.; Heinemeyer, I.; Morgenstern, B.; Voss, B.; Hess, W.R.; Reva, O.; et al. Comparative analysis of the complete genome sequence of the plant growth promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1007–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Giller, K.; McGrath, S.; Hirsch, P. Absence of nitrogen fixation in clover grown on soil subject to long-term contamination with heavy metals is due to survival of only ineffective Rhizobium. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989, 21, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Brown, S.; Svendsen, A.; Henry, C. Restoration of high zinc and lead tailings with municipal biosolids and lime: A field study. J. Environ. Qual. 2009, 38, 2189–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. O’Day, P.A.; Vlassopoulos, D. Mineral-based amendments for remediation. Elements 2010, 6, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  178. Adams, M.A.; Simon, J.; Pfautsch, S. Woody legumes: A (re)view from the south. Tree Physiol. 2010, 30, 1072–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  179. Sajnaga, E.; Jach, M.E. Bradyrhizobia associated with Laburnum anagyroides, an exotic legume grown in Poland. Symbiosis 2020, 80, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Gyaneshwar, P.; Hirsch, A.M.; Moulin, L.; Chen, W.-M.; Elliott, G.N.; Bontemps, C.; Estrada-de los Santos, P.; Gross, E.; Dos Reis, F.B.; Sprent, J.I.; et al. Legume-nodulating betaproteobacteria: Diversity, host range, and future prospects. Mol. Plant Microbe. Interact. 2011, 24, 1276–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Bontemps, C.; Elliott, G.N.; Simon, M.F.; Dos Reis júnior, F.B.; Gross, E.; Lawton, R.C.; Neto, N.E.; de Fátima Loureiro, M.; De Faria, S.M.; Sprent, J.I.; et al. Burkholderia species are ancient symbionts of legumes. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. De Meyer, S.E.; Briscoe, L.; Martínez-Hidalgo, P.; Agapakis, C.M.; Estrada de-los Santos, P.; Seshadri, R.; Reeve, W.; Weinstock, G.; O’Hara, G.; Howieson, J.G.; et al. Symbiotic Burkholderia species show diverse arrangements of nif/fix and nod genes, and lack typical high affinity cytochrome cbb3 oxidase genes. Mol. Plant Microbe. Interact. 2016, 29, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Moulin, L.; Munive, A.; Dreyfus, B.; Boivin-Masson, C. Nodulation of legumes by members of the b-subclass of Proteobacteria. Lett. Nat. 2001, 411, 948–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Kalita, M.; Małek, W.; Coutinho, T.A. Putative novel Bradyrhizobium and Phyllobacterium species isolated from root nodules of Chamaecytisus ruthenicus. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 43, 126056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. De Meyer, S.E.; De Beuf, K.; Vekeman, B. A large diversity of nonrhizobial endophytes found in legume root nodules in Flanders (Belgium). Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 83, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Radutoiu, S.; Madsen, L.H.; Madsen, E.B.; Felle, H.H.; Umehara, Y.; Gronlund, M.; Sato, S.; Nakamura, Y.; Tabata, S.; Sandal, N.; et al. Plant recognition of symbiotic bacteria requires two LysM receptor-like kinases. Nature 2003, 425, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Rodríguez-Caballero, G.; Caravaca, F.; Fernández-González, A.J.; Alguacil, M.M.; Fernández-López, M.; Roldán, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation mediated changes in rhizosphere bacterial community structure while promoting revegetation in a semiarid ecosystem. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 584, 838–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Nzoué, A.; Domergue, O.; Moulin, L.; Avarre, J.-C.; de Lajudie, P. Tropical Legume Nodulating Bacteria. In Molecular Biology of Tropical Plants; Franche, C., Ed.; Research Signpost: Kerala, India, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  189. de Lajudie, P.; Willems, A.; Pot, B.; Dewettinck, D.; Maestrojuan, G.; Neyra, M.; Collins, M.D.; Dreyfus, B.; Kersters, K.; Gillis, M. Polyphasic taxonomy of rhizobia: Emendation of the genus Sinorhizobium and description of Sinorhizobium meliloti comb. nov., Sinorhizobium saheli sp. nov., and Sinorhizobium teranga sp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994, 44, 715–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Nour, S.M.; Fernandez, M.P.; Normand, P.; Cleyet-Marel, J.C. Rhizobium ciceri sp. nov., consisting of strains that nodulate chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994, 44, 511–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Xu, L.M.; Ge, C.; Cui, Z.; Li, J.; Fan, H. Bradyrhizobium liaoningense sp. nov., isolated from the root nodules of soybeans. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1995, 45, 706–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Gao, J.L.; Sun, J.G.; Li, Y.; Wang, E.T.; Chen, W.X. Numerical taxonomy and DNA relatedness of tropical rhizobia isolated from Hainan Province, China. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1994, 44, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Chen, W.X.; Wang, E.T.; Wang, S.Y.; Ly, Y.B.; Chen, X.Q.; Li, Y. Characteristics of Rhizobium tianshanense sp. nov., a moderately and slowly growing root nodule bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1995, 45, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Parker, M.A. Relationships of bradyrhizobia from the legumes Apios americana and Desmodium glutinosum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1999, 65, 4914–4920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Sullivan, J.T.; Eardly, B.D.; van Berkum, P.; Ronson, C.W. Four unnamed species of nonsymbiotic rhizobia isolated from the rhizosphere of Lotus corniculatus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 2818–2825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Vanlnsberghe, D.; Maas, K.R.; Cardenas, E.; Strachan, C.R.; Hallam, S.J.; Mohn, W.W. Non-symbiotic Bradyrhizobium ecotypes dominate north American forest soils. ISME J. 2015, 9, 2435–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Downie, J.A.; Young, J.P. Genome sequencing. The ABC of symbiosis. Nature 2001, 412, 597–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Hawkins, J.P.; Oresnik, I.J. The rhizobium-legume symbiosis: Co-opting successful stress management. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 796045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Oldroyd, G.E.; Downie, J.A. Coordinating nodule morphogenesis with rhizobial infection in legumes. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 519–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Oldroyd, G.E.; Murray, J.D.; Poole, P.S.; Downie, J.A. The rules of engagement in the legume-rhizobial symbiosis. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2011, 45, 119–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Barnett, M.J.; Fisher, R.F. Global gene expression in the rhizobial-legume symbiosis. Symbiosis 2006, 42, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  202. Geddes, B.A.; Oresnik, I.J. The mechanism of symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In The Mechanistic Benefits of Microbial Symbionts. Advances in Environmental Microbiology; Hurst, C.J., Ed.; International Publishing Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 69–97. [Google Scholar]
  203. Madsen, E.B.; Madsen, L.H.; Radutoiu, S.; Olbryt, M.; Rakwalska, M.; Szczyglowski, K.; Sato, S.; Kaneko, T.; Tabata, S.; Sandal, N.; et al. A receptor kinase gene of the LysM type is involved in legume perception of rhizobial signals. Nature 2003, 425, 637–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Hungria, M.; Menna, P.; Delamuta, J.R. Bradyrhizobium, the ancestor of all rhizobia: Phylogeny of housekeeping and nitrogen-fixation genes. In Biological Nitrogen Fixation; de Bruijn, F.J., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 191–202. [Google Scholar]
  205. Parker, M.A. The spread of Bradyrhizobium lineages across host legume clades: From Abarema to Zygia. Microb. Ecol. 2015, 69, 630–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Jones, K.M.; Kobayashi, H.; Davies, B.W.; Taga, M.E.; Walker, G.C. How rhizobial symbionts invade plants: The Sinorhizobium-Medicago model. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2007, 5, 619–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Ehrhardt, D.W.; Wais, R.; Long, S.R. Calcium spiking in plant root hairs responding to rhizobium nodulation signals. Cell 1996, 85, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Shaw, S.L.; Long, S.R. Nod factor inhibition of reactive oxygen efflux in a host legume. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 2196–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Fournier, J.; Timmers, A.C.J.; Sieberer, B.J.; Jauneau, A.; Chabaud, M.; Barker, D.G. Mechanism of infection thread elongation in root hairs of Medicago truncatula and dynamic interplay with associated rhizobial colonization. Plant Physiol. 2008, 148, 1985–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Del Cerro, P.; Megías, M.; López-Baena, F.J.; Gil-Serrano, A.; Pérez-Montaño, F.; Ollero, F.J. Osmotic stress activates nif and fix genes and induces the rhizobium tropici CIAT 899 nod factor production via NodD2 by up-regulation of the nodA2 operon and the nodA3 gene. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Pérez-Montaño, F.; del Cerro, P.; Jiménez-Guerrero, I.; López-Baena, F.J.; Cubo, M.T.; Hungria, M.; Megías, M.; Ollero, F.J. RNA-seq analysis of the rhizobium tropici CIAT 899 transcriptome shows similarities in the activation patterns of symbiotic genes in the presence of apigenin and salt. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Miller-Williams, M.; Loewen, P.C.; Oresnik, I.J. Isolation of salt-sensitive mutants of Sinorhizobium meliloti strain Rm1021. Microbiology 2006, 152, 2049–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Dylan, T.; Nagpal, P.; Helinski, D.R.; Ditta, G.S. Symbiotic pseudorevertants of Rhizobium meliloti ndv mutants. J. Bacteriol. 1990, 172, 1409–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Nagpal, P.; Khanuja, S.P.; Stanfield, S.W. Suppression of the ndv mutant phenotype of Rhizobium meliloti by cloned exo genes. Mol. Microbiol. 1992, 6, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Miller, K.J.; Wood, J.M. Osmoadatptation by rhizosphere bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1996, 6, e23307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Smith, L.T.; Allaith, A.A.; Smith, G.M. Mechanism of osmotically regulated N-acetylglutaminylglutamine amide production in rhizobium meliloti. Plant Soil 1994, 161, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Gober, J.W.; Kashket, E.R. K+ regulates bacteroid-associated functions of Bradyrhizobium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1987, 84, 4650–4654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Hunt, S.; King, B.J.; Canvin, D.T.; Layzell, D.B. Steady and nonsteady state gas exchange characteristics of soybean nodules in relation to the oxygen diffusion barrier. Plant Physiol. 1987, 84, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  219. Dixon, R.; Kahn, D. Genetic regulation of biological nitrogen fixation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 621–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Zamorano-Sánchez, D.; Girard, L. FNR-like proteins in rhizobia: Past and future. In Biology Nitrogen Fixation; Brujin, F.J., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Seattle, WA, USA, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 155–166. [Google Scholar]
  221. Reyes-González, A.; Talbi, C.; Rodríguez, S.; Rivera, P.; Zamorano-Sánchez, D.; Girard, L. Expanding the regulatory network that controls nitrogen fixation in Sinorhizobium meliloti: Elucidating the role of the two-component system hFixL-FxkR. Microbiology 2016, 162, 979–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Rutten, P.J.; Steel, H.; Hood, G.A.; Ramachandran, V.K.; McMurtry, L.; Geddes, B.; Papachristodoulou, A.; Philip, S.; Poole, P.S. Multiple sensors provide spatiotemporal oxygen regulation of gene expression in a rhizobium-legume symbiosis. PLoS Genet. 2021, 17, e1009099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Boscari, A.; Meilhoc, E.; Castella, C.; Bruand, C.; Puppo, A.; Brouquisse, R. Which role for nitric oxide in symbiotic N2-fixing nodules: Toxic by-product or useful signaling/metabolic intermediate? Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  224. Puppo, A.; Pauly, N.; Boscari, A.; Mandon, K.; Brouquisse, R. Hydrogen peroxide and nitric oxide: Key regulators of the legume-rhizobium and mycorrhizal symbioses. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2013, 18, 2202–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Lohar, D.P.; Haridas, S.; Gantt, J.S.; VandenBosch, K.A. A transient decrease in reactive oxygen species in roots leads to root hair deformation in the legume-rhizobia symbiosis. New Phytol. 2007, 173, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Jamet, A.; Sigaud, S.; Van de Sype, G.; Puppo, A.; Herouart, D. Expression of the bacterial catalase genes during Sinorhizobium meliloti- Medicago sativa symbiosis and their crucial role during the infection process. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2003, 16, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  227. Pauly, N.; Pucciariello, C.; Mandon, K.; Innocenti, G.; Jamet, A.; Baudouin, E.; Hérouart, D.; Frendo, P.; Puppo, A. Reactive oxygen and nitrogen species and glutathione: Key players in the legume-rhizobium symbiosis. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 1769–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  228. Donati, A.J.; Jeon, J.M.; Sangurdekar, D.; So, J.S.; Chang, W.S. Genome-wide transcriptional and physiological responses of Bradyrhizobium japonicum to paraquat-mediated oxidative stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 3633–3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  229. Fonseca-García, C.; Nava, N.; Lara, M.; Quinto, C. An NADPH oxidase regulates carbon metabolism and the cell cycle during root nodule symbiosis in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 274–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Lehman, A.P.; Long, S.R. Exopolysaccharides from Sinorhizobium meliloti can protect against H2O2-dependent damage. J. Bacteriol. 2013, 195, 5362–5369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  231. Faget, M.; Blossfeld, S.; von Gillhaussen, P.; Schurr, U.; Temperton, V.M. Disentangling who is who during rhizosphere acidification in root interactions: Combining fluorescence with optode techniques. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  232. Pierre, O.; Engler, G.; Hopkins, J.; Brau, F.; Boncompagni, E.; Hérouart, D. Peribacteroid space acidification: A marker of mature bacteroid functioning in Medicago truncatula nodules. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 2059–2070. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  233. Geddes, B.A.; González, J.E.; Oresnik, I.J. Exopolysaccharide production in response to medium acidification is correlated with an increase in competition for nodule occupancy. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2014, 27, 1307–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  234. Guerrero-Castro, J.; Lozano, L.; Sohlenkamp, C. Dissecting the acid stress response of rhizobium tropici CIAT 899. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  235. Chen, H.; Richardson, A.E.; Rolfe, B.G. Studies of the physiological and genetic basis of acid tolerance in rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 1798–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  236. Fenner, B.J.; Tiwari, R.P.; Reeve, W.G.; Dilworth, M.J.; Glenn, A.R. Sinorhizobium medicae genes whose regulation involves the ActS and/or ActR signal transduction proteins. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 236, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Draghi, W.O.; Del Papa, M.F.; Hellweg, C.; Watt, S.A.; Watt, T.F.; Barsch, A.; Lozano, M.J.; Lagares, A., Jr.; Salas, M.E.; López, J.L.; et al. A consolidated analysis of the physiologic and molecular responses induced under acid stress in the legume-symbiont model-soil bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  238. Riccillo, P.M.; Muglia, C.I.; De Bruijn, F.J.; Roe, A.J.; Booth, I.R.; Aguilar, O.M. Glutathione is involved in environmental stress responses in rhizobium tropici, including acid tolerance. J. Bacteriol. 2000, 182, 1748–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  239. Muglia, C.I.; Grasso, D.H.; Aguilar, O.M. Rhizobium tropici response to acidity involves activation of glutathione synthesis. Microbiology 2007, 153, 1286–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  240. Cunningham, S.D.; Munns, D.N. The correlation between extracellular polysaccharide production and acid tolerance in rhizobium. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1984, 48, 1273–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  241. Hawkins, J.P.; Geddes, B.A.; Oresnik, I.J. Succinoglycan directly contributes to pH tolerance in Sinorhizboium meliloti Rm1021. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2017, 30, 1009–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  242. Heavner, M.E.; Qiu, W.G.; Cheng, H. Phylogenetic co-occurrence of ExoR, ExoS, and ChvI, components of the RSI bacterial invasion switch, suggests a key adaptive mechanism regulating the transition between free-living and host-invading phases in Rhizobiales. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Maillet, F.; Fournier, J.; Mendis, H.C.; Tadege, M.; Wen, J.; Ratet, P.; Mysore, K.S.; Gough, C.; Jones, K.M. Sinorhizobium meliloti succinylated high-molecular-weight succinoglycan and the Medicago truncatula LysM receptor-like kinase MtLYK10 participate independently in symbiotic infection. Plant J. 2020, 102, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  244. Mendis, H.C.; Madzima, T.F.; Queiroux, C.; Jones, K.M. Function of succinoglycan polysaccharide in Sinorhizobium meliloti host plant invasion depends on succinylation, not molecular weight. MBio 2016, 7, e00606-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  245. Alunni, B.; Gourion, B. Terminal bacteroid differentiation in the legume-rhizobium symbiosis: Nodule-specific cysteine-rich peptides and beyond. New Phytol. 2016, 211, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Haag, A.F.; Baloban, M.; Sani, M.; Kerscher, B.; Pierre, O.; Farkas, A.; Longhi, R.; Boncompagni, E.; Hérouart, D.; Dall’angelo, S.; et al. Protection of Sinorhizobium against host cysteine-rich antimicrobial peptides is critical for symbiosis. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Maroti, G.G.; Kereszt, A.; Kondorosi, E.; Mergaert, P. Natural roles of antimicrobial peptides in microbes, plants and animals. Res. Microbiol. 2011, 162, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Guefrachi, I.; Pierre, O.; Timchenko, T.; Alunni, B.; Barrière, Q.; Czernic, P.; Villaécija-Aguilar, J.A.; Verly, C.; Bourge, M.; Fardoux, J.; et al. Bradyrhizobium BclA is a peptide transporter required for bacterial differentiation in Symbiosis with Aeschynomene legumes. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2015, 28, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  249. Khalid, A.; Tahir, S.; Arshad, M.; Zahir, Z.A. Relative efficiency of rhizobacteria for auxin biosynthesis in rhizosphere and non-rhizosphere soils. Soil Res. 2005, 42, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Hao, X.; Xie, P.; Johnstone, L.; Miller, S.J.; Rensing, C.; Wei, G. Genome sequence and mutational analysis of plant growth promoting bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens CCNWGS0286 isolated from a zinc-lead mine tailing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 5384–5394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  251. Bianco, C.; Defez, R. Improvement of phosphate solubilization and Medicago plant yield by an indole-3-acetic acid-overproducing strain of Sinorhizobium meliloti. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 4626–4632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  252. Theunis, M.; Kobayashi, H.; Broughton, W.J.; Prinsen, E. Flavonoids, NodD1, NodD2, and nodbox NB15 modulate expression of the y4wEFG locus that is required for indole-3-acetic acid synthesis in Rhizobium sp. strain NGR234. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2004, 17, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  253. Barazani, O.; Friedman, J. Is IAA the major root growth factor secreted from plant-growth mediating bacteria? J. Chem. Ecol. 1999, 25, 2397–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Dazzo, F.; Biswas, J.; Ladha, J. Rhizobia inoculation improves nutrient uptake and growth of lowland rice. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64, 1644–1650. [Google Scholar]
  255. Spaepen, S.; Vanderleyden, J.; Remans, R. Indole-3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism plant signaling. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 31, 425–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  256. Glick, B.R. Modulation of plant ethylene levels by the bacterial enzyme ACC deaminase. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2005, 251, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Ghosh, S.; Basu, P.S. Production and metabolism of indole acetic acid in roots and root nodules of Phaseolus mungo. Microbiol. Res. 2006, 161, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Penmetsa, R.V.; Frugoli, J.A.; Smith, L.S.; Long, S.R.; Cook, D.R. Dual genetic pathways controlling nodule number in Medicago truncatula. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 998–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  259. Camerini, S.; Senatore, B.; Lonardo, E.; Imperlini, E.; Bianco, C.; Moschetti, G.; Rotino, G.L.; Campion, B.; Defez, R. Introduction of a novel pathway for IAA biosynthesis to rhizobia alters vetch root nodule development. Arch. Microbiol. 2008, 190, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Prinsen, E.; Chauvaux, N.; Schmidt, J.; John, M.; Wieneke, U.; De Greef, J.; Schell, J.; Van Onckelen, H. Stimulation of indole-3-acetic acid production in Rhizobium by flavonoids. FEBS Lett. 1991, 282, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  261. Purchase, D.; Miles, R.; Young, T. Cadmium uptake and nitrogen fixing ability in heavy-metal resistant laboratory and field strains of Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar trifolii. FEMS Microb. Ecol. 1997, 22, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Singh, S.; Kayastha, A.M.; Asthana, R.K.; Srivastava, P.K.; Singh, S. Response of Rhizobium leguminosarum to nickel stress. World J. Microb. Biot. 2001, 17, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Lima, A.I.G.; Corticeiro, S.C.; de Almeida Paula Figueira, E.M. Glutathione-mediated cadmium sequestration in Rhizobium leguminosarum. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Lakzian, A.; Murphy, P.; Giller, K.E. Transfer and loss of naturally-occurring plasmids among isolates of Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. viciae in heavy metal contaminated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1066–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Luo, S.L.; Chen, L.; Chen, J.L.; Xiao, X.; Xu, T.Y.; Wan, Y.; Rao, C.; Liu, C.B.; Liu, Y.T.; Lai, C.; et al. Analysis and characterization of cultivable heavy metal-resistant bacterial endophytes isolated from Cd-hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. and their potential use for phytoremediation. Chemosphere 2011, 85, 1130–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Martinez, R.J.; Wang, Y.; Raimondo, M.A.; Coombs, J.M.; Barkay, T.; Sobecky, P.A. Horizontal gene transfer of PIB-Type ATPases among bacteria isolated from radionuclide-and metal-contaminated subsurface soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 3111–3118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  267. Abdelkrim, S.; Jebara, S.H.; Jebara, M. Antioxidant systems responses and the compatible solutes as contributing factors to lead accumulation and tolerance in Lathyrus sativus inoculated by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 166, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Chiboub, M.; Jebara, S.H.; Saadani, O.; Fatnassi, I.C.; Abdelkrim, S.; Abid, G.; Jebara, M.; Harzalli Jebara, S. Characterization of efficient plant-growth-promoting bacteria isolated form Sulla coronaria resistant to cadmium and to other heavy metals. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2016, 339, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Del Rio, M.; Font, R.; Almela, C.; Velez, D.; Montoro, R.; De Haro Bailon, A. Heavy metals and arsenic uptake by wild vegetation in the Guadiamar river area after the toxic spill of the Aznalcollar mine. J. Biotechnol. 2002, 98, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Bai, T.; Liu, Y.-Y.; Muhammad, I.; Yang, X.; Yin, X.-J.; Bai, L.; Wang, Y.-J. Mixed nitrogen form addition facilitates the growth adaptation of legume plant to heavy metal contamination in degraded mining areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Sujkowska-Rybkowska, M.; Muszyńska, E.; Labudda, M. Structural adaptation and physiological mechanisms in the leaves of Anthyllis vulneraria L. from metallicolous and non-metallicolous populations. Plants 2020, 9, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Chaney, R.L.; Siebielec, G.; Li, Y.M.; Kerschner, B.A. Response of four turfgrass cultivars to limestone and biosolids-compost amendment of a zinc and cadmium contaminated soil at Palmerton, Pennsylvania. J. Environ. Qual. 2000, 29, 1440–1447. [Google Scholar]
  273. Chaney, R.L.; Broadhurst, C.L.; Centofanti, T. Phytoremediation of Soil Trace Elements. In Trace Elements in Soils; Hooda, P., Ed.; Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 311–352. [Google Scholar]
  274. Carrasco, J.A.; Armario, P.; Pajuelo, E.; Burgos, A.; Caviedes, M.A.; López, R.; Chamber, M.A.; Palomares, J.A. Isolation and characterisation of symbiotically effective Rhizobium resistant to arsenic and heavy metals after the toxic spill at the Aznalcóllar pyrite mine. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 1131–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Vara Prasad, M.N.; de Oliveira Freitas, H.M. Metal hyperaccumulation in plants: Biodiversity prospecting for phytoremediation technology. Electron. J. Biotechn. 2003, 6, 285–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Bolan, N.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; Thangarajan, R.; Kumpiene, J.; Park, J.; Makino, T.; Kirkham, M.B.; Scheckel, K. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils-to mobilize or to immobilize? J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 266, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Pramanik, K.; Mitra, S.; Sarkar, A.; Maiti, T.K. Alleviation of phytotoxic effects of cadmium on rice seedlings by cadmium resistant PGPR strain Enterobacter aerogenes MCC 3092. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 351, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. de Sousa Leite, T.S.; Monteiro, F.A. Nitrogen form regulates cadmium uptake and accumulation in Tanzania guinea grass used for phytoextraction. Chemosphere 2019, 236, 124324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Leite, T.S.; Monteiro, F.A. Partial replacement of nitrate by ammonium increases photosynthesis and reduces oxidative stress in Tanzania guinea grass exposed to cadmium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 174, 592–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Checcucci, A.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Mengoni, A. Exploiting nitrogen-fixing rhizobial symbionts genetic resources for improving phytoremediation of contaminated soils. In Enhancing Cleanup of Environmental Pollutants; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 275–288. [Google Scholar]
  281. Hao, X.L.; Xie, P.; Zhu, Y.G.; Taghavi, S.; Wei, G.H.; Rensing, C. Copper tolerance mechanisms of Mesorhizobium amorphae and its role in aiding phytostabilization by Robinia pseudoacacia in copper contaminated soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 2328–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Sánchez-Navarro, V.; Zornoza, R.; Faz, A.; Fernandez, J.A. Comparing legumes for use in multiple cropping to enhance soil organic carbon, soil fertility, aggregates stability and vegetables yields under semiarid conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 835–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Zhang, X.; Lou, X.; Zhang, H.; Ren, W.; Tang, M. Effects of sodium sulfide application on the growth of Robinia pseudoacacia, heavy metal immobilization, and soil microbial activity in PbeZn polluted soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 197, 110563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. de-Bashan, L.E.; Hernandez, J.P.; Bashan, Y. The potential contribution of plant growth-promoting bacteria to reduce environmental degradation–A comprehensive evaluation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 61, 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Teng, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, L.; Li, Z.; Luo, Y. Rhizobia and their bio-partners as novel drivers for functional remediation in contaminated soils. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  286. Fritioff, Å.; Kautsky, L.; Greger, M. Influence of temperature and salinity on heavy metal uptake by submersed plants. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 133, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Pastor, J.; Hernandez, A.J.; Prieto, N.; Fernandez-Pascual, M. Accumulating behaviour of Lupinus albus L. growing in a normal and a decalcified calcic luvisol polluted with Zn. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  288. Vazquez, S.; Moreno, E.; Carpena, R.O. Bioavailability of metals and as from acidified multicontaminated soils: Use of white lupin to validate several extraction methods. Environ. Geochem. Health 2008, 30, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Freeman, J.L.; Zhang, L.H.; Marcus, M.A.; Fakra, S.; McGrath, S.P.; Pilon-Smits, E.A. Spatial imaging, speciation, and quantification of selenium in the hyperaccumulator plants Astragalus bisulcatus and Stanleya pinnata. Plant Physiol. 2006, 142, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  290. Cai, S.; Xu, S.; Zhang, D.; Fu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, H. Phytoremediation of Secondary Salinity in Greenhouse Soil with Astragalus sinicus, Spinacea oleracea and Lolium perenne. Agriculture 2022, 12, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Liu, Z.; Tran, K.Q. A review on disposal and utilization of phytoremediation plants containing heavy metals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 226, 112821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Ju, W.L.; Liu, L.; Fang, L.C.; Cui, Y.X.; Duan, C.J.; Wu, H. Impact of co-inoculation with plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria and rhizobium on the biochemical responses of alfalfa-soil system in copper contaminated soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 167, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  293. Hou, W.J.; Ma, Z.Q.; Sun, L.L.; Han, M.S.; Lu, J.J.; Li, Z.X.; Mohamad, O.A.; Wei, G.H. Extracellular polymeric substances from copper-tolerance Sinorhizobium meliloti immobilize Cu2+. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 261, 614–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  294. Etesami, H. Bacterial mediated alleviation of heavy metal stress and decreased accumulation of metals in plant tissues: Mechanisms and future prospects. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 147, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  295. Wang, T.; Hua, Y.P.; Chen, M.X.; Zhang, J.H.; Guan, C.Y.; Zhang, Z.H. Mechanism enhancing Arabidopsis resistance to cadmium: The role of NRT1.5 and proton pump. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  296. Xie, P.; Hao, X.L.; Herzberg, M.; Luo, Y.T.; Nies, D.H.; Wei, G.H. Genomic analyses of metal resistance genes in three plant growth promoting bacteria of legume plants in Northwest mine tailings, China. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 27, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Rajkumar, M.; Ae, N.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Freitas, H. Potential of siderophore-producing bacteria for improving heavy metal phytoextraction. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Saadani, O.; Fatnassi, I.C.; Chiboub, M.; Abdelkrim, S.; Barhoumi, F.; Jebara, M.; Jebara, S.H. In situ phytostabilisation capacity of three legumes and their associated Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPBs) in mine tailings of northern Tunisia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 130, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Duan, C.J.; Fang, L.C.; Yang, C.L.; Chen, W.B.; Cui, Y.X.; Li, S.Q. Reveal the response of enzyme activities to heavy metals through in situ zymography. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 156, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Lee, S.H.; Kim, E.Y.; Hyun, S.; Kim, J.G. Metal availability in heavy metal-contaminated open burning and open detonation soil: Assessment using soil enzymes, earthworms, and chemical extractions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Shenker, M.; Fan, T.W.M.; Crowley, D.E. Phytosiderophores influence on cadmium mobilization and uptake by wheat and barley plants. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 2091–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Rahman, T.; Seraj, M.F. Available approaches of remediation and stabilization of metal contamination in soil: A review. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 2033–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  303. Fan, M.; Xiao, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, E.; Chen, W.; Lin, Y.; Wei, G. Enhanced phytoremediation of Robinia pseudoacatia in heavy metal-contamined soils with rhizobia and the associated bacterial community structure and function. Chemosphere 2018, 197, 729–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Backer, R.; Rokem, J.S.; Ilangumaran, G.; Lamont, J.; Praslickova, D.; Ricci, E.; Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  305. Abhilash, P.C.; Powell, J.R.; Singh, H.B.; Singh, B.K. Plant-microbe interactions: Novel applications for exploitation in multipurpose remediation technologies. Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  306. Kotrba, P.; Najmanova, J.; Macek, T.; Ruml, T.; Mackova, M. Genetically modified plants in phytoremediation of heavy metal and metalloid soil and sediment pollution. Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Tussipkan, D.; Manabayeva, S.A. Alfalfa (Medicago Sativa L.): Genotypic Diversity and Transgenic Alfalfa for Phytoremediation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Hussein, H.S.; Ruiz, O.N.; Terry, N.; Daniell, H. Phytoremediation of mercury and organomercurials in chloroplast transgenic plants: Enhanced root uptake, translocation to shoots, and volatilization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 8439–8446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  309. Daniell, H.; Lin, C.S.; Yu, M.; Chang, W.-J. Chloroplast genomes: Diversity, evolution, and applications in genetic engineering. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  310. Koźmińska, A.; Wiszniewska, A.; Hanus-Fajerska, E.; Muszyńska, E. Recent strategies of increasing metal tolerance and phytoremediation potential using genetic transformation of plants. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2018, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  311. Venegas-Rioseco, J.; Ginocchio, R.; Ortiz-Calderón, C. Increase in Phytoextraction Potential by Genome Editing and Transformation: A Review. Plants 2021, 11, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Shim, D.; Kim, S.; Choi, Y.I.; Song, W.Y.; Park, J.; Youk, E.S.; Jeong, S.C.; Martinoia, E.; Noh, E.W.; Lee, Y. Transgenic poplar trees expressing yeast cadmium factor 1 exhibit the characteristics necessary for the phytoremediation of mine tailing soil. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 1478–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  313. Jiang, Y.; Han, J.; Xue, W.; Wang, J.; Wang, B.; Liu, L.; Zou, J. Overexpression of SmZIP plays important roles in Cd accumulation and translocation, subcellular distribution, and chemical forms in transgenic tobacco under Cd stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 214, 112097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  314. Bhuiyan, M.S.U.; Min, S.R.; Jeong, W.J.; Sultana, S.; Choi, K.S.; Lee, Y.; Liu, J.R. Overexpression of AtATM3 in Brassica juncea confers enhanced heavy metal tolerance and accumulation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2011, 107, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Wang, C.; Chen, X.; Yao, Q.; Long, D.; Fan, X.; Kang, H.; Zeng, J.; Sha, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, Y.; et al. Overexpression of TtNRAMP6 enhances the accumulation of Cd in Arabidopsis. Gene 2019, 696, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Tian, S.; Lu, L.; Shohag, M.J.; Yang, X. Metallothionein 2 (SaMT2) from Sedum alfredii Hance confers increased Cd tolerance and accumulation in yeast and tobacco. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  317. Zhao, C.; Xu, J.; Li, Q.; Li, S.; Wang, P.; Xiang, F. Cloning and characterization of a Phragmites australis phytochelatin synthase (PaPCS) and achieving Cd tolerance in tall fescue. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  318. Zhu, S.; Shi, W.; Jie, Y. Overexpression of BnPCS1, a Novel Phytochelatin Synthase Gene from Ramie (Boehmeria nivea), Enhanced Cd Tolerance, Accumulation, and Translocation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 639189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  319. Joshi, R.; Pareek, A.; Singla-Pareek, S.L. Plant Metallothioneins: Classification, Distribution, Function, and Regulation. In Plant Metal Interaction; Ahmad, P., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 239–261. [Google Scholar]
  320. Grill, E.; Löffler, S.; Winnacker, E.L.; Zenk, M.H. Phytochelatins, the heavy-metal-binding peptides of plants, are synthesized from glutathione by a specific gamma-glutamylcysteine dipeptidyl transpeptidase (phytochelatin synthase). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1989, 86, 6838–6842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  321. Kumar, S.; Trivedi, P.K. Glutathione S-Transferases: Role in Combating Abiotic Stresses Including Arsenic Detoxification in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  322. Kumar, V.; AlMomin, S.; Al-Shatti, A.; Al-Aqeel, H.; Al-Salameen, F.; Shajan, A.B.; Nair, S.M. Enhancement of heavy metal tolerance and accumulation efficiency by expressing Arabidopsis ATP sulfurylase gene in alfalfa. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2019, 1, 1112–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  323. Xu, W.; Shi, W.; Liu, F.; Ueda, A.; Takabe, T. Enhanced zinc and cadmium tolerance and accumulation in transgenic Arabidopsis plants constitutively overexpressing a barley gene (HvAPX1) that encodes a peroxisomal ascorbate peroxidase. Botany 2008, 86, 567–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  324. Faè, M.; Balestrazzi, A.; Confalonieri, M.; Donà, M.; Macovei, A.; Valassi, A.; Giraffa, G.; Carbonera, D. Copper-mediated genotoxic stress is attenuated by the overexpression of the DNA repair gene MtTdp2α (tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 2) in Medicago truncatula plants. Plant Cell Rep. 2014, 33, 1071–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  325. Charfeddine, M.; Charfeddine, S.; Bouaziz, D.; Messaoud, R.B.; Bouzid, R.G. The effect of cadmium on transgenic potato (Solanum tuberosum) plants overexpressing the StDREB transcription factors. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2017, 128, 521–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  326. 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 2021, 173, 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  327. Guo, J.; Dai, X.; Xu, W.; Ma, M. Overexpressing GSH1 and AsPCS1 simultaneously increases the tolerance and accumulation of cadmium and arsenic in Arabidopsis thaliana. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 1020–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. LeDuc, D.L.; Tarun, A.S.; Montes-Bayon, M.; Meija, J.; Malit, M.F.; Wu, C.P.; AbdelSamie, M.; Chiang, C.Y.; Tagmount, A.; deSouza, M.; et al. Overexpression of selenocysteine methyltransferase in Arabidopsis and Indian mustard increases selenium tolerance and accumulation. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  329. Kang, Y.; Li, M.; Sinharoy, S.; Verdier, J. A Snapshot of Functional Genetic Studies in Medicago truncatula. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  330. Boisson-Dernier, A.; Chabaud, M.; Garcia, F.; Bécard, G.; Rosenberg, C.; Barker, D.G. Agrobacterium rhizogenes-transformed roots of Medicago truncatula for the study of nitrogen-fixing and endomycorrhizal symbiotic associations. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2001, 14, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  331. Jiang, Q.; Fu, C.; Wang, Z.Y. A Unified Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation Protocol for Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and Medicago truncatula. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019, 1864, 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  332. Pérez-Palacios, P.; Romero-Aguilar, A.; Delgadillo, J.; Doukkali, B.; Caviedes, M.A.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D.; Pajuelo, E. Double genetically modified symbiotic system for improved Cu phytostabilization in legume roots. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 14910–14923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  333. Zhang, Y.; Liu, J. Transgenic alfalfa plants co-expressing glutathione S-transferase (GST) and human CYP2E1 show enhanced resistance to mixed contaminates of heavy metals and organic pollutants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 189, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  334. Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, T.; Wang, J.; Ge, Y. Enhanced phytoremediation of mixed heavy metal (mercury)-organic pollutants (trichloroethylene) with transgenic alfalfa co-expressing glutathione S-transferase and human P450 2E1. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 1100–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  335. Basu, S.; Rabara, R.C.; Negi, S.; Shukla, P. Engineering PGPMOs through Gene Editing and Systems Biology: A Solution for Phytoremediation? Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  336. Sriprang, R.; Murooka, Y. Accumulation and Detoxification of Metals by Plants and Microbes. In Environmental Bioremediation Technologies; Singh, S.N., Tripathi, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 77–99. [Google Scholar]
  337. Sriprang, R.; Hayashi, M.; Yamashita, M.; Ono, H.; Saeki, K.; Murooka, Y. A novel bioremediation system for heavy metals using the symbiosis between leguminous plant and genetically engineered rhizobia. J. Biotechnol. 2002, 99, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  338. Sriprang, R.; Hayashi, M.; Ono, H.; Takagi, M.; Hirata, K.; Murooka, Y. Enhanced accumulation of Cd2+ by a Mesorhizobium sp. transformed with a gene from Arabidopsis thaliana coding for phytochelatin synthase. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 1791–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  339. Ike, A.; Sriprang, R.; Ono, H.; Murooka, Y.; Yamashita, M. Bioremediation of cadmium contaminated soil using symbiosis between leguminous plant and recombinant rhizobia with the MTL4 and the PCS genes. Chemosphere 2007, 66, 1670–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  340. Tsyganov, V.E.; Tsyganova, A.V.; Gorshkov, A.P.; Seliverstova, E.V.; Kim, V.E.; Chizhevskaya, E.P.; Belimov, A.A.; Serova, T.A.; Ivanova, K.A.; Kulaeva, O.A.; et al. Efficacy of a Plant-Microbe System: Pisum sativum (L.) cadmium-tolerant mutant and Rhizobium leguminosarum strains, expressing pea metallothionein Genes PsMT1 and PsMT2, for cadmium phytoremediation. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  341. Delgadillo, J.; Lafuente, A.; Doukkali, B.; Redondo-Gómez, S.; Mateos-Naranjo, E.; Caviedes, M.A.; Pajuelo, E.; Rodríguez-Llorente, I.D. Improving legume nodulation and Cu rhizostabilization using a genetically modified rhizobia. Environ. Technol. 2015, 36, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Pajuelo, E.; Carrasco, J.A.; Romero, L.C.; Chamber, M.A.; Gotor, C. Evaluation of the metal phytoextraction potential of crop legumes. Regulation of the expression of O-acetylserine (thiol)lyase under metal stress. Plant Biol. 2007, 9, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  343. Zhang, J.; Xu, Y.; Cao, T.; Chen, J.; Rosen, B.P.; Zhao, F.J. Arsenic methylation by a genetically engineered Rhizobium-legume symbiont. Plant Soil 2017, 416, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Espinoza, C.; Schlechter, R.; Herrera, D.; Torres, E.; Serrano, A.; Medina, C.; Arce-Johnson, P. Cisgenesis and intragenesis: New tools for improving crops. Biol. Res. 2013, 46, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  345. Checcucci, A.; diCenzo, G.C.; Ghini, V.; Bazzicalupo, M.; Beker, A.; Decorosi, F.; Döhlemann, J.; Fagorzi, C.; Finan, T.M.; Fondi, M.; et al. Creation and multi-omics charac-terization of a genomically hybrid strain in the nitrogen-fixing symbiotic bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. bioRxiv 2018, 296483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  346. Landeta, C.; Dávalos, A.; Cevallos, M.Á.; Geiger, O.; Brom, S.; Romero, D. Plasmids with a chromosome-like role in rhizobia. J. Bacteriol. 2011, 193, 1317–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  347. diCenzo, G.C.; Benedict, A.B.; Fondi, M.; Walker, G.C.; Finan, T.M.; Mengoni, A.; Griffitts, J.S. Robustness encoded across essential and accessory replicons of the ecologically versatile bacterium Sinorhizobium meliloti. PLoS Genet. 2018, 14, e1007357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  348. Drewniak, L.; Dziewit, L.; Ciężkowska, M.; Gawor, J.; Gromadka, R.; Skłodowska, A. Structural and functional genomics of plasmid pSinA of Sinorhizobium sp. M14 encoding genes for the arsenite oxidation and arsenic resistance. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 164, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  349. El-Sappah, A.H.; Yan, K.; Huang, Q.; Islam, M.M.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y.; Khan, M.S.; Zhao, X.; Mir, R.R.; Li, J.; et al. Comprehensive Mechanism of Gene Silencing and Its Role in Plant Growth and Development. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 705249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  350. Dhankher, O.P.; Rosen, B.P.; McKinney, E.C.; Meagher, R.B. Hyperaccumulation of arsenic in the shoots of Arabidopsis silenced for arsenate reductase (ACR2). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 5413–5418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  351. Takahashi, R.; Ishimaru, Y.; Shimo, H.; Bashir, K.; Senoura, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Ono, K.; Suzui, N.; Kawachi, N.; Ishii, S.; et al. From Laboratory to Field: OsNRAMP5-Knockdown Rice Is a Promising Candidate for Cd Phytoremediation in Paddy Fields. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  352. Zhou, Z.S.; Huang, S.Q.; Yang, Z.M. Bioinformatic identification and expression analysis of new microRNAs from Medicago truncatula. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2008, 374, 538–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  353. Bao, A.; Burritt, D.J.; Chen, H.; Zhou, X.; Cao, D.; Tran, L.P. The CRISPR/Cas9 system and its applications in crop genome editing. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2019, 39, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  354. Tang, L.; Mao, B.; Li, Y.; Lv, Q.; Zhang, L.; Chen, C.; He, H.; Wang, W.; Zeng, X.; Shao, Y.; et al. Knockout of OsNramp5 using the CRISPR/Cas9 system produces low Cd-accumulating indica rice without compromising yield. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 14438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Legume–rhizobium symbiosis involved in the biorhizoremediation process for heavy metal removal.
Figure 1. Legume–rhizobium symbiosis involved in the biorhizoremediation process for heavy metal removal.
Biology 11 00676 g001
Table 1. The toxic effects of excess heavy metals on plants.
Table 1. The toxic effects of excess heavy metals on plants.
Heavy Metals The Toxic Effects of Heavy Metals on PlantsReferences
CdReduction in biomass and root length; inhibition of seed germination; growth reduction; wilting; chlorosis, and cell damage[56,57,78,79,80,81]
Cu Inhibition of root, shoot, and leaf development; quantity reduction in leaves per plant; decreased antioxidant activities; shoot length reduction; decreased total chlorophyll content; reduction in chlorophyl biosynthesis; decreased enzyme activities; decreased plant growth and yield; leaf chlorosis; generation of oxidative stress and ROS[56,57,77,79,82,83,84,85,86]
Zn Decreased total chlorophyll content; reduction in transpiration rate, inhibition of transport of microelements; limitation of root and shoot growth; reduction in photosynthetic and respiratory rate; enhancement of generation of reactive oxygen species; chlorosis in the younger leaves; reduction in germination[56,57,79,87,88,89,90]
AsInhibition of growth and low crop production; reduction in leaf quantities; chlorosis; leaf senescence necrosis; defoliation; reduction in leaf area and dry matter production; reduction in shoot and root growth; restricted stomatal conductance and nutrient uptake; chlorophyll degradation; limited biomass and yield production; overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) leading to carbohydrate, protein, and DNA damage.[57,91,92,93,94]
Ni Reduction in chlorophyll content; decreased levels of sugar, starch, and protein nitrogen; decrease in shoot yield; chlorosis; inhibition of root growth; inhibition of growth, induction of chlorosis, necrosis, and wilting; generation of ROS[57,79,95,96,97]
Pb DNA damage; decrease in chlorophyll content; decrease in protein content; stunted foliage; reduction in photosynthesis; impaired nutrient uptake; decrease in seed germination, root elongation, decreased biomass; inhibition of chlorophyll biosynthesis; inhibition of mineral nutrition and enzymatic reactions, induction of ROS production[42,56,57,98,99,100]
CrInhibition of root, steam, and leaf growth; inhibition of chlorophyll biosynthesis; induction of oxidative stress; inhibition of photosynthesis; inhibition of seed germination and seedling development; reduction in root and shoot biomass, quality of flowers, and crop yield[57,77,101,102,103]
CoInhibition of plant growth; chlorosis in young leaves; reduction in biomass; inhibition of greening[57,76,104,105]
FeReduction in root and shoot growth; hindered growth, reduction in chlorophyll content in older leaves, decreased sugars, starch, and protein nitrogen contents[106,107]
MnReduction in biomass production; adversely affects nutrient uptake; hindered seedling growth; induction of oxidative stress[108,109]
Table 2. Selected wild-type legume plants used for biorhizoremediation.
Table 2. Selected wild-type legume plants used for biorhizoremediation.
Symbiotic SpeciesHeavy MetalReferences
Legume Rhizobium
Anthyllis vulneraria L.Mesorhizobium sp.Zn, Cd, Pb[136,137]
Astragalus thaliana L.-Cd[138]
Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link-Pb, Zn[139]
Glycine max (L.) Merr-Cd[140]
G. max (L.) MerrBradyrhizobium japonicumAs[141]
Lablab purpurensRhizobium sp. Cd, Cu, Zn[142]
Lathyrus sativus L.-Pb[143]
Lens culinaris Medik.Rhizobium leguminosarumZn, Cu, Cd, Pb[144,145]
Lotus corniculatus L.Bradyrhizobium liaoningenseZn, Pb[146]
Lupinus albus L.-Cd, As, Cu, Pb, Zn[147,148]
Lupinus luteus L.Bradyrhizobium sp.Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn [149]
Lupinus sp. Bradyrhizobium sp.Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn[133]
Medicago lupulina LSinorhizobium melilotiCu[150]
Medicago sativa L.Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifoliiCr, Cu, Zn, Hg[151,152]
M. sativa L.Sinorhizobium melilotiCu[153]
Pisum sativum L.Rhizobium sp.Cd, Cu, Zn[154,155]
Prosopis laevigata (Willd.) M.C. Johnst.-Cu, Pb, Zn[156]
Robinia pseudoacacia L.-Pb, Cu, Zn[38,157,158]
Sesbania rostrata Bremek. & Oberm.-Cu, Pb, Zn[159]
Sesbania sesban L.-Cu, Pb, Zn[159]
Vicia faba L.-Pb, Zn, As, Cd, Cu[160,161]
V. faba L.Rhizobium leguminosarumCd, Cu, PB[162]
Vicia sativa L.-Cd, Pb, Zn[161]
- data not available.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jach, M.E.; Sajnaga, E.; Ziaja, M. Utilization of Legume-Nodule Bacterial Symbiosis in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils. Biology 2022, 11, 676. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/biology11050676

AMA Style

Jach ME, Sajnaga E, Ziaja M. Utilization of Legume-Nodule Bacterial Symbiosis in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils. Biology. 2022; 11(5):676. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/biology11050676

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jach, Monika Elżbieta, Ewa Sajnaga, and Maria Ziaja. 2022. "Utilization of Legume-Nodule Bacterial Symbiosis in Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal-Contaminated Soils" Biology 11, no. 5: 676. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/biology11050676

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop