Acute Drought Stress and Plant Age Effects on Alkamide and Phenolic Acid Content in Purple Coneflower Roots

Dean E. Gray; Stephen G. Pallardy; H. E. Garrett; George E. Rottinghaus

doi:10.1055/s-2003-37026

Planta Medica, Table of Contents

Planta Med 2003; 69(1): 50-55
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-37026

Original Paper

Physiology
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Acute Drought Stress and Plant Age Effects on Alkamide and Phenolic Acid Content in Purple Coneflower Roots

Dean E. Gray¹ , Stephen G. Pallardy² , H. E. Garrett² , George E. Rottinghaus³

¹Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
²Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
³College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

Abstract

The effects of acute periods of drought stress on dry weight, and alkamide and phenolic acid content in purple coneflower [Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench, Asteraceae] roots are described. Plants subjected to brief drought stress periods for two seasons during the initial flowering stage (D-F2) produced fall-harvested roots with significantly greater cichoric acid concentration (mg/g) than corresponding well-watered controls of the same age (C-2). Total alkamide, including the tetraenoic acid isomers, and chlorogenic acid concentrations from fall-harvested roots were largely unaffected by drought stress, regardless of when the stress occurred developmentally. The alkamide concentration in three-year roots was significantly less than that in two-year roots, with an average decrease of 50.5 %. Conversely, total phenolic acids increased an average of 67.1 % for all treatments from two to three years of age. Root dry weight increased significantly by an average of 70.0 % for all drought-stressed plants from two to three years of age, compared to an increase of 35.2 % for well-watered controls. The results suggest that controlled drought stress can stimulate increased root dry weight and root cichoric acid content, and that root age is the predominant factor determining overall phytochemical content variation.

Abbreviations

D-F1:Plants that received drought stress during the flowering period for one season (Season 1)

D-F2:Plants that received drought stress during the flowering period for two consecutive seasons (Season 1 and Season 2)

D-S1:Plants that received drought stress during the seed production period for one season (Season 1)

D-S2:Plants that received drought stress during the seed production period for two consecutive seasons (Season 1 and Season 2)

D-FS1:Plants that received drought stress during both flowering and seed production periods for one season (Season 1)

D-FS2:Plants that received drought stress during both flowering and seed production periods for two consecutive seasons (Season 1 and Season 2)

C-1:Control plants that received adequate water for one season (Season 1)

C-2:Control plants that received adequate water for two consecutive seasons (Season 1 and Season 2)

CCA:Cichoric acid (2,3-O-di-caffeoyl-tartaric acid)

CTA:Caftaric acid (2-O-caffeoyl-tartaric acid)

CGA:Chlorogenic acid (3-O-caffeoyl-quinic acid)

AMD:The sum of six alkamides (undeca-3E,4Z-dien-8,10-diynoic acid isobutylamide; undeca-2Z,4E-dien-8,10-diynoic acid isobutylamide; dodeca-2E,4Z-dien-8,10-diynoic acid isobutylamide; undeca-2E,4Z-dien-8,10-diynoic acid 2-methylbutylamide; dodeca-2E,4E,10E-trien-8-ynoic acid isobutylamide; dodeca-2E,4Z-dien-8,10-diynoic acid 2-methylbutylamide)

TET:The sum of two tetraenoic acid isomers (dodeca-2E,4E,8Z,10E-tetraenoic acid isobutylamide and dodeca-2E,4E,8Z,10Z-tetraenoic acid isobutylamide)

ψ_pd:Predawn water potential

Key words

Echinacea purpurea - Asteraceae - purple coneflower - water potential - alkamides - cichoric acid

Full Text

References

1 Brevoort P. The booming U.S. botanical market: A new overview. HerbalGram. 1998; 44 33-48
2 Barrett B, Vohmann M, Calabrese C. Echinacea for upper respiratory infection. J Fam Pract. 1999; 48 628-35
3 Bauer R. Echinacea: Biological effects and active principles. ACS Symp Ser. 1998; 691 140-57
4 Bergeron C, Livesey J F, Awang D, Arnason J, Rana J, Baum B, Letchamo W. A quantitative HPLC method for the quality assurance of Echinacea products on the North American market. Phytochem Anal. 2000; 4 207-15
5 Edwards P. Pests and pathogens: Plants responses to foliar attack. Resistance and defense: The role of secondary plant substances. In: Ayres P, editor BIOS Scientific Publishers Limited Oxford; 1992: P. 69-84
6 Flesch V, Jacques M, Cosson L, Teng B, Petiard V, Balz J. Relative importance of growth and light level on terpene concentration of Ginkgo biloba . Phytochemistry. 1992; 31 1941-5
7 Muzika R, Pregitzer K. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on leaf phenolic production of grand fir seedlings. Trees. 1992; 6 241-4
8 Buta J, Spaulding D. Endogenous levels of phenolics in tomato fruit during growth and maturation. J Plant Growth Regul. 1997; 16 43-6
9 Charles D, Simon J, Shock C, Feibert E, Smith R. Effect of water stress and post-harvest handling on artemisinin concentration in the leaves of Artemesia annua L. In: Janick J, Simon J, editors New Crops. John Wiley and Sons New York; 1993: 628-31
10 Proebsting E, Middleton J. The behavior of peach and pear trees under extreme drought stress. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1980; 105 380-5
11 Zinselmeier C, Westgate M, Schussler J, Jones R. Low water potential disrupts carbohydrate metabolism in maize (Zea mays L.) ovaries. Plant Physiol. 1995; 107 385-91
12 Sharp R, Davies W. Solute regulation and growth by roots and shoots of water-stressed maize plants. Planta. 1979; 147 43-9
13 Gershenzon J, Lincoln D, Langenheim J. The effect of moisture stress on monoterpenoid yield and composition in Satureja douglasii . Biochem Syst Ecol. 1978; 6 33-43
14 Sgherri C, Navari-Izzo F. Sunflower seedlings subjected to increasing water deficit stress: Oxidative stress and defense mechanisms. Physiol Plant. 1995:; 93 25-30
15 Boyer J. Leaf water potentials measured with a pressure chamber. Plant Physiol. 1967; 42 133-7
16 Bauer R, Wagner H. Echinacea species as potential immunostimulatory drugs. Economic and Medicinal Plant Research, Volume 5. In: Wagner H, Farnsworth N, editors Academic Press London; 1991: 253-321
17 Chapman D, Auge R. Physiological mechanisms of drought resistance in four native ornamental perennials. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1994; 119 299-306
18 Perry N, van Klink J, Burgess E, Parmenter G. Alkamide levels in Echinacea purpurea: Effects of processing, drying and storage. Planta Med. 2000; 66 54-6
19 Nüsslein B; Kurzmann M, Bauer R, Kreis W. Enzymatic degradation of cichoric acid in Echinacea purpurea preparations. J Nat Prod. 2000; 63 1615-18
20 Kreis W, Sussner U, Nüsslein B. Purification and characterization of a polyphenol oxidase from the herbal drug Echinaceae purpureae herba (purple cone flower herb). J App Bot . 2000; 74 106-12
21 Harborne J B, Baxter H, Moss G P. editors. Phytochemical Dictionary. A Handbook of Bioactive Compounds from Plants. Second edition. Taylor & Francis Ltd London; 1999: 522-3

Dr. Dean Gray

Life Sciences Division, Agricultural Sciences

Midwest Research Institute

425 Volker Boulevard

Kansas City, Missouri 64110

USA

Email: dgray@mriresearch.org

Fax: +1-816-753-1014