WO2001092879A1 - An assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers - Google Patents
An assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2001092879A1 WO2001092879A1 PCT/DK2001/000377 DK0100377W WO0192879A1 WO 2001092879 A1 WO2001092879 A1 WO 2001092879A1 DK 0100377 W DK0100377 W DK 0100377W WO 0192879 A1 WO0192879 A1 WO 0192879A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- testing according
- stress
- plant material
- tlc
- plants
- Prior art date
Links
- 239000000090 biomarker Substances 0.000 title claims abstract description 192
- 238000003149 assay kit Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 27
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 title claims description 43
- 238000003556 assay Methods 0.000 title description 4
- 239000012620 biological material Substances 0.000 title description 2
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 164
- 238000010998 test method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 102
- 239000000575 pesticide Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 49
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 30
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 25
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 18
- 108090000623 proteins and genes Proteins 0.000 claims abstract description 6
- 235000013305 food Nutrition 0.000 claims abstract description 4
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 3
- 238000003908 quality control method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 3
- 241000196324 Embryophyta Species 0.000 claims description 387
- 238000004809 thin layer chromatography Methods 0.000 claims description 105
- XDDAORKBJWWYJS-UHFFFAOYSA-N glyphosate Chemical compound OC(=O)CNCP(O)(O)=O XDDAORKBJWWYJS-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 101
- 150000001875 compounds Chemical class 0.000 claims description 97
- 239000004009 herbicide Substances 0.000 claims description 90
- 239000005562 Glyphosate Substances 0.000 claims description 88
- 229940097068 glyphosate Drugs 0.000 claims description 88
- 239000005584 Metsulfuron-methyl Substances 0.000 claims description 60
- RSMUVYRMZCOLBH-UHFFFAOYSA-N metsulfuron methyl Chemical group COC(=O)C1=CC=CC=C1S(=O)(=O)NC(=O)NC1=NC(C)=NC(OC)=N1 RSMUVYRMZCOLBH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 60
- 229930000223 plant secondary metabolite Natural products 0.000 claims description 56
- 239000002904 solvent Substances 0.000 claims description 50
- 235000017807 phytochemicals Nutrition 0.000 claims description 45
- 239000005591 Pendimethalin Substances 0.000 claims description 39
- CHIFOSRWCNZCFN-UHFFFAOYSA-N pendimethalin Chemical compound CCC(CC)NC1=C([N+]([O-])=O)C=C(C)C(C)=C1[N+]([O-])=O CHIFOSRWCNZCFN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 39
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 claims description 38
- UPMXNNIRAGDFEH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile Chemical compound OC1=C(Br)C=C(C#N)C=C1Br UPMXNNIRAGDFEH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 36
- 239000005489 Bromoxynil Substances 0.000 claims description 36
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 claims description 30
- 239000003153 chemical reaction reagent Substances 0.000 claims description 26
- 150000002989 phenols Chemical class 0.000 claims description 20
- LRHPLDYGYMQRHN-UHFFFAOYSA-N N-Butanol Chemical compound CCCCO LRHPLDYGYMQRHN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 17
- 150000001413 amino acids Chemical class 0.000 claims description 17
- 239000003795 chemical substances by application Substances 0.000 claims description 17
- 239000002689 soil Substances 0.000 claims description 17
- 150000002632 lipids Chemical class 0.000 claims description 14
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 claims description 13
- 150000003505 terpenes Chemical class 0.000 claims description 13
- IJGRMHOSHXDMSA-UHFFFAOYSA-N Atomic nitrogen Chemical compound N#N IJGRMHOSHXDMSA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 10
- 239000003480 eluent Substances 0.000 claims description 10
- -1 iridoids Chemical class 0.000 claims description 10
- 238000001035 drying Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- BDAGIHXWWSANSR-UHFFFAOYSA-N methanoic acid Natural products OC=O BDAGIHXWWSANSR-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 8
- 230000036531 allelopathy Effects 0.000 claims description 6
- 150000003431 steroids Chemical class 0.000 claims description 6
- 235000000346 sugar Nutrition 0.000 claims description 6
- 238000004128 high performance liquid chromatography Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 150000008163 sugars Chemical class 0.000 claims description 5
- INLFWQCRAJUDCR-IQVMEADQSA-N (1R,2S,4S,5'S,6R,7S,8R,9S,12S,13S)-5',7,9,13-tetramethylspiro[5-oxapentacyclo[10.8.0.02,9.04,8.013,18]icosane-6,2'-oxane] Chemical compound O([C@@H]1[C@@H]([C@]2(CC[C@@H]3[C@@]4(C)CCCCC4CC[C@H]3[C@@H]2C1)C)[C@@H]1C)[C@]11CC[C@H](C)CO1 INLFWQCRAJUDCR-IQVMEADQSA-N 0.000 claims description 4
- OSWFIVFLDKOXQC-UHFFFAOYSA-N 4-(3-methoxyphenyl)aniline Chemical compound COC1=CC=CC(C=2C=CC(N)=CC=2)=C1 OSWFIVFLDKOXQC-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 4
- 150000001412 amines Chemical class 0.000 claims description 4
- 229930003935 flavonoid Natural products 0.000 claims description 4
- 150000002215 flavonoids Chemical class 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000017173 flavonoids Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000019253 formic acid Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000004817 gas chromatography Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 229930182470 glycoside Natural products 0.000 claims description 4
- 150000002338 glycosides Chemical class 0.000 claims description 4
- 229910052757 nitrogen Inorganic materials 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000015097 nutrients Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 244000038280 herbivores Species 0.000 claims description 3
- 244000000003 plant pathogen Species 0.000 claims description 3
- 150000004053 quinones Chemical class 0.000 claims description 3
- 229930182490 saponin Natural products 0.000 claims description 3
- 150000007949 saponins Chemical class 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000017709 saponins Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000004587 chromatography analysis Methods 0.000 claims 2
- 229910001873 dinitrogen Inorganic materials 0.000 claims 2
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 claims 2
- 230000035882 stress Effects 0.000 description 86
- LFQSCWFLJHTTHZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Ethanol Chemical compound CCO LFQSCWFLJHTTHZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 69
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 description 36
- 230000002363 herbicidal effect Effects 0.000 description 29
- 239000000284 extract Substances 0.000 description 28
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 27
- 238000000605 extraction Methods 0.000 description 25
- QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-N Acetic acid Chemical compound CC(O)=O QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 21
- 230000035945 sensitivity Effects 0.000 description 21
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 17
- 229940024606 amino acid Drugs 0.000 description 15
- 235000001014 amino acid Nutrition 0.000 description 15
- 241000209504 Poaceae Species 0.000 description 14
- 238000002474 experimental method Methods 0.000 description 14
- 240000004385 Centaurea cyanus Species 0.000 description 13
- 241001070944 Mimosa Species 0.000 description 11
- 241000013557 Plantaginaceae Species 0.000 description 11
- 238000000354 decomposition reaction Methods 0.000 description 11
- 241000208838 Asteraceae Species 0.000 description 10
- 238000006243 chemical reaction Methods 0.000 description 10
- 230000012010 growth Effects 0.000 description 10
- 235000010503 Plantago lanceolata Nutrition 0.000 description 9
- 244000239204 Plantago lanceolata Species 0.000 description 9
- 241000208476 Primulaceae Species 0.000 description 9
- 239000000419 plant extract Substances 0.000 description 9
- 241000208479 Anagallis arvensis Species 0.000 description 8
- 235000005940 Centaurea cyanus Nutrition 0.000 description 8
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 8
- 238000001212 derivatisation Methods 0.000 description 8
- 238000003306 harvesting Methods 0.000 description 8
- 238000005507 spraying Methods 0.000 description 8
- 239000006228 supernatant Substances 0.000 description 8
- 239000007921 spray Substances 0.000 description 7
- 244000041440 Alectra arvensis Species 0.000 description 6
- 230000009471 action Effects 0.000 description 6
- 239000000469 ethanolic extract Substances 0.000 description 6
- 239000007788 liquid Substances 0.000 description 6
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 6
- 241000208477 Anagallis Species 0.000 description 5
- 241001465754 Metazoa Species 0.000 description 5
- 239000002253 acid Substances 0.000 description 5
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 5
- JXOHGGNKMLTUBP-HSUXUTPPSA-N shikimic acid Chemical compound O[C@@H]1CC(C(O)=O)=C[C@@H](O)[C@H]1O JXOHGGNKMLTUBP-HSUXUTPPSA-N 0.000 description 5
- JXOHGGNKMLTUBP-JKUQZMGJSA-N shikimic acid Natural products O[C@@H]1CC(C(O)=O)=C[C@H](O)[C@@H]1O JXOHGGNKMLTUBP-JKUQZMGJSA-N 0.000 description 5
- 241000894007 species Species 0.000 description 5
- UWHURBUBIHUHSU-UHFFFAOYSA-N 2-[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)carbamoylsulfamoyl]benzoic acid Chemical compound COC1=NC(C)=NC(NC(=O)NS(=O)(=O)C=2C(=CC=CC=2)C(O)=O)=N1 UWHURBUBIHUHSU-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-N Sulfuric acid Chemical compound OS(O)(=O)=O QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 238000009825 accumulation Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000008238 biochemical pathway Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000018109 developmental process Effects 0.000 description 4
- IJKVHSBPTUYDLN-UHFFFAOYSA-N dihydroxy(oxo)silane Chemical compound O[Si](O)=O IJKVHSBPTUYDLN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 241001233957 eudicotyledons Species 0.000 description 4
- 230000008635 plant growth Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000011550 stock solution Substances 0.000 description 4
- 231100000331 toxic Toxicity 0.000 description 4
- 230000002588 toxic effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000011179 visual inspection Methods 0.000 description 4
- 108010000700 Acetolactate synthase Proteins 0.000 description 3
- 241000219193 Brassicaceae Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000195493 Cryptophyta Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000233866 Fungi Species 0.000 description 3
- 102000002812 Heat-Shock Proteins Human genes 0.000 description 3
- 108010004889 Heat-Shock Proteins Proteins 0.000 description 3
- KFZMGEQAYNKOFK-UHFFFAOYSA-N Isopropanol Chemical compound CC(C)O KFZMGEQAYNKOFK-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 241000207923 Lamiaceae Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000209510 Liliopsida Species 0.000 description 3
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 3
- WPYMKLBDIGXBTP-UHFFFAOYSA-N benzoic acid Chemical compound OC(=O)C1=CC=CC=C1 WPYMKLBDIGXBTP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 238000004113 cell culture Methods 0.000 description 3
- 229920002678 cellulose Polymers 0.000 description 3
- 239000001913 cellulose Substances 0.000 description 3
- 125000003636 chemical group Chemical group 0.000 description 3
- 239000004927 clay Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000008030 elimination Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000003379 elimination reaction Methods 0.000 description 3
- 239000008187 granular material Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000036541 health Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000005764 inhibitory process Effects 0.000 description 3
- 239000006194 liquid suspension Substances 0.000 description 3
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000001737 promoting effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000002285 radioactive effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000001105 regulatory effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000012216 screening Methods 0.000 description 3
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 description 3
- 239000000341 volatile oil Substances 0.000 description 3
- 241000251468 Actinopterygii Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000132023 Bellis perennis Species 0.000 description 2
- 244000274847 Betula papyrifera Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000009113 Betula papyrifera Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 229920000742 Cotton Polymers 0.000 description 2
- 240000001879 Digitalis lutea Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000010469 Glycine max Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000068988 Glycine max Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000238631 Hexapoda Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000005979 Hordeum vulgare Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000007340 Hordeum vulgare Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000004296 Lolium perenne Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000004658 Medicago sativa Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000016462 Mimosa pudica Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 240000001140 Mimosa pudica Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000218180 Papaveraceae Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000219050 Polygonaceae Species 0.000 description 2
- VYPSYNLAJGMNEJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Silicium dioxide Chemical compound O=[Si]=O VYPSYNLAJGMNEJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 235000021307 Triticum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000098338 Triticum aestivum Species 0.000 description 2
- 230000002378 acidificating effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000032823 cell division Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000002596 correlated effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000003247 decreasing effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 235000013399 edible fruits Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 238000002481 ethanol extraction Methods 0.000 description 2
- RTZKZFJDLAIYFH-UHFFFAOYSA-N ether Substances CCOCC RTZKZFJDLAIYFH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 239000000417 fungicide Substances 0.000 description 2
- LNTHITQWFMADLM-UHFFFAOYSA-N gallic acid Chemical compound OC(=O)C1=CC(O)=C(O)C(O)=C1 LNTHITQWFMADLM-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 239000007789 gas Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000035784 germination Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000001900 immune effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000002401 inhibitory effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000002917 insecticide Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000001665 lethal effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- FEMOMIGRRWSMCU-UHFFFAOYSA-N ninhydrin Chemical compound C1=CC=C2C(=O)C(O)(O)C(=O)C2=C1 FEMOMIGRRWSMCU-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 229940094443 oxytocics prostaglandins Drugs 0.000 description 2
- ZRSNZINYAWTAHE-UHFFFAOYSA-N p-methoxybenzaldehyde Chemical compound COC1=CC=C(C=O)C=C1 ZRSNZINYAWTAHE-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 239000002245 particle Substances 0.000 description 2
- RLLPVAHGXHCWKJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N permethrin Chemical compound CC1(C)C(C=C(Cl)Cl)C1C(=O)OCC1=CC=CC(OC=2C=CC=CC=2)=C1 RLLPVAHGXHCWKJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000002085 persistent effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000002250 progressing effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 150000003180 prostaglandins Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 230000002829 reductive effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000029058 respiratory gaseous exchange Effects 0.000 description 2
- 150000003839 salts Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 239000000741 silica gel Substances 0.000 description 2
- 229910002027 silica gel Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 229960001866 silicon dioxide Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 239000011343 solid material Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000002195 synergetic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000003786 synthesis reaction Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000009897 systematic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000002023 wood Substances 0.000 description 2
- RNAMYOYQYRYFQY-UHFFFAOYSA-N 2-(4,4-difluoropiperidin-1-yl)-6-methoxy-n-(1-propan-2-ylpiperidin-4-yl)-7-(3-pyrrolidin-1-ylpropoxy)quinazolin-4-amine Chemical compound N1=C(N2CCC(F)(F)CC2)N=C2C=C(OCCCN3CCCC3)C(OC)=CC2=C1NC1CCN(C(C)C)CC1 RNAMYOYQYRYFQY-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- BLZVCIGGICSWIG-UHFFFAOYSA-N 2-aminoethoxydiphenylborane Chemical compound C=1C=CC=CC=1B(OCCN)C1=CC=CC=C1 BLZVCIGGICSWIG-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- TYEYBOSBBBHJIV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 2-oxobutanoic acid Chemical compound CCC(=O)C(O)=O TYEYBOSBBBHJIV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- QUTYKIXIUDQOLK-PRJMDXOYSA-N 5-O-(1-carboxyvinyl)-3-phosphoshikimic acid Chemical compound O[C@H]1[C@H](OC(=C)C(O)=O)CC(C(O)=O)=C[C@H]1OP(O)(O)=O QUTYKIXIUDQOLK-PRJMDXOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 241000238876 Acari Species 0.000 description 1
- 208000007848 Alcoholism Diseases 0.000 description 1
- QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYSA-O Ammonium Chemical compound [NH4+] QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYSA-O 0.000 description 1
- 235000007319 Avena orientalis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000075850 Avena orientalis Species 0.000 description 1
- 239000005711 Benzoic acid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000018185 Betula X alpestris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000018212 Betula X uliginosa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000009109 Betula pendula Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000010928 Betula populifolia Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000002992 Betula pubescens Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000024671 Brassica kaber Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007575 Calluna vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000132069 Carica monoica Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000014649 Carica monoica Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- PTHCMJGKKRQCBF-UHFFFAOYSA-N Cellulose, microcrystalline Chemical compound OC1C(O)C(OC)OC(CO)C1OC1C(O)C(O)C(OC)C(CO)O1 PTHCMJGKKRQCBF-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 240000001821 Chrysophyllum roxburghii Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008733 Citrus aurantifolia Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- LRNJHZNPJSPMGK-UHFFFAOYSA-N Cyanofenphos Chemical compound C=1C=CC=CC=1P(=S)(OCC)OC1=CC=C(C#N)C=C1 LRNJHZNPJSPMGK-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 208000005156 Dehydration Diseases 0.000 description 1
- VGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-N Ethene Chemical compound C=C VGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000005977 Ethylene Substances 0.000 description 1
- 241001289540 Fallopia convolvulus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000287826 Gallus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000237858 Gastropoda Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000116484 Inula helenium Species 0.000 description 1
- ONIBWKKTOPOVIA-BYPYZUCNSA-N L-Proline Chemical compound OC(=O)[C@@H]1CCCN1 ONIBWKKTOPOVIA-BYPYZUCNSA-N 0.000 description 1
- AGPKZVBTJJNPAG-WHFBIAKZSA-N L-isoleucine Chemical compound CC[C@H](C)[C@H](N)C(O)=O AGPKZVBTJJNPAG-WHFBIAKZSA-N 0.000 description 1
- ROHFNLRQFUQHCH-YFKPBYRVSA-N L-leucine Chemical compound CC(C)C[C@H](N)C(O)=O ROHFNLRQFUQHCH-YFKPBYRVSA-N 0.000 description 1
- KZSNJWFQEVHDMF-BYPYZUCNSA-N L-valine Chemical compound CC(C)[C@H](N)C(O)=O KZSNJWFQEVHDMF-BYPYZUCNSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 241001098499 Lanceolata Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000272168 Laridae Species 0.000 description 1
- ROHFNLRQFUQHCH-UHFFFAOYSA-N Leucine Natural products CC(C)CC(N)C(O)=O ROHFNLRQFUQHCH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 241000209082 Lolium Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007688 Lycopersicon esculentum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000124008 Mammalia Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010624 Medicago sativa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000017587 Medicago sativa ssp. sativa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000024873 Mentha crispa Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000014749 Mentha crispa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000157049 Microtus richardsoni Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000699670 Mus sp. Species 0.000 description 1
- 231100000678 Mycotoxin Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 238000005481 NMR spectroscopy Methods 0.000 description 1
- 241001529733 Nepeta Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002637 Nicotiana tabacum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000061176 Nicotiana tabacum Species 0.000 description 1
- GRYLNZFGIOXLOG-UHFFFAOYSA-N Nitric acid Chemical compound O[N+]([O-])=O GRYLNZFGIOXLOG-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 241000283973 Oryctolagus cuniculus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007846 Papaver rhoeas Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000004674 Papaver rhoeas Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000228143 Penicillium Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010582 Pisum sativum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000004713 Pisum sativum Species 0.000 description 1
- ONIBWKKTOPOVIA-UHFFFAOYSA-N Proline Natural products OC(=O)C1CCCN1 ONIBWKKTOPOVIA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 244000179560 Prunella vulgaris Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000010674 Prunella vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229920001131 Pulp (paper) Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 241000700159 Rattus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000510450 Rudbeckia hirta Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000004284 Rumex crispus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000021501 Rumex crispus Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000220261 Sinapis Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000003768 Solanum lycopersicum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002595 Solanum tuberosum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000061456 Solanum tuberosum Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000736285 Sphagnum Species 0.000 description 1
- 229930182558 Sterol Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 235000011941 Tilia x europaea Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000592342 Tracheophyta Species 0.000 description 1
- KZSNJWFQEVHDMF-UHFFFAOYSA-N Valine Natural products CC(C)C(N)C(O)=O KZSNJWFQEVHDMF-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 240000008042 Zea mays Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000016383 Zea mays subsp huehuetenangensis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000002017 Zea mays subsp mays Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000000895 acaricidal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000642 acaricide Substances 0.000 description 1
- 150000007513 acids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 239000002671 adjuvant Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000003463 adsorbent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002411 adverse Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007605 air drying Methods 0.000 description 1
- 201000007930 alcohol dependence Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 229930013930 alkaloid Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 230000004075 alteration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003042 antagnostic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000008758 anthocyanidins Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000003242 anti bacterial agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229940088710 antibiotic agent Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 235000010233 benzoic acid Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 150000001558 benzoic acid derivatives Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 230000000975 bioactive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008512 biological response Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000006696 biosynthetic metabolic pathway Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229910052796 boron Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 150000005693 branched-chain amino acids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 235000021466 carotenoid Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 150000001747 carotenoids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 230000015556 catabolic process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000010261 cell growth Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001413 cellular effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000013339 cereals Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000013522 chelant Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229910052729 chemical element Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 231100000481 chemical toxicant Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 229930002868 chlorophyll a Natural products 0.000 description 1
- ATNHDLDRLWWWCB-AENOIHSZSA-M chlorophyll a Chemical compound C1([C@@H](C(=O)OC)C(=O)C2=C3C)=C2N2C3=CC(C(CC)=C3C)=[N+]4C3=CC3=C(C=C)C(C)=C5N3[Mg-2]42[N+]2=C1[C@@H](CCC(=O)OC\C=C(/C)CCC[C@H](C)CCC[C@H](C)CCCC(C)C)[C@H](C)C2=C5 ATNHDLDRLWWWCB-AENOIHSZSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 229930002869 chlorophyll b Natural products 0.000 description 1
- NSMUHPMZFPKNMZ-VBYMZDBQSA-M chlorophyll b Chemical compound C1([C@@H](C(=O)OC)C(=O)C2=C3C)=C2N2C3=CC(C(CC)=C3C=O)=[N+]4C3=CC3=C(C=C)C(C)=C5N3[Mg-2]42[N+]2=C1[C@@H](CCC(=O)OC\C=C(/C)CCC[C@H](C)CCC[C@H](C)CCCC(C)C)[C@H](C)C2=C5 NSMUHPMZFPKNMZ-VBYMZDBQSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 229910052802 copper Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 239000010949 copper Substances 0.000 description 1
- XTVVROIMIGLXTD-UHFFFAOYSA-N copper(II) nitrate Chemical class [Cu+2].[O-][N+]([O-])=O.[O-][N+]([O-])=O XTVVROIMIGLXTD-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000000875 corresponding effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000034994 death Effects 0.000 description 1
- 201000010099 disease Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 208000037265 diseases, disorders, signs and symptoms Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 231100000673 dose–response relationship Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 238000001962 electrophoresis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003344 environmental pollutant Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002255 enzymatic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 125000001495 ethyl group Chemical group [H]C([H])([H])C([H])([H])* 0.000 description 1
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007717 exclusion Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000006355 external stress Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000009313 farming Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003337 fertilizer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004108 freeze drying Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000004515 gallic acid Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229940074391 gallic acid Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 235000011868 grain product Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000013632 homeostatic process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003018 immunoassay Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003112 inhibitor Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000011835 investigation Methods 0.000 description 1
- XEEYBQQBJWHFJM-UHFFFAOYSA-N iron Substances [Fe] XEEYBQQBJWHFJM-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 229910052742 iron Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 229960000310 isoleucine Drugs 0.000 description 1
- AGPKZVBTJJNPAG-UHFFFAOYSA-N isoleucine Natural products CCC(C)C(N)C(O)=O AGPKZVBTJJNPAG-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000009533 lab test Methods 0.000 description 1
- 231100000636 lethal dose Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 239000004571 lime Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004811 liquid chromatography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000011344 liquid material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000009973 maize Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229910052748 manganese Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 239000011572 manganese Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004949 mass spectrometry Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000010534 mechanism of action Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000001220 mentha spicata Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000004060 metabolic process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 125000002496 methyl group Chemical group [H]C([H])([H])* 0.000 description 1
- 230000000813 microbial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000011785 micronutrient Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000013369 micronutrients Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000000394 mitotic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 229910052750 molybdenum Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 239000011733 molybdenum Substances 0.000 description 1
- BQJCRHHNABKAKU-KBQPJGBKSA-N morphine Chemical compound O([C@H]1[C@H](C=C[C@H]23)O)C4=C5[C@@]12CCN(C)[C@@H]3CC5=CC=C4O BQJCRHHNABKAKU-KBQPJGBKSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000002636 mycotoxin Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000005645 nematicide Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229910017604 nitric acid Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 210000000056 organ Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 230000001590 oxidative effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000037361 pathway Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000035515 penetration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229930015704 phenylpropanoid Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 125000001474 phenylpropanoid group Chemical group 0.000 description 1
- 230000029553 photosynthesis Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000010672 photosynthesis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000000243 photosynthetic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001766 physiological effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008288 physiological mechanism Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009894 physiological stress Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000049 pigment Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000008121 plant development Effects 0.000 description 1
- 231100000719 pollutant Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 235000012015 potatoes Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000003389 potentiating effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000002360 preparation method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002265 prevention Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000047 product Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229960002429 proline Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 235000013930 proline Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000018102 proteins Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 102000004169 proteins and genes Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 238000011158 quantitative evaluation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003252 repetitive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000033458 reproduction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001850 reproductive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000011347 resin Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229920005989 resin Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 239000003340 retarding agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000003128 rodenticide Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002786 root growth Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229930000044 secondary metabolite Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 238000000926 separation method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000007779 soft material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000003381 stabilizer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 150000003432 sterols Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 235000003702 sterols Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000010019 sublethal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000758 substrate Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000013589 supplement Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000001629 suppression Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000007586 terpenes Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000004154 testing of material Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012956 testing procedure Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000004753 textile Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000003440 toxic substance Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000003053 toxin Substances 0.000 description 1
- 231100000765 toxin Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- WBYWAXJHAXSJNI-VOTSOKGWSA-M trans-cinnamate Chemical class [O-]C(=O)\C=C\C1=CC=CC=C1 WBYWAXJHAXSJNI-VOTSOKGWSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 230000005945 translocation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000007306 turnover Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000002604 ultrasonography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000004474 valine Substances 0.000 description 1
- MWOOGOJBHIARFG-UHFFFAOYSA-N vanillin Chemical compound COC1=CC(C=O)=CC=C1O MWOOGOJBHIARFG-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 235000012141 vanillin Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- FGQOOHJZONJGDT-UHFFFAOYSA-N vanillin Natural products COC1=CC(O)=CC(C=O)=C1 FGQOOHJZONJGDT-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000017260 vegetative to reproductive phase transition of meristem Effects 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N33/00—Investigating or analysing materials by specific methods not covered by groups G01N1/00 - G01N31/00
- G01N33/48—Biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Haemocytometers
- G01N33/50—Chemical analysis of biological material, e.g. blood, urine; Testing involving biospecific ligand binding methods; Immunological testing
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01N—INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- G01N30/00—Investigating or analysing materials by separation into components using adsorption, absorption or similar phenomena or using ion-exchange, e.g. chromatography or field flow fractionation
- G01N30/90—Plate chromatography, e.g. thin layer or paper chromatography
Definitions
- the present invention concerns the detection of biomarkers in material from a living organism. More specifically the invention relates to a method of testing whether a living organism has been exposed to stress, such as pesticide exposure. The invention further relates to the use of such a method of testing. In particular a method of testing plant material is disclosed.
- Biomarkers may be defined as a biological response that can be related to an exposure to, or toxic effect of, environmental compound(s), such as chemicals. Biomarkers may provide evidence about the linkage between the exposure to toxic chemicals and the ecologically and/or health related relevant effects.
- Biomarkers may give an impression of whether a living organism has been exposed to certain compounds, such as pesticides. Many insecticides, and to a lesser degree fungicides, are acutely toxic to animals (Thomson, 1987 & 1989).
- Pesticides are vastly used in developed countries where modern intensive agriculture requires that productivity is optimised.
- the use of herbicides are wide-spread as well.
- the most prominent effect of herbicides is through adverse lethal effects on plants.
- the lethal effects are manifested by the change in the plant species composition and diversity, and by the alteration of the heterogenety of wildlife habitats.
- the effects of herbicides may also be on a cellular and/or molecular level, for example by the modification of plant development, growth and morphology.
- Ishikura et al., 1986 describe how the exposure of the herbicide glyphosate to plant cell cultures influences the some of the biochemical pathways in the cells, and thus changes the biochemical balance when compared to plant cells not being exposed to herbicides.
- HSP Heat Shock Proteins
- WO 00/28072 concerns a immunoassay for the determination of one or more oxidative damaged proteins in organisms, such as plants and animals. The quantity of biomarker was compared with a control value.
- Plant species were exposed to herbicide concentrations of 1% of recommended dose.
- the plants expressed biomarkers that were different with respect to the visual effect.
- the present invention discloses a new and improved highly sensitive method of testing the effects on material from a living organism having been ex- posed to various forms of stress by taking advantage of the change in the composition of biomarkers in the material from a living organism.
- the present invention relates to a method of testing the non-visual as well as the visual effects on plants exposed to stress.
- the invention relates to a method of testing the composition of biomarkers as a tool to estimate whether a living organism has been exposed to stress.
- the invention relates to a method for testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
- biomarkers being compounds which after the living organism has been exposed to stress, either increase or decrease in concentration, are eliminated, or are newly produced, and
- the material from a living organism is plant material and the detected biomarker pattern after stress exposure is used in the control of herbicide spraying.
- the invention describes a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism that has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
- the invention relates to an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising:
- a support for receiving an assayable form of at least a part of said material from a living organism, -optionally at least one reagent specific for the biomarkers to be detected, and
- Another aspect of the invention is the use of the method of testing as defined by the invention.
- Particularly the invention concerns the testing of material from plants.
- Figure 1 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
- Figure 2 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 3 shows the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
- Figure 4 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis arvensts L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
- Figure 5 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 6 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
- Figure 7 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicide Glyphosate using the TLC- system 1 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 8 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
- Figure 9 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (Lipids and Terpens).
- Figure 10 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 11 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of L ⁇ lium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
- Figure 12 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of L ⁇ lium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 13 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of L ⁇ lium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
- Figure 14 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of L ⁇ lium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
- Figure 15 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of L ⁇ lium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 16 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
- Figure 17 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 18 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
- Figure 19 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
- Figure 20 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 21 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
- Figure 22 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 23 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
- Figure 24 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
- Figure 25 depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
- Figure 26 shows the colour definitions used for the transparent shapes.
- Figure 27 is an overview of different types of stress.
- the invention relates to a method for testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
- biomarkers being compounds which after the living organism has been exposed to stress, either increase or decrease in concentration, are eliminated, or are newly produced, and
- the invention relatest to any living organisms for which it is desired to test whether said organism has been exposed to stress, i.e. external stress.
- stress i.e. external stress.
- the following discussion concerns mate- rial for which the living organism is a plant. Further, the invention particularly discloses the use of biomarker patterns in the control of herbicide spraying.
- the present invention is based on the recognition that the phytochemical compounds in plants exposed to stress, such as pesticides, are related to and depend- ing on the pesticides used and their modes of action in the plant.
- the present inventor has found a reproducible pattern of the composition of the phytochemical compounds in plants after exposure to a stress factor, such as a pesticide, said pattern being unique to the specific stress factor, and unique to the individual plant family, more preferred the individual plant species, such as to individual plant varie- ties.
- the unique pattern is a so-called fingerprint of the effect of a specific pesticide in the plant in question, i.e. the specific plant to be tested.
- the present invention offers an opportunity to assess/determine whether a plant has been exposed to stress factors, such as pesticides in spite of the fact that the potential exposure cannot be assessed by visual inspection of said plant as visual signs.
- stress factors such as pesticides
- visual inspection of said plant as visual signs.
- vis- ual inspection is meant an ordinary visual inspection with the naked eye, whereby morphologigal changes, such as changes in colour, wiltering etc. of the plant may be inspected.
- Certain new chemical compounds may be produced in the plant after exposure to stress, or the concentration of already existing compounds may change, for example by an accumulation of certain chemical compounds in the plants.
- the pattern may also be related to a decrease or even an elimination of chemical compounds in the plants after exposure to stress. These changes of concentration of compounds, elimination of compounds and/or production of new compounds after stress exposure may be due to changes in the biochemical pathways of plants.
- a biomarker pattern is the pattern of the composition of phytochemical compounds, i.e. endogenously produced compounds, in the plant after exposure to a stress factor, i.e. an external exposure, and said pattern is unique for each type of stress factors, such as pesticides, or for a group of stress factors.
- the compounds present in the plants after exposure are the same as before exposure, but the concentration of the individual compounds is different, whereby a new pattern of the phytochemical compounds has arised after exposure.
- the presence of phytochemical changes and the extend of sensitivity of the plant to stress exposure is dependent on the age of the plant. Young plants tend to be more sensitive to exposure of stress, such as herbicides, than older plants. This means that a biomarker pattern can be detected at an earlier stage after the time of exposure in a young plant as opposed to the later stage of detection of a biomarker pattern in an older plant.
- This knowledge of the correlation between plant age and the time neccessary for the plant to develop a biomarker pattern may be used to determine how long ago a certain plant were exposed to stress factor(s). Due to their high sensitivity young plants show lower stability of the biochemical changes, i.e.
- the biomarker pattern is more stable in older plants and may be observed throughout the remains of the life of the older plant.
- younger plants have a higher sensitivity to stress and also a higher mortality rate. Fewer species of young plants will survive stress exposure the first weeks after emergence, while older plants are less affected.
- the present invention takes advantage of a number of parameters, such as the phytochemical responses and the time after stress exposure with which they occur, the physiological effects, the types, numbers and concentrations of compounds biosynthesised in plants after exposure to pesticides.
- the pattern of the composition may relate to at least 2 biomarkers.
- the pattern of the composition relates to at least 3 biomarkers, such as at least 4 biomarkers, for example at least 5 biomarkers, such as at least 6 biomarkers, for example at least 7 biomarkers, such as at least 8 biomarkers, for example at least 9 biomarkers, such as at least 10 biomarkers.
- standard biomarker pattern is meant a pattern of the composition of compounds present in a plant after exposure to known stress factors.
- the biomarker pattern of the unknown compounds i.e. the above described biomarker pattern
- a standard biomarker pattern also referred to as a "most frequent pattern”.
- standard biomarker patterns i.e. most frequent patterns.
- the biomarker patterns of test material that has been exposed to unknown stress factors may then be correlated to standard biomarker pat- terns.
- the standard biomarker pattern may be obtained for one particular stress factor or for a combination of at least two different stress factors.
- the biomarker pattern in another embodiment of the invention it is possible to correlate the biomarker pattern not only to the standard biomarker pattern as described above, but also to a standard pattern.
- standard pattern is meant a pattern of the composition of compounds present in a plant before exposure to any stress factors. Such plant may also be referred to as “stress free” or "a 0 plant”.
- the compounds present in a "0 plant” may be described as naturally occuring compounds, i.e. compounds naturally present in the plant before any stress exposure.
- the description below applies to both a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern as well as to a method of testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress.
- the material on which the testing is performed may be from any living material, such as from animals, for example mammals, soil invertebrates and insects, or from thal- lophytes, such as fungi or algae.
- the material from a living organism is plant material.
- the material is selected from plants, fungi or algae.
- plants fungi or algae.
- the following is a description of one embodiment of the invention, wherein the material from a living organism originates from plants.
- the description of this embodiment of the invention using plants also relates to other embodiments of the invention, wherein the material from a living organism is not plant material.
- the method of testing is to determine the composition of the chemical biomarker pattern after exposure to stress.
- the plant material of the invention may be selected among any plant or plant cells.
- the plant material is chosen from, but not limited to dicotyledons or monocotyledons.
- the dicotyledonous plants may be selected from the families of Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae, Polygonaceae, Papaveraceae, Primulaceae, Plantaginaceae and Scrophulariaceae and the monocotyledonous plants may be selected from the families of Poaceae.
- the plant material used to perform the method of testing may be the entire plant or it may be at least a selected area of any part of the plant.
- the selected area of the plant may be an area such as from at least flowers, shoots, leaves, stems, roots, seeds, pollen, rhizomes, stamens, sepals, petals, carpels, styles, stigmas, microsporangia, anther, fruits, cotyledons, hypocotyle, epicotyle, xylem or/and phloem (wood), periderm (bark), buds, flower buds, cones, cone scales, tubers, bulbs, root nodules, resin or sap.
- a second step in the method according to the invention begins. It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of testing, wherein the plant material used is in a form suitable for assaying.
- a suitable form may be a liquid form, for example a liquid suspension.
- a liquid suspension of the plant material may be obtained by applying extraction sol- vents, such as ethanol to the plant material.
- the extraction solvents ensure that all compounds form all chemical groups present in the plant material are extracted.
- the assayable plant material may be fresh or non-fresh.
- the plant material is fresh.
- the fresh material may be used for analysis immediately after harvesting said material or it may be used for analysis up to a few minutes after harvesting. It is preferred that the fresh material is used as soon as possible after harvesting to avoid break down processes, such as enzymatic breakdown.
- the plant material is frozen.
- the frozen plant material may be frozen up to the point of analysing, such as frozen for a period of at least 2 years and it may be defrosted prior to performing the test. However, it is preferred that the frozen plant material is used for analysis immediately after being removed from the cold storage.
- the plant material is dry.
- the drying process may be accounted for by air, or nitrogen, or it may be a freeze drying process, such as nitrogen dried. Additionally the plant material may be heat dried, such as sun dried. It is important that the plant material is substantially dry, and the length of the drying process is dependent on the type of plant material.
- the present invention further relates to a method of testing having an improved sensitivity, i.e. detection limit.
- detection limit is meant the lowest possible concentration of for example pesticides the test of the invention is capable of determining.
- the "recommended dose” is the effective dose needed to obtain a result.
- the method of testing may be performed on plants being exposed to less than 10% of the recommended dose, preferably down to less than 5% of the recommended dose, more preferably down to less than 1% of the recommended dose without any visual effects of the exposure on the plants tested.
- the length of the time period before the plants react to the stress exposure may be dependent on numerous factors, such as the species and age of the plant. Some plants may recover from an exposure, and the detection may take place before such a recovery. However, it may be possible to detect biomarkers after the plant has recovered from the exposure. Without being bound by theory the detection of biomarkers may for some plants be possible throughout the entire life span of the plants, whereas the detection of biomarkers of other plants may only be possible within a certain time frame. This of course may depend on the nature of the plant species and of the stress factors as such, for example the concentration level of pesticides.
- the detection of biomarkers may be possible as long as the plant is living. This may be between less than 1 day and up to 35 days after exposure, such as between 1-30 days after exposure, for example between 5-25 days after exposure, such as between 10-20 days after exposure, for example between 12-18 days after exposure.
- the detection of biomarkers in a plant may in one aspect of the invention serve the purpose of an "early warning" signal of stress exposure before any visual signs thereof appear on the plant.
- the present invention presents a method by which reproducible biomarker patterns are obtained, thus providing analytical tools for the establishment of exposure to and identification of known as well as unknown compounds.
- stress factors There is a variety of stress factors that may all have an impact on the chemical composition of plants.
- the plant may be exposed to more than one stress factor, wherein in one embodiment the effect of the exposure is synergistic and thus results in a biomarker pattern reflecting the synergistic effect of the individual stress factors.
- the resulting biomarker pattern reflects the antagonistic effect of the individual stress factors. It is within the scope of the invention to develop a standard biomarker pattern for any combination of stress factors.
- one of the stress factors is abiotic, such as chemical stress and/or physical stress.
- chemical stress may be caused by pesticides, such as herbicides.
- Herbicides are all designed to kill plants by altering and effecting the biochemical homeostasis of the plant cells. Plants react to the exposure of herbicides by producing or decomposing phytochemical compounds. They may also react by changing the concentration of already existing compound(s). The resulting effect on the plants is dependent on the individual mode of action of the herbicide.
- the method of testing for the exposure of pesticides relates to herbicides selected from a group consisting of Glyphosate, Bromoxynil, Pendimethalin and Metsulfuron methyl, all representing different modes of action on the target plants. These herbicides are all widely used in Northern America and Western Europe for the control of broad-leaved plants and grasses.
- Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that controls emergent annual and perennial broad-leaved plants and grasses (Tomlin, 2000; Trottier et a/., 1990).
- Glyphosate inhibits the activity of the EPSP-enzyme (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3- phosphate) of the aromatic acid biosynthetic pathway in plants. It is absorbed through the wax cuticle on the leaves and a rapid translocation occurs via phloem to roots, rhizomes and apical meristems. It is degraded by rapid microbial action, with a half-life of 3-5 weeks. It is non-volatile and does not degrade photochemically. The water solubility is 11.6 g/l at 25 °C. It binds strongly to soil particles and hereby it is immobile unless transported with the soil.
- Bromoxynil (BRY) is a selective herbicide with some systematic activity (Thomson, 1989; Tomlin, 2000). The herbicide is absorbed by the foliage through cuticular penetration. Bromoxynil kills by inhibition of photosynthesis and plant respiration in annual broad-leaved plants. It degrades rapidly in most soil types, with a half-life in the order of two weeks which can be considerable reduced at low temperatures. It is water-soluble (130 mg/l), potentially harmful to fish and aquatic invertebrates for which it is toxic if it reaches water bodies (Muir et al., 1991 ).
- Pendimethalin is a selective herbicide that inhibits cell growth by inhibiting cell division of any and all plant cells by acting as a mitotic toxin. It is absorbed by roots and leaves, but initially limits root growth, such as the development of lateral or secondary roots (Tomlin, 2000). Pendimethalin is moderately persistent in moist sandy loam (half-life 50 days) to highly persistent in moist silty soil (half-life 140 days) and in dry silty clay loam (250 days). It is a very stable herbicide except when it volatilises from moist soil surfaces (Barrett & Lavy 1983). The water solubility is 0.3 mg/I at 20 °C. Thus, it is likely to be transferred to other environmental compartments although it may move with soil particles to water bodies where it is toxic to fish (Thomson, 1989; Tomlin, 2000).
- Metsulfuron methyl is a potent inhibitor of plant growth used on wheat and barley crops for the control of broad-leaf species and the suppression of few grasses.
- the herbicide is taken up by the foliage or the roots and translocated via xylem and phloem.
- Metsulfuron methyl is a selective herbicide that acts by inhibiting the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS) which catalyses the synthesis of the three branched-chain amino acids valine, leucine and isoleucine (Moberg & Cross 1990).
- ALS acetolactate synthase
- the precise mechanism of action is unknown, but soon after herbicide application, plant cell division quickly stops, and death occurs within one to three weeks.
- the accumulation of ALS substrates e.g.
- ⁇ -ketobutyrate in leaves may be responsible for the cessation of the plant growth with decreased production of new leaves and reproductive organs (Bestman et al., 1990). Metsulfuron methyl is mobile in most soil and the mobility is enhanced as pH increases (Beyer et. al., 1988; Blair 1988).
- herbicides are currently applied to major crops, such as maize, wheat, barley, soybeans, oats, peas, potatoes and tomatoes.
- major crops such as maize, wheat, barley, soybeans, oats, peas, potatoes and tomatoes.
- herbicides When applying herbicides to a cultivated field of crops adjacent non-target areas may be affected by herbicides as well.
- pesticides than the ones mentioned above are also within the scope of the invention. They are described in The Pesticide Manual (twelfth edition) version 2.0, British Crop Protection Council (2000-2001). For example insecticides, acaricides, nematicides/vermicides, rodenticides and fungicides.
- the method of testing is applied to plants potentially being exposed to physical stress, such as temperature, wind, UV light, physical damage, soil quality and soil moistness.
- the stress factors may be biotic, such as biological stress and/or allelopathy.
- biological stress is meant as stress and possibly visual damage caused by herbivores, plant pathogens and/or competition from other plants.
- allelopathy such as competition from other plants and/or chemical compounds of other plants effecting/stressing the plant on which a test is performed.
- composition of the biomarker pattern of the invention may be phytochemical.
- phytochemical relates to any chemical or compound or nutrient or fundamental compound present in plants. There are a vast number of compounds pre- sent in plants. Some of the compounds are readily detectable under circumstances where said plants are not exposed to stress. If, however, plants are exposed to stress the biochemical pathways within the plant cells may be effected. The influence of stress on biochemical pathways may lead to an increase of or change, such as an elimination in the concentration of already existing compounds, or it may lead to the production of compounds not normally present in plants not exposed to stress (see above).
- the phytochemical is a substance, or at least part of a substance, or a derivative of amino acids, amines, sugars, flavo- noids, phenolic compounds, sapogenins, saponins, iridoids, glycosides, alcaloids, alkaline alcaloids, N-containing compounds, S-containing compounds, P-containing compounds, O-containing compounds, such as any fundamental element, terpe- noids, lipids, steroids, cartenoids, quinones, coumariners, and nutrients, such as any compound necessary for the plant to survive, for example salts.
- fundamental compound any compound depicted in the periodi- cai system.
- the assessment of potential stress exposure for material from a living organism may be qualitative and/or quantitative and/or semi-quantitative.
- the assessment is qualitative, and the biomarker pattern is analysed based on the composition of compounds present, i.e. the presence or absence of a par- ticular compound.
- the assessment is quantitative and the pattern of the composition of compounds analysed is related to the actual concentration of compounds present since the intensity of the spots (concentration of the compounds) reflects the concentration of a pesticide, for example.
- the quantitative evaluation may be performed by using a scanning-densitometer.
- the assessment is semi-quantitative. By this is meant an assessment which is partly quantitative by the means of either visual inspection or use of an apparatus.
- the concentration of the sample may be determined as an approximate intensity value within a given interval or point system.
- the method of testing comprises the following steps:
- an assayable form may be a liquid, or a liquid mixed with solids, such as liquids mixed with salts.
- the support for receiving the material may be a solid material or a less solid material, such as a soft material, for example a liquid material.
- the support may be pretreated with a substance capable of promoting reactions when put into contact with the plant material. Said reactions may be for example be radioactive, fluorescent, or immunological.
- the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of commercially available techniques known to the skilled artisan, such as High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography or mass spectrometry (MS), or a combination of analytical methods. For example a densitometric evalua- tion of thin-layer chromatograms using a densitometric scanner/videoscan may be employed. It is important that the same method of analysing is applied when detecting both the standard biomarker pattern, and the biomarker pattern resulting from the exposure of unknown stress factors.
- HPLC High Performance Liquid Chromatography
- MS mass spectrometry
- biomarker pattern is detected by the use of
- TLC Thin Layer Chromatography
- Radioactive compounds may be used in said methods. For example a "film" of radioactivity may be placed over a TLC-plate, whereafter a pattern of biomarkers emerge where the radioactive compounds are placed.
- biomarkers are separated by the means of antibodies possible attached to support or antibodies in the solvent.
- TLC-plates used in the test of the invention are all commercially available TLC-plates, and may be made from cellulose or silica gel.
- the types of TLC-plates chosen for the test are selected according to the plant species tested, and to the specific compounds of which it is desired to determine their existence or absence in the plant material. _
- solvent is meant to cover one substance or a combination of two or more substances, wherein the solvent may be a combination of liquid and solid and gas substances.
- a solvent may be a reagent, an eluent or an extractionmedia. The latter three may be in a solid or liquid physical state, or they may be in the form of a gas.
- an extract of material from a plant is provided.
- the extraction may be performed under cold or warm temperatures, such as by the means of ultrasound, or stiming and according to the invention the extraction solvent may be an petroleum-ether extraction solvent, or a 10 % acidic acid in 96 % ethanol extraction solvent. In another aspect the extraction solvent is 75 % ethanol as described in the experimental section below.
- the extraction may be performed on fresh or non-fresh plant material.
- the solvents and the support may have different polarities, such as between -0.1-10, for example between 2-8, such as between 4-6 as defined by Snyder, (1974).
- the polarity of the solvents and support is crucial for the resulting biomarker pattern.
- the TLC-plate is placed in a TLC chamber containing a chemical eluent.
- the eluent is absorbed by the plate material and this initiates the development of the test.
- the biomarker com- pounds react with the plate material and the eluent. All biomarkers have different affinity to the plate material and to the eluent. Thus, the biomarkers will appear in different positions on the plate material. The higher affinity the biomarkers have to the eluent the further they will migrate on the TLC-plate.
- the first step of "developing" the plate i.e.
- the reaction of the plant material with the plate material and ele- ment may be a period of 120 minutes, such as 90 minutes, for example 60 minutes.
- the solvent comprises the upper-phase of n- butanol and formic acid in a ratio of 2:1.
- the solvent may only be stable for up to 1 day and therefore has to be renewed daily.
- the solvent comprises n-butanol, acetic acid and water in a ratio of (4:1:5).
- the solvent is stable for several days and is preferably stored in a cool place.
- the TLC-plate may then be air-dried and a chemical reagent may be brought in contact with the TLC plate, such as by spraying.
- the type of reagent of the invention may vary according to the type of TLC-plate and the type of biomarker.
- a purpose of the invention is to provide a method of testing, wherein the biomarker pattern is obtained as a result of the specific combination of parameters, such as said support, for example TLC-plates, said solvent and said chemical reagent.
- parameters such as said support, for example TLC-plates, said solvent and said chemical reagent.
- Rf values are defined as the distance of the centre of the spot (i.e. compound) from the start point divided by the distance of the front of the solvent from the start point (Stahl, 1969).
- the Rf values are a supplement to the results obtained by the established biomarker patterns illustrated in the figures 1-25 below.
- a significant object of the present invention is to provide an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising,
- a support for receiving an assayable form of at least a part of said material from a living organism, -optionally at least one reagent specific for the biomarkers to be detected, and
- the assay kit of the invention is for all practical purposes to be used as a field test, or as a laboratory test.
- One object of the invention is to have an easy accessible test to be used commercially or on a private scale.
- the assay kit of the invention is practical and portable in size and easy to operate.
- the test material is brought in contact with a support for receiving said material.
- the test material is in an assayable form, for example in the form of a liquid suspension.
- the assay kit is used on material from plants, and it may comprise:
- UV-Iamp optionally an UV-Iamp
- the assay kit is envisioned as a practical and mobile test system.
- the individual steps of the test may be performed in the field, and does not require any particular technical skills of the person performing the test.
- the test may be completed in less than 1 hour, such as 45 minutes.
- the assay kit used on plant material comprises at least one TLC-plate.
- the test material is brought into contact with a solid support, such as a TLC plate comprising an adsorbent material capable of separating the mixture of compounds of the test material.
- a hand-press may be used to press out the sap of the plant material.
- the assay kit also comprises containers of solvents, such as solvents described below. Containers, for example a bottle shaped container with a spraying head, holding reagents sprayed onto the TLC-plate(s) are also part of the present test kit.
- the assay kit comprises containers holding agents wherein the TLC-plates is placed. The containers may vary in size depending on the type of application in question. For repetitive tests larger containers may be preferred.
- the assay kit is disposable, i.e. the individual components in the assay kit is used only once. However, in another aspect one or more of the individual components of the assay kit is recycled. Different embodiments of the assay kit of the in- vention are envisioned. In one embodiment all components of the assay kit are contained in one pocket size unit. In another embodiment the UV-Iamp and/or the heater of the invention are separated from the assay kit as a unit. In another embodiment of the invention the UV-Iamp and/or the heater are excluded from the assay kit and method as a whole. Further, micro-pipettes including holders are option- ally included in the assay kit unit.
- the colour reactions developed on the solid supports, such as TLC-plates of the assay kit are compared to one or more colour comparators, such as the standard biomarker pattern and/or standard pattern of the invention.
- the colour comparators may be in the form of a folder of colour charts enclosed in the assay kit, and it is preferred that the size of the colour comparators (standard biomarker patterns and/or standard patterns) are equal to the size of the solid support, such as the TLC-plate(s).
- an immunological test such as a "dipstick” is used.
- Another object of the invention is the use of a method for testing whether material from a living organism, including plant material, and/or a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism, including plant material has been exposed to stress.
- the invention also relates to the use of an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism, such as plant material has been exposed to stress.
- biomarker pattern of plants being genetically modi- fied may be determined by using the present test method. Plants may be genitically modified to become resistant to pesticides, and such gene modified plants may pro- prise biomarkers that differ from biomarkers of non-gene modified plants. In one embbodiment of the invention the biomarker patterns of gene-modified plants and non-gene-modified plants, which have not been exposed to pesticides, are compared.
- the invention may be used in the control of the geographic distribution of pesticides.
- Non-target habitats adjacent to cultivated fields may be affected by pesticides during application. This exposure may occur due to over-spraying, or through spray drift from the application on target crops adjacent to wild-life habitats. It may also stem from pesticides being run-off or washed-off. Pesticides are able to travel considerable distances by air, either by drift or by volatilisation.
- the invention may be used by the farmer to assess the optimal effect of a given pesticide on plants being exposed to reduced levels of said pesti- cide. In this way the farmer is able to determine at what minimum dosages of pesticide a plant is still responding, and may thus be able to reduce the amount of pesticide necessary to obtain a given effect in the plant.
- the invention may be used in food quality control, such as in the control of farmers produce, such as crops.
- the invention may be used for the control of whether organic crop has been exposed to stress, such as herbicides. It is important to be able to determine whether organic crops are free from residues of chemicals, such as herbicides and/or defoliating agents and/or growth regulating agents, such as respiration and germination inhibition agents, growth retarding agents, root formation agents, flowers and fruit formation agents, germination promoting agents, flowering delaying agents, thinning out agents, hold- on compounds and grafting agents, or free from residues of chemicals used for: the control or treatment of plant diseases, wood destroying fungi, unwanted plant growth, growth of algae, slime promoting organisms in paper pulp, animals capable of damaging utility-and cultivated plants, vermin on domestic animals, infested cereal, cereal products, seeds and feed-stuff, textile infestant, infestant of lumber and woodwork, insects, snails, mites, rain worms, rabbits
- the present invention provides a simple, cheap and reliable test method.
- the method may be applied in the fields, literary speaking, by commercial or official control units, or it may be used by private consumers. It is known that a change in the chemical composition of plants plays a vital role in food quality and thus in the general health. Compounds in plants the quality of for exam- pie crops. A change in the chemical composition of plants changes the quality of said plant for feeding purposes.
- a further object of the invention may be to contribute to document and assess the changes in the chemical composition, i.e. biomarker pattern of plants exposed to stress.
- Dicotyledons Anagallis arvensis Primulaceae Bellis perennis Asteraceae Inula helenium Asteraceae Rudbekia hirta Asteraceae Centaurea cyanus Asteraceae Leonorus cariaca Lamiaceae Mentha spicata Lamiaceae Nepeta cataria Lamiaceae Prunella vulgaris Lamiaceae Digitalis lanceolata Scrophulariaceae Papaver rhoeas Papaveraceae Fallopia convolvulus Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Polygonaceae Sinapis arvensis Brassicaceae Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae
- Monocotyledons L ⁇ lium perenne Poaceae Lolium multiflora Poaceae The plants were sown and cultivated in a green-house and some were grown outdoor (see example 5).
- the herbicides were obtained directly from the producers.
- the extraction solvent may be an petroleum-ether extraction solvent, or a 10 % acidic acid in 96 % ethanol extraction solvent. In another aspect the extraction solvent is 75 % ethanol as described below. Fresh/fresh ethanol extracts/extraction with 75% ethanol:
- the fresh plant material was pressed using a hand press.
- the extract was immedi- ately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes.
- the supernatant was used for analysis.
- the extracts were kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- the fresh plant material was tied with a cotton string and lowered into 96% ethanol for 3 minutes.
- the plant material was centrifuged slightly manually with a washer (20 rp).
- the plant material was pressed and centrifuged and kept cool or right above 0 °C as described above.
- the supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- Freeze-dried plant material was crushed and 250 mg was extracted with 5.00 ml 75% ethanol in an ultrasonic bath for 2 hours. The temperature was kept ⁇ 0 °C (using ice) during the extraction to avoid decomposition of biomarkers. The extract was centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- the fresh plant material was pressed using a hand press.
- the extract was immediately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis.
- the extracts were kept kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- the fresh plant material was tied with a cotton string and lowed into 96% ethanol for 3 minutes.
- the plant material was centrifuged slightly manually with a washer (20 rp).
- the plant material was pressed and centrifuged and kept kept cool or right above 0 °C as described above.
- the supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- the fresh frozen plant material was pressed using a hand press.
- the extract was immediately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis.
- the extracts were kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers. • Extraction with 75% ethanol
- Freeze-dried plant material was crushed and 250 mg was extracted with 5.00 ml 75% ethanol in an ultrasonic bath for 2 hours. The temperature was kept ⁇ 0°C (using ice) during the extraction to avoid decomposition of biomarkers. The extract was centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
- the two extracts fresh/fresh ethanol
- the 75% ethanolic extract was applicated 10 ⁇ l on Silica-gel TLC-plates and 5 ⁇ l on Cellulose TLC- plates (see below).
- the fresh/fresh ethanolic extracts are recommended to perform if fresh plant material are to be analysed (field-test).
- the freeze-dried or frozen plant material extraction is recommended if the analysis are performed in the laboratory.
- Solvent is placed in the TLC chamber to saturate the chamber with evappurated solvent/eluent prior to placing the TLC-plate with the applied plant extract in the chamber. The solvent initiates the development of the test. _
- Chemical reagent is the use of a combination of chemical reagents, wherein the combination of chemical reagents is chosen according to what chemical groups it is desired to detect.
- Chemical solvent is a solvent that is applicated onto the TLC plate to initiate a colour development.
- TLC-System 1 HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F 254 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 ⁇ l plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1 :5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking).
- Derivatisation Stock solution 1 :50% sulfuric acid in 96% ethanol; Stock solution 2: 2% vanillin in absolute alcohol; Derivatisation-solvent, Fresh produced before use, stock solution 1 and stock solution 2 (1 :10); Aftercare: 120°C in 2-3 min. The plate is evaluated visu- ally. The system detects higher alcoholics, phenolic compounds, steroids and ethe- ric oils (Stahl 1969), terpenoids, phenyl propanoids, phenolic compounds (Wagner et al. 1984)
- TLC-System 7 HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F 25 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 ⁇ l plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking).
- Derivatisation 0,5 g p-anisaldehyde diluted in 10 ml cone, acetic acid and 85 ml absolute alcohol is and 5 ml cone, sulfuric acid (added in the following row).
- the plate is heated to 100°C in 5 to 10 minutes.
- the plate is evaluated visually or in UV-light at 366 nm.
- the system detects sugar compounds, steroids, terpens (Stahl, 1969), antioxydants, prostaglandins, phenolic compounds, glycosides, sapogenins, etheric oils, antibiotics, mycotoxins (Jork et al., 1988).
- TLC-System 6 HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F 254 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 ⁇ l plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking). Derivatisation: 10%) molybdatophosphoric acid in 96% ethanol.
- the system detects lipids, sterols and steroids (Stahl, 1969), gallus acids, lipid a- cids, triglycerids, substituted phenolic compounds, indol-derivatives, prostaglandins, etheric oil components, alkaloids (morphine)(Jork et al., 1988).
- TLC-System 2 HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F 25 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 ⁇ l plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking).
- Derivatisation 1% 2-aminoethyl diphenylborinate in 5% polyethylenglycol 4000 in 96 % ethanol. The last mentioned solution is prepared in ultrasonic bath.
- the TLC-plate is air-dried and evaluated in UV-light (366 nm).
- the system detects phenolic compounds, flavo- noids, simple phenolic compounds, anthocyanidines; penicillium acid, sugars (Jork et al., 1988) ⁇ - og ⁇ -pyrons (Stahl, 1969). Amino acids
- TLC-System 4d TLC Alufolie Cellulose, Merck 1.05552 (10 x 10 cm); 5 ⁇ l plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in: n-butanol: 50% formic acid (2:1).
- Derivatisation Solvent 1. 0.3 g ninhydrin in 100 ml 2-propanol and 3 ml cone. Acetic acid is added.
- Solvent 2. Solvent: 0.2% ninhydrin in 96% ethanol.
- Derivatisation with solvent 1 the plate is air-dried with hot air and derivatisation with solvent 2. Treatment after reaction with reagent: The plate is heated at 110°C in 2 to 3 minutes.
- the plate is treated with a stabiliser solution (1 ml saturated copper (II) nitrate water solution in 0.2 ml 10% nitric acid and 100 ml absolute alcohol).
- a stabiliser solution (1 ml saturated copper (II) nitrate water solution in 0.2 ml 10% nitric acid and 100 ml absolute alcohol).
- the plate is visually evaluated, white with red, blue and yellow spots.
- the system detects amino acids, amines and amino sugar compounds (Stahl, 1969).
- Rf-value The distance of the centre of the spot (i.e. compound) from the start point, divided by the distance of the front of the solvent from the start.
- VE min. visual effect
- the transparent shapes with coloured spots at Rf-values* of the plant biomarkers was placed on the TLC-plate. A transparent shape is see-through and was placed on top of the plates for varification of the results.
- the specific transparent shapes with coloured spots for this specific plant species/herbicide was used.
- the transparent shapes of TLC-System 4d was used, and if the result was positive for one of the used herbicides (based on the mode of action of the herbicides), the other transparent shapes for the other TLC-Systems (1 , 2, 5, 8, 11 , 16 and 21 ) were used to verify the result. If the plant species was not identified, the most frequent transparent shapes were used.
- the plant species Anagallis arvensis (Primulaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl.
- the plant biomarker responses were as follows: (4 days ⁇ 60 degree days, 8 days ⁇ 120 degree days, 14 days ⁇ 180 degree days, 16 days ⁇ 240 degree days, 32 days ⁇ 480 degree days)
- Centaurea cyanus L (Asteraceae)
- Centaurea cyanus L (Asteraceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl.
- the plant biomarker responses were as follows:
- the plant species L ⁇ lium perenne L., (Poaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl.
- the plant biomarker responses were as follows: Pendimethalin, TLC 4d
- Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae)
- Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl.
- the plant biomarker responses were as follows:
- Glyphosate (Roundup Bio (360 g L "1 ) was supplied by Monsanto Denmark A/S.
- a comparison study was performed to compare the results of the above mentioned greenhouse experiments with the results of outdoor experiment.
- the experiment was performed between June and July 2000 using the most sensitive plant species, A. arvensis and L. perenne.
- Degree days were calculated as described above.
- the plants were 77 days (670 degree days) old before exposure.
- the plants were exposed to 0, 1 , 10 and 100% of the recommended field dose of glyphosate.
- the visual effect on the plants was evaluated as described above.
- the plants were harvested 32 degree days (4 days), 61 degree days (7 days), 139 degree days (17 days) and 242 degree days (27 days) after exposure.
- Plant extraction and treatment 250 mg lyophilized plant material was crushed and extracted with 5.00 ml 75 % ethanol in water in ultrasonic bath for two hours. Ice was added to the bath every 30 minutes to keep the temperature constant during the extraction. The extracts were transferred to vials and centrifuged (3000g per min.) for 10 minutes. The extract was immediately used for phytochemical analysis.
- Frozen or fresh plant material was pressed for plant sap using a hand press.
- the sap was transferred to vials and centrifuged (3000g per min.) for 10 minutes.
- the extract was immediately used for phytochemical analysis.
- TLC-systems type of TLC-plate; solvent and derivatisation reagent
- the phytochemical changes in exposed plants compared with control plants were detected visually using all five TLC systems.
- TLC-system a characteristic pattern of spots was identified in comparison of treated and un-treated plants, including missing and new com- pounds. In this study only the pattern of new compounds in exposed plants was used.
- TLC-systems 1 , 6 and 7 was used.
- Plant extracts screened for phytochemical changes in all five TLC-systems showed different patterns for each plant species.
- Table 3 two of the most sensitive plant species, Anagallis arvensis and L ⁇ lium perenne are presented to illustrate the dif- ferent pattern of phytochemical compounds in plants exposed to Roundup Bio.
- the sensitivity of the plant species was evaluated on basis of the presence of the most frequent pattern, the lowest concentration of exposure, and the visual effect of the exposed plants.
- the plant species are divided into three groups: Group I: Very sensitive plant species; Group II: Medium sensitive plant species, and Group III: Less sensitive plant species.
- Group I a phytochemical pattern was present in plants exposed to 1% of the recommended field dose of Roundup Bio with a visual effect from 0 to 4.
- Group II a phytochemical pattern was found in plants exposed to 1 to 10% of the recommended field dose of the herbicide with a visual effect from 0 to 5.
- Group III presents plant species containing a phytochemical pattern after exposure of 10% of the recommended field dose with a visual effect from 5 to 7.
- the comparison of a phytochemical pattern in plants grown in greenhouse and out- door is based on two greenhouse studies and one outdoor study.
- the two plant species A. arvensis and L ⁇ lium perenne were used to represent both a mono- and a dicotyledon species.
- Table 3 the results of these studies are presented. In this table the comparison is based on similar ages 226 to 670 degree days (30 to 77 days) before exposure and the plants were harvested 180 to 240 degree days (14 to 17 days) after exposure.
- the greenhouse plants were more sensitive than the plants cultivated outdoors. New phytochemical compounds were present at 1 to 10% of recommended field dose for both plant species for plants grown in greenhouse. Almost the same pattern was seen for plants cultivated outdoor (see Table 3).
- the outdoor plants did not show new phytochemical compounds at 1 and 10% of recommended field dose, but the characteristic pattern was found at 50% of the recommended field dose.
- the phytochemical changes in outdoor grown plants might be found in lower concentrations.
- the visual effect seen on these plants varied from no effect to 5 (1 and 10% of recommended field dose of Roundup Bio) for greenhouse plants to 3 to 8 (see Table 1 ) for outdoor grown plants. This means that the phytochemical changes did not appear at low dosages in the field and the visual effects in the greenhouse plants and the field were similar.
- the response differs between plant species, and three classes of sensitivity could be identified.
- glyphosate Following exposure to glyphosate, a very specific pattern can be obtained by using different TLC-systems. Preliminary analysis of plants exposed to herbicides of different mode of action (i.e. pendimethalin, bromoxynil and metsulfuron methyl) show different patterns, allowing for qualitative identification of exposure to one or more herbicides. Other ongoing experiments show that natural stressors such as temperature and drought may change the concentration of compounds in the plant sap. After exposure to glyphosate, the phytochemical pattern showed minor differ- ences when plants were developed either in greenhouse or outdoors.
- the changed phytochemical pattern appeared in the annual plants about four days after exposure. The pattern was most stable in older plants, staying until scenes- cence. In younger plants a high mortality was observed, even at doses at or lower than 1 % field dose. Apparently, only few species will survive such exposure the first weeks after emergence, while older plants are less affected. In most cases the phytochemical changes at concentrations of glyphosate, which did not cause any visual effects on the plants, were observed.
- the pattern of phytochemical changes can be used as a sensitive and selective biomarker for glyphosate exposure. This unique pattern of biomarkers can easily be detected in vascular plants and evaluated by comparison with untreated controls.
- Table 2 Sensitivity of plants exposed to glyphosate (Roundup Bio), based on presence of phytochemical changes in all the TLC-Systems at lowest dose of concentration (LC) of the herbicide in per cent of field dose. The corresponding visual effect (VE) is presented (see table 1).
- Group I Very sensitive plant species/families LC VE
- Group II Medium sensitive plant speci- LC VE es/families
- Study 1 Greenhouse; Plant age: 226-338 degree days (30 days) at exposure, harvested 180 degree days (14 days) after exposure
- Table 4 Pattern of phytochemical changes in Anagallis arvensis and L ⁇ lium perenne grown in greenhouse and outdoors in relation to days after exposure with Roundup Bio. Rf-values and colour of spots for TLC-System 4d representing an amino acid pattern.
Landscapes
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Molecular Biology (AREA)
- Biomedical Technology (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Hematology (AREA)
- Immunology (AREA)
- Urology & Nephrology (AREA)
- Cell Biology (AREA)
- Microbiology (AREA)
- Biotechnology (AREA)
- Food Science & Technology (AREA)
- Medicinal Chemistry (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
- Biochemistry (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Pathology (AREA)
- Measuring Or Testing Involving Enzymes Or Micro-Organisms (AREA)
- Investigating Or Analysing Biological Materials (AREA)
Abstract
The present invention concerns the detection of biomarkers in material from a living organism. More specifically the invention relates to a method of testing whether a living organism has been exposed to stress, such as pesticide exposure. The invention further relates to the use of such a method of testing. In particular a method of testing plant material is disclosed. The invention also concerns a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism that has been exposed to stress and to an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress. For example the present invention may be used in food quality control, such as for the control of whether organic crop has been exposed to stress, or it may be used in the control of gene modified plants, in control of the geographic distribution of pesticides and/or in effect studies of pesticides.
Description
An assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers
Technical field of the invention
The present invention concerns the detection of biomarkers in material from a living organism. More specifically the invention relates to a method of testing whether a living organism has been exposed to stress, such as pesticide exposure. The invention further relates to the use of such a method of testing. In particular a method of testing plant material is disclosed.
Background of the invention
The use of biomarkers in the field of environmental and/or health assessment is getting increasing attention. Biomarkers may be defined as a biological response that can be related to an exposure to, or toxic effect of, environmental compound(s), such as chemicals. Biomarkers may provide evidence about the linkage between the exposure to toxic chemicals and the ecologically and/or health related relevant effects.
Biomarkers may give an impression of whether a living organism has been exposed to certain compounds, such as pesticides. Many insecticides, and to a lesser degree fungicides, are acutely toxic to animals (Thomson, 1987 & 1989).
Pesticides are vastly used in developed countries where modern intensive agriculture requires that productivity is optimised. The use of herbicides are wide-spread as well. The most prominent effect of herbicides is through adverse lethal effects on plants. The lethal effects are manifested by the change in the plant species composition and diversity, and by the alteration of the heterogenety of wildlife habitats. The effects of herbicides may also be on a cellular and/or molecular level, for example by the modification of plant development, growth and morphology. Ishikura et al., 1986 describe how the exposure of the herbicide glyphosate to plant cell cultures influences the some of the biochemical pathways in the cells, and thus changes the biochemical balance when compared to plant cells not being exposed to herbicides. Other research groups have focused on examining the effects of exposure of plants to herbicides. Evidence that herbicides influence the metabolism of phenol com-
pounds in soybean tissue are disclosed by Hoagland et al., 1979. Also, the changes in the composition of secondary metabolites in plants exposed to glyphosate in described by Berlin & Witte, 1981 who studied the effect of glyphosate on shikimic acid accumulation in tobacco cell cultures with high and low yields of cinnamoyl pu- trescines. In the presence of glyphosate the levels of free shikimic acid were increased more than 300-fold by two cell lines. Lydon & Duke, 1989 reported that by virtue of the glyphosate inhibition of 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phospate (EPSP) synthase, the synthesis of all cinnamate derivatives were blocked in plant cell cultures. This lead to an accumulation of high levels of shikimate, benzoic acid, and benzoic acid derivatives.
Another research group showed that water stress changes the concentration of pro- line and soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa, Medicago sativa, plants (Irigoyen et al., 1992).
In US 5,464,750 an assay and kit for the detection of Heat Shock Proteins (HSP) in organisms, such as invertebrates and plants, which have been subjected to sub- lethal doses of pollutants. The physiological stress of marine invertebrates was determined by correlating the level of HSP's with the degree of growth and reproduc- tion success.
In another patent US 5,958,785 ethyl glucuronid was used as a biomarker for alcoholism in a human being and was detected by using Thin Layer Chromatography.
WO 00/28072 concerns a immunoassay for the determination of one or more oxidative damaged proteins in organisms, such as plants and animals. The quantity of biomarker was compared with a control value.
In 1992, Stasiak ef al. studied sub-lethal effects of glyphosate on white birch seed- lings grown outdoors and under controlled-environment conditions. Leaf fluorescence, photosynthetic pigments, ethylene, and changes in the shikimic acid pathway were used as indicators of these effects. They found physiological changes induced in birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) by sublethal applications of glyphosate. Chlorophyll a and b levels decreased within 4 days of application and carotenoid and gallic acid content increased, shikimic acid levels increased 10-fold within 24h application even at 1 % of field rate, and were still elevated in the spring of the following year.
It has been established that the sensitivity of plant species to herbicides varies. Boutin et al., 2001 (in prep.) describe the observation of the difference in sensitivity of different plant species exposed to different herbicides using visual effect signs.
Plant species were exposed to herbicide concentrations of 1% of recommended dose. The plants expressed biomarkers that were different with respect to the visual effect.
Clearly, the detection of pesticide exposure to living organisms, in particular plants is of interest not only to society as a whole in terms of financial concerns but also to the farming industry and to individual consumers. Prior art tests of determining the effects on for example plants after exposure to stress, such as pesticides have proven to be expensive, labour intensive having a low sensitivity and unable to de- tect effects on plants exposed to pesticides before visual signs appeared on the plant.
However, the present invention discloses a new and improved highly sensitive method of testing the effects on material from a living organism having been ex- posed to various forms of stress by taking advantage of the change in the composition of biomarkers in the material from a living organism. Particularly, the present invention relates to a method of testing the non-visual as well as the visual effects on plants exposed to stress.
Summary
The invention relates to a method of testing the composition of biomarkers as a tool to estimate whether a living organism has been exposed to stress.
In one aspect the invention relates to a method for testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
- obtaining material from a living organism,
- providing an assayable form of at least a part of said living organism material,
detecting a biomarker pattern of said assayable form of at least two biomarkers, said biomarkers being compounds which after the living organism has been exposed to stress, either increase or decrease in concentration, are eliminated, or are newly produced, and
correlating said biomarker pattern to a standard biomarker pattern, and/or
correlating said biomarker pattern to a standard pattern,
assessing potential stress exposure for said living organism material.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention the material from a living organism is plant material and the detected biomarker pattern after stress exposure is used in the control of herbicide spraying.
In a further aspect the invention describes a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism that has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
-subjecting a living organism to known types of stress,
-obtaining material from said living organism,
-determining the chemical responses of said material from said living organism for each stress type, and
-obtaining at least one standard biomarker pattern relating to said stress types.
In one embodiment of the invention the invention relates to an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising:
-a support for receiving an assayable form of at least a part of said material from a living organism,
-optionally at least one reagent specific for the biomarkers to be detected, and
-optionally detection agents for displaying the biomarker of said assayable form.
Another aspect of the invention is the use of the method of testing as defined by the invention. Particularly the invention concerns the testing of material from plants.
Figures
The term "Metsulfuron (METS)" on the figures below means Metsulfuron methyl.
Figure 1 : depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
Figure 2: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 3: shows the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
Figure 4: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis arvensts L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
Figure 5: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Anagallis ar- vensis L. (Primulaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 6: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
Figure 7: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicide Glyphosate using the TLC- system 1 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 8: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
Figure 9: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (Lipids and Terpens).
Figure 10: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Centaurea cyanus L. (Asteraceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 11 : depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Lόlium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
Figure 12: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Lόlium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 13: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Lόlium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
Figure 14: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Lόlium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
Figure 15: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Lόlium pere- nne L. (Poaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 16: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
Figure 17: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 18: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
Figure 19: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
Figure 20: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the biomarker pattern of Plantago lanceolata L. (Plantaginaceae) after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 21: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 4d (amino acids).
Figure 22: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 1 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 23: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Pendimethalin, Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 2 (phenolic compounds).
Figure 24: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 6 (lipids and terpens).
Figure 25: depicts the transparent shapes, i.e. the most frequent biomarker pattern of all tested plants after exposure to the herbicides Metsulfuron methyl, and Glyphosate using the TLC-system 7 (non-specific compounds).
Figure 26: shows the colour definitions used for the transparent shapes.
Figure 27: is an overview of different types of stress.
Detailed description
By the present invention it has become possible to detect whether a living organism has been exposed to stress by applying a simple and highly sensitive method of testing.
In a first aspect the invention relates to a method for testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
- obtaining material from a living organism,
- providing an assayable form of at least a part of said living organism mate- rial,
- detecting a biomarker pattern of said assayable form of at least two biomarkers, said biomarkers being compounds which after the living organism has been exposed to stress, either increase or decrease in concentration, are eliminated, or are newly produced, and
- correlating said biomarker pattern to standard biomarker pattern, and/or
- correlating said biomarker pattern to a standard pattern,
- assessing potential stress exposure for said living organism material.
In principle the invention relatest to any living organisms for which it is desired to test whether said organism has been exposed to stress, i.e. external stress. To simplify the description of the present invention the following discussion concerns mate- rial for which the living organism is a plant. Further, the invention particularly discloses the use of biomarker patterns in the control of herbicide spraying.
The present invention is based on the recognition that the phytochemical compounds in plants exposed to stress, such as pesticides, are related to and depend- ing on the pesticides used and their modes of action in the plant. The present inventor has found a reproducible pattern of the composition of the phytochemical compounds in plants after exposure to a stress factor, such as a pesticide, said pattern being unique to the specific stress factor, and unique to the individual plant family, more preferred the individual plant species, such as to individual plant varie- ties. The unique pattern is a so-called fingerprint of the effect of a specific pesticide in the plant in question, i.e. the specific plant to be tested. Thus, the present invention offers an opportunity to assess/determine whether a plant has been exposed to stress factors, such as pesticides in spite of the fact that the potential exposure cannot be assessed by visual inspection of said plant as visual signs. By the term "vis- ual inspection" is meant an ordinary visual inspection with the naked eye, whereby morphologigal changes, such as changes in colour, wiltering etc. of the plant may be inspected.
Certain new chemical compounds may be produced in the plant after exposure to stress, or the concentration of already existing compounds may change, for example by an accumulation of certain chemical compounds in the plants. Furthermore, the pattern may also be related to a decrease or even an elimination of chemical compounds in the plants after exposure to stress. These changes of concentration of compounds, elimination of compounds and/or production of new compounds after stress exposure may be due to changes in the biochemical pathways of plants.
Accordingly, a biomarker pattern is the pattern of the composition of phytochemical compounds, i.e. endogenously produced compounds, in the plant after exposure to a stress factor, i.e. an external exposure, and said pattern is unique for each type of stress factors, such as pesticides, or for a group of stress factors.
In one aspect of the invention, the compounds present in the plants after exposure are the same as before exposure, but the concentration of the individual compounds is different, whereby a new pattern of the phytochemical compounds has arised after exposure.
Time/aqe/sensitivitv
In another aspect of the invention the presence of phytochemical changes and the extend of sensitivity of the plant to stress exposure is dependent on the age of the plant. Young plants tend to be more sensitive to exposure of stress, such as herbicides, than older plants. This means that a biomarker pattern can be detected at an earlier stage after the time of exposure in a young plant as opposed to the later stage of detection of a biomarker pattern in an older plant. This knowledge of the correlation between plant age and the time neccessary for the plant to develop a biomarker pattern (i.e. sensitivity) may be used to determine how long ago a certain plant were exposed to stress factor(s). Due to their high sensitivity young plants show lower stability of the biochemical changes, i.e. the biomarker pattern is more stable in older plants and may be observed throughout the remains of the life of the older plant. However, younger plants have a higher sensitivity to stress and also a higher mortality rate. Fewer species of young plants will survive stress exposure the first weeks after emergence, while older plants are less affected.
Accordingly, the present invention takes advantage of a number of parameters, such as the phytochemical responses and the time after stress exposure with which they occur, the physiological effects, the types, numbers and concentrations of compounds biosynthesised in plants after exposure to pesticides.
In one aspect of the invention the pattern of the composition may relate to at least 2 biomarkers. In another embodiment of the invention the pattern of the composition relates to at least 3 biomarkers, such as at least 4 biomarkers, for example at least 5 biomarkers, such as at least 6 biomarkers, for example at least 7 biomarkers, such as at least 8 biomarkers, for example at least 9 biomarkers, such as at least 10 biomarkers.
By the term "standard biomarker pattern" is meant a pattern of the composition of compounds present in a plant after exposure to known stress factors. According to
the invention the biomarker pattern of the unknown compounds, i.e. the above described biomarker pattern, is correlated to a standard biomarker pattern, also referred to as a "most frequent pattern". In order to interpret the biomarker patterns of test material that has been exposed to unknown stress factors, it is a prerequisite to provide standard biomarker patterns, i.e. most frequent patterns. By the latter is meant the same type of biomarker pattern obtained after exposure to a stress factor in more than 50% of the cases of exposure, such as 60%, for example 70%, such as 80%, for example 90%. The biomarker patterns of test material that has been exposed to unknown stress factors may then be correlated to standard biomarker pat- terns. The standard biomarker pattern may be obtained for one particular stress factor or for a combination of at least two different stress factors.
In another embodiment of the invention it is possible to correlate the biomarker pattern not only to the standard biomarker pattern as described above, but also to a standard pattern. By the term "standard pattern" is meant a pattern of the composition of compounds present in a plant before exposure to any stress factors. Such plant may also be referred to as "stress free" or "a 0 plant". The compounds present in a "0 plant" may be described as naturally occuring compounds, i.e. compounds naturally present in the plant before any stress exposure.
It is possible to investigate the standard pattern for material from a living organism that has been exposed to stress comprising the steps of:
-subjecting a living organism to known types of stress,
-obtaining material from said living organism,
-determining the chemical responses of said material from said living organism for each stress type, and
-obtaining at least one standard biomarker pattern relating to said stress types.
The description below applies to both a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern as well as to a method of testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress.
The material on which the testing is performed may be from any living material, such as from animals, for example mammals, soil invertebrates and insects, or from thal- lophytes, such as fungi or algae. However, in a preferred embodiment of the invention the material from a living organism is plant material.
In a preferred embodiment the material is selected from plants, fungi or algae. The following is a description of one embodiment of the invention, wherein the material from a living organism originates from plants. The description of this embodiment of the invention using plants, also relates to other embodiments of the invention, wherein the material from a living organism is not plant material.
Thus in one aspect of the invention the method of testing is to determine the composition of the chemical biomarker pattern after exposure to stress.
The plant material of the invention may be selected among any plant or plant cells. In one embodiment of the invention the plant material is chosen from, but not limited to dicotyledons or monocotyledons. According to the invention the dicotyledonous plants may be selected from the families of Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Lamiaceae, Polygonaceae, Papaveraceae, Primulaceae, Plantaginaceae and Scrophulariaceae and the monocotyledonous plants may be selected from the families of Poaceae.
According to the invention the plant material used to perform the method of testing may be the entire plant or it may be at least a selected area of any part of the plant. The selected area of the plant may be an area such as from at least flowers, shoots, leaves, stems, roots, seeds, pollen, rhizomes, stamens, sepals, petals, carpels, styles, stigmas, microsporangia, anther, fruits, cotyledons, hypocotyle, epicotyle, xylem or/and phloem (wood), periderm (bark), buds, flower buds, cones, cone scales, tubers, bulbs, root nodules, resin or sap.
Once a sample of the plant material is obtained, a second step in the method according to the invention begins. It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of testing, wherein the plant material used is in a form suitable for assaying. One such suitable form may be a liquid form, for example a liquid suspension. A liquid suspension of the plant material may be obtained by applying extraction sol- vents, such as ethanol to the plant material. The extraction solvents ensure that all
compounds form all chemical groups present in the plant material are extracted. The assayable plant material may be fresh or non-fresh.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention the plant material is fresh. The fresh material may be used for analysis immediately after harvesting said material or it may be used for analysis up to a few minutes after harvesting. It is preferred that the fresh material is used as soon as possible after harvesting to avoid break down processes, such as enzymatic breakdown.
In one embodiment the plant material is frozen. The frozen plant material may be frozen up to the point of analysing, such as frozen for a period of at least 2 years and it may be defrosted prior to performing the test. However, it is preferred that the frozen plant material is used for analysis immediately after being removed from the cold storage.
In another embodiment of the invention the plant material is dry. The drying process may be accounted for by air, or nitrogen, or it may be a freeze drying process, such as nitrogen dried. Additionally the plant material may be heat dried, such as sun dried. It is important that the plant material is substantially dry, and the length of the drying process is dependent on the type of plant material.
In one aspect the invention a method of testing whether plants have been exposed to pesticides is presented. However, the present invention further relates to a method of testing having an improved sensitivity, i.e. detection limit. By detection limit is meant the lowest possible concentration of for example pesticides the test of the invention is capable of determining. Thus, not only is it possible to detect the exposure to pesticides, but it is possible to detect the exposure, of for example pesticide concentrations below the recommended level of dosage. The "recommended dose" is the effective dose needed to obtain a result. According to the invention the method of testing may be performed on plants being exposed to less than 10% of the recommended dose, preferably down to less than 5% of the recommended dose, more preferably down to less than 1% of the recommended dose without any visual effects of the exposure on the plants tested.
The length of the time period before the plants react to the stress exposure may be dependent on numerous factors, such as the species and age of the plant. Some
plants may recover from an exposure, and the detection may take place before such a recovery. However, it may be possible to detect biomarkers after the plant has recovered from the exposure. Without being bound by theory the detection of biomarkers may for some plants be possible throughout the entire life span of the plants, whereas the detection of biomarkers of other plants may only be possible within a certain time frame. This of course may depend on the nature of the plant species and of the stress factors as such, for example the concentration level of pesticides.
Accordingly, the detection of biomarkers may be possible as long as the plant is living. This may be between less than 1 day and up to 35 days after exposure, such as between 1-30 days after exposure, for example between 5-25 days after exposure, such as between 10-20 days after exposure, for example between 12-18 days after exposure.
The detection of biomarkers in a plant may in one aspect of the invention serve the purpose of an "early warning" signal of stress exposure before any visual signs thereof appear on the plant.
It has been reported that when plants are exposed to stress they may react by changing their phytochemical composition. The present invention presents a method by which reproducible biomarker patterns are obtained, thus providing analytical tools for the establishment of exposure to and identification of known as well as unknown compounds. There is a variety of stress factors that may all have an impact on the chemical composition of plants. The plant may be exposed to more than one stress factor, wherein in one embodiment the effect of the exposure is synergistic and thus results in a biomarker pattern reflecting the synergistic effect of the individual stress factors. In another embodiment, wherein the plant may be exposed to more than one stress factor, the resulting biomarker pattern reflects the antagonistic effect of the individual stress factors. It is within the scope of the invention to develop a standard biomarker pattern for any combination of stress factors.
According to the invention one of the stress factors is abiotic, such as chemical stress and/or physical stress.
In the present context chemical stress may be caused by pesticides, such as herbicides. Herbicides are all designed to kill plants by altering and effecting the biochemical homeostasis of the plant cells. Plants react to the exposure of herbicides by producing or decomposing phytochemical compounds. They may also react by changing the concentration of already existing compound(s). The resulting effect on the plants is dependent on the individual mode of action of the herbicide.
In one aspect of the invention the method of testing for the exposure of pesticides relates to herbicides selected from a group consisting of Glyphosate, Bromoxynil, Pendimethalin and Metsulfuron methyl, all representing different modes of action on the target plants. These herbicides are all widely used in Northern America and Western Europe for the control of broad-leaved plants and grasses.
Glyphosate (GLY) is a non-selective herbicide that controls emergent annual and perennial broad-leaved plants and grasses (Tomlin, 2000; Trottier et a/., 1990).
Glyphosate inhibits the activity of the EPSP-enzyme (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3- phosphate) of the aromatic acid biosynthetic pathway in plants. It is absorbed through the wax cuticle on the leaves and a rapid translocation occurs via phloem to roots, rhizomes and apical meristems. It is degraded by rapid microbial action, with a half-life of 3-5 weeks. It is non-volatile and does not degrade photochemically. The water solubility is 11.6 g/l at 25 °C. It binds strongly to soil particles and hereby it is immobile unless transported with the soil.
Bromoxynil (BRY) is a selective herbicide with some systematic activity (Thomson, 1989; Tomlin, 2000). The herbicide is absorbed by the foliage through cuticular penetration. Bromoxynil kills by inhibition of photosynthesis and plant respiration in annual broad-leaved plants. It degrades rapidly in most soil types, with a half-life in the order of two weeks which can be considerable reduced at low temperatures. It is water-soluble (130 mg/l), potentially harmful to fish and aquatic invertebrates for which it is toxic if it reaches water bodies (Muir et al., 1991 ).
Pendimethalin (PEN) is a selective herbicide that inhibits cell growth by inhibiting cell division of any and all plant cells by acting as a mitotic toxin. It is absorbed by roots and leaves, but initially limits root growth, such as the development of lateral or secondary roots (Tomlin, 2000). Pendimethalin is moderately persistent in moist sandy loam (half-life 50 days) to highly persistent in moist silty soil (half-life 140
days) and in dry silty clay loam (250 days). It is a very stable herbicide except when it volatilises from moist soil surfaces (Barrett & Lavy 1983). The water solubility is 0.3 mg/I at 20 °C. Thus, it is likely to be transferred to other environmental compartments although it may move with soil particles to water bodies where it is toxic to fish (Thomson, 1989; Tomlin, 2000).
Metsulfuron methyl (METS) is a potent inhibitor of plant growth used on wheat and barley crops for the control of broad-leaf species and the suppression of few grasses. The herbicide is taken up by the foliage or the roots and translocated via xylem and phloem. Metsulfuron methyl is a selective herbicide that acts by inhibiting the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS) which catalyses the synthesis of the three branched-chain amino acids valine, leucine and isoleucine (Moberg & Cross 1990). The precise mechanism of action is unknown, but soon after herbicide application, plant cell division quickly stops, and death occurs within one to three weeks. The accumulation of ALS substrates (e.g. α-ketobutyrate) in leaves may be responsible for the cessation of the plant growth with decreased production of new leaves and reproductive organs (Bestman et al., 1990). Metsulfuron methyl is mobile in most soil and the mobility is enhanced as pH increases (Beyer et. al., 1988; Blair 1988).
All the above mentioned herbicides are currently applied to major crops, such as maize, wheat, barley, soybeans, oats, peas, potatoes and tomatoes. When applying herbicides to a cultivated field of crops adjacent non-target areas may be affected by herbicides as well.
Other pesticides than the ones mentioned above are also within the scope of the invention. They are described in The Pesticide Manual (twelfth edition) version 2.0, British Crop Protection Council (2000-2001). For example insecticides, acaricides, nematicides/vermicides, rodenticides and fungicides.
Further, in the present invention the method of testing is applied to plants potentially being exposed to physical stress, such as temperature, wind, UV light, physical damage, soil quality and soil moistness.
In another aspect of the invention the stress factors may be biotic, such as biological stress and/or allelopathy. The term "biological stress" is meant as stress and possibly visual damage caused by herbivores, plant pathogens and/or competition from
other plants. The latter may also be referred to as allelopathy, such as competition from other plants and/or chemical compounds of other plants effecting/stressing the plant on which a test is performed.
There is a difference in the sensitivity of plants against various stress factors, and it is therefore in one embodiment of the invention recommended to use sensitive plants. This allows for the detection of pesticides which have been applied to target plants in even very small concentrations. An example of a model-plant is Anagallis arvensis. This particular model-plant is discussed below in the experimentals sec- tion.
The composition of the biomarker pattern of the invention may be phytochemical. The term "phytochemical" relates to any chemical or compound or nutrient or fundamental compound present in plants. There are a vast number of compounds pre- sent in plants. Some of the compounds are readily detectable under circumstances where said plants are not exposed to stress. If, however, plants are exposed to stress the biochemical pathways within the plant cells may be effected. The influence of stress on biochemical pathways may lead to an increase of or change, such as an elimination in the concentration of already existing compounds, or it may lead to the production of compounds not normally present in plants not exposed to stress (see above). In one embodiment of the invention the phytochemical is a substance, or at least part of a substance, or a derivative of amino acids, amines, sugars, flavo- noids, phenolic compounds, sapogenins, saponins, iridoids, glycosides, alcaloids, alkaline alcaloids, N-containing compounds, S-containing compounds, P-containing compounds, O-containing compounds, such as any fundamental element, terpe- noids, lipids, steroids, cartenoids, quinones, coumariners, and nutrients, such as any compound necessary for the plant to survive, for example salts.
By the term fundamental compound is meant any compound depicted in the periodi- cai system.
In the method of testing according to the invention the assessment of potential stress exposure for material from a living organism, such as plant material may be qualitative and/or quantitative and/or semi-quantitative. In one embodiment of the invention the assessment is qualitative, and the biomarker pattern is analysed based on the composition of compounds present, i.e. the presence or absence of a par-
ticular compound. In a further embodiment the assessment is quantitative and the pattern of the composition of compounds analysed is related to the actual concentration of compounds present since the intensity of the spots (concentration of the compounds) reflects the concentration of a pesticide, for example. The quantitative evaluation may be performed by using a scanning-densitometer. In yet another embodiment the assessment is semi-quantitative. By this is meant an assessment which is partly quantitative by the means of either visual inspection or use of an apparatus. The concentration of the sample may be determined as an approximate intensity value within a given interval or point system.
The chemical analysis of pesticides is very difficult when the presence of the pesticide in the environment is low. Furthermore, it is very expensive to perform chemical screenings for chemical compounds, such as pesticides and/or their decomposition compounds and/or adjuvants present in pesticides. By the present invention it is now possible to determine different stress factors, such as pesticides by a simple and affordable method of testing.
In one embodiment of the invention the method of testing, comprises the following steps:
- contacting an assayable form of said plant material with a support for receiving said plant material,
- subjecting said support to a solvent,
- optionally drying said support, - optionally contacting said support with a chemical reagent,
- obtaining a biomarker pattern of said assayable form.
In the present context an assayable form may be a liquid, or a liquid mixed with solids, such as liquids mixed with salts.
The support for receiving the material may be a solid material or a less solid material, such as a soft material, for example a liquid material. The support may be pretreated with a substance capable of promoting reactions when put into contact with the plant material. Said reactions may be for example be radioactive, fluorescent, or immunological.
In one aspect of the invention the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of commercially available techniques known to the skilled artisan, such as High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography or mass spectrometry (MS), or a combination of analytical methods. For example a densitometric evalua- tion of thin-layer chromatograms using a densitometric scanner/videoscan may be employed. It is important that the same method of analysing is applied when detecting both the standard biomarker pattern, and the biomarker pattern resulting from the exposure of unknown stress factors.
In a preferred aspect of the invention the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of
Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) (Stahl, 1956). TLC is a well-known simple chro- matographical separation method. The technical advantage of using TLC techniques compared to e.g. HPLC, is the visual colour reaction of the plant biomarker. Additionally, TLC is a cheaper analysis compared with other analytical analysis. In one embodiment of the invention the TLC method is circular.
Other relevant biomarker detection methods within the scope of the invention are infrared spectrophometry, spectrophometry, refractrometri, nuclear magnetic resonance, and electrophoresis. Radioactive compounds may be used in said methods. For example a "film" of radioactivity may be placed over a TLC-plate, whereafter a pattern of biomarkers emerge where the radioactive compounds are placed.
When using the method of Thin Layer Chromatography testing according to the invention, it comprises the following steps:
- contacting an assayable form of said plant material with a TLC-plate,
- subjecting said TLC-plate to a solvent,
- optionally drying said TLC-plate,
- optionally contacting said TLC-plate with a chemical reagent, - obtaining a biomarker pattern of said assayable form.
In a further aspect the biomarkers are separated by the means of antibodies possible attached to support or antibodies in the solvent.
In order to verify the shapes of the finger print of the composition i.e. the change of the composition of the biomarkers or phytochemical changes, different TLC-plates,
solvents and chemical reagents are used. This results in different colour reactions, which may be visually inspected. The TLC-plates used in the test of the invention are all commercially available TLC-plates, and may be made from cellulose or silica gel. The types of TLC-plates chosen for the test are selected according to the plant species tested, and to the specific compounds of which it is desired to determine their existence or absence in the plant material. _
In the present context the term "solvent" is meant to cover one substance or a combination of two or more substances, wherein the solvent may be a combination of liquid and solid and gas substances. A solvent may be a reagent, an eluent or an extractionmedia. The latter three may be in a solid or liquid physical state, or they may be in the form of a gas.
In one embodiment of the invention an extract of material from a plant is provided. The extraction may be performed under cold or warm temperatures, such as by the means of ultrasound, or stiming and according to the invention the extraction solvent may be an petroleum-ether extraction solvent, or a 10 % acidic acid in 96 % ethanol extraction solvent. In another aspect the extraction solvent is 75 % ethanol as described in the experimental section below. The extraction may be performed on fresh or non-fresh plant material.
According to the invention the solvents and the support may have different polarities, such as between -0.1-10, for example between 2-8, such as between 4-6 as defined by Snyder, (1974). The polarity of the solvents and support is crucial for the resulting biomarker pattern.
Once the extract of the plant material has been placed on a TLC-plate the TLC-plate is placed in a TLC chamber containing a chemical eluent. The eluent is absorbed by the plate material and this initiates the development of the test. The biomarker com- pounds react with the plate material and the eluent. All biomarkers have different affinity to the plate material and to the eluent. Thus, the biomarkers will appear in different positions on the plate material. The higher affinity the biomarkers have to the eluent the further they will migrate on the TLC-plate. The first step of "developing" the plate, i.e. the reaction of the plant material with the plate material and ele- ment may be a period of 120 minutes, such as 90 minutes, for example 60 minutes.
In one embodiment of the invention the solvent comprises the upper-phase of n- butanol and formic acid in a ratio of 2:1. The solvent may only be stable for up to 1 day and therefore has to be renewed daily.
In another embodiment the solvent comprises n-butanol, acetic acid and water in a ratio of (4:1:5). The solvent is stable for several days and is preferably stored in a cool place.
The TLC-plate may then be air-dried and a chemical reagent may be brought in contact with the TLC plate, such as by spraying. The type of reagent of the invention may vary according to the type of TLC-plate and the type of biomarker. As the reagent of the invention is applied to the dried TLC-plate a unique and reproducible colour reaction develops. According to the invention the colour reaction may confirm or reject the presence of specific biomarkers after exposure to stress, such as herbi- cides.
Accordingly, a purpose of the invention is to provide a method of testing, wherein the biomarker pattern is obtained as a result of the specific combination of parameters, such as said support, for example TLC-plates, said solvent and said chemical reagent. The specific test combinations are described in detail in the Experimentals section below.
When using the TLC in the method of testing a qualitative effect of stress factors to plants Rf values are applied. Rf values are defined as the distance of the centre of the spot (i.e. compound) from the start point divided by the distance of the front of the solvent from the start point (Stahl, 1969). The Rf values are a supplement to the results obtained by the established biomarker patterns illustrated in the figures 1-25 below.
A significant object of the present invention is to provide an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising,
-a support for receiving an assayable form of at least a part of said material from a living organism,
-optionally at least one reagent specific for the biomarkers to be detected, and
-optionally detection agents for displaying the biomarkers of said assayable form.
It is a purpose of the invention to lower the costs and time of the testing procedure, and at the same time provide a method of testing having excellent sensitivity. The assay kit of the invention is for all practical purposes to be used as a field test, or as a laboratory test. One object of the invention is to have an easy accessible test to be used commercially or on a private scale. Thus, the assay kit of the invention is practical and portable in size and easy to operate. The test material is brought in contact with a support for receiving said material. The test material is in an assayable form, for example in the form of a liquid suspension.
In one embodiment of the invention the assay kit is used on material from plants, and it may comprise:
- Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) plates,
- eluents, - reagents,
- hand-press,
- micro pipettes,
- optionally an UV-Iamp,
- optionally a heater, - at least one standard biomarker pattern,
- at least one standard pattern.
The assay kit is envisioned as a practical and mobile test system. The individual steps of the test may be performed in the field, and does not require any particular technical skills of the person performing the test. The test may be completed in less than 1 hour, such as 45 minutes.
The assay kit used on plant material comprises at least one TLC-plate. The test material is brought into contact with a solid support, such as a TLC plate comprising an adsorbent material capable of separating the mixture of compounds of the test material. A hand-press may be used to press out the sap of the plant material. The
assay kit also comprises containers of solvents, such as solvents described below. Containers, for example a bottle shaped container with a spraying head, holding reagents sprayed onto the TLC-plate(s) are also part of the present test kit. In another embodiment the assay kit comprises containers holding agents wherein the TLC-plates is placed. The containers may vary in size depending on the type of application in question. For repetitive tests larger containers may be preferred. In one aspect the assay kit is disposable, i.e. the individual components in the assay kit is used only once. However, in another aspect one or more of the individual components of the assay kit is recycled. Different embodiments of the assay kit of the in- vention are envisioned. In one embodiment all components of the assay kit are contained in one pocket size unit. In another embodiment the UV-Iamp and/or the heater of the invention are separated from the assay kit as a unit. In another embodiment of the invention the UV-Iamp and/or the heater are excluded from the assay kit and method as a whole. Further, micro-pipettes including holders are option- ally included in the assay kit unit. The colour reactions developed on the solid supports, such as TLC-plates of the assay kit are compared to one or more colour comparators, such as the standard biomarker pattern and/or standard pattern of the invention. The colour comparators may be in the form of a folder of colour charts enclosed in the assay kit, and it is preferred that the size of the colour comparators (standard biomarker patterns and/or standard patterns) are equal to the size of the solid support, such as the TLC-plate(s).
In yet another aspect of the invention an immunological test, such as a "dipstick" is used.
Another object of the invention is the use of a method for testing whether material from a living organism, including plant material, and/or a method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism, including plant material has been exposed to stress. The invention also relates to the use of an assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism, such as plant material has been exposed to stress.
One of such uses according to the invention may in the control of gene modified plants. It is envisioned that the biomarker pattern of plants being genetically modi- fied may be determined by using the present test method. Plants may be genitically modified to become resistant to pesticides, and such gene modified plants may pro-
duce biomarkers that differ from biomarkers of non-gene modified plants. In one embbodiment of the invention the biomarker patterns of gene-modified plants and non-gene-modified plants, which have not been exposed to pesticides, are compared.
In another aspect the invention may be used in the control of the geographic distribution of pesticides. Non-target habitats adjacent to cultivated fields may be affected by pesticides during application. This exposure may occur due to over-spraying, or through spray drift from the application on target crops adjacent to wild-life habitats. It may also stem from pesticides being run-off or washed-off. Pesticides are able to travel considerable distances by air, either by drift or by volatilisation.
In a further aspect the invention may be used by the farmer to assess the optimal effect of a given pesticide on plants being exposed to reduced levels of said pesti- cide. In this way the farmer is able to determine at what minimum dosages of pesticide a plant is still responding, and may thus be able to reduce the amount of pesticide necessary to obtain a given effect in the plant.
In yet another aspect the invention may be used in food quality control, such as in the control of farmers produce, such as crops. Particularly the invention may be used for the control of whether organic crop has been exposed to stress, such as herbicides. It is important to be able to determine whether organic crops are free from residues of chemicals, such as herbicides and/or defoliating agents and/or growth regulating agents, such as respiration and germination inhibition agents, growth retarding agents, root formation agents, flowers and fruit formation agents, germination promoting agents, flowering delaying agents, thinning out agents, hold- on compounds and grafting agents, or free from residues of chemicals used for: the control or treatment of plant diseases, wood destroying fungi, unwanted plant growth, growth of algae, slime promoting organisms in paper pulp, animals capable of damaging utility-and cultivated plants, vermin on domestic animals, infested cereal, cereal products, seeds and feed-stuff, textile infestant, infestant of lumber and woodwork, insects, snails, mites, rain worms, rabbits, water voles, moles, mice and rats, or free from residues of chemicals for the prevention of damages caused by vermin and chemicals for the exclusion of vermin from specific geographical areas.
Conventional control methods of testing for residues of for example herbicides include labour intensive and expensive analytical methods, based on gas chromatography or liquid chromatography, such as HPLC. However, since the active chemical groups of most herbicides, defoliating agents and/or growth regulating agents are being broken down to residual concentrations below detection limit, the task of detecting break down products requires the performance of several different chemical analysis for every individual herbicide, defoliating agents and/or growth regulating agent.
To overcome the above obstacles the present invention provides a simple, cheap and reliable test method. The method may be applied in the fields, literary speaking, by commercial or official control units, or it may be used by private consumers. It is known that a change in the chemical composition of plants plays a vital role in food quality and thus in the general health. Compounds in plants the quality of for exam- pie crops. A change in the chemical composition of plants changes the quality of said plant for feeding purposes. A further object of the invention may be to contribute to document and assess the changes in the chemical composition, i.e. biomarker pattern of plants exposed to stress.
References
Barrett, M.R. and Lavy, T.L. (1983). J. Environ. Qual., 12 (4), 504-508. Bestman, H.D.; Devine, M.D. and Vanden Born, W.H. (1990). Plant Physiol., 93,
1441-1448.
Beyer, E.M.; Duffy, M.J.; Hay, J.V. and Schlueter, D.D. (1988): Sulfonyurea herbicides. In: Herbicides: Chemistry, degradation and mode of action, edited by P.C.
Blair, A.M. and Martin, T.C. (1988). Pestic. Sci., 22, 195-219. Boutin, O, Elmegaard, N. and Kjaer, C (1999): Patterns of plant sensitivities to six herbicides with different modes of action. MST-Report (in prep.)
Boutin, O; Freemark, K.E. and Keddy, C.J. (1993). Technical Report Series. No.
145, 91. Ottawa, Canadian Wildlife Service (headquarters), Environment Canada.
Hamil, A.S.; Marriage, P.B. and Friesen, G. (1977). Weed Sciences, 25, 386-389. Harborne and Baxter, 1995
Jork, H., Funk, W., Fischer, W. and Wimmer, H. (editors) 1988, Dϋnnschicht-
Chromatographie. Band 1a (Weinheim: MERCK, VCH Verlagsgeshellschaft).
Kearney et al. 117-189. Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lydon. J. and Duke, S.0. 1989, Pesticide effects on secondary metabolism of higher plants. Pesticide Science, 25, 361-373.
Moberg, W.K. and Cross, B. (1990). Pestic. Sci., 29, 241-246.
Muir, D.C.G.; Kenny, D.F.; Grift, N.P.; Robinson, R.D.; Titman, R.D. and Murkin,
H.R. (1991). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 10, 395-406.
Thomson, W.T. (1987): Agricultural chemicals book II: fungicides. Thomson. Publi- cations, Fresno, CA.
Thomson, W.T. (1989): Agricultural chemicals book II: herbicides.
Tomlin, C.D.S. (editor) 2000, Herbicide, The Pesticide Manual. Twelfth Edition, Version 2, British Crop Protection Council, (UK: Binfield, Berks).
Trottier, D.M.; Wong, M.P. and Kent, R.A. (1990): Canadian water quality guidelines for glyphosate. Environment Canada. 170, Ottawa, Ontario.
Ravn, H., (1999): Detection of herbicide spraying in spraying-free areas using plant biomarkers.
Snyder, L. R., (1974): Journal of Chromatography, 92, 223-230.
Stahl, E. (1956): Chemiker-Ztg. 82, 323. Stahl, E. (1969): Thin-layer chromatography of laboratory handbook. 6th printing, 2nd,
1990, springer, Serlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Wagner, H., Bladt, S. and Zgainski, E.M. (editors) 1984, Plant Drug Analysis. A Thin Layer Chromatography Atlas. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
Experimentals
The following is an example of one embodiment of the invention, wherein plant material is tested.
Method
Plant material:
The method was tested on 16 different plant species, representing 9 different plant families including both mono- and dicotyledons:
Plant species Plant families
Dicotyledons: Anagallis arvensis Primulaceae Bellis perennis Asteraceae Inula helenium Asteraceae Rudbekia hirta Asteraceae Centaurea cyanus Asteraceae Leonorus cariaca Lamiaceae Mentha spicata Lamiaceae Nepeta cataria Lamiaceae Prunella vulgaris Lamiaceae Digitalis lanceolata Scrophulariaceae Papaver rhoeas Papaveraceae Fallopia convolvulus Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Polygonaceae Sinapis arvensis Brassicaceae Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae
Monocotyledons: Lόlium perenne Poaceae Lolium multiflora Poaceae
The plants were sown and cultivated in a green-house and some were grown outdoor (see example 5).
Green-house conditions:
The experiments were performed in the green-house at the National Environmental Research Institute, Silkeborg, Denmark. All the seeds needed light to germinate, and were sown at the soil surface in individual 11 cm pots. The soil used during the experiments contained: (SM Growing Mould (Growing medium by special soil (sphagnum) added clay granulate), 0-30 mm; grade of turnover 55-75; added per m3: 3 kg lime (white chalk), 1.5 kg dolit chalk, 40 kg clay granulate; Fertilizer added granulate: NO3-N: 55.0 g; NH4-N: 65.0 g; P: 106.6 g; K: 224.0 g; Mg: 22 g; Micro nutrients added in chelate form, Mo in uorganic form: B-Boron: 1 g; Cu-copper: 6 g; Mn-Manganese: 3 g; Zinc-Zn: 3 g: Fe-iron: 6 g; Mo- molybdenum: 1.4 g).
During the experiments plants were watered from below, and the temperature in the green-house was maintained between 15 °C and 25 °C with variations due to external weather, and the photoperiod was 16th daylight. The green-house is divided into different units, which allowed for the separate maintenance of the control plants from the sprayed plants to avoid undesirable effects due to vapour drift.
Outdoor experiments:
The experiments were performed on an experimental plot at the National Environmental Research Institute, Silkeborg, Denmark. The temperature was recorded to calculate degree days after exposure to the herbicide.
Pesticides (Herbicides) tested:
The above mentioned plants were exposed to the following herbicides:
The herbicides were obtained directly from the producers.
Glyphosate/Bromoxynil/Pendimethalin/Metsulfuron application: Glyphosate (Roundup Bio (360 g L"1) was supplied by Monsanto Denmark A/S. Recommended field dose = 1,44 kg a.i. ha"1. In all the experiments, an automatic sprayer (designed in Denmark by Jens Kristensen 1994) was used where the herbicide application is achieved by moving boom equipment with two ordinary hydraulic flat fan nozzles (Hardi 4110-16). Two pots per spray event were placed in the middle of the spray chamber at 50 cm distance from the nozzle, delivering 200 L of water per hectare with a desired herbicide concentration (working pressure 2 bars; speed of spray boom = 4.7 km h"1). The spraying was performed starting with the lowest concentration first, progressing towards the highest concentration. Between each herbicide, the sprayer was thoroughly rinsed several times with water. The control plants were sprayed with water.
Visual effects on the plants exposed to the herbicides
Four, eight, sixteen and thirty two days after spraying, visual effects on plants were noted before harvest, using the rating chart described in Hamil et al. (1977) and Boutin et al. (1993); a rating of zero indicates full growth and vigour, and a rating of nine indicates no growth/mortality.
Extraction procedure/sample preparation:
In one aspect of the invention the extraction solvent may be an petroleum-ether extraction solvent, or a 10 % acidic acid in 96 % ethanol extraction solvent. In another aspect the extraction solvent is 75 % ethanol as described below. Fresh/fresh ethanol extracts/extraction with 75% ethanol:
• Fresh plant material
The fresh plant material was pressed using a hand press. The extract was immedi- ately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis. The extracts were kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Frozen plant material The frozen plant material was pressed using a hand press. The extract was immediately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis. The extracts were kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Fresh ethanol extract
The fresh plant material was tied with a cotton string and lowered into 96% ethanol for 3 minutes. The plant material was centrifuged slightly manually with a washer (20 rp). The plant material was pressed and centrifuged and kept cool or right above 0 °C as described above. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Extraction with 75% ethanol
Freeze-dried plant material was crushed and 250 mg was extracted with 5.00 ml 75% ethanol in an ultrasonic bath for 2 hours. The temperature was kept < 0 °C (using ice) during the extraction to avoid decomposition of biomarkers. The extract was centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
Fresh/fresh ethanol extracts/fresh-frozen/extraction with 75% ethanol
• Fresh plant material
The fresh plant material was pressed using a hand press. The extract was immediately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis. The extracts were kept kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Fresh ethanol extract
The fresh plant material was tied with a cotton string and lowed into 96% ethanol for 3 minutes. The plant material was centrifuged slightly manually with a washer (20 rp). The plant material was pressed and centrifuged and kept kept cool or right above 0 °C as described above. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Fresh/frozen
The fresh frozen plant material was pressed using a hand press. The extract was immediately centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis. The extracts were kept cool or right above 0 °C during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
• Extraction with 75% ethanol
Freeze-dried plant material was crushed and 250 mg was extracted with 5.00 ml 75% ethanol in an ultrasonic bath for 2 hours. The temperature was kept < 0°C (using ice) during the extraction to avoid decomposition of biomarkers. The extract was centrifuged (3000 rpm) for 10 minutes. The supernatant was used for analysis and were kept cool during the test to avoid decomposition of biomarkers.
Application on TLC-Plates:
The two extracts (fresh/fresh ethanol) were applicated immediately on a TLC plate (10μl on both TLC-Plate types (see below) using cool air-drying. The 75% ethanolic extract was applicated 10μl on Silica-gel TLC-plates and 5μl on Cellulose TLC- plates (see below). The fresh/fresh ethanolic extracts are recommended to perform if fresh plant material are to be analysed (field-test). The freeze-dried or frozen plant material extraction is recommended if the analysis are performed in the laboratory.
TLC-Systems:
General definitions for TLC-svstems:
Solvent: is placed in the TLC chamber to saturate the chamber with evappurated solvent/eluent prior to placing the TLC-plate with the applied plant extract in the chamber. The solvent initiates the development of the test. _
Chemical reagent: is the use of a combination of chemical reagents, wherein the combination of chemical reagents is chosen according to what chemical groups it is desired to detect.
Chemical solvent: is a solvent that is applicated onto the TLC plate to initiate a colour development.
Non-specific compounds
TLC-System 1 : HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F254, Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 μl plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1 :5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking). Derivatisation: Stock solution 1 :50% sulfuric acid in 96% ethanol; Stock solution 2: 2% vanillin in absolute alcohol; Derivatisation-solvent, Fresh produced before use, stock solution 1 and stock solution 2 (1 :10); Aftercare: 120°C in 2-3 min. The plate is evaluated visu-
ally. The system detects higher alcoholics, phenolic compounds, steroids and ethe- ric oils (Stahl 1969), terpenoids, phenyl propanoids, phenolic compounds (Wagner et al. 1984)
TLC-System 7: HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F25 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 μl plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking). Derivatisation: 0,5 g p-anisaldehyde diluted in 10 ml cone, acetic acid and 85 ml absolute alcohol is and 5 ml cone, sulfuric acid (added in the following row). The plate is heated to 100°C in 5 to 10 minutes. The plate is evaluated visually or in UV-light at 366 nm.
The system detects sugar compounds, steroids, terpens (Stahl, 1969), antioxydants, prostaglandins, phenolic compounds, glycosides, sapogenins, etheric oils, antibiotics, mycotoxins (Jork et al., 1988).
Lipids and terpens
TLC-System 6: HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F254, Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 μl plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking). Derivatisation: 10%) molybdatophosphoric acid in 96% ethanol. Treatment after reaction with rea- gent: The plate is heated at 120°C in few minutes and placed in an ammonium chamber in few seconds until the background of the plate is white. The plate is evaluated visually, white/yellow plate with blue spots. The plate is evaluated visually. The system detects lipids, sterols and steroids (Stahl, 1969), gallus acids, lipid a- cids, triglycerids, substituted phenolic compounds, indol-derivatives, prostaglandins, etheric oil components, alkaloids (morphine)(Jork et al., 1988).
Phenolic compounds
TLC-System 2: HPTLC-Alufolie Silica Gel 60 F25 , Merck 1.05548 (10 x 10 cm); 10 μl plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in n-butanol : acetic acid : water (4:1:5) (upper phase after 5 minutes shaking). Derivatisation: 1% 2-aminoethyl diphenylborinate in 5% polyethylenglycol 4000 in 96 % ethanol. The last mentioned solution is prepared in ultrasonic bath. The TLC-plate is air-dried and evaluated in UV-light (366 nm). The system detects phenolic compounds, flavo- noids, simple phenolic compounds, anthocyanidines; penicillium acid, sugars (Jork et al., 1988) α- og γ-pyrons (Stahl, 1969).
Amino acids
TLC-System 4d: TLC Alufolie Cellulose, Merck 1.05552 (10 x 10 cm); 5 μl plant extracts plants exposed to glyphosate and control plants; eluted in: n-butanol: 50% formic acid (2:1). Derivatisation: Solvent 1. 0.3 g ninhydrin in 100 ml 2-propanol and 3 ml cone. Acetic acid is added. Solvent 2. Solvent: 0.2% ninhydrin in 96% ethanol. Derivatisation with solvent 1 , the plate is air-dried with hot air and derivatisation with solvent 2. Treatment after reaction with reagent: The plate is heated at 110°C in 2 to 3 minutes. The plate is treated with a stabiliser solution (1 ml saturated copper (II) nitrate water solution in 0.2 ml 10% nitric acid and 100 ml absolute alcohol). The plate is visually evaluated, white with red, blue and yellow spots. The system detects amino acids, amines and amino sugar compounds (Stahl, 1969).
Results:
* Rf-value = The distance of the centre of the spot (i.e. compound) from the start point, divided by the distance of the front of the solvent from the start.
The min. visual effect (VE) of the presence of plant biomarkers is rated as described by Hamil et al., (1977) and Boutin et al. (1993).
The transparent shapes with coloured spots at Rf-values* of the plant biomarkers was placed on the TLC-plate. A transparent shape is see-through and was placed on top of the plates for varification of the results. The specific transparent shapes with coloured spots for this specific plant species/herbicide was used. First, the transparent shapes of TLC-System 4d was used, and if the result was positive for one of the used herbicides (based on the mode of action of the herbicides), the other transparent shapes for the other TLC-Systems (1 , 2, 5, 8, 11 , 16 and 21 ) were used to verify the result. If the plant species was not identified, the most frequent transparent shapes were used.
The most frequent shapes were developed by evaluating the responses (biomarkers) in all situations from all the tested plants, and where at least 5 plant species out of the 10 plant species resulted in the same response, a common biomarker was established.
As described below, tables and transparent shapes were performed for four herbicides having different modes of action. The pattern of the Rf-values of the plant biomarkers present in the plants after exposure to the four different herbicides, Glyphosate, Metsulfuron methyl, Pendimethalin and Bromoxynil was found to be different. If the plant species has been exposed to one of the herbicides, the plant biomarkers were present. Most of the plant biomarkers were present even if the visual effect was 0 and 1% of recommended label dose.
The visual effect of the tested herbicides were not present in all tested plants, but the finger-print of compounds were identified (see examples below). However, even if the visual effects were not present on the plants, the plant biomarkers were present in most of the tested plants.
Example 1:
Anagallis arvensis (Primulaceae)
The plant species: Anagallis arvensis (Primulaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl. The plant biomarker responses were as follows: (4 days ~ 60 degree days, 8 days ~ 120 degree days, 14 days ~ 180 degree days, 16 days ~ 240 degree days, 32 days ~ 480 degree days)
Glyphosate, TLC 4d
Glyphosate, TLC 2
Glyphosate, TLC 6
Very good biomarker
Pendimethalin, TLC 4d
Pendimethalin, TLC 1
Pendimethalin, TLC 7
Rf-value Colour Days after exMin. of label dose of Min. visual effect posure herbicide with effect
0.32 Red 14,32 10% violet
Only present for fresh extracts * Only present for extraction with 75% ethanol
Bromoxynil, TLC 4d
Bromoxynil, TLC 6
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 4d
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 1
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 6
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 7
Only present for fresh extracts
Example 2:
Centaurea cyanus L, (Asteraceae)
The plant species: Centaurea cyanus L, (Asteraceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl. The plant biomarker responses were as follows:
Pendimethalin, TLC 4d
Pendimethalin, TLC 2
Bromoxynil, TLC 4d
Bromoxynil, TLC 7
Only present for fresh extracts
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 4d
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 2
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 7
Only present for fresh extracts
Glyphosate, TLC 4d
Glyphosate, TLC 1
Glyphosate, TLC 6
Glyphosate, TLC 7
Rf-value Colour Days after expoMin. of label dose of herbiMin. sure cide with effect visual effect
0.08 Green blue 4,8,16,32 10%
Only present for fresh extracts ** Very good biomarker
Example 3:
Lόlium perenne L., (Poaceae)
The plant species: Lόlium perenne L., (Poaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl. The plant biomarker responses were as follows:
Pendimethalin, TLC 4d
Pendimethalin, TLC 7
Bromoxynil, TLC 4d
Bromoxynil, TLC 1
Bromoxynil, TLC 6
Only for fresh extracts
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 4d
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 1
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 2
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 6
Only for fresh extracts
Glyphosate, TLC 4d
Glyphosate, TLC 1
Glyphosate, TLC 6
Glyphosate, TLC 7
* Only for fresh extracts *** Very good biomarker
Example 4:
Plantago lanceolata L., (Plantaginaceae)
The plant species Plantago lanceolata L., (Plantaginaceae) was contaminated with Glyphosate, Pendimethalin, Bromoxynil and Metsulfuron methyl. The plant biomarker responses were as follows:
Pendimethalin, TLC 4d
Pendimethalin, TLC 2
Pendimethalin, TLC 6
Only present for fresh extracts
* Only present for extraction with 75% ethanol
Bromoxynil, TLC 4d
Only present for extraction with 75% ethanol
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 4d
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 1
Rf-value Colour Days after exMin. of label dose of Min. visual posure herbicide with effect effect
0.08 Green 4,8,16,32 1% 0
Metsulfur on methyl, "l "LC 2
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 7
* Only present for fresh extracts
** Only present for extraction with 75% ethanol
Glyphosate, TLC 4d
Glyphosate, TLC 1
Glyphosate, TLC 6
Glyphosate, TLC 7
Only present for fresh extracts
Example 5:
The following are the most frequent biomarker pattern responses after exposure to all the above herbicides:
Pendimethalin, TLC 4d (amino acids)
Bromoxynil, TLC 4d (amino acids)
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 4d (amino acids)
Glyphosate, TLC 4d (amino acids)
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 1 (non-specific compounds)
Pendimethalin, TLC 2 (Phenolic compounds)
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 2 (Phenolic compounds)
Glyphosate, TLC 2 (Phenolic compounds)
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 6 (Lipids and Terpens)
Glyphosate, TLC 6 (Lipids and Terpens)
Metsulfuron methyl, TLC 7 (non-specific compounds)
Glyphosate, TLC 7 (non-specific compounds)
Example 6:
The following example illustrates one embodiment of the invention wherein glyphosate is applied to different plant species grown indoors and outdoors. The embodi- ment also concerns sensitivity and stability of the biomarkers
Glyphosate application:
Glyphosate (Roundup Bio (360 g L"1) was supplied by Monsanto Denmark A/S.
Recommended field dose = 1,44 kg a.i. ha"1. In all the experiments, an automatic sprayer (designed in Denmark by Jens Kristensen 1994) was used where the herbicide application is achieved by moving boom equipment with two ordinary hydraulic flat fan nozzles (Hardi 4110-16). Two pots per spray event were placed in the middle of the spray chamber at 50 cm distance from the nozzle, delivering 200 L of water per hectare with a desired herbicide concentration (working pressure 2 bars; speed of spray boom = 4.7 km h"1). The spraying was performed starting with the lowest concentration first, progressing towards the highest concentration. Between each herbicide, the sprayer was thoroughly rinsed several times with water. The control plants were sprayed with water.
Experiments with different plant species:
The study was performed in greenhouse between August and December 1998 for all species. Degree days (= (Present temperature in °C - 5°C) x amount of days) were used as time scale. The plants were 226-378 degree days (30 days) old before exposure. The plants were exposed to 0, 1, 10 and 100% of the recommended field dose of Roundup Bio. Before the harvest, the plants were evaluated for visual effects using the rating chart described in Table 1 (Hamil ef al., 1977). A rating of zero indicates full growth and vigour (compared with control plants) and a rating of nine, no growth/mortality. The plants were all harvested 180 degree days (14 days) after exposure. The plants were lyophilizied and kept dry and in dark before phytochemi- cai analysis.
Stability experiments
Investigations of the phytochemical changes in relation to time were performed in greenhouse between January and March 2000 for the group of plant species, Anagallis arvensis, Centaurea cyanus, Lόlium perenne, and Plantago lanceolata. The plants were 891 degree days (39 days) old before exposure. The plants were exposed to 0, 1 , 10 and 100% of the recommended field dose of Roundup Bio. Before harvest, the visual effect on the plants was evaluated as described above. The plants were harvested 60 degree days (4 days), 120 degree days (8 days), 240 degree days (16 days), and 480 degree days (32 days) after exposure.
Sensitivity in relation to plant age
To investigate the presence of phytochemical changes and the sensitivity of plants in relation to age, two plant species, A. arvensis and C. cyanus were tested January and February 2001. The plants were sown displaced and all plants with different ages were exposed at the same time. The plants were 121 degree days (7 days) (only C. cyanus), 208 degree days (14 days), 316 degree days (21 days), 426 degree days (28 days) and 533 degree days (35 days) before exposure. The plants were exposed to 0, 1 and 10% of recommended field dose of Roundup Bio. Before harvest, the visual effect on the plants was evaluated as described above. The plants were harvested 61 degree days (4 days), 119 degree days (8 days) and 245 degree days (17 days) after exposure.
Comparison of greenhouse and outdoor experiments
A comparison study was performed to compare the results of the above mentioned greenhouse experiments with the results of outdoor experiment. The experiment was performed between June and July 2000 using the most sensitive plant species, A. arvensis and L. perenne. Degree days were calculated as described above. The plants were 77 days (670 degree days) old before exposure. The plants were exposed to 0, 1 , 10 and 100% of the recommended field dose of glyphosate. Before harvest, the visual effect on the plants was evaluated as described above. The plants were harvested 32 degree days (4 days), 61 degree days (7 days), 139 degree days (17 days) and 242 degree days (27 days) after exposure.
Plant extraction and treatment 250 mg lyophilized plant material was crushed and extracted with 5.00 ml 75 % ethanol in water in ultrasonic bath for two hours. Ice was added to the bath every 30
minutes to keep the temperature constant during the extraction. The extracts were transferred to vials and centrifuged (3000g per min.) for 10 minutes. The extract was immediately used for phytochemical analysis.
Frozen or fresh plant material was pressed for plant sap using a hand press. The sap was transferred to vials and centrifuged (3000g per min.) for 10 minutes. The extract was immediately used for phytochemical analysis.
Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) analysis Rf-values (defined as, Rf-value = Distance of spot centre from start point / Distance of solvent front from start point (Stahl, 1969)) were detemined for all phytochemical compounds.
Results
Plant extraction and treatment
There was no difference in the results obtained with fresh or frozen pressed sap. The plant extracts of lyophilised plant material were compared with fresh and frozen sap. Less plant biomarkers were present in the analysed extracts of lyophilised plant material than in the fresh or frozen plant sap. Therefore only frozen pressed sap was used for analysis.
Comparison of TLC-systems
More than 25 different TLC-systems (type of TLC-plate; solvent and derivatisation reagent) were tested to find the most valuable systems to detect phytochemical changes in exposed plant extracts. The phytochemical changes in exposed plants compared with control plants were detected visually using all five TLC systems. For each plant species and TLC-system a characteristic pattern of spots was identified in comparison of treated and un-treated plants, including missing and new com- pounds. In this study only the pattern of new compounds in exposed plants was used. To evaluate the pattern of different groups of compounds, TLC-systems 1 , 6 and 7 was used. Two specific TLC-systems (4d and 2) were developed to highlight the pattern of amino acids and phenolic compounds, both of which are important to the physiological mechanism of glyphosate (Tomlin et al. 2000; Lydon & Duke 1989).
Screening for phytochemical changes
Plant extracts screened for phytochemical changes in all five TLC-systems showed different patterns for each plant species. In Table 3, two of the most sensitive plant species, Anagallis arvensis and Lόlium perenne are presented to illustrate the dif- ferent pattern of phytochemical compounds in plants exposed to Roundup Bio.
The most frequent pattern of "new" developed compounds (three amino acids, two general compounds, four phenolic compounds) was seen in more than 50% of all tested plants species. 81% of all tested plant species had a "new" lipid/terpen in exposed plants. These compounds are marked with * in Table 3
Stability
Phytochemical changes were seen 4 days (60 degree days) after exposure and a phytochemical pattern was present up to 32 days (480 degree days) after exposure. Due to high sensitivity, young plants showed lower stability of the biochemical chan- ges.
Sensitivity
In table 2 the sensitivity of the different plant species to Roundup Bio is presented.
The sensitivity of the plant species was evaluated on basis of the presence of the most frequent pattern, the lowest concentration of exposure, and the visual effect of the exposed plants. In table 2, the plant species are divided into three groups: Group I: Very sensitive plant species; Group II: Medium sensitive plant species, and Group III: Less sensitive plant species. In Group I, a phytochemical pattern was present in plants exposed to 1% of the recommended field dose of Roundup Bio with a visual effect from 0 to 4. In Group II, a phytochemical pattern was found in plants exposed to 1 to 10% of the recommended field dose of the herbicide with a visual effect from 0 to 5. Finally, Group III presents plant species containing a phytochemical pattern after exposure of 10% of the recommended field dose with a visual effect from 5 to 7.
All the plant species representing the families: Primulaceae, Poaceae Polygonaceae, Plantaginaceae and Papaveraceae were found in the group of very sensitive plant species. In all three groups, no specific trend was found for plant species of Asteraceae. The plant species representing Lamiaceae were found in the group of medium and less sensitive plant species. D. lanceolata (Scrophulariaceae) was me-
dium and S. arvensis (Brassicaceae) was less sensitive. A. arvensis and L. perenne were the most sensitive plant species in the present study.
The correlation between plant age and sensitivity was studied for A. arvensis and C. cyanus. The sensitivity for both A. arvensis and C. cyanus were alike for young and older plants, based on the phytochemical pattern at low exposure, 1% and 10% of the recommended field dose and visual estimation of effects on 0 to 8 (see Table 1 ). However, 208 to 316 degree days (14 to 21 days) old plants showed a homogeneous phytochemical pattern 61 to 119 degree days (4 to 8 days) after exposure. 316 to 603 degree days (21 to 35 days) old plants showed a homogeneous phytochemical pattern 119 to 252 degree days (8 to 17 days) after exposure.
Comparison of greenhouse and out-door grown plants
The comparison of a phytochemical pattern in plants grown in greenhouse and out- door is based on two greenhouse studies and one outdoor study. The two plant species A. arvensis and Lόlium perenne were used to represent both a mono- and a dicotyledon species. In Table 3 the results of these studies are presented. In this table the comparison is based on similar ages 226 to 670 degree days (30 to 77 days) before exposure and the plants were harvested 180 to 240 degree days (14 to 17 days) after exposure. The greenhouse plants were more sensitive than the plants cultivated outdoors. New phytochemical compounds were present at 1 to 10% of recommended field dose for both plant species for plants grown in greenhouse. Almost the same pattern was seen for plants cultivated outdoor (see Table 3). In this case, the outdoor plants did not show new phytochemical compounds at 1 and 10% of recommended field dose, but the characteristic pattern was found at 50% of the recommended field dose. The phytochemical changes in outdoor grown plants might be found in lower concentrations. The visual effect seen on these plants varied from no effect to 5 (1 and 10% of recommended field dose of Roundup Bio) for greenhouse plants to 3 to 8 (see Table 1 ) for outdoor grown plants. This means that the phytochemical changes did not appear at low dosages in the field and the visual effects in the greenhouse plants and the field were similar.
For both plants species grown in greenhouse and outdoor, the pattern of new phytochemical compounds in plants exposed to Roundup Bio glyphosate varied with the age of the plants after exposure. Compounds appeared after 4 days and other dis- appered after 32 days, but a basic pattern was seen for all ages after exposure (see
Table 4). For all plant species, the highest number of phytochemical changes was seen between 119 and 267 degree days (8 and 17 days) after exposure to glyphosate (Roundup Bio) in both greenhouse and outdoor grown plants.
Discussion
Several studies have shown that herbicides cause phytochemical changes in plants. Earlier studies have focused on the presence and content of one or a few specific compounds, and no clear dose-response relationships have been established. In the present study the herbicide glyphosate was used seeking a systematic pattern of biochemical responses in plant species from important taxonomic groups. The use of TLC analysis includes a large variety of phytochemical compounds and allows for a broad screening. Despite around more than 2793 bioactive compounds from plants (Harborne and Baxter, 1995), relatively few compounds are expressed in plants and detected in the TLC-Systems. In general, the analysis suggests that spe- cific patterns of phytochemical changes can be obtained using simple direct analysis of plant sap. This procedure could even be performed on-site in the field. The response differs between plant species, and three classes of sensitivity could be identified. Following exposure to glyphosate, a very specific pattern can be obtained by using different TLC-systems. Preliminary analysis of plants exposed to herbicides of different mode of action (i.e. pendimethalin, bromoxynil and metsulfuron methyl) show different patterns, allowing for qualitative identification of exposure to one or more herbicides. Other ongoing experiments show that natural stressors such as temperature and drought may change the concentration of compounds in the plant sap. After exposure to glyphosate, the phytochemical pattern showed minor differ- ences when plants were developed either in greenhouse or outdoors.
The changed phytochemical pattern appeared in the annual plants about four days after exposure. The pattern was most stable in older plants, staying until scenes- cence. In younger plants a high mortality was observed, even at doses at or lower than 1 % field dose. Apparently, only few species will survive such exposure the first weeks after emergence, while older plants are less affected. In most cases the phytochemical changes at concentrations of glyphosate, which did not cause any visual effects on the plants, were observed. By selecting sensitive plants species and optimising the choice of TLC system the pattern of phytochemical changes can be used as a sensitive and selective biomarker for glyphosate exposure. This
unique pattern of biomarkers can easily be detected in vascular plants and evaluated by comparison with untreated controls.
Table 2: Sensitivity of plants exposed to glyphosate (Roundup Bio), based on presence of phytochemical changes in all the TLC-Systems at lowest dose of concentration (LC) of the herbicide in per cent of field dose. The corresponding visual effect (VE) is presented (see table 1).
Group I: Very sensitive plant species/families LC VE
Anagallis arvensis Primulaceae 1 0
Lόlium perenne Poaceae 1 0
Rumex crispus Polygonace- 1 0 to 1 ae
Fallopia convolvulus Polygonace- 1 0 to 1 ae
Rudbeckia hirta Asteraceae 1 1
Plantago lanceolata Planta- 1 0 to 4 ginaceae
Papaver rhoeas Papaverace- 1 4 ae
Group II: Medium sensitive plant speci- LC VE es/families
Centaurea cyanus Asteraceae 1 to 10 0 to 3
Inula helenium Asteraceae 1 to 10 0 to 5
Prunella vulgaris Laminaceae 1 to 10 4 to 6
Digitalis lanceolata Scrophularia- 1 to 10 0 to 5 ceae
Group III: Less sensitive plant species/families
Leonorus carica Laminaceae 10 5
Mentha spicata Laminaceae 10 6
Nepeta cataήa Laminaceae 10 7
Sinapis avensis Brassicaceae 10 7
Bellis perennis Asteraceae 10 7
Study 2: Greenhouse; Plant age: 891 degree days (39 days) at exposure, harvested 240 degree days (16 days) after exposure
Study 3: Outdoor; Plant age: 670 degree days (77 days) at exposure, harvested 139 degree days (17 days) after exposure
* Most frequent phytochemical changes found in more than 50% of all tested plant species in TLC 1, 2, 4d and 7, and in more than 81% of all tested plants in TLC 6.
Table 4: Pattern of phytochemical changes in Anagallis arvensis and Lόlium perenne grown in greenhouse and outdoors in relation to days after exposure with Roundup Bio. Rf-values and colour of spots for TLC-System 4d representing an amino acid pattern.
Claims
1. A method for testing whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
obtaining material from a living organism,
providing an assayable form of at least a part of said living organism material,
detecting a biomarker pattern of said assayable form of at least two biomarkers, said biomarkers being compounds which after the living organism has been exposed to stress, either increase or decrease in concentration, are eliminated, or are newly produced, and
- correlating said biomarker pattern to standard biomarker pattern, and/or
- correlating said biomarker pattern to a standard pattern,
- assessing potential stress exposure for said living organism material.
2. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the material from a living organism is plant material.
3. The method of testing according to claim 2, wherein the stress is abiotic, such as chemical stress and/or physical stress.
4. The method of testing according to claim 3, wherein the chemical stress is caused by pesticides, such as herbicides.
5. The method of testing according to claim 4, wherein the pesticides are selected from a group consisting of Glyphosate, Bromoxynil, Pendimethalin and Metsulfuron methyl.
6. The method of testing according to claim 3, wherein the physical stress is caused by parameters, such as temperature, wind, UV light, physical damage, soil quality and soil moistness.
7. The method of testing according to claim 2, wherein the stress is biotic, such as biological stress and/or allelopathy.
8. The method of testing according to claim 7, wherein the biological stress is caused by herbivores, plant pathogens and/or competition from other plants.
9. The method of testing according to claim 7, wherein the stress is due to allelopathy, such as other plants and/or chemical compounds of other plants.
10. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-9, wherein the plant ma- terial is fresh.
11. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-9, wherein the plant material is frozen.
12. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-9, wherein the plant material is dry.
13. The method of testing according to claim 12, wherein the plant material is air dried.
14. The method of testing according to claim 12, wherein the plant material is dried by nitrogen gas.
15. The method of testing according to claim 12, wherein the plant material is freeze dried.
16. The method of testing according to claim 14, wherein the plant material is dried by fluid nitrogen.
17. The method of testing according to claim 12, wherein the plant material is heat dried.
18. The method of testing according to claim 12, wherein the plant material is sun dried.
19. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a flower.
20. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a shoot.
21. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a leaf.
22. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a stem.
23. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a root.
24. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-18, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a seed.
25. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-24, wherein the pattern of the composition of at least 2 biomarkers is determined.
26. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-25, wherein the pattern of the composition of more than 3 biomarkers is determined.
27. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-26, wherein the composi- tion of the biomarker pattern is phytochemical.
28. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-27, wherein the composition of the phytochemical biomarker pattern after exposure to stress is determined.
29. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-28, wherein the phytochemical is a substance or at least part of a substance selected from the group of amino acids, amines, sugars, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, sapogenins, saponins, iridoids, glycosides, alcaloids, alkaline alcaloids, C-containing com- pounds, N-containing compounds, S-containing compounds, P-containing compounds, O-containing compounds, terpenoids, lipids, steroids, cartenoids, quinones, coumariners, nutrients and fundamental compounds.
30. The method of testing according to claim 29, wherein the phytochemical is a derivative of the substance or at least part of the substance as defined in claim
29.
31. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-30, wherein the assessment is qualitative and/or quantitative and/or semi-quantitative.
32. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-31, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of Chromatography.
33. The method of testing according to claim 32, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC).
34. The method of testing according to claim 32, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).
35. The method of testing according to claim 32, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of gas chromatography.
36. The method of testing according to claim 32, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of ion-chromotography.
37. The method of testing according to claim 33, wherein the use of Thin Layer Chromatography comprises the following steps:
- contacting an assayable form of said plant material with a TLC-plate, - subjecting said TLC-plate to a solvent, such as an eluent,
- optionally drying said TLC-plate,
- optionally contacting said TLC-plate with a chemical reagent,
- obtaining a biomarker pattern.
38. The method according to claim 37, wherein the solvent comprises n-butanol and formic acid.
39. The method of testing according to the claims 2-38, comprising the following steps:
- contacting the assayable form of said plant material with a support for receiving said plant material,
- subjecting said support to a solvent,
- drying said support,
- optionally contacting said support with a chemical reagent, - obtaining a biomarker pattern.
40. The method of testing according to any of the claims 2-39, wherein the biomarker pattern is obtained as a result of the specific combination of parameters, such as said support, said solvent and said chemical reagent.
41. A method of providing a standard biomarker pattern for material from a living organism that has been exposed to stress, comprising the steps of:
-subjecting a living organism to known types of stress,
-obtaining material from said living organism,
-determining the phytochemical responses of said material from said living organism for each stress type, and
-obtaining at least one standard biomarker pattern relating to said stress types.
42. The method according to claim 41 , wherein the material from a living organism is plant material.
43. The method of testing according to claim 42, wherein the stress is abiotic, such as chemical stress and/or physical stress.
44. The method of testing according to claim 43, wherein the chemical stress is caused by pesticides, such as herbicides.
45. The method of testing according to claim 44, wherein the pesticides are selected from a group consisting of Glyphosate, Bromoxynil, Pendimethalin and Metsulfuron methyl.
46. The method of testing according to claim 43, wherein the physical stress is caused by parameters, such as temperature, wind, UV light, physical damage, soil quality and soil moistness.
47. The method of testing according to claim 42, wherein the stress is biotic, such as biological stress and/or allelopathy.
48. The method of testing according to claim 47, wherein the biological stress is caused by herbivores, plant pathogens and/or competition from other plants.
49. The method of testing according to claim 47, wherein the stress is due to allelopathy, such as other plants and/or chemical compounds of other plants.
50. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-49, wherein the plant material is fresh.
51. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-49, wherein the plant material is frozen.
52. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-49, wherein the plant material is dry.
53. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is air dried.
54. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is dried by nitrogen gas.
55. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is dried by fluid nitrogen.
56. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is freeze dried.
57. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is heat dried.
58. The method of testing according to claim 52, wherein the plant material is sun dried.
59. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a flower.
60. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a shoot.
61. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a leaf.
62. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a stem.
63. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a root.
64. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-58, wherein the plant material is selected from at least part of a seed.
65. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-64, wherein the pattern of the composition of at least 2 biomarkers is determined.
66. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-64, wherein the pattern of the composition of more than 3 biomarkers is determined.
67. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-66, wherein the compo- sition of the biomarker pattern is phytochemical.
68. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-67, wherein the composition of the phytochemical biomarker pattern after exposure to stress is determined.
69. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-68, wherein the phytochemical is a substance or at least part of a substance selected from the group of amino acids, amines, sugars, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, sapogenins, saponins, iridoids, glycosides, alcaloids, alkaline alcaloids, C-containing com- pounds, N-containing compounds, S-containing compounds, P-containing compounds, O-containing compounds, terpenoids, lipids, steroids, cartenoids, quinones, coumariners, nutrients and fundamental compounds.
70. The method of testing according to claim 69, wherein the phytochemical is a derivative of the substance or at least part of the substance as defined in claim
69.
71. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-70, wherein the assessment is qualitative and/or quantitative and/or semi-quantitative.
72. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-71, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of Chromatography.
73. The method of testing according to claim 72, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC).
74. The method of testing according to claim 72, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).
75. The method of testing according to claim 72, wherein the biomarker pattern is detected by the use of gas chromatography.
76. The method of testing according to claim 73, wherein the use of Thin Layer Chromatography comprises the following steps:
- contacting an assayable form of said plant material with a TLC-plate,
- subjecting said TLC-plate to a solvent, such as an eluent,
- optionally drying said TLC-plate,
- optionally contacting said TLC-plate with a chemical reagent,
- obtaining a biomarker pattern.
77. The method according to claim 76, wherein the solvent comprises n-butanol and formic acid.
78. The method of testing according to the claims 41-77, comprising the following steps:
- contacting the assayable form of said plant material with a support for receiving said plant material,
- subjecting said support to a solvent, - drying said support,
- optionally contacting said support with a chemical reagent,
- obtaining a biomarker pattern.
79. The method of testing according to any of the claims 41-78, wherein the bio- marker pattern is obtained as a result of the specific combination of parameters, such as said support, said solvent and said chemical reagent.
80. An assay kit for the determination of whether material from a living organism has been exposed to stress, comprising
-a support for receiving an assayable form of at least a part of said material from a living organism,
-optionally at least one reagent specific for the biomarkers to be detected, and
-optionally detection agents for displaying the biomarkers of said assayable form.
81. The assay kit according to claim 80, wherein the material from a living organism is plant material.
82. The assay kit according to the claims 80 or 81 , comprising:
- Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) plates, - solvents,
- optionally chemical reagents,
- hand-press,
- micro pipettes,
- optionally an UV-Iamp, - optionally a heater,
- at least one standard pattern,
- at least one standard biomarker pattern.
83. Use of a method of testing as defined in the claims 1-40, and/or a method as defined in the claims 41-79, and/or an assay kit as defined in the claims 80-82.
84. The use according to claim 83 in food quality control.
85. The use according to claim 83 for the control of crops.
86. The use according to claim 83 for the control of weeds.
87. The use according to the claims 83, 84 or 85 for the control of whether organic crop has been exposed to stress.
88. The use according to claim 83 in control of gene modified plants.
89. The use according to claim 83 in control of the geographic distribution of pesticides.
90. The use according to claim 83 in effect studies of pesticides.
Priority Applications (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| EP01938001.3A EP1290442B1 (en) | 2000-05-30 | 2001-05-30 | An assay method for testing plant material for exposure to herbicides using biomarkers |
| AU2001263771A AU2001263771A1 (en) | 2000-05-30 | 2001-05-30 | An assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers |
| US10/297,351 US20040029208A1 (en) | 2000-05-30 | 2001-05-30 | Assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| DKPA200000874 | 2000-05-30 | ||
| DKPA200000874 | 2000-05-30 |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| WO2001092879A1 true WO2001092879A1 (en) | 2001-12-06 |
Family
ID=8159539
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/DK2001/000377 WO2001092879A1 (en) | 2000-05-30 | 2001-05-30 | An assay method and kit for testing biological material for exposure to stress using biomarkers |
Country Status (4)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | US20040029208A1 (en) |
| EP (1) | EP1290442B1 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU2001263771A1 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2001092879A1 (en) |
Cited By (9)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WO2008075056A1 (en) | 2006-12-19 | 2008-06-26 | The University Of Surrey | Cancer biomarkers |
| WO2008080409A1 (en) | 2007-01-07 | 2008-07-10 | Aarhus Universitet | A method and kit for testing stress effects in living organism |
| WO2008080410A1 (en) | 2007-01-07 | 2008-07-10 | Aarhus Universitet | Method and kit for detecting resistance in living organisms |
| EP2270464A1 (en) * | 2003-11-21 | 2011-01-05 | PIN/NIP, Inc. | Field and storage chemical test kit and system |
| EP2660596A1 (en) * | 2008-10-02 | 2013-11-06 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US8685339B2 (en) | 2003-11-21 | 2014-04-01 | Pin/Nip, Inc. | Field and storage chemical test kit |
| CN105974029A (en) * | 2016-07-11 | 2016-09-28 | 山东省分析测试中心 | Method for simultaneously determining six iridoid glycoside type components in Lianhua Qingwen capsules |
| US9874573B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2018-01-23 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| CN113640433A (en) * | 2021-10-14 | 2021-11-12 | 北京市农林科学院 | Method for extracting allelochemicals of energy grass and determining weed inhibition effect of allelochemicals |
Families Citing this family (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2011503517A (en) * | 2006-11-13 | 2011-01-27 | アテリス テクノロジーズ，エルエルシー | Pesticide biomarker |
| WO2009064321A2 (en) * | 2007-11-14 | 2009-05-22 | Ateris Technologies. Llc | Biomarker detection |
| TWI570401B (en) * | 2015-04-13 | 2017-02-11 | 謝振傑 | Method of noninvasively detecting plant pathogenic virus and electronic apparatus thereof |
| CN108956826B (en) * | 2018-03-24 | 2022-02-18 | 中国水产科学研究院长江水产研究所 | Method for extracting and detecting pendimethalin in aquatic products cultured in rice-fish system |
| CN109781872A (en) * | 2018-12-25 | 2019-05-21 | 湖北省烟草科学研究院 | The extracting method and detection method of allelochemical in tobacco-growing soil |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5464750A (en) * | 1988-09-14 | 1995-11-07 | Stressgen Biotechnology Corporation | Accumulation of heat shock proteins for evaluating biological damage due to chronic exposure of an organism to sublethal levels of pollutants |
| EP0832557A1 (en) * | 1996-09-27 | 1998-04-01 | Mayekawa Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | A rough bluegrass and method of introducing an endophytic fungus into a rough bluegrass |
| US5958785A (en) * | 1991-08-29 | 1999-09-28 | Research Foundation For Mental Hygiene | Detection of a carbohydrate biomarker directly associated with chronic alcoholism |
| WO2000028072A1 (en) * | 1998-11-06 | 2000-05-18 | Emory University | Biomarkers for oxidative stress |
Family Cites Families (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US3832134A (en) * | 1971-10-04 | 1974-08-27 | D Sohn | Tlc method and device for detecting the presence of target substances in unknown solutions |
| US4998826A (en) * | 1988-11-30 | 1991-03-12 | Telatemp Corporation | Agricultural infrared thermometer |
| US5878356A (en) * | 1995-06-14 | 1999-03-02 | Agrometrics, Inc. | Aircraft based infrared mapping system for earth based resources |
| US5710047A (en) * | 1995-08-18 | 1998-01-20 | Glycozyme, Inc. | Method for monitoring growth and detection of environmental stress in plants |
-
2001
- 2001-05-30 US US10/297,351 patent/US20040029208A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2001-05-30 AU AU2001263771A patent/AU2001263771A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2001-05-30 WO PCT/DK2001/000377 patent/WO2001092879A1/en active Application Filing
- 2001-05-30 EP EP01938001.3A patent/EP1290442B1/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5464750A (en) * | 1988-09-14 | 1995-11-07 | Stressgen Biotechnology Corporation | Accumulation of heat shock proteins for evaluating biological damage due to chronic exposure of an organism to sublethal levels of pollutants |
| US5958785A (en) * | 1991-08-29 | 1999-09-28 | Research Foundation For Mental Hygiene | Detection of a carbohydrate biomarker directly associated with chronic alcoholism |
| EP0832557A1 (en) * | 1996-09-27 | 1998-04-01 | Mayekawa Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | A rough bluegrass and method of introducing an endophytic fungus into a rough bluegrass |
| WO2000028072A1 (en) * | 1998-11-06 | 2000-05-18 | Emory University | Biomarkers for oxidative stress |
Cited By (15)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US8685339B2 (en) | 2003-11-21 | 2014-04-01 | Pin/Nip, Inc. | Field and storage chemical test kit |
| EP2270464A1 (en) * | 2003-11-21 | 2011-01-05 | PIN/NIP, Inc. | Field and storage chemical test kit and system |
| WO2008075056A1 (en) | 2006-12-19 | 2008-06-26 | The University Of Surrey | Cancer biomarkers |
| WO2008080409A1 (en) | 2007-01-07 | 2008-07-10 | Aarhus Universitet | A method and kit for testing stress effects in living organism |
| WO2008080410A1 (en) | 2007-01-07 | 2008-07-10 | Aarhus Universitet | Method and kit for detecting resistance in living organisms |
| AU2008203744B2 (en) * | 2007-01-07 | 2012-12-20 | Aarhus Universitet | A method and kit for testing stress effects in living organism |
| AU2008203745B2 (en) * | 2007-01-07 | 2013-01-10 | Aarhus Universitet | Method and kit for detecting resistance in living organisms |
| EP2660596A1 (en) * | 2008-10-02 | 2013-11-06 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US8771962B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2014-07-08 | Sarka O. Southern | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US9176149B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2015-11-03 | Sarka O. Southern | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US9874573B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2018-01-23 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US10317416B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2019-06-11 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| US10705097B2 (en) | 2008-10-02 | 2020-07-07 | Gaia Medical Institute | Health test for a broad spectrum of health problems |
| CN105974029A (en) * | 2016-07-11 | 2016-09-28 | 山东省分析测试中心 | Method for simultaneously determining six iridoid glycoside type components in Lianhua Qingwen capsules |
| CN113640433A (en) * | 2021-10-14 | 2021-11-12 | 北京市农林科学院 | Method for extracting allelochemicals of energy grass and determining weed inhibition effect of allelochemicals |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| EP1290442B1 (en) | 2013-11-13 |
| AU2001263771A1 (en) | 2001-12-11 |
| US20040029208A1 (en) | 2004-02-12 |
| EP1290442A1 (en) | 2003-03-12 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Puig et al. | Unravelling the bioherbicide potential of Eucalyptus globulus Labill: Biochemistry and effects of its aqueous extract | |
| EP1290442B1 (en) | An assay method for testing plant material for exposure to herbicides using biomarkers | |
| Hussain et al. | Ecophysiological responses of three native herbs to phytotoxic potential of invasive Acacia melanoxylon R. Br. | |
| Dinelli et al. | Use of capillary electrophoresis for detection of metsulfuron and chlorsulfuron in tap water | |
| EP2102654B1 (en) | Method and kit for detecting herbicide resistance in plants | |
| Latif et al. | Metabolomic approaches for the identification of flavonoids associated with weed suppression in selected Hardseeded annual pasture legumes | |
| Akbar et al. | Feeding by sugarcane aphid, M elanaphis sacchari, on sugarcane cultivars with differential susceptibility and potential mechanism of resistance | |
| Dayan et al. | Clues in the search for new herbicides | |
| Rembold et al. | The chemist’s role in host-plant resistance studies | |
| ES2521495T3 (en) | Procedure and kit to test if a specific plant has been exposed to a specific pesticide | |
| Chiang et al. | Comparative constitutive resistance in soybean lines to Mexican bean beetle | |
| WO2011059066A1 (en) | Method for identification of plant species, plant hybrid species and parental species of plant hybrid utilizing plant metabolite, and method for planting plant identified by the method | |
| Luan et al. | Real-Time Monitoring of Translocation, Dissipation, and Cumulative Risk of Maleic Hydrazide in Potato Plants and Tubers by Ion Exclusion Chromatography | |
| Caceres | A study of volatile organic compounds from transgenic arabidopsis thaliana and solanum lycopersicum plants and analytical characterization of pyrolysis bio-oil | |
| Kieloch et al. | Amino acid content and biomass productivity of selected weed species as an indicator of their response to herbicide stress | |
| Kumar et al. | Deciphering the morphological, phytochemical, genetic diversity, and niche distribution of Allium stracheyi Baker (Amaryllidaceae): An economically important culinary herb of Western Himalaya, India | |
| Varshney et al. | Foliar chemical attributes of the hybrid bred from Eucalyptus citriodora x E. torelliana and its parental taxa, and implications for fungal resistance | |
| Sampietro et al. | Phytochemical resistance-traits in crops against pests and diseases | |
| Mohamed | Laboratory methods for the recognition of seeds of some wheat (triticum aestivum l.) varieties | |
| Li et al. | 2-Aminobutyric acid as a chemical marker for the detection of sulfonylurea herbicides | |
| Ravn et al. | New phytochemical screening method for biomarkers in plants exposed to herbicides. | |
| Ulhas | ROOT EXUDATES (Collection method and Analysis) | |
| Ravn et al. | A New Phytochemical Screening Programme used for Crops grown with Organic and Conventional Methods | |
| Ravn | Two new methods for early detection of the effects of herbicides in plants using biomarkers | |
| Khan et al. | Screening and detection of biomarkers in chickpea plants exposed to chromium and cadmium |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ CZ DE DE DK DK DM DZ EC EE EE ES FI FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SK SL TJ TM TR TT TZ UA UG US UZ VN YU ZA ZW |
|
| AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A1 Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
| 121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
| DFPE | Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101) | ||
| WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2001938001 Country of ref document: EP |
|
| WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 2001938001 Country of ref document: EP |
|
| WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 10297351 Country of ref document: US |
|
| NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: JP |