Research Paper

Stimulation or inhibition: Conflicting evidence for (±)-catechin’s role as a chemical facilitator and disease protecting agent

Volume 5, Issue 3   March 2010
Pages 239 - 246
http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.5.3.10573
Authors: Harsh P. Bais, L Venkatachalam and Meredith L. Biedrzycki

View affiliations

Abstract:
The occurrence of plant hormesis is poorly understood phenomenon, wherein low doses of phytotoxins unusually promote growth responses in higher plants. In contrast, negative plant-plant interactions mediated through secreted small molecular weight compounds initiate growth inhibitory responses. Studies related to (±)-catechin mediated allelopathy has transpired both novel information and generated significant controversy. Specifically, studies related to the phytotoxicity responses mediated by (±)-catechins have been seriously debated. The pronged opinion that (±)-catechin is phytotoxic versus non-phytotoxic relies more on the target plant systems and the conditions used to test phytotoxic responses. It is reported that lower than MIC dosage supplementation of (±)-catechin could promote growth responses in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Furthermore, it was shown that sub-MIC levels of (±)-catechin supplementation leads to elicitation of disease resistance against Pseudomonas syringae DC3000 (hereafter DC3000). Intrigued by the unique hormesis response observed, we tested whether (±)-catechin indeed promotes growth responses in A. thaliana. In our hands, we observed no growth promotion responses of (±)-catechin against A. thaliana under in vitro or in soil. We also evaluated the previously reported disease protecting properties of (±)-catechin in A. thaliana against DC3000. The systematic observations to evaluate disease protecting properties entailing colony counts, disease incidences and loss of chlorophyll studies showed no disease protecting properties of (±)-catechin. The transcriptional response for a marker pathogenesis related PR1 defense gene showed no induction post (±)-catechin supplementation. The cell death genes (ACD2 and CAD1) associated with programmed cell death revealed unchanged expression levels in plants treated with sub-MIC levels of (±)-catechin. Further, we report supplementation of sub-MIC levels of (±)-catechin negates any change in the expression of an auxin responsive gene. Our results refute the previous claims of growth and defense inducing effects of (±)-catechin, thus suggesting that a thorough reexamination is required to evaluate the hormetic effect of (±)-catechin under both controlled and natural conditions.

Received: October 22, 2009; Accepted: November 9, 2009

Preview:



Advertisements