4.7 Article

Arsenic-induced differential expression of oxidative stress and secondary metabolite content in two genotypes of Andrographis paniculata

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 406, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124302

Keywords

Arsenic; Andrographis paniculata; Andrographolide; Ent-labdane-related diterpene

Funding

  1. National Medicinal Plant Board, New Delhi, India [Z. 18017/187/Css/R&D/UP-01/2017-18-NMPB-IV A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that different genotypes of A. paniculata exhibited differential responses to three application rates of arsenic, with the AP(MS) genotype showing higher tolerance and ent-LRD content under arsenic stress.
The present study explores the differential responses of two genotypes (AP(wC): wild collection and AP(MS): mass selection line) of A. paniculata against the three application rates of arsenic (42, 126, and 200 mg kg(-1)). The oxidative enzymes, As accumulation in different tissues, plant growth, and content of pharmacologically important ent-labdane-related diterpenes (ent-LRDs) of the two genotypes were evaluated in the study. Results demonstrated that As uptake significantly reduced plant biomass in AP(wC) and AP(MS) by 5-41.5% and 9-33% in a dose-response manner, respectively. The AP(MS) exhibited lower bioconcentration and translocation factors, higher As tolerance index, and higher content of ent-LRDs as compared to AP(WC). As treatment induced a decrease in the sum of four metabolite content of AP(MS) (1.43 times) and an increase in that of AP(WC) (1.12 times) as compared to control. Likewise, variance in the production of 5,7,2',3'-tetramethoxyflavanone, and stress enzymes was also observed between AP(wC) and AP(MS). The increase in the expression of ApCPS2 suggested its involvement in channeling of metabolic flux towards the biosynthesis of ent-LRDs under As stress.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available