Advertisement

Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 50–53 | Cite as

Effects of auxins and cytokinins on growth and rosmarinic acid formation in cell suspension cultures of Anchusa officinalis

  • W. De-Eknamkul
  • B. E. Ellis
Article

Abstract

Cell suspension cultures of Anchusa officinalis required exogenous phytohormones for their normal growth. Cell lysis was observed at the third passage in a hormone-free medium. Using hormone — depleted cells, the effects of auxins (2,4-D, NAA, IAA and CFP) and cytokinins (BA, kinetin, and zeatin) on cell growth and RA production were investigated. All auxins tested could maintain growth and integrity of the cells whereas cytokinins alone could not, suggesting that this culture is auxindependent. Among the auxins tested, NAA had a pronounced effect on RA production. The total RA content obtained at optimum NAA concentration (0.25 mg/l) reached 1.7 g/l (12% of dry weight). The kinetics of growth and RA production suggested that the increase in final RA content was due to both an increase in the rate of RA synthesis and initiation of the period of synthesis in the exponential rather than the linear growth phase.

Keywords

Cell Growth Acid Formation Growth Phase Suspension Culture Normal Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

2,4-D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

NAA

1-naphthaleneacetic acid

IAA

indoleacetic acid

CFP

2-chloro-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid

BA

6-benzyladenine

RA

rosmarinic acid

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Böhm H (1977) in Luckner M, Nover L, Böhm H (eds) Secondary metabolism and cell differentiation. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics, 23, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg and New York, pp 103–123Google Scholar
  2. Constabel F, Shyluk JP, Gamborg OL (1971) Planta 96: 306–316Google Scholar
  3. Davies M (1972) Planta 104: 50–65Google Scholar
  4. De-Eknamkul W, Ellis BE (1984) Planta Med 51: 346–350Google Scholar
  5. Furuya T, Kojima H, Syono K (1971) Phytochemistry 10: 1529–1532Google Scholar
  6. Gamborg OL, Eveleigh DE (1968) Can J Biochem 46: 417–421Google Scholar
  7. Matsumoto T, Nishida K, Noguchi M, Tamaki E (1973) Agr Biol Chem 37: 561–567Google Scholar
  8. Shah RR, Subbaiah KV, Mehta AR (1976) Can J Bot 54: 1240–1245Google Scholar
  9. Wetmore RJ, Henshaw GG (1976) Planta 131: 67–73Google Scholar
  10. Zenk MH, El-Shagi H, Schulte U (1975) Planta Med Suppl 79–101Google Scholar
  11. Zenk MH, El-Shagi H, Ulbrich B (1977) Naturwissenshaften 64: 585–586Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. De-Eknamkul
    • 1
  • B. E. Ellis
    • 1
  1. 1.Guelph-Waterloo Centre for Graduate Work in ChemistryUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations