Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 45–54 | Cite as

Rapid hydrogen peroxide release in cell suspensions ofCapsicum spp. elicited by fungal preparations

  • Mariano de Donato
  • Paola Chiavazza


The release of H2O2 by plant cell suspensions elicited with crude hyphal wall preparations has been studied in a complex of plant genotypes (two cvs ofCapsicum annuum and one of C.frutescens) and fungus species(Phytophthora capsici, Ph. parasitica andVerticillium dahliae), representing several combinations of compatibility and both host and nonhost resistance. Production of H2O2 was revealed as peroxidasedependent and catalase-inhibited fluorescence quenching of an extracellular probe (Pyranine).

All the plant genotypes responded to at least one elicitor, but the cell sensitivity showed a great age-dependent variability. Riboflavine and Mn2+ added in the incubation medium acted to some extent as primers for activated cell response, as well as a high Na+ concentration. Cell rest condition, however, was not removed. Some quantitative features of responsive plant/elicitor combinations (dose-response relation and lasting time) have been recorded.

The complex PO/H2O2 of elicited cells could perform detectable lignin-like polymerization of an exogenous natural substrate (coniferyl alcohol). The time-course of pyranine oxidation and lignin-like polymer formation could be recorded by adopting a fluorimetric procedure that allowed sequential observations on the same cell sample. In one instance, the cell reaction seemed associated with thein planta host/parasite incompatibility.

Index Entries

Cell suspensions Capsicum spp. Phytophthora spp. Verticillium sp. plant/pathogen interactions H2O2 release Pyranine oxidation hyphal wall elicitors lignin-like polymerization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Apostol, I., Heinstein, P.F., and Low, P.S. (1989),Plant Physiol. 90, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apostol, I., Low, P.S., et al. (1987),Plant Physiol. 84, 1276–1280.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iyer, G. Y. N., Islam, M.F., and Quastel, J. H. (1961),Nature 192, 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forman, H.J. and Thomas, M.J. (1986),Ann. Rev. Physiol. 48, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Low, P.S. and Heinstein, P.F. (1986),Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 249, 472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moerschbacher, B. M., Noll, U.M. et al. (1988),Physiolog. Mol. Plant Pathol. 33, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tamietti, G. and Matta, A. (1984),Culture Protette 8/9, 71–74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apostol, I., Low P.S., and Heinstein, P. (1989),Plant Cell Rep. 7, 692–695.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McPhail, L. C., Clayton, C.C., and Snyderman, R. (1984),J. Biol. Chem. 259, 5768–5775.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helman Finkel, T., Pabst, M. J., et al. (1987),J. Biol. Chem. 262, 12,589–12,596.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright, J., Maridonneau-Parini, I., et al. (1988),J. Leukocyte Biol. 43, 183–186.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stich, K. and Ebermann, R. (1984),Phytochemistry 23, 2719–2722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, A. J., Rogers, K. et al. (1991),Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 38, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vance, C. P., Kirk, T. K., et al. (1980),Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 18, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanchez, L. M., Doke, N., and Kawakita, K. (1993),Plant Sci. 88, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariano de Donato
    • 1
  • Paola Chiavazza
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Di.Va.P.R.A./Lab. Biotecnologie in vitro delle Piante ColtivateUniversity of TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations