Light-Dependent Herbicides - An Overview
Light-Dependent Herbicides - An Overview
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by
nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s
Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or
rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries,
and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Weed Science, 48:160–170. 2000
Review
F. Dan Hess
AffyAgro Unit of Affymax Research Institute,
3410 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95051;
dan[email protected]
Activities of a surprisingly large number of herbicide fam- from a Mn cluster in the water-splitting complex. The elec-
ilies are directly or indirectly influenced by light. Herbicide tron in pheophytin is then passed to a protein-bound plas-
mechanisms that are dependent on light or are enhanced by toquinone molecule called QA, which in turn passes the
light fall into several different categories. These herbicides electron to a protein-bound plastoquinone called QB via a
inhibit electron flow in photosystem II in the photosyn- nonheme iron (Figure 1). When a second electron is passed
thetic light reaction (e.g., triazines, phenyl ureas, and ura- to QB from QA, the fully reduced quinone then becomes
cils), capture electrons in photosystem I in the photosyn- protonated (two hydrogen ions are added) to form a bound
thetic light reaction (e.g., bipyridiniums such as paraquat), plastohydroquinone (PQH2). The binding affinity of PQH2
inhibit glutamine synthetase in the nitrogen assimilation to its binding site is low; thus, another plastoquinone mol-
pathway (e.g., glufosinate), inhibit protoporphyrinogen ox- ecule from the plastoquinone pool in the membrane can
idase during chlorophyll biosynthesis (e.g., diphenyl ethers easily displace it (Figure 1). The function of the reduced
[DPEs] and N-phenyl heterocycles), directly inhibit carot- PQH2 is to transfer electrons between PS II and a cyto-
enoid biosynthesis by inhibiting one of the desaturase en- chrome b6f complex, which in turn transfers electrons to
zymes (e.g., norflurazon and fluridone), or indirectly inhibit photosystem I (PS I) via plastocyanin. Hankamer et al.
carotenoid biosynthesis by inhibiting a quinone cofactor in- (1997), Tsiotis et al. (1996), and Vermaas (1993) have pub-
volved in the desaturase reaction (e.g., triketones and isox- lished detailed reviews of the PS II reaction center.
azoles). Surprisingly, in all instances the involvement of light Herbicides that inhibit photosynthesis in PS II do so by
in herbicide action is not a direct interaction of light and binding to a protein at the lipophilic binding niche for the
herbicide at the primary site of action. In addition, the plastoquinone QB. Work published from Arntzen’s labora-
events that cause tissue damage (necrosis) are not associated tory (Pfister et al. 1981; Steinback et al. 1981) using azido-
with the primary target and are always due to membrane atrazine to achieve covalent bonding (photoaffinity labeling)
damage caused by lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fat- of the herbicide at its binding site was a key milestone in
ty acids. identifying the location of herbicide binding in PS II. This
protein was initially termed the 32-kDa protein, but it is
now known to be the D1 protein in PS II. Specificity of
Photosystem II the site was demonstrated by showing that binding of her-
Herbicide types such as triazines (e.g., atrazine) and phe- bicides to this protein did not occur in a triazine-resistant
nyl ureas (e.g., diuron) have their site of action in photo- mutant. Two years earlier, Arntzen et al. (1979) concluded
system II (PS II) in the photosynthesis light reaction. Symp- that because of small molecular weight differences identified
toms from herbicides that interfere with PS II slowly evolve between the resistant and susceptible biotypes of two pro-
over several days. First, treated plants develop a marked teins (a ⬃22 and ⬃24 kDa), one of these two proteins
chlorosis (yellowing), which is then followed by necrosis (tis- would turn out to contain the triazine binding site. In a
sue death). The chlorosis is due to chlorophyll destruction recent conversation, Charlie Arntzen stated ‘‘. . . the data in
through photooxidation reactions in the chloroplast, and the the 1979 publication made me sure we had a lead on the
necrosis is due to membrane destruction through lipid per- identity of the triazine receptor. But when Klaus Pfister and
oxidation. The association of light with the mechanism of Kit Steinback came to me only a year later with the first
action of these herbicides is indirect and due to the light autoradiogram of proteins separated by gel electrophoresis
energy absorbed by chlorophyll not being dissipated in PS after photoaffinity labeling of thylakoid proteins with azido
II. There is no direct involvement of light at the herbicide atrazine, I immediately changed my mind. It clearly showed
target in PS II. a tag on a 32-kilodalton protein. It was the cleanest first
In PS II, light energy captured by light-harvesting pig- experiment I’ve ever seen.’’ After repeating the experiment,
ments (chlorophylls and carotenoids) is transferred to a spe- the photoaffinity data were used as the basis for the 1981
cial reaction center (P680; a chlorophyll a dimer) providing publications.
the necessary energy for electron transfer from P680 to pheo- Herbicides that inhibit electron flow in PS II show com-
phytin (Figure 1). An electron obtained from a tyrosine res- petitive binding kinetics with QB and, therefore, compete
idue (YZ) in the D1 protein (Figure 1) replaces the lost for this binding niche in the D1 protein. This competition
electron in P680. The tyrosine residue obtains its electron leads to herbicide displacement of the QB from its binding
Glutamine Synthetase
The only herbicide that inhibits the glutamine synthetase
enzyme in the nitrogen assimilation pathway is glufosinate.
The primary symptom is chlorosis, which is then followed
by necrosis. These symptoms usually begin to develop with-
in 3 to 5 d after treatment. The symptoms resemble PS II
inhibitors, but the primary target is not photosynthesis. If
treated plants are placed in the dark immediately after treat-
FIGURE 5. The herbicide glufosinate competes at the glutamate binding site
ment, symptoms develop, but at a greatly reduced rate; thus, on the glutamine synthetase (GS) enzyme, which inhibits the formation of
light is somehow involved in the full expression of herbicidal glutamine. In the absence of glutamine, glutamate cannot be synthesized
activity. due to the lack of substrate for the enzyme. Glutamine and glutamate are
After glufosinate application, the ammonia level in leaves, required for many nitrogen assimilation reactions in the cell; thus, inhibi-
tion of their synthesis yields substantial disruption of metabolism in plant
which is usually low, increases dramatically. Within a few cells. When glufosinate inhibits glutamine synthetase there is a substantial
hours after treatment, the ammonia level can be 10 or more increase in ammonia concentration because it is not incorporated into glu-
times higher than in nontreated leaves. In the dark, the tamine. Although ammonia accumulation may directly inhibit the light
ammonia accumulation caused by glufosinate treatment is reaction in photosynthesis, it is more likely that photosynthesis is indirectly
substantially less. This is attributed to two important am- inhibited by an accumulation of glyoxylate in photorespiration. Regardless
of the mechanism, inhibition of the photosynthesis light reaction leads to
monia-producing reactions in plants (nitrite reduction and initiation of lipid peroxidation in membranes.
the photorespiratory conversion of glycine to serine) that are
dependent on light. The accumulation of ammonia in glu-
fosinate-treated plants is known to be due to a direct inhi- development after glufosinate treatment is somehow due to
bition of the glutamine synthetase (GS) enzyme, which is the ammonia accumulation. Evidence shows ammonia is not
responsible for converting glutamate plus ammonia to glu- directly responsible for the toxic effects of glufosinate. For
tamine (Figure 5). Both the chloroplast and cytoplasm forms example, Seelye et al. (1995) reported that when glutamine
of GS are inhibited (Manderscheid and Wild 1986). Glu- was added to Asparagus officinalis L. (asparagus) tissue cul-
fosinate inhibition of GS results in decreased levels of glu- tures (callus) treated with glufosinate, phytotoxicity was
tamine. In the absence of glutamine, glutamate is not syn- eliminated, even though ammonia accumulated to high con-
thesized due to lack of substrate for the enzyme. Glufosinate centrations.
is competitive with the substrate glutamate for the GS en- Photosynthesis is inhibited after glufosinate treatment,
zyme. At this point, binding of glufosinate to GS is revers- which may cause the primary symptom development, in-
ible. Then ATP phosphorylates glufosinate bound to GS. cluding slow but significant membrane disruption. Whereas
The phosphorylated from of glufosinate becomes irreversibly inhibition of photosynthesis can be associated with an ac-
bound to GS (Manderscheid and Wild 1986). Glutamine cumulation of ammonia (for an overview of the effect of
and glutamate are required for many metabolic reactions in ammonia on photosynthesis, see Lea and Ridley [1989]),
the cell involving nitrogen (nitrogen assimilation); thus, there is experimental evidence that inhibition of photosyn-
their absence may well cause substantial disruption of plant thesis by glufosinate is due to something other than am-
cell function. monia accumulation. For example, adding high concentra-
It is always tempting to conclude that the high level of tions of ammonia to non-glufosinate-treated plants had little
ammonia accumulation must somehow cause the herbicidal to no effect on photosynthesis (Sauer et al. 1987). Adding
symptoms. However, the effect of ammonia accumulation glutamine or glutamate to glufosinate-treated plants reduced
on phytotoxicity caused by glufosinate remains controver- the inhibition of photosynthesis even though ammonia ac-
sial, and caution is advised in concluding that symptom cumulation was increased more than eightfold (Wendler et