Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:18:17.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cytological Effects of Herbicidal Substituted Phenols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gabriele N. Mühling ,
J. Van't Hof ,
G. B. Wilson  and
B. H. Grigsby
Gabriele N. Mühling
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
J. Van't Hof
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
G. B. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
B. H. Grigsby
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
Get access

Extract

Alarge proportion of the commonly used herbicidal substances were derived from that class of organic compounds somewhat loosely known as the substituted phenols. Many of these compounds, as well as their close relatives, have been reported to affect cell division in a number of ways. Since there appeared to be some confusion as to the type or types of effect as well as to the similarities between the effects of different members of the group, comparative studies of a number of compounds were undertaken. Two questions were considered: 1. are the cytological effects such as to suggest subtle biological hazards to organisms apparently not affected morphologically; and 2. is there a family resemblance in the cytological reaction category? Although neither question has been answered satisfactorily, the results of our studies to date are sufficiently suggestive to warrant reporting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 173 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © 1960 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Beevers, H. 2,4–DNP and plant respiration. Am. J. Bot. 40:91–95. 1953.Google Scholar
2. Bowen, C. C., and Wilson, G. B. A comparison of the effects of several antimitotic agents. J. Hered. 45:2–9. 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bradley, M. V., and Crane, J. S. The effect of 2,4,5–trichlorophenoxyacetic acid on cell and nuclear size and endopolyploidy in parenchyma of apricot fruit. Am. J. Bot. 42:273–281. 1955.Google Scholar
4. Bullough, W. S. The energy relations of mitotic activity. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philosophical Soc. 27:133–168. 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Carey, M. A., and McDonough, E. S. On the production of polyploidy in Allium with paradichlorobenzene. J. Hered. 34:238–240. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Clowes, G. H. A. The inhibition of cell division by substituted phenols with special reference to the metabolism of dividing cells. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 51:1409–1431. 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. D'Amato, F. Ricerche sull 'attivita citologica di alcuni composti organici con particolare riguardo alla colchicino-mitosi e agli effe ti tossici. Caryologia 1:49–78. 1948.Google Scholar
8. Galinsky, I. The effect of certain phosphates on mitosis in Allium roots. J. Hered. 40:288–295. 1949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Hadder, J. C., and Wilson, G. B. Cytological assay of c-mitotic and prophase poison actions. Chromosoma 9:91–104. 1958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hamburger, K., and Zeuthen, E. Synchronous divisions in Tetrahymena pyriformis as studied in an inorganic medium. Exptl. Cell Res. 13:443–453. 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hoagland, D. R., and Broyer, T. C. General nature of the process of salt accumulation by roots with description of experimental methods. Plt. Physiol. 11:471–507. 1936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Leaper, J. M. F., and Bishop, J. R. Relation of halogen position to physiological properties in the mono-, di-, tri-chlorophenoxyacetic acids. Bot. Gaz. 112:250–258. 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Levan, A., and Tjio, J. H. Induction of chromosome fragmentation by phenols. Hereditas 34:453–484. 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Loomis, W. F., and Lipmann, F. Reversible inhibition of the coupling between phosphorylation and oxidation. J. Biol. Chem. 173:807–808. 1948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Loveless, A., and Revell, S. New evidence on the mode of action of ‘mitotic poisons’. Nature 164:938–944. 1949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Lundgardh, H. Reversal of inhibition of respiration and salt absorption by cyanide and azide. Nature 165:513–516. 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. MacFarlane, E. W. E. Some phenyl mercurials as polyploidogenic and radiomimetic agents for plants, compared with colchicine with remarks on antagonism. Rev. de Cytol. et de Biol. Veg. 15:139–146. 1954.Google Scholar
18. McRae, D. H., and Bonner, J. Chemical structure and anti-auxin activity. Physiol. Plantarum 6:485–510. 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wilson, G. B., and Morrison, J. H. Mitotic activity and behavior as an index of chemical effect. The Nucleus 1:45–56. 1958.Google Scholar
20. Wilson, G. B., Morrison, J. H., and Knobloch, N. Studies on the control of mitotic activity in excised roots. I. The experimental system. J. Biochem. and Biophys. Cytology 5:411–420. 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar