Exploring plant defense theory in tall goldenrod, Solidago altissima.

Understanding the evolutionary reasons for patterns of chemical defense in plants is an ongoing theoretical and empirical challenge. The goal is to develop a model that can reliably predict how defenses are distributed within the plant over space and time. This is difficult given that evolutionary, ecological, and physiological processes and tradeoffs can operate over different spatial and temporal scales. We evaluated the major predictions of two leading defense theories, the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis (GDBH) and optimal defense theory (ODT). To achieve this, enemies, fitness components, terpenoids, and protease inhibitors were measured in Solidago altissima and used to construct conventional univariate and structural equation models (SEMs). Leaf-tissue value indices extracted from an SEM revealed a strong correlation between tissue value and terpenoid defense that supports ODT. A tradeoff between serine protease inhibition and growth as well as an indirect tradeoff between growth and terpenoids manifested through galling insects supported the GDBH. Interestingly, there was a strong direct effect of terpenoids on rhizome mass, suggesting service to both storage and defense. The results support established theories but unknown genotypic traits explained much of the variation in defense, confirming the need to integrate emerging theories such as pollination constraints, defense syndromes, tolerance, mutualisms, and facilitation.

Identification of clinically relevant cross-sensitization between Soliadgo virgaurea (goldenrod) and Hevea brasiliensis (natural rubber latex).

BACKGROUND: Solidago virgaurea (goldenrod) is a perennial weed from which no allergens have been identified. A high latex content in its leaves has been reported. Although not an airborne allergen, it may be an important occupational sensitizer. OBJECTIVE: To identify allergenic proteins in goldenrod and to determine whether they cross-react with Hevea brasiliensis latex. METHODS: Potential cross-reactive allergens in latex and goldenrod were investigated by immunoblot inhibition and ImmunoCAP inhibition analyses using serum from patients with clinically evident goldenrod and/or latex allergy. Cross reactivity between latex allergens and goldenrod proteins was studied using recombinant Hev b 1, 3, 4, 5, 6.01, 6.02, 8, 9, or 11 in ImmunoCAP inhibition analyses. RESULTS: Immunoglobulin (Ig) E antibodies from individuals with goldenrod allergy bound extracted goldenrod proteins ranging from 20 kDa to 130 kDa in Western blots. Evidence for latex and goldenrod cross reactivity was identified by ImmunoCAP and immunoblot inhibition experiments using serum from patients with strongly positive concomitant latex and goldenrod-specific IgE antibody responses. Observed latex-goldenrod cross reactivity could not be ascribed to any of the recombinant major latex allergens evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: H brasiliensis latex and goldenrod contain cross-reactive and unique allergenic proteins. Exposure to goldenrod may sensitize patients to latex and vice versa.