Display options
Cite
Brower LP, Seiber JN, Nelson CJ, et al. Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus reared on the milkweed,Asclepias eriocarpa in California. J Chem Ecol. 1982;8(3):579-633doi: 10.1007/BF00989631.
Brower, L. P., Seiber, J. N., Nelson, C. J., Lynch, S. P., & Tuskes, P. M. (1982). Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus reared on the milkweed,Asclepias eriocarpa in California. Journal of chemical ecology, 8(3), 579-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989631
Brower, L P, et al. "Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus reared on the milkweed,Asclepias eriocarpa in California." Journal of chemical ecology vol. 8,3 (1982): 579-633. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989631
Brower LP, Seiber JN, Nelson CJ, Lynch SP, Tuskes PM. Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus reared on the milkweed,Asclepias eriocarpa in California. J Chem Ecol. 1982 Mar;8(3):579-633. doi: 10.1007/BF00989631. PMID: 24415043.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Chem Ecol. 1982 Mar;8(3):579-633. doi: 10.1007/BF00989631.

Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus reared on the milkweed,Asclepias eriocarpa in California.

Journal of chemical ecology

L P Brower, J N Seiber, C J Nelson, S P Lynch, P M Tuskes

Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Florida, 32611, Gainesville, Florida.

PMID: 24415043 DOI: 10.1007/BF00989631

Abstract

This paper is the first in a series on cardenolide fingerprinting of the monarch butterfly. New methodologies are presented which allow both qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the constituent cardenolides which these insects derive in the wild from specificAsclepias foodplants. Analyses of thin-layer Chromatographic profiles ofAsclepias eriocarpa cardenolides in 85 individual plant-butterfly pairs collected at six widely separate localities in California indicate a relatively invariant pattern of 16-20 distinct cardenolides which we here define as theAsclepias eriocarpa cardenolide fingerprint profile. Cardenolide concentrations vary widely in the plant samples, but monarchs appear able to regulate total storage by increasing their concentrations relative to their larval host plant when reared on plants containing low concentrations, and vice versa. Forced-feeding of blue jays with powdered butterfly and plant material and with one of the constituent plant cardenolides, labriformin, established that theA. eriocarpa cardenolides are extremely emetic, and that monarchs which have fed on this plant contain an average of 16 emetic-dose fifty (ED50) units. The relatively nonpolar labriformin and labriformidin in the plant are not stored by the monarch but are metabolized in vivo to desglucosyrioside which the butterfly does store. This is chemically analogous to the way in which monarchs and grasshoppers metabolize another series of milkweed cardenolides, those found inA. curassavica. It appears that the sugar moiety through functionality at C-3' determines which cardenolides are metabolized and which are stored. The monarch also appears able to store several lowR f cardenolides fromA. eriocarpa without altering them. Differences in the sequestering process in monarchs and milkweed bugs (Oncopeltus) may be less than emphasized in the literature. The monarch is seen as a central organism involved in a coevolutionary triad simultaneously affecting and affected by both its avian predators and the secondary chemistry of the milkweeds with which it is intimately involved.

References

  1. Science. 1979 May 25;204(4395):847-51 - PubMed
  2. Annu Rev Entomol. 1973;18:381-420 - PubMed
  3. Oecologia. 1977 Sep;28(3):269-287 - PubMed
  4. Oecologia. 1975 Mar;18(1):55-62 - PubMed
  5. Science. 1972 Aug 4;177(4047):426-8 - PubMed
  6. Evolution. 1980 May;34(3):611-612 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 1974 May 17;249(454):280-3 - PubMed
  8. Planta Med. 1973 Feb;23(1):70-3 - PubMed
  9. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1952 Nov;4(11):814-30 - PubMed
  10. Nature. 1974 Aug 23;250(5468):646-8 - PubMed
  11. Science. 1968 Aug 30;161(3844):861-6 - PubMed
  12. Helv Chim Acta. 1969;52(8):2276-303 - PubMed
  13. Oecologia. 1973 Sep;13(3):191-204 - PubMed
  14. Nature. 1967 Apr 1;214(5083):35-9 - PubMed
  15. Planta Med. 1975 Nov;28(3):257-68 - PubMed
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1967 Apr;57(4):893-8 - PubMed
  17. J Chromatogr. 1978 Feb 1;148(2):521-7 - PubMed
  18. Science. 1959 May 29;129(3361):1466-70 - PubMed
  19. Nature. 1977 Aug 25;268(5622):726-8 - PubMed
  20. Science. 1971 Feb 26;171(3973):757-70 - PubMed
  21. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1966 Oct 1;149(7):938-43 - PubMed
  22. Science. 1975 Apr 4;188(4183):19-25 - PubMed
  23. Science. 1968 Sep 27;161(3848):1349-50 - PubMed
  24. Science. 1977 Jun 17;196(4296):1349-52 - PubMed
  25. J Chem Ecol. 1981 Nov;7(6):981-1010 - PubMed
  26. Oecologia. 1977 Jun;29(2):145-162 - PubMed
  27. J Physiol. 1965 May;178:290-304 - PubMed
  28. Evolution. 1980 May;34(3):586-600 - PubMed
  29. Oecologia. 1976 Mar;24(1):91-94 - PubMed
  30. Science. 1976 Jul 2;193(4247):24-9 - PubMed
  31. Evolution. 1979 Sep;33(3):803-814 - PubMed
  32. Toxicon. 1979;17(2):155-65 - PubMed

Publication Types