a comparative study into the chemical constitution of cutins and suberins from picea abies (l.)...

Planta (1991)185:233-245 Planta �9 Springer-Verlag 1991

A comparative study into the chemical constitution of cutins and suberins from Picea abies (L.) Karst., Quercus robur L., and Fagus sylvatica L. K. Matzke and M. Riederer*

Institut •r Botanik und Mikrobiologie, Technische Universit~it Mfinchen, Arcisstrasse 21, W-8000 Mfinchen 2, Federal Republic of Germany

Received 1 March; accepted 3 May 1991

Abstract. The compositions of BFa/CH3OH depolymerisates of cutins and suberins from leaf and periderm samples from Picea abies [L.] Karst., Quercus robur L., and Fagus sylvatica L., respectively, were determined by quantitative capillary gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy. Long-chain monobasic, co-hydroxymonobasic, dihydroxymonobasic, trihydroxymonobasic and epoxyhydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids constituted the major aliphatic monomers of leaf cutins. The total amounts of cutin monomers ranged from 629 mg- m-2 (Fagus) to 1350 m g - m -2 (Quercus). Cutin composition and amounts did not significantly differ between current year and three-year-old needles of Picea. Trans-esterification of periderm samples yielded a much greater variety of aliphatic monomers than obtained from cutins. In addition to the substance classes found with cutins, suberin depolymerisates also contained ~,co-dibasic acids while dihydroxymonobasic acids were lacking. Depolymeri- sates from periderms taken from different locations on a Picea tree did not differ significantly in their relative composition. The results are discussed in terms of the distinctive characteristics of the aliphatic portions of cutins and suberins, respectively. Discriminant analysis is applied for formulating a quantitative and inarbitrary classification rule for cutins and suberins. The precision, statistical significance and robustness of this classification rule are tested by employing it to a large set of compositional data (70 plant species) from the literature. The relevance of data obtained by depolymerization methods for elucidating the physical structure of cutins and suberins in situ is evaluated.

Key words: Cutin (composition) - Discriminant analysis - Fagus (cuticle, periderm) - Picea (cuticle, periderm) - Quercus (cuticle, periderm) - Suberin (composition)

* To whom correspondence should be addressed

Introduction

The biopolymers cutin and suberin are characteristic components of the aerial surfaces of higher plants. They represent the matrices of the transport-limiting barriers of plant cuticles and periderms. Cutin has also been identified as the main compartment for the sorption of lipophilic xenobiotics in leaf and fruit surfaces (Sch6n- herr and Riederer 1989). During litterfall, cutin and suberin are transferred to the soil. Their role as a source of an aliphatic fraction of the organic matter of soils has recently been pointed out (K6gel-Knabner et al. 1989).

Chemically, both polymers are closely related and, therefore, they are usually distinguished from one another by their morphological origin. Even though the lipid polymers of numerous plant species have been examined during the past twenty years, there is still no general concept unambiguously to classify both polymers. Al- though some qualitative criteria have been established (Kolattukudy and Agrawal 1974; Holloway 1983 ; Kol- attukudy 1984), a simple quantitative and inarbitrary classification rule with general applicability is lacking. The need for such a rule becomes obvious when polymer samples of unknown or potentially mixed origin are to be classified. This may be the case when the actual nature of the lipid material found for example in the Casparian strip of roots, in certain Kranz-type vascular-bundle sheaths or in the protective layers of seeds and fruits is to be investigated by analytical rather than histochemical means. A simple and clear distinction between cutin- and suberin-derived aliphatic material is also a prerequisite for the analysis of lipid biopolymers contained in plant litter or humus.

As a first step to establishing such a classification rule, we have comparatively studied the constitution of the cutins and suberins of three common European tree species (Picea abies, Faous sylvatica and Quercus robur) using nested samples. Subsequently, multivariate statistical methods have been used to obtain the appropriate

234 K. Matzke and M. Riederer: Comparative study into cutins and suberins

classification criteria and a quantitative classification rule. The validity and robustness of this scheme has been extensively tested using a set of 122 literature data on the composition of the cutins and suberins from 70 plant species.

Materials and methods Plant materials. Needle and bark samples of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) were obtained from an approximately 70-year-old tree growing in the Fichtelgebirge (N.E. Bavaria, FRG). Plant material was taken in September 1989 from (i) twigs harvested at a height of 2-3 m, (ii) the stem at a height of 1.5 m and (iii) roots with a diameter of 7-10 ram. Outer bark of the stem was cut off using a knife. The twigs were separated according to age classes (one, two and three years old) and the needles were mechanically removed after submersing the twigs in liquid nitrogen. The periderm of the twigs and roots (thoroughly washed in deionized water) together with the cortex tissues was carefully separated from the vascular cylinder. Microscopic examination of this material confir- med that only tissues outside the cambium had been isolated. Leaves and outer bark from the stem of oak (Quercus robur L.) and leaves and periderm from about three-year-old twigs of beech (Fag- us sylvatica L.) were obtained in June 1990 (S. Bavaria, FRG).

The samples were dried at 90 ~ C for 2 d and afterwards homoge- nized in liquid nitrogen using a mortar. The resulting material was subjected to two exhaustive (checked by thin-layer chromatography and gas chromatography) extractions with boiling CHC13 and ac- etone, respectively, in a Soxhlet-type apparatus to remove free lipids. Each extraction step lasted for at least 24 h.

The yield of this procedure was 295, 239, 174 and 117 g dry extractive-free corky substance per m 2 surface area of twigs (age- classes 1987 to 1989) and roots of Picea abies, respectively. The surface areas were assessed by assuming a cylindrical geometry of twigs and roots. The yield of extractive-free dry needle tissue was 33 g per m 2 needle surface for each age-class. Nineteen g and 36 g were obtained per m 2 leaf surface from Faffus sylvatica and Quercus robur, respectively. Needle surfaces were estimated from the length of 150 needles (Riederer et al. 1988). The leaf surface areas of the samples taken from Fagus and Quercus were determined using a leaf-area meter (LI 3000; Licor, Lincoln, Neb., USA). Gravimetric measurements were made using an electronic microbalance ( i 0.1 mg; Sartorius, G6ttingen, FRG).

Transesterification ofcutin and suberin. The samples were treated for 30 min at 25 ~ C with a freshly prepared 0.2 M solution of HC1 in 1,4-dioxane (Merck, Darmstadt, FRG) to transform epoxy groups into their stable chlorohydrin derivatives (Riederer and Sch6nherr 1986). Afterwards the HCl-dioxane was removed by evaporation on a rotary evaporator and repeated washes with CHC13.

A 5- to 10-mg sample of the ground material was weighed into 1-ml screw-capped boron-silicate glass vials with PTFE seals (Wheaton, Millville, N J, USA). An aliquot of 200 ~tl BF3/CH3OH (16%, Merck) was added together with an appropriate amount of n-eicosane as internal standard and the samples were heated to 70 ~ C for 24 h. This procedure releases cutin and suberin monomers cross-linked by ester bonds and simultaneously transforms acids into their corresponding methyl esters (Riederer and Sch6nherr 1986).

Preliminary experiments with bark of five-year-old Picea abies trees had shown that longer treatment with BF3/CH3OH neither increases the depolymerization yield (Fig. 1 a) nor changes the qualitative composition (Fig. lb) of the depolymerisates.

The further work-up of the monomer mixtures resulting from the transesterification reaction followed the methods described ear- lier (Riederer and Sch6nherr 1986, 1988b).

Identification and quantification of monomers. The depolymerization products were analyzed using a Carlo Erba (Milan, Italy) 4200 gas

' I ' I ' [ ' I / ,1 , I I 10 - o �9 ~, ~.-

E

g 8

N

~6 2 -K)

-~ s A7 i

o 100

~ I "1" i"

~ 6o

~ 4o

g

2 o

0- I / / 0 10 20 30 40 60 70

BF3/CHsOH treatment [h] Fig. IA, B. Effect of the duration of treatment with BF3/CH3OH at 70 ~ C on the yield of monomers (A) and the qualitative composition of bark depolymerisates (B) from five-years-old Picea abies trees

chromatograph (GC) equipped with flame-ionization detector, an on-column injector and a WCOT fused-silica capillary column (20 m long, 0.32 mm i.d.) coated with CP-Sil 5 CB (df=0.13 ~tm) from Chrompack (Middelburg, The Netherlands). The GC system operated with hydrogen carrier gas at a pressure of 40 kPa, a detector temperature of 320 ~ C and the following temperature program: injection at 50 ~ C, 2 min at 50 ~ C, 40 K - m i n -1 up to 150 ~ C, 6 K �9 min- 1 up to 300 ~ C, 13 min at 300 ~ C. Peak areas were recorded by electronic integration (C-R3A; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Specific correction factors accounting for losses during sample work-up and differential response were applied to the peak areas of 18-hydroxy-9-octadecenoic acid, dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid, trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid and 9,10-epoxy-18-hydroxy- octadecanoic acid (Riederer and Sch6nherr 1986). A factor of 1.10 was assigned to all other compounds. The identified monomers comprised between 80% and 94% of the total amount of alkanoic monomers detectable by gas chromatography. In each case, all dominating constituents were identified.

K. Matzke and M. Riederer: Comparative study into cutins and suberins 235

Cutin and suberin monomers were identified by electron-impact mass spectroscopy (70 eV; Finnigan-MAT 12S, San Jos6, Calif., USA) using reference compounds and published spectra (Kolat- tukudy and Agrawal 1974; Holloway 1982b). Mass-spectroscopic identification proved to be essential since some of the compounds had identical retention times under the given chromatographic conditions. Capillary gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was carried out under chromatographic conditions as detailed above but using helium instead of hydrogen as carrier gas.

Statistics. Transformation and analysis of the raw data as well as discriminant analysis were performed using SPSS/PC + statistical

software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, ILL., USA). The values quoted in Tables 1 to 4 and Figs. 1 and 2 are the means of five samples in each case. The experimental error was determined by five injections of identical samples representing needles, leaves, twigs, stem and roots. Coefficients of variation were smaller than 5% for all compounds.

Results

C o m p o s i t i o n o f l e a f d e p o l y m e r i s a t e s . T h e t o t a l a m o u n t s o f d e p o l y m e r i s a t e s r e l e a s e d b y t r e a t i n g t h o r o u g h l y ex-

Table 1. Composit ion of BF3/CH3OH depolymerisates from leaves of Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur. - , not detected; tr, traces

Compound" Fagus Quercus

m g ' m -2 % m g ' m 2 %

Monobasic alkanoic acids

Hexadecanoic 62.4 9.9 Octadecanoic 5.2 0.8 Octadecenoic - - Octadecadienoic 224 b 35.7 b Octadecatrienoic - - Docosanoic 4.5 0.7

Total 296 47.1

Dibasic alkanoic acids - -

~o-Hydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

16-OH-hexadecanoic 8.9 1.4 18-OH-octadecenoic 19.8 3.2

Total 28.7 4.6

2-Hydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

2-OH-hexadecanoic 1.9 0.3 2-OH-docosanoic 8.0 1.3 2-OH-tetracosanoic 5.5 0.9

Total 15.4 2.5

Dihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

DiOH-hexadecanoic d 110 17.4

Trihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids'

9,10,18-TriOH-octadecanoic 12.7 2.0

Epoxyhydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

9,10-Epoxy- 18-OH-octadecanoic 77.2 12.3

1-Alkanols

Heptadecanol - - Octadecanol 3.3 0.5 Eicosanol tr tr Octacosanol tr tr

Total 3.3 0.5

Alkanediols

Unidentified 85 13.6

Total monomers 629 100.0

44.8 6.4

15.5 79.6 c

tr

146

12.7 133

146

3.3 0.5 1.2 5.9 ~

tr

10.8

0.9 9.9

10.8

m

361 26.8

18.5 1.4

411 30.5

E m

m m

m m

265 19.7

1350 100.0

" Where appropriate, determined as the corresponding methyl ester and trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. Absolute values are rounded to three significant digits b Sum of octadecenoic, octadecadienoic and octadecatrienoic acids (individual compounds not sufficiently separated under the chromatographic conditions used) c Sum of octadecadienoic and octadecatrienoic acids (individual compounds not sufficiently separated under the chromatographic conditions used) d 10,16-Dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid with Quercus, 8,16- and 9,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic acids with Fagus (positional isomers not separated)


Table 2. Composition of BFa/CHaOH depolymerisates from needles of Picea abies from different age classes. -, not detected

Compound a 1987 1988 1989

mg �9 m - 2 % m g - m - 2 % m g �9 m - 2 %


Hexadecanoic 29.8 3.5 35.8 4.3 30.5 3.5

Dibasic alkanoic a c i d s . . . . .


12-OH-dodecanoic 18.8 2.2 17.2 2.1 10.3 1.2 14-OH-tetradecanoic 64.8 7.6 67.2 8.1 45.1 5.3 16-OH-hexadecanoic 107 12.6 90.7 10.9 55.5 6.5 Total 191 22.4 175 21.1 111 12.9

2-Hydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids . . . . .


9,16-DiOH-hexadecanoic 300 35.2 307 36.9 382 44.5

Trihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

9,10,18-TriOH-octadecanoic 50.1 5.8 22.8 2.7 19.8 2.3


9,10-Epoxy- 18-OH-octadecanoic 96.2 11.3 97.2 11.7 139 16.1

1-Alkanols . . . . . .

Alkanediols

1,12-Dodecanediol 35.0 4.1 30.9 3.7 19.7 2.3 1,14-Tetradecanediol 18.5 2.2 15.9 1.9 6.4 0.7 Total 53.5 6.3 46.8 5.6 26.1 3.1

Unidentified 132 15.5 148 17.7 151 17.6

Total monomers 853 100.0 833 100.0 859 100.0

a Where appropriate, determined as the corresponding methyl ester and trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. Absolute values are rounded to three significant digits

tracted leaf material with BF3/CH3OH differed significantly among the three species studied. The lowest coverage was found with Fagus (629 m g . m -z) while from leaves of Quercus 1350 mg of monomers were released per m z (Table 1). Intermediate values were found for needles of Picea abies which, depending on needle age, had coverages ranging f rom 833 to 859 mg �9 m -2. No significant difference in total coverage was observed between Picea needles of different age classes (Table 2).

Long-chain monobasic, co-hydroxymonobasic, dihydroxymonobasic , t r ihydroxymonobasic and epoxyhy- droxymonobas ic alkanoic acids were found in the leaf depolymerisates of all three species (Tables 1, 2). Fagus leaf depolymerisates were further characterized by the occurrence of three homologues of a series of 2-hydroxymonobasic acids and traces of 1-alkanols. In Picea needle depolymerisates, two n-alkanediols were present which were missing with the two deciduous species. The carbon chain-lengths of all monomers ranged from C12 to Cls in Picea (Table 2) and from C~6 to C22 (traces of 1-octacosanol disregarded) in Fagus and Quercus (Ta- ble 1). Most constituents were saturated, the only excep- tions being octadecenoic, octadecadienoic, octadecatrienoic, and 18-hydroxyoctadecenoic acids which were found in the depolymerisates f rom the two broad-leaved

species. In addition to aliphatic material, ferulic and cumaric acid as wel l as fl-sitosterol were identified in depolymerisates from needles and leaves.

Dihydroxymonobasic acids constituted the most abundant compound class in the depolymerisates of Pi- cea needles (3545% of total) and also considerable amounts were found in Quercus leaves (27%). In Fagus, the contribution of this class (17 %) was exceeded only by that of unsubstituted monobasic acids (see Discussion). Of the total mass of the constituents of the depolymerisates of Picea needles 16 to 21% consisted ofco-hydroxymonobasic acids (Table 2) while this class contributed only 11% and 5 % in Quercus and Fagus depolymerisates, respectively (Table 1). 9,10-Epoxy-18-hydroxyoctadeca- noic acid was also an important constituent making up approx. 31% in Quercus and between 11 and 16% in Picea and Fagus. 9,10,18-Trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid was more prominent in Picea than in the two broad-leaved species but did not exceed 6% in any case. Unsubsti tuted monobasic acids were released in much higher amounts from Fagus and Quercus leaf material than f rom extracted Picea needles.

With Picea, needles f rom three different age-classes had been subjected to depolymerization. As a whole, the qualitative and quantitative composit ion of depoly-

K. Ma tzke and M. Riederer : C o m p a r a t i v e s tudy in to cut ins and suber ins 237

Table 3. C o m p o s i t i o n of B F a / C H a O H depo lymer i sa tes f rom stem per iderms (bark) ofPicea abies and Quercus robur and f rom b ranch per iderm of Fagus sylvatica. - , no t detected

C o m p o u n d a Picea Faous Quercus

% % %


Octadecano ic 0.4 - 0.3 Octadecenoic - 0.4 0.5 Octadecad ieno ic - 0.4 - E icosanoic 2.8 0.1 - Docosano ic 5.5 3.6 0.8 Te t racosano ic 7.0 5.1 2.5 Hexacosano ic 1.2 1.1 -

Total 16.9 10.7 4.1

Dibasic alkanoic acids

Hexadecaned io ic 6.1 6.5 0.9 Octadecaned io ic 1.4 1.8 - Octadecendio ic 9.3 0.4 2.4 Eicosanedioic 4.4 2.3 2.9 Docosaned io ic 2.3 - - Te t racosaned io ic 1.2 0.8 -

Total 24.7 11.8 6.2


1 6 - O H - h e x a d e c a n o i c 8.7 2.3 1.1 1 8 - O H - o c t a d e c a n o i c 2.9 2.4 1.1 18-OH-octadecenoic 23.8 2.0 13.8 1 8 - O H - o c t a d e c a d i e n o i c - 0.8 - 20-OH-eicosanoic 8.0 1.9 2.1 22-OH-docosano ic 3.2 7.2 10.3 24-OH- te t racosano ic - 3.9 12.2 26-OH-hexacosano ic - 0.6 4.7

Total 46.6 21.1 45.3


2-OH- te t r acosano ic


- - 1.4

Trihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids

9,10 ,18- t r iOH-octadecanoic - 23.8 13.7


9,10-Epoxy- 18-OH-octadecanoic - 17.6 7.6

1-Alkanols Hep tadecano l 0.5 - - Oc tadecano l 1.0 - 1 . 2 Eicosanol - - 1 . 4 Docosano l - 4.2 1.0 Te t r acosano l 0.8 4.8 - Hexacosano l - 0.9 -

Total 2.3 9.9 3.6

Alkanediols - - -

Unidentified 9.5 5.1 18.1

Total monomers 100.0 100.0 100.0

a Where appropr i a t e , de te rmined as the co r r e spond ing me thy l ester and t r imethyls i ly l e ther der ivat ives

merisates differed only slightly between one-, two- and three-year-old needles (Table 2). The most conspicuous change was the doubling of the amount of 9,10,18-trihydroxyoctadecanoic acid from the first to the third year albeit the contribution of this constituent to the total remained fairly low in any age class. The amounts of 9,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic and 9,10-epoxy- 18-hydro- xyoctadecanoic acids were lower by factors of 1.3 and 1.4, respectively, in the oldest needles than in those from the current year.

Composition of periderm depolymerisates. Transesterifi- cation of periderm samples from Picea, Fagus and Quer- cus yielded depolymerisates which were composed of a much greater variety of constituents than the corresponding leaf depolymerisates. Depolymerisates from periderms of the three species also contained monoba-

60

q)

8

{3

50

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

0

10

A ~ leaf cutin Fogus sylvatico ~ stem suberin

[ J 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

2 �9 O_

[3

60

50

40 -

.30 -

20 -

10 -

0

10

B

-Quercus robur ! i ~ ~ leaf cutin stem suberin

[ 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

8 0 -

60 60 0

60

50

40

50

20

10

0

10

C ~ needle cutin Pice(] abies ~ twig suberin

stem suberin - root suberin _

�9 I I t I I I I I

12 14 16 18 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8

Carbon number F i g . 2A-C. Cha in - l eng th d i s t r ibu t ion of the a l ipha t i c m o n o m e r s of cut in and suberin f rom different a n a t o m i c a l loca t ions of Fagus sylvatica (A), Quercus robur (B), and Picea abies (C) ob t a ined af ter depo lymer i za t i on wi th B F 3 / C H 3 O H at 70 ~ C for 24 h


Table 4. Composition of BF3/CH 3OH depolymerisates from periderms obtained from twigs (three age-classes) and roots of Picea abies. - , not detected

Compound a Twigs Roots

1987 1988 1989

mg-m -2 % m g . m 2 % m g . m 2 % mg.m-Z %


Octadecanoic 67.2 0.3 48.6 0.2 40.9 0.3 - - Eicosanoic 825 3.3 540 2.6 384 2.5 26.9 4.5 Docosanoic 743 3.0 542 2.7 409 2.6 12.0 2.1 Tetracosanoic 639 2.5 441 2.2 240 1.5 - Hexacosanoic 110 0.4 100 0.5 62.7 0.4 -

Total 2 380 9.5 1 670 8.2 1 140 7.3 38.9 6.6

Dibasic alkanoic acids

Hexadecanedioic 1 180 4.7 941 4.6 589 3.8 - Octadecanedioic 283 1.1 283 1.4 127 0.8 - Octadecendioic 2 450 9.8 1 860 9.1 1 240 8.0 46.9 7.9 Octadecadiendioic 418 1.7 291 1.4 124 0.8 - Eicosanedioic 979 3.9 735 3.6 310 2.0 28.0 4.7 Docosanedioic 451 1.8 477 2.3 361 2.3 20.8 3.5

Total 5 770 22.9 4 580 22.4 2 750 17.7 95.7 16.1


16-OH-hexadecanoic 1 940 7.7 1 670 8.2 1 210 7.8 17.9 3.0 18-OH-octadecanoic 2 630 10.4 3 230 15.8 4 070 26.2 7.5 1.3 18-OH-octadecenoic 7 830 31.2 5 550 27.1 3 800 24.4 218 36.7 20-OH-eicosanoic 2 000 8.0 1 640 8.0 1 050 6.8 48.8 8.2 22-OH-docosanoic 368 1.5 294 1.4 166 1.1 34.9 5.9 24-OH-tetracosanoic 328 1.3 296 1.5 159 1.0 -

Total 15 100 60.1 12 700 62.0 10 500 67.3 327 55.1


2-OH-tetracosanoic . . . . 10.6 1.8

Dihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids . . . .

Trihydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids" - -

Epoxyhydroxymonobasic alkanoic acids . . . .

1-Alkanols

Heptadecanol 71.6 0.3 39.3 0.2 21.4 0.1 - - Octadecanol 262 1.0 200 1.0 121 0.8 Tetracosanol . . . . . . . .

Total 334 1.3 239 1.2 142 0.9 - -

Alkanediols - -

Unidentified 1 560 6.2 1 270 6.2 1 060 6.8 121 20.4

Total monomers 25 200 100.0 20 400 100.0 15 500 100.0 593 100.0

a Where appropriate, determined as the corresponding methyl ester and trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. Absolute values are rounded to three significant digits

sic, o ) -hydroxymonobas ic , 2 -hyd roxymonobas i c (only present in Q u e r c u s stem and P i c e a roo t periderms), t r i h y d r o x y m o n o b a s i c (except P i c e a ) and epoxyhydroxy- m o n o b a s i c (except P i cea ) a lkanoic acids and 1-alkanols (Table 3). Howeve r , they differed f rom leaf depolymerisates as they addi t iona l ly con ta ined ~,co-dibasic a lkanoic acids while bo th d i h y d r o x y m o n o b a s i c acids and a lkanediols were missing. The n u m b e r o f homologues within the different subs tance classes was m u c h higher than observed with leaf depolymerisa tes . In addi t ion to the chain- lengths o f C16 and C18 which d o m i n a t e d leaf

depolymerisates , higher hom ologues up to C26 were present in samples der ived f rom per iderms (Fig. 2). 18-Hydroxyoctadecenoic acid was the mos t a b u n d a n t unsa tura ted c o m p o n e n t in the per iderm depolymer isa tes o f the three species (Table 3).

In both P i c e a and Q u e r c u s , ~o-hydroxymonobas ic acids were the mos t abundan t class o f const i tuents (47 and 45%, respectively), while pe r iderm samples f rom F a g u s

were domina t ed by 9 ,10 ,18- t r ihydroxyoctadecanoic acid. This single c o m p o u n d con t r ibu ted m o r e to the total mass o f per iderm const i tuents than the different homologues


ofco-hydroxymonobasic acids together. Dibasic alkanoic acids (C~6 to C24) made up 25% of the monomers in Picea depolymerisates as well as 12 and 6% of Fagus and Quercus depolymerisates, respectively.

Depolymerisates from periderms taken from different locations on a Picea abies tree did not differ significantly in their relative composition (Tables 3, 4). In depolymerisates from twigs (one to three years old), stem and roots, co-hydroxymonobasic acids were the most abundant substance class followed by dibasic and monobasic acids. Since intact periderms could be isolated only from young twigs and roots, total coverages of the monomers in the depolymerisates could be determined only for these organs (Table 4). No coverage data are available for stem barks. Total coverages were much higher in twig periderms than in the root periderm studied. Owing to the continuing formation of bark during the dilatation of the twigs, the total amounts of depolymerisates in- creased from 15.5 g �9 m 2 in one-year-old to 25.1 g �9 m -2 in three-year-old twigs of Picea abies.

Discussion

It was one of the objectives of the present work to study comparatively the qualitative and quantitative composition of the lipid biopolymers making up the aerial interfaces of three major species of forest trees in Europe. Unfortunately, pure samples of these polymers could not be obtained because of (i) the impossibility of enzymati- cally isolating cuticular membranes from mature leaves of these species (data not shown) and (ii) the very nature ofperiderms which are complex tissues. Thus, at best cutin- or suberin-enriched samples could be investigated.

Nevertheless, a careful treatment and work-up of the samples enabled us to obtain depolymerisates from leaves which contained all the typical constituents of cutin known from previous studies with isolated cuticles (Kolattukudy 1981, 1984; Holloway 1982b, 1984; Riederer and Sch6nherr 1986). Depolymerisates from periderm samples as well contained a spectrum of constituents characteristic of suberin (Holloway 1983; Kol- attukudy 1984). Thus, we assume that the qualitative compositions of the depolymerisates provide represen- tative pictures of the actual compositions of the cutins and suberins of the three species investigated.

There is one compound class of aliphatic depolymerisates, however, which in this context should be treated with caution. In leaf and periderm depolymerisates from all three species considerable amounts of monobasic alkanoic acids have been found (Tables 1-4). This compound class has only one functional group and is therefore unable to participate in any cross-linking reactions within a polymer. Single-substituted monomers can form only endpoints in a polymeric network while double- and triplesubstituted monomers may be incor- porated in linear and three-dimensional polymers, respectively. For this reason, it is doubtful whether the monobasic acids found in leaf and periderm depolymerisates indeed originated from cutin and suberin, or whether they were cleaved from other parts of the mate-

rial subjected to transesterification (e.g. cell walls). The same argument may hold for the presence of phenolic compounds in leaf and periderm depolymerisates.

In many cases it is simple to tell whether the monomers found after transesterification of a material are derived from cutin or from suberin. The distinction is clear as long as it is definitively known that the material is derived from primary or secondary plant surfaces. In some cases, however, either the exact origin of the material is unknown (e.g. when investigating aliphatic re- sidues in soil or sediments) or when tissues formed by primary and secondary growth cannot be separated (e.g. in the outer layers of the caryopses of Triticum; Matzke and Riederer 1990). Then, precise criteria are needed for distinguishing monomers of cutin from those of suberin.

The data produced in this study are perfectly suited for deducing such criteria since cutin and suberin samples were taken from the same trees (nested samples) and identical protocols were followed during the analysis of both types of polymers. Comparing the data obtained for Picea, Quercus and Fagus (Tables 1-4, Fig. 2) revealed the following differences between cutin and suberin: (i) all cutins examined were characterized by substantial amounts of dihydroxyhexadecanoic acids. (ii) Suberins from all three species contained considerable amounts of ~,co-dibasic and long-chain (>C18) monomers which were lacking in cutin depolymerisates (Fig. 2).

It is questionable, however, whether these qualitative rules are sufficient for classifying cutins and suberins reliably and with a high statistical significance. In order to test these criteria and to establish inarbitrary and more stringent quantitative criteria, the data on the composition of cutins and suberins of Picea, Quercus and Fagus were subjected to a discriminant analysis. This is a multivariate tool for classifying cases which are characterized by a set of variables. The aim of discriminant analysis is to find the best linear combination of indepen- dent variables to classify cases. For this purpose, a set of cases with known group membership is used as a training set in order to select the best discriminating variables and to calculate the coefficients Bo...B, of the equation

D = Bo+B1 �9 XI+B2 �9 X 2 + . . . + B , " X, . Eq. (1)

From this equation, the discriminant score D can be computed for each case, with xl...x, representing the values of the variables used for classification. Based on the value of D, cases whose group membership is unknown may be classified into one of the groups and the significance of the classification may be calculated (James 1985; Norugis 1986).

In order to obtain such a classification rule for cutins and suberins, we formed a set of eight variables which were suggested by the qualitative properties outlined above. Variables were the mass percentages of all homologues of the following compound classes: 1-alkanols (variable symbol OL), monobasic (OIC), a, co-dibasic (DOIC), co-hydroxymonobasic (coOH), dihydroxymonobasic (DOH), trihydroxymonobasic (TOH) and epoxyhydroxymonobasic (EPO) alkanoic acids. Addi- tionally, the sum of the relative amounts of monomers

240 K. Ma tzke and M, Riederer: Compara t ive s tudy into cut ins and suber ins

Table 5. Relat ive compos i t i on a (in m a s s percents o f total) and d i sc r iminan t scores o f cut ins and suberins. - , no t detected

No. Species b Mater ia l OIC D O I C e)OH D O H T O H EPO C20 O L D r Ref. d

Initial t ra in ing set

Suber ins

1 Fagus sylvatica b r a n c h 10.8 11.8 21.1 2 Picea abies root 6.6 16.1 55.1 3 Picea abies s tem 17.0 24.7 46.5 4 Picea abies twig 8.3 21.0 63.1 5 Quercus robur s tem 4.1 6.2 45.2

Cu t in s

6 Fagus sylvatica leaf 47.1 4.6 7 Picea abies needles 3.8 - 18.8 8 Quercus robur leaf 10.8 - 10.8

Tes t set

Suber ins 9 Acer griseum cork layer 10.7 25.9 39.6

10 Acer pseudoplatanus cork layer 2.8 20.5 45.3 11 Agave americana crystal idioblast 7.8 34.8 32.0 12 Beta vulgaris roo t 18.0 16.0 29.0 13 Betula pendula cork layer - 8.0 21.6 14 Betula verrucosa fresh ba rk - 9.7 28.8 15 Betula verrucosa indust r ia l bark - 11.1 28.0 16 Brassica napobrassica roo t 4.0 22.0 36.0 17 Brassica rapa roo t 8.0 22.0 43.0 18 Castanea sativa cork layer 1.1 9.9 13.4 19 Cedrus libani bark 6.4 43.0 47.2 20 Citrus paradisi inner seed coat - 42.9 45.9 21 Cupressus laylandii cork layer 9.4 31.6 51.2 22 Daucus carota root 14.0 24.0 31.0 23 Euonymus alatus cork layer 6.2 24.0 61.2 24 Fagus sylvatica cork layer 4.4 11.9 18.7 25 Fraxinus excelsior cork layer 7.9 40.1 24.3 26 Gossypium hirsutum green fibres 3.4 15.3 78.7 27 Gossypium hirsutum green fibres 1.1 25.3 71.9 28 Gossypium hirsutum seed coat 2.9 3.8 75.7 29 Ipomoea batatas tuber 9.0 21.0 36.0 30 Laburnum anagyroides cork layer 1.5 21.8 48.6 31 Malus pumila root pe r ide rm 3.7 13.3 25.0 32 Maluspumila s tem bark (1 yr) 8.1 21.3 17.8 33 Malus pumila s tem ba rk (2 yrs) 9.3 17.8 18.8 34 Malus pumila s tem bark (3 yrs) 10.1 16.1 19.3 35 Maluspumila s tem bark (15 yrs) 8.8 13.1 16.8 36 Maluspumila s tem ba rk (15 yrs) 10.4 14.4 13.9 37 Pastinaca sativa roo t 14.0 27.0 30.0 38 Picea abies bark 15.6 31.3 50.6 39 Pinus silvestris bark 16.6 27.7 53.7 40 Populus tremula cork layer 6.2 27.8 54.5 41 Quercus ilex cork layer 6.0 10.5 23.9 42 Quercus robur bark 2.1 17.5 21.3 43 Quercus robur cork layer 2.0 15.1 21.3 44 Quercus robur rhy t idome 1.6 14.5 34.9 45 Quercus robur s apwood 1.3 17.2 35.2 46 Quercus suber cork layer 1.3 32.7 40.7 47 Ribes americanum cork layer 0.3 35.9 50.1 48 Ribes davidii cork layer 0.2 31.6 51.3 49 Ribesfuturum cork layer 0.5 29.2 52.7 50 Ribes grossularia cork layer 2.3 26.9 49.7 51 Ribes houghtonianum cork layer 0.3 30.6 50.8 52 Ribes nigrum cork layer 2.9 23.9 51.6 53 Ribes niyrum cork layer 4.0 20.2 49.7 54 Sambucus nigra cork layer 6.7 24.6 50.5 55 Solanum tuberosum cork layer 8,2 34.2 31.7 56 Solanum tuberosum tuber 11.1 32.0 35.3 57 Solanum tuberosum tuber 8,0 24.0 16.0 58 Zea mays bundle shea th 3~8 7.2 23.1

m

m

23.8 17.6 9.9 36.5 2.42** 29 - - 30.7 1.81" 29 - - 2.3 36.4 3.21"* 29 - - 1.1 23.6 2.35** 29

13.7 7.6 3.7 39.4 1.41" 29

17.4 2.0 12.3 0.5 2.9 - 2 . 4 3 * * 29 38.8 3.6 13.0 - - - 2.57** 29 26.8 1.4 30.5 - - - 2 . 6 3 " * 29

0.3 2.8 1.0

4.2 3.7 3.1

2.2 0.4

0.4

0.8 0.8

0.5

9.4 4.6 3.8 2.1 2.4 1.0 0.1

1.9 0.7 3.7 3.7

0.7 0.5 0.6 4.0 0.6 3.8 2.9 0.6

0.8

19.6

10.9 2.0 2.0 49.8 4 .31 ' * 17 3.5 2.1 4.7 33.9 2.72** 17 2.7 0.6 4.0 21.5 3.96** 27

- 6.0 23.4 1.35" 19 29.1 15.9 - 30.1 1.43" 17

9.4 36.0 - 23.2 0.60 6 7.8 37.9 - 23.7 0.74 6

- - 5.0 13.2 1.82" 19 - - 3.0 12.2 1.80" 19

31.9 12.8 3.9 16.8 1.32 ' 17 0.6 3.2 21.8 5.21"* 12 1.0 10.2 - 37.2 5.72** 10 - 0.1 3.6 29.9 4.01"* 17 - - 3.0 20.2 2.24* 19 1.6 1.0 1.5 51.0 3.96** 17

26.4 28.7 6.8 26.0 1.95"* 17 4.5 2.9 9.5 29.4 5.22** 17

- - 1.6 97.3 4.88** 24 - - 1.2 97.0 6.14"* 26 - - 15.5 95.0 3.68** 24 - - 4.0 10.8 1 . 5 4 * 19 1.2 0.3 1.5 14.5 1.82" 17

14.4 25.9 8.9 21.6 1.54" 16 19,2 16.0 9.5 26.5 3.00** 16 22.1 15.4 12.5 31.7 3.02** 16 24.8 11.5 12.9 34.2 3.02** 16 23.6 13.6 12.5 32.6 2.45** 16 38.8 2.8 9.5 31.4 3.12"* 16

- - 4.0 17.9 2.59** 19 - - 2.6 35.3 4.15"* 7 - - 1.8 39.6 3.84** 7 1.1 0.5 2.3 21.4 3.15"* 17

16.6 31.4 5.6 28.5 1.45" 17 25.3 22.7 2.4 16.2 2.09* 21 25.3 22.7 2.3 16.8 1.78" 17 24.0 10.6 5.1 24.8 2.32** 21

3.6 17.1 2.3 20.4 1.50" 21 5.4 15.3 2.3 37.1 4.51"* 17 1.3 - 0.7 17.1 4.00** 13 1.3 - 1.2 23.3 3.70** 13 1.3 1.9 31.5 3.75** 13 0.6 - 6.6 27.6 3.33** 13 1.1 - 1.2 26.5 3.67** 13 0.9 - 5.7 40.7 3.47** 13 1.6 1.2 6.2 40.2 2.97** 17 0.8 0.3 6.1 34.8 3.36** 17 - 0.5 11.1 28.4 4.32** 17 0.6 - 12.5 24.6 3.98** 3

- - 6.0 14.3 1.90" 18 6.0 4.6 22.7 22.6 0.67 9

K . M a t z k e a n d M . R i e d e r e r : C o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y i n t o c u t i n s a n d s u b e r i n s 241

"Fable 5. C o n t i n u e d

N o . S p e c i e s b M a t e r i a l O I C D O I C c o O H D O H T O H E P O C 2 0 O L D r R e f . d

C u t i n s

59 Agave americana l e a f 2 . 0 - - 10 .5 22 .1 . . . . 1 . 6 4 " * 1

60 Agave americana l e a f - - 2.1 15.3 19.3 5 0 . 2 - - - 1 . 8 0 " * 25

61 Agave americana l e a f - - 3 .9 2 0 . 7 3 7 . 5 18 .5 - - - 1 . 0 3 " 25

62 Agave americana l e a f - - 1.9 13.8 13 .5 5 2 . 0 - - - 2 . 0 4 * * 25

63 Allium cepa l e a f 9 . 6 - - 2 4 . 8 10 .4 . . . . 2 . 3 5 * * 1

64 Bryonia dioiea f r u i t 0 . 9 - 3 .9 53.2 10.9 . . . . . 2 . 6 5 * * 1

65 Bryonia dioica l e a f 5 9 . 6 - - 5 .9 . . . . . 2 . 5 7 * * 1

66 Chlorophytum elatum l e a f 2 . 4 - 2 .0 19.8 12 .7 . . . . 2 . 1 6 " * 1

67 Citrus aurantifolia l e a f 6 .3 - - 69 .3 . . . . . 3 . 4 0 * * 1

68 Citrus deliciosa f r u i t 1.0 - 6 3 . 0 3 4 . 0 . . . . . 2 . 0 4 ' * 2

69 Citrus deliciosa l e a f 9 . 0 - 10.1 7 9 . 0 . . . . . 3 . 3 9 * * 2

70 Citrus limon f r u i t 2 .0 - 6 3 . 0 3 0 . 0 . . . . . . 1 . 9 9 " * 2

71 Citrus limon l e a f 9 . 0 - 8 .0 8 2 . 0 . . . . . 3 . 4 6 * * 2

72 Citrusparadisi f r u i t p e e l - 1.1 2 .3 3 1 . 9 - - 2 . 4 - - 2 . 6 3 * * 10

73 Citrus paradisi i n n e r s e e d c o a t 0 .8 7 . 9 10 .9 2 . 0 3 4 . 0 43 .1 1.3 9 . 2 0 . 6 9 10

74 Citrusparadisi j u i c e - s a c 1.1 - 1 .2 30 .3 12.3 2 2 . 6 2 .5 - - 2 . 2 3 * * 10

75 Citrus paradisi l e a f 0 . 4 - 1 .4 8 9 . 5 2 .2 - 6 .2 - - 3 . 3 1 " * 10

76 Citrus reticulata f r u i t 1.0 - 3 4 . 0 6 2 . 0 . . . . . 2 . 8 2 * * 2

77 Citrus reticulata l e a f 10 .0 - 9 . 0 7 9 . 0 . . . . . 3 . 4 0 * * 2

78 Citrus sinensis f r u i t 1 .0 - 4 7 . 0 5 1 . 0 . . . . . 2 . 4 9 * * 2

79 Citrus sinensis l e a f 10 .0 - 7 .0 8 1 . 0 . . . . . 3 . 4 6 * * 2

80 Clematis vitalba l e a f 2 4 . 3 - - 3 0 . 2 7 .5 . . . . 2 . 5 5 * * 1

81 Clivia miniata l e a f 5 .0 3 .0 6 . 9 3 3 . 4 1.2 4 9 . 6 - 3 .9 - 2 . 2 0 " * 23

82 Coffea arabica l e a f 2 . 7 - 2 . 7 6 6 . 2 1 .0 - 0 . 6 2 .3 - 3 . 1 6 " * 28

83 Euonymus europaeus f r u i t 0 . 6 - 1 .0 2 3 . 9 17 .4 . . . . 2 . 0 2 * * 1

8 4 Euonymus europaeus l e a f 2 . 0 - 2 .3 2 4 . 2 14 .4 . . . . 2 . 1 3 " * 1

85 Ficus elastica l e a f - - 10 .5 18 .0 16 .9 5 4 . 5 - - - 1 . 8 2 " * 22

86 Gasteria planifolia l e a f 1.5 - - 19.3 2 6 . 3 . . . . 1 . 5 7 * 1

87 Gossypium hirsutum w h i t e f i b r e s 16 .0 - - 23 .1 - - 2 6 . 5 12.1 - 1 . 2 6 ' 26

88 Hordeum vulgare l e a f 1.1 - 5 .4 20 .1 10 .6 3 3 . 8 13 .3 1 .7 - 1 . 6 2 " * 8

89 Hordeum vulgare s e e d c o a t 0 . 9 - 12 .8 16 .2 9 .6 3 0 . 2 15 .5 0 .3 - 1 . 4 8 " 8

90 llex aquifolium f r u i t 1.6 - 1.5 11 .8 8 .6 . . . . 2 . 2 4 * * 1

91 Ilex aquifolium l e a f 1.5 - 3 .3 2 5 . 5 6 .3 . . . . 2 . 5 0 * * 1

9 2 Irisfoetidissima f r u i t 3 .3 - - 9 . 2 2 8 . 0 . . . . 1 . 36* 1

93 Irisfoetidissima l e a f 5 .7 - 4 . 5 3 1 . 4 . . . . . 2 . 8 4 * * l

9 4 Lactuca sativa l e a f 5 9 . 6 - - 4 . 2 . . . . . 2 . 5 5 * * 1

95 Lactuca sativa l e a f 3 .5 - 8 . 0 2 6 . 9 11 .6 2 4 . 2 12 .8 1.1 - 1 . 6 7 " * 8

96 Lactuca sativa s e e d c o a t 0 .9 - 17 .4 8.1 10 .5 2 1 . 5 13.1 - - 1 . 3 7 " 8

9 7 Lamium album l e a f 6 .9 - - 3 6 . 8 . . . . . 2 . 9 8 * * 1

98 Lycopersicon esculentum f r u i t 1.2 - 5 .2 71.1 2 . 6 . . . . 3 . 2 4 ' * 1

99 Lycopersicon esculentum l e a f 3 8 . 6 - - 5 .5 . . . . . 2 . 5 7 * * 1

100 Malus pumila f r u i t 2 . 4 - 4 .3 3 0 . 0 11.3 . . . . 2 . 3 2 * * 1

101 Maluspumila f r u i t 1 .4 - 3 .0 18 .9 6 .5 . . . . 2 . 4 1 " * 1

102 Malus pumila f r u i t 1.2 1.1 3 1 . 0 3 8 . 0 2 7 . 0 - - 0 . 2 - 1 . 1 8 " 5

103 Maluspumila f r u i t 1.7 1 .4 20 .1 2 3 . 8 15.1 3 4 . 8 - 15 .8 - 0 . 9 9 * 14

104 Malus pumila l e a f 1 .6 - 5.1 3 9 . 5 7 .6 . . . . 2 . 6 0 * * 1

105 Malus pumila l e a f 3 .8 - 6 . 5 3 6 . 8 7 .0 . . . . 2 . 5 7 * * 1

106 Malus zumi f r u i t 0 . 7 - - 2 0 . 5 2 6 . 5 . . . . 1 . 5 8 " 1

107 Malus zumi l e a f 5 ,3 - 6.1 3 8 . 2 5 . 4 . . . . 2 . 6 7 * * 1

108 Pinus radiata s t e m ( s u m m e r ) 16 .6 3 2 . 9 2 7 . 4 2 0 . 2 0 .1 - - 18 .0 2 . 9 6 11

109 Pinus radiata s t e m ( w i n t e r ) 12 .5 2 0 . 8 19.3 4 0 . 0 0 . 2 - - 7 .7 0 . 4 8 11

110 Pisum sativum l e a f 2 . 6 - 3 .8 3 7 . 2 3 .7 - 3 5 . 6 1.5 - 1 . 3 2 " 8

111 Pisum sativum s e e d c o a t 3 . 4 - 2 2 . 3 59.1 6 .5 3.1 4 . 2 0 . 9 - 2 . 4 6 * * 8

112 Rosa canina f r u i t 1.1 - 1.9 6 5 . 3 . . . . . 3 . 3 2 * * 1

113 Rosmarinus officinalis l e a f - - 5.1 4 9 . 5 3 4 . 9 . . . . 1 . 5 l * 4

114 Salix scouleriana l e a f 11 .0 - - 10.8 3 .9 . . . . 2 . 4 6 ' * 1

115 Sanseveria trifasciata l e a f 1.1 - 1 .2 10 .9 4 .9 . . . . 2 . 4 0 * * 1

116 Solanum tuberosum l e a f 16 .6 7 .5 4 .7 5 1 . 0 12,1 - 2 .9 5 .5 - 1 . 1 7 " 3

117 Spinacia oleracea l e a f 2 6 . 9 - - 2 .8 . . . . . 2 . 5 3 * * 1

118 Spinacia oleracea l e a f 0 . 9 9 . 4 3 .2 2 . 9 13 .4 6 4 . 3 - 0 . 4 - 0 . 5 7 * 15

119 Tamus communis f r u i t 5 .8 - - 2 1 . 9 2 0 . 8 . . . . 1 . 8 5 ' * 1

120 Tamus comrnunis l e a f 13.1 - - 18 .4 5 .9 . . . . 2 . 4 7 * * 1

121 Triticum aestivum i n n e r b r a n 2 .2 0.1 3 8 . 2 5 .0 3 .6 4 9 . 7 - 3 .2 - 1 . 7 1 " * 20

122 Triticum aestivum l e a f 2 6 . 5 - 3 .3 2 1 . 5 - 3 6 , 7 - 2 2 . 5 - 1 . 7 9 " * 20

123 Triticum aestivum o u t e r b r a n 3 7 . 7 - 17.3 9 .8 - 3 1 , 9 - - - 2 . 3 8 " * 20

124 Vitis vinifera f r u i t 3 .3 - - 17 .9 14 .0 . . . . 2 . 1 0 ' * 1

242

T a b l e 5. Continued

K. Matzke and M. Riederer: Comparative study into cutins and suberins

No. Species b Material OIC DOIC coOH DOH TOH EPO C20 OL D c Ref. d

125 Vitis vinifera fruit 2.2 - - 16.7 7.5 . . . . 2.38** 1 126 Vitis vinifera leaf 5.5 - 4.4 21.1 3.6 - - -2.55** 1 127 Vitis vinifera leaf 35.4 - - 15.4 3.4 . . . . 2.54** 1 128 Zea mays leaf 3.0 - 32.4 13.7 2.7 18.5 8.0 1.0 - 1.74"* 8 129 Zea mays leaf 1.7 1.0 32.4 13.7 - 18.5 7.8 3.9 - 1.61"* 9 130 Zea mays seed coat 2.8 - 56.9 20.0 7.3 2.6 1.4 2.7 - 1.45" 8

" O I C , n-alkanoic acids; DOIC, c~r acids; o)OH, o)-hy- droxyalkanoic acids; DOH, dihydroxyalkanoic acids; TOH, trihydroxyalkanoic acids; EPO, epoxyhydroxyalkanoic acids; OL, 1-alkanols; C20, compounds with chain-length > C2o b Systematic names as given by original authors c Discriminant scores calculated from the mass percents by using Eq. 3). Posterior probabilities of group membership are indicated by *, 0.9900<P(GID)< 1.0000 and **, P(GID)= 1.0000

Data taken and partially recalculated from: 1, Baker and Holloway (1970); 2, Baker and Procopiou (1975); 3, Brieskorn and Binnemann (1975); 4, Brieskorn and Kabelitz (1971); 5, Eglington and Hunneman

(1968); 6, Ekman (1983); 7, Ekman and Reunanen (1983); 8, Espelie et al. (1979); 9,Espelie and Kolattukudy (1979); 10, Espelie et al. (1980); 11, Franich and Volkman (1982); 12, Hafizoglu and Reunanen (1987); 13, Holloway (1972); 14, Holloway (1973); 15, Holloway (1974); 16, Holloway (1982a); 17, Holloway (1983); 18, Kolattukudy and Agrawal (1974); 19, Kolattukudy et al. (1975); 20, Matzke and Riederer (1990); 21, Pearce and Holloway (1984); 22, Riederer and Sch6nherr (1986); 23, Riederer and Sch6nherr (1988a); 24, Ryser and Holloway (1985); 25, Wattendorffand Holloway (1982); 26, Yatsu et al. (1983); 27, Espelie et al. (1982); 28, Holloway et al. (1972); 29, this work

with chain-length > C2o was calculated as a fur ther variable (C20).

The initial t raining set for discriminating cutins and suberins consisted o f eight cases (three cutins, five suberins) which were taken f rom the results in Tables 1 4 (Table 5, cases 1-8). A stepwise variable selection procedure based on minimizing Wilks ' l ambda (maxi- m u m tolerance level: 0.001, m i n i m um F to enter: 1.00, m in imum F to remove: 1.00) was applied to choose those variables which significantly cont r ibuted to the charac- ter izat ion o f cutins and suberins (Norugis 1986). F o u r ou t o f eight variables were selected by this procedure and were subsequently used to calculate the following canonical discr iminant funct ion:

D = - 17.58+ 1.10 �9 O L + 0 . 3 4 - e0OH+ + 0 . 2 7 �9 C 2 0 - 0.19 �9 D O H Eq. (2)

The discr iminant scores calculated f rom Eq. 2 using the g roup means o f each o f the four variables (group centroids) are 11.12 for suberin and - 1 8 . 5 4 for cutin. Apply ing this equa t ion individually to the eight cases included into the analysis gives values o f discriminant scores ranging f rom 9.71 to 12.77 and f rom - 18.01 to - 19.02 for suberins and cutins, respectively. All cases o f the t raining set were classified correct ly when Eq. 2 was applied.

This discr iminant funct ion having been established on a ra ther na r row da ta base, it seemed desirable to check its per formance . Therefore, a large test set o f data on the compos i t ion o f the two biopolymers in quest ion was compiled f rom literature da ta on 72 cutins and 50 suberins (Table 5). Equa t ion 2 was applied to the test set and the discr iminant scores were calculated. The mos t p robab le g roup membersh ip o f each case was determined f rom the discr iminant score (for further informat ion see Norugis 1986). 90.2% of all cases in the test set were classified correct ly (94.0 % o f all suberins and 87.5 % of all cutins in the set). This result was encouraging because it

showed that a relatively simple equat ion (Eq. 2) based on a fairly small training set rather effectively distinguishes between cutins and suberins f rom very diverse sources.

For the purpose o f expanding the data base the canonical discriminant funct ion was calculated from, all data (initial training and test sets) were merged and another run o f the procedures for variable selection (same criteria as above) and estimating the coefficients o f the discriminant funct ion was performed. Now, two addit ional variables ( D O I C and T O H ) were selected. The new canonical discriminant funct ion correctly classified all but three o f the 130 cases in the merged set.

The three misclassified cases were "cut in" f rom one- year-old stems of Pinus radiata, grown under summer (case number 108) and winter (case 109) condit ions (Fra- nich and Volkman 1982), respectively, and "cut in" f rom the non-chalazal region of the inner seed coat o f grapefruit (case 73; Espelie et al. 1980). F r o m the data (Table 5) it is very likely that the material o f Pinus radiata consisted o f much more suberin than cutin, p robab ly owing to the initiation o f per iderm format ion below a superficial cover o f a cuticle. The b iopolymer f rom the seed coat o f grapefruit was considered by the authors to be cutin because o f its high content o f polar acids. How- ever, addit ional significant amoun t s o f long-chain and dicarboxylic acids imply that this b iopolymer was pos- sibly a mixture o f cutin and suberin. In conclusion, all three outliers must be assumed to be derived f rom more than a single b iopolymer source.

Thus, these three cases were excluded f rom further computa t ions . Ano the r discriminant equat ion was fitted to the remaining 127 cases:

D = - 2 . 4 9 + 0 . 1 4 . D O I C + 0 . 0 4 5 - T O H + 0 . 0 4 2 - C 2 0 + +0.039 �9 O L + 0 . 0 1 4 . a ) O H - 0 . 0 1 3 �9 D O H Eq. (3)

The canonical correlat ion (in the two-group si tuation o f discriminant analysis equivalent to the usual Pearson correlat ion coefficient) is 0.9318 which indicates that


0.16

0 c- G)

O- q)

m

0 . 1 2

0.08

0 . 0 4

0.00

n Cutin

r----] Suberin

>k Group centroid.~

i

HHIH IH( 4

| II b I ' I

~-2 0 2

D i s c r i m i n a n t S c o r e s Fig. 3. Frequency distribution of the discriminant scores and group centroids calculated from the discriminant equation (Eq. 3) for the merged data set (Table 5, except cases 73, 108 and 109). Negative scores are indicative of cutins, positive ones of suberins

83.5% of the total variance of discriminant scores are attributable to the differences among the groups. The discriminant scores from Eq. 3 calculated for all 127 cases form two clearly distinct frequency distributions (Fig. 3). All discriminant scores for cutin samples are negative (D at the centroid of the cutin group: -2.23) while those for suberins are positive (D at suberin centroid: 2.91).

Since all variables included in Eq. 3 were measured in identical units (mass percent), the effect of the different variables on the discriminant scores and consequently on group membership can be evaluated directly from the coefficients of this equation. All variables with a positive coefficient (DOIC, TOH, C20, OL, o)OH) are variables indicative of suberin while a negative sign marks the variable indicating cutin (DOH). The large negative con- stant Bo ensures that minor amounts of dibasic, trihy- droxy-, o)-hydroxymonobasic or long-chain alkanoic acids or of 1-alkanols sometimes occurring also in cutin depolymerisates will not result in a misclassification of these samples.

Applying Eq. 3 to the total data base (cases 73, 108 and 109 excluded) results in a 100% correct classification of the 127 cases. Success in classifying cases, however, is only one criterion for the goodness of a classification rule. Another one, which is equally important for the practical usefulness of the rule is the statistical reliability of group assignments. The probability that a case with a discriminant score of D belongs to one of the two groups can be estimated by Bayes' rule (Norugis 1986). When group membership is unknown, what is needed is an estimate of how likely membership in one of the two groups is, given the available information. This likeliness is called the posterior probability. When applying Eq. 3

to the total data base, the posterior probabilities of 97.6% of the cases were > 0.990 (Table 5). Only three cases were classified with posterior probabilities below this limit. Thus, Eq. 3 is both a very precise and reliable classification rule. This is surprising and reassuring in view of the diversity of the materials included in this study and the differences in the analytical methods used to produce the data.

Robustness and bias, i.e. the impact single cases have on the classification rule, are further criteria which must be considered. Both were evaluated by a Tukey's jack- knife-like procedure: using the variables included in Eq. 3, 127 different discriminant equations were calculated from the merged data set with each of the cases left out once in turn. Subsequently, the discriminant score was calculated for the case which had been left out when estimating the coefficients of the discriminant function. All left-out cases were classified correctly which indicated (i) that none of the cases exerted an undue influence on the discriminant function, and (ii) that the classification rule based on the variables chosen by a stepwise selection procedure using Wilks' lambda was fairly robust. Thus, Eq. 3 seems to be suitable for the inarbitrary classification of cutins and suberins according to quantitative data on the monomeric composition of depolymerisates of lipid biopolymers.

The classification rule expressed by Eq. 3 generally confirms the qualitative rules derived from more limited data sets (Kolattukudy and Agrawal 1974; Holloway 1983; Kolattukudy 1984). It had been proposed that suberins were sufficiently characterized by the presence of significant proportions of dicarboxylic and very long- chain (C2o to C3o) acids. Holloway (1983) considered the proportion of monomers with chain-lengths > C18 as the most important single criterion indicative of suberin. In fact, 95.3 % of all cases in Table 5 were classified correctly when C20 was used as the only variable. When DOIC was also included, 98.4% of the 127 cases were assigned to their actual group. The reliability of a simplified classification rule based only on C20, however, is significantly reduced when compared to that of Eq. 3. Using only a single variable, the posterior probabilities for classification are generally much lower. Only 41% of all cases are assigned to one of the two groups with a probability > 0.990 (69 % > 0.950) which contrasts sharply with the excellent significance of the classification based on Eq. 3 (see above).

Moreover, discriminant analysis also revealed some deficiencies of formerly proposed classification criteria. Large amounts of polar compounds including epoxy-, dihydroxy-, and trihydroxyalkanoic acids had been fre- quently suggested as distinctive characteristics for distinguishing between both types of biopolymers (Kolat- tukudy and Agrawal 1974; Espelie et al. 1980; Kolat- tukudy 1984). However, our results clearly show that only the presence of dihydroxyhexadecanoic acids in depolymerisates is a useful single indicator for cutin. Additionally, the results obtained in our comparative study suggest that the differences between the monomeric composition of the aliphatic portions of cutin and suberin are much less clear cut than previously assumed.


A reliable classification of depolymerisates from the two lipid polymers is only possible when based on a multivariate rule taking into account several qualitative and quantitative properties.

As a consequence of the principal similarity of the aliphatic portions ofcut in and suberin a critical reevalua- tion of the methods used up to now for investigating the structures of both biopolymers seems to be appropriate. Unless radically new procedures will be developed in the future, the current methods relying on rather crude depolymerization procedures appear to have reached their limitations. They indeed are valuable tools for analyzing the qualitative and quantitative composition of the aliphatic portions of these polymers but are unable to allow deeper insights into the modes of cross-linking and the physical structures of cutin and suberin in situ. A major drawback of these methods is that they cannot provide any information on the interrelationships between aliphatic monomers and the non-lipid components of cuticles and periderms like polysaccharides or amino and phenolic acids. Schreiber and Sch6nherr (1990) recently have reported that the courses of the thermal expansion of extracted cuticular membranes (matrix membranes) and of pure cutin preparations were markedly different. They concluded that the cuticular matrix is a composite material whose physical properties are influenced in a non-additive way by the components present. Special importance has been attributed to the effects of cutin/ polysaccharide interactions.

Therefore, the results from this study unfortunately cannot be used to resolve the continuing debate on the validity of the structural formulas proposed for cutin and suberin (Kolattukudy 1980a, 1980b, 1981, 1984). Those proposals should be considered rather as illustrations of cross-linking reactions being possible within the polymers than as representations of their actual physical structures. The same is true for the discussion concerning the role of phenolic constituents in both suberin and cutin. This question cannot be answered as long as destructive methods of investigation are used. All depolymerization procedures will inevitably and indiscriminate- ly release considerable amounts of phenolics from periderms. Owing to the heterogeneity of this material there is no way of deciding on the actual origin of these phenolics. Besides suberin, cell walls and lignified parts must also be considered as possible sources of covalently bound phenolics.

Progress in elucidating the physical structures of cutins and suberins seems only to be achievable if non- destructive and more direct methods of investigation will supplement the current knowledge on the qualitative and quantitative composition of these biopolymers. Initial promising results have been obtained by applying advanced techniques of solid-state nuclear-magnetic- resonance spectroscopy to cutin samples (Zlotnik-Mazo- ri and Stark 1988; Garbow and Stark 1990).

The authors are indebted to Drs. J. Winkler and H. Krause (Lab- oratorium ffir Strukturchemie des Fachbereichs Chemie, Biologie und Geowissenschaften, Technische Universitfit Mfinchen, Garch- ing, FRG) for performing capillary gas chromatography-mass

spectrometry and their valuable help in the identification of cutin and suberin constituents. The work was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Bayerisches Staats- ministerium ffir Unterricht, Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst.

References

Baker, E.A., Holloway, P.J. (1970) The constituent acids of angio- sperm cutins. Phytochemistry 9, 1557-1562

Baker, E.A., Procopiou, J. (1975) The cuticles of Citrus species. Composition of the intracuticular lipids of leaves and fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 26, 1347-1352

Brieskorn, C.H., Binnemann, P.H. (1975) Carbons/iuren und AI- kanole des Cutins und Suberins von Solanum tuberosum. Phy- tochemistry 14, 1363-1367

Brieskorn, C.H., Kabelitz, L. (1971) Hydroxyfetts/iuren aus dem Cutin des Blattes von Rosmarinus officinalis. Phytochemistry 10, 3195-3204

Eglinton, G., Hunneman, D.H. (1968) Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric studies of long chain hydroxy acids - I. The constituent acids of apple cuticle. Phytochemistry 7, 313-322

Ekman, R. (1983) The suberin monomers and triterpenoids from the outer bark of Betula verrucosa Ehrh. Holzforschung 37, 205-211

Ekman, R., Reunanen, M. (1983) Composition of aliphatic monomers from the outer bark. Suberin of Norway spruce and Scots pine. Finn. Chem. Lett. 1983, 166-168

Espelie, K.E., Kolattukudy, P.E. (1979) Composition of the aliphatic components of "suberin" from the bundle sheaths of Zea mays leaves. Plant Sci. Lett. 15, 225-230

Espelie, K.E., Dean, B.B., Kolattukudy, P.E. (1979) Composition of lipid-derived polymers from different anatomical regions of several plant species. Plant Physiol. 64, 1089 1093

Espelie, K.E., Davis, R.W., Kolattukudy, P.E. (1980) Composition, ultrastructure and function of the cutin- and suberin-containing layers in the leaf, fruit peel, juice-sac and inner seed coat of grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfed.). Planta 149, 498-511

Espelie, K.E., Wattendorff, J., Kolattukudy, P.E. (1982) Com- position and ultrastructure of the suberized cell wall of isolated crystal idioblasts from Agave americana L. leaves. Planta 155, 166-175

Franich, R.A., Volkman, J.K. (1982) Constituent acids of Pinus radiata stem cutin. Phytochemistry 21, 2687-2689

Garbow, J.R, Stark, R.E. (1990) Nuclear magnetic resonance re- laxation studies of plant polyester dynamics: 1. Cutin from limes. Macromolecules 23, 2814-2819

Hafizoglu, H., Reunanen, M. (1987) Studies on the chemistry of Cedrus libani A. Rich. IV. Suberin composition of the cedar bark. Holzforschung 41,261-263

Holloway, P.J. (1972) The suberin composition of the cork layers from some Ribes species. Chem. Phys. Lipids 9, 171-179

Holloway, P.J. (1973) Cutins of Malus pumila fruits and leaves. Phytochemistry 12, 2913 2920

Holloway, P.J. (1974) Intracuticular lipids of spinach leaves. Phy- tochemistry 13, 2201-2207

Holloway, P.J. (1982a) Suberins of Malus pumila stem and root corks. Phytochemistry 21, 2517 2522

Holloway, P.J. (1982b) The chemical constitution of plant cutins. In: The plant cuticle, pp. 45-85. Cutler, D.F., Alvin, K.L., Price, C.E., eds. Academic Press, London

Holloway, P.J. (1983) Some variation in the composition of suberin from the cork layers of higher plants. Phytochemistry 22, 495-502

Holloway, P.J. (1984) Cutins and suberins, the polymeric plant lipids. In : CRC handbook of chromatography, lipids, vo 1.1, pp. 321-345, Mangold, H.K., Zweig, G., Sherma, J., eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., USA

Holloway, P.J., Deas, A.H.B., Kabaara, A.M. (1972) Composition of cutin from coffee leaves. Phytochemistry 11, 1443-1447


James, M. (1985) Classification algorithms. Collins, London K6gel-Knabner, I., Ziegler, F., Riederer, M., Zech, W. (1989) Dis-

tribution and decomposition pattern of cutin and suberin in forest soils. Z. Pflanzenernfihr. Bodenk. 152, 409-413

Kolattukudy, P.E. (1980a) Biopolyester membranes of plants: cutin and suberin. Science 208, 990-1000

Kolattukudy, P.E. (1980b) Cutin, suberin, and waxes. In: The biochemistry of plants, vol. 4, Lipids structure and function, pp. 571-645, Stumpf, P.K., ed. Academic Press, New York

Kolattukudy, P.E. (1981) Structure, biosynthesis, and biodegrada- tion of cutin and suberin. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 32, 539-567

Kolattukudy, P.E. (1984) Biochemistry and function of cutin and suberin. Can. J. Bot. 62, 2918 2933

Kolattukudy, P.E., Agrawal, V.P. (1974) Structure and composition of aliphatic constituents of potato tuber skin (suberin). Lipids 9, 682-691

Kolattukudy, P.E., Kronman, K., Poulose, A.J. (1975) Determina- tion of structure and composition of suberin from the roots of carrot, parsnip, rutabaga, turnip, red beet, and sweet potato by combined gas-liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Plant Physiol. 55, 567 573

Matzke, K., Riederer, M. (1990) The composition of the cutin of the caryopses and leaves of Triticum aestivum L. Planta 182, 461-466

Norugis, M.J. (1986) SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics. SPSS Inc., Chicago

Pearce, R.B., Holloway, P.J. (1984) Suberin in the sapwood of oak (Quercus robur L.): its composition from a compartmentaliza- tion barrier and its occurrence in tyloses in undecayed wood. Physiol. Plant Pathol. 24, 71-81

Riederer, M., Sch6nherr, J. (1986) Quantitative gas chromato-

graphic analysis of methyl esters of hydroxy fatty acids derived from plant cutin. J. Chromatogr. 360, 151 161

Riederer, M., Sch6nherr, J. (1988a) Development of plant cuticles: fine structure and cutin composition of Clivia miniata Reg. leaves. Planta 174, 127-138

Riederer, M., Sch6nherr, J. (1988b) Covalent binding of chemicals to plant cuticles. Quantitative determination of epoxide contents of cutins. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17, 21-25

Riederer, M., Kurbasik, K., Steinbrecher, R., Voss, A. (1988) Sur- face areas, length and volumes ofPicea abies (L.) Karst. needles: determination, biological variability and effect of environmental factors. Trees 2, 165-172

Ryser, U., Holloway, P.J. (1985) Ultrastructure and chemistry of soluble and polymeric lipids in cell walls from seed coats and fibres of Gossypium species. Planta 163, 151-163

Sch6nherr, J., Riederer, M. (1989) Foliar penetration and accu- mulation of organic chemicals in plant cuticles. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 108, 1-70

Schreiber, L., Sch6nherr, J. (1990) Phase transitions and thermal expansion coefficients of plant cuticles: The effects of temperature on structure and function. Planta 182, 186-193

Wattendorff, J., Holloway, P.J. (1982) Studies on the ultrastructure and histochemistry of plant cuticles: Isolated cuticular mem- brane preparations of Agave americana L. and effects of various extraction procedures. Ann. Bot. 49, 769-804

Yatsu, L.Y., Espelie, K.E., Kolattukudy, P.E. (1983) Ultrastruc- tural and chemical evidence that the cell wall of green cotton fiber is suberized. Plant Physiol. 73, 521-524

Zlotnik-Mazori, T., Stark, R.E. (1988) Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of cutin, an insoluble plant polyester. Macromolecules 21,241~2417

a comparative study into the chemical constitution of cutins and suberins from picea abies (l.)...

Documents