Increased Carotenoid and Beta-Carotene Levels in

Phaseolus lunatus (Lima Beans) Grown under Ultraviolet Light

 

 

Stephanie Brown, Megan Wendt, and Nick Smith

 

Abstract:ÊÊ Our goal in stream one was to determine the effects of excess ultraviolet (UV) light on lima bean plants, their pigment, carbohydrate, and protein production.Ê We began by growing three sets of bean plants, one grown without light, one with light, and one with high levels of UV-B light.Ê We first tested the plants for differences in carbohydrates using Benedictâs test for reducing sugars, Barfoedâs test for monosaccharides, and an Iodine test for starch.Ê Quantitatively measuring precipitate mass showed that plants grown in the absence of light contained the lowest levels of carbohydrates, the plants grown under normal light contained the most, and the UV-B exposed plants fell in between as we predicted.Ê Next we tested the plants for varying pigment levels.Ê Using paper chromatography and a spectrophotometer to determine the action spectrum for each set of plants, we determined that the plants with the most carotenoids, seems to be those subjected to the UV-B treatment, supporting our original hypothesis.Ê The amount of carotenoids in the normal plants was slightly lower, and plants grown with no light contained no pigment.Ê Finally, we measured total protein concentration using a Bradford protein assay.Ê According to our results, plants subjected to UV-B exposure had the highest levels of protein, followed by plants grown under normal light, and plants grown in the dark contained the lowest levels.Ê Overall, we concluded that UV light has the most effect on the production of carotenoids and proteins, while plants grown under normal light produced the most carbohydrates.

 

Figure:

Figure 1: This picture shows the effects of growing the same lima bean plants is three different light environments. On the far left the plants shown were grown under normal white light. In the middle the lima beans were grown under UV-B lights. On the right the lima beans were grown in no light. The UV-B lights caused the lima beans to produce plants that have high levels of carotene pigment, which caused the plants to be dark orange. The lima bean plants grown in the dark have no pigment, which is why the plants are white.

 

Discussion:ÊÊ The hypotheses we made for our project were: Lima bean plants grown under normal light will produce greater amounts of carbohydrates, chlorophyll pigments, and protein. Lima bean plants grown under UV light will produce lesser amounts of carbohydrates and proteins, but greater amount of carotenoids and protective pigments such as β-carotene. Lima bean plants grown in no light will produce the smallest amounts of carbohydrates, pigments, and protein.Ê We made these predictions thinking that plants grown under normal conditions would be the healthiest and therefore the best at producing chlorophyll, which powers photosynthesis, which creates energy for protein synthesis.Ê The UV group however should, according to our research, produce more carotenoids and β-carotene to protect itself from the destructive wavelength, while plants grown in the dark would have little use for chlorophyll and thus have less pigment.Ê

To test these hypotheses we devised a project that performs tests involving carbohydrates, pigments, and protein.Ê With increasing amounts of UV-B light coming through the ozone, it is apparent that plants will begin to strengthen themselves against these harmful rays. (Davidson et al. 2002).Ê After performing our experiments we were able to conclude that plants expose to ultraviolet light will produce more carotenoids and carotene pigments for protection. The question that we were seeking to answer was: Does excess UV light have an affect on the production of carbohydrates, pigments and protein in lima bean plants? We devised a project that would answer just that question.

The carbohydrate tests we performed were Benedictâs test, Barfoedâs test, and iodine test (Krha et al. 2004). We predicted that precipitate would form in Benedictâs and Barfoedâs tests indicating the presence of reducing sugars and monosaccharides that are reducing sugars.Ê We also predicted that we would have the greatest mass of precipitate from the plants grown in normal light, the second most from UV light, and lowest for the plants grown in the dark.Ê We predicted that the absorption for the iodine test would be greatest for the normal light control group, the UV light would have second highest, and no light control group would have the lowest absorption. After performing each test our predictions were accurate only for Benedictâs test.Ê Benedictâs test did produce a copper precipitate (Figure 1).Ê After filtering and drying the precipitate, we weighed and found the mass of the precipitate to be the highest for the plants grown under normal light with 0.181 g, the second highest for the plants grown under UV light with 0.136 g, and the lowest for the plants grown with no light 0.081 g (Figure 2, Table 2).Ê We suggest that the sugar content is proportional to the amount of precipitate from Benedictâs test, normal light being the greatest and the absence of light being the lowest with UV light in the middle.Ê Therefore, sugar production is greater in normal light (Krha et al., 2004).

Ê Because Barfoedâs test produced a white precipitate that was not expected, it provided no conclusive evidence for us (Figure 3).Ê The sugars tested were not primarily monosaccharides (Krha et al. 2004).Ê The precipitate that did form we weighed and found UV light to weigh the most at 0.175g, dark next at 0.157g, and normal light last at 0.116g (Figure 4, Table 2).Ê Because this precipitate was an unknown substance, we do not know what caused the reaction or what precipitate formed and cannot use this information to support our claims, only to refute our predictions of Barfoedâs test.Ê

The iodine test indicated that all of the plants contained starch, as a color change indicates the presence of coiled polysaccharides (Figure 5).Ê Our results from running our iodine test solutions through the spectrophotometer were not as expected.Ê Plants grown under UV light had greatest transmittance and an intermediate absorbance.Ê Plants grown in normal light had the second highest transmittance and the lowest absorbance, and plants grown with no light had the lowest transmittance and highest absorbance.Ê This indicates that the solution of the plants grown in the dark had the greatest absorption difference, absorbing the most light, and the darkest color change due to the iodine test: therefore, the most starch.Ê Normal light followed.Ê Ultraviolet light contained the least starch.Ê This was not what we expected to find.Ê Either our predictions were ill-founded due to an error in reasoning or our tests were not accurate due to color change and differing absorption rates because of the excess IKI added intended to test for a color change or other unknown factors.

ÊPaper chromatography was done to determine what pigments are in each sample (Krha et al. 2004). We predicted that the normal light plants would produce the highest levels of chlorophyll; the UV light plants would have the highest levels of carotene; and the no light plants would have very little pigment if any. After analyzing the strips we found large amounts chlorophyll in the normal light plants.Ê We found this reasonable because light stimulates the production of chlorophyll during the light phases of photosynthesis (Freeman 2002).Ê The UV light plants showed large amounts of orange β-carotene and yellow carotenoids, which are produced by plants for protection from harmful light rays (Davidson 2002). The plants grown in no light had little to no pigment in them (Figure 6).Ê There was no quantitative way to measure pigment levels.Ê We made these assumptions qualitatively based on the appearance of our strips.Ê

The action spectrum was run to determine how well the plants photosynthesized.Ê As photolysis takes place, the solution which contains blue dye is bleached as a result of the reaction.Ê A greater color change, as determined by spectrophotometry, indicates that chloroplasts are undergoing more photosynthesis.Ê We saw that our lowest absorption readings were for plants grown in the dark, while the UV group had the second highest, and the white light group had the highest.Ê These results suggest that the plants grown in the dark were the best at photosynthesizing while the normal light group was the slowest.Ê To explain these results we could hypothesize that after going without light for so long this group might have been preparing to whenever it finally could.Ê Another argument would be that since the solution made using the white light group was a dark green color to begin with, while the dark room group was nearly white, the absorption would obviously be higher and make it seem as though they were photosynthesizing less.

The next set of test we performed was for the presence of protein. The test we ran was the Bradford Protein Assay in which we find the concentrations of protein in the different experimental groups (Krha et al., 2004). Normal light was predicted to have the highest concentration of protein; UV light would have the second highest, while no light was predicted to have the least amount of protein. After performing the test we found the average protein concentrations for the UV plants to be the highest at approximately 3.85 μg/μl, normal light plants were the second highest at 2.46 μg/μl , and no light plants had the least 1.73 μg/μl (Figure 7, Table 6).Ê Protein concentration in UV plants being the highest suggests that normal cell functions were not taking place.Ê The UV light could have stimulated production of certain proteins as a defense or perhaps the destructive force of the UV light damaged the plant so much that extra protein was produced to make repairs.

After performing all the different tests, we concluded that the data supported our hypothesis in nearly all the tests. Many problems arose while performing the different experiments, however. If this experiment was to be repeated we would recommend doing more repetitions of each test. Also, some of the tests we preformed were not conclusive because we could not control factors such as excess plant residue in our solutions as well as samples that contained plant components that cause secondary reactions in our experiments.Ê Due to a lack of time, we felt like more accurate data could have been attained if we had had more time to perform alternate experiments. Another problem that occurred was not enough time was allotted for the lima beans to grow reasonable sized plants.Ê Other than these problems, we felt that this project was very successful in answering our question.Ê

All one need do is look at the pictures of our plants to see the effects UV light can have on the environment.Ê If the hole in the ozone is indeed getting larger what could happen if it where to spread to places other than the arctic?Ê Without the protection of the ozone layer dangerous wavelengths of UV light could destroy crops and forests worldwide leading not only to famine, but deforestation and the destruction of entire ecosystems.