• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Evolution of drugs in plants

fryingsquirrel

fryingsquirrel

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
2,805
In a word, why? What does a poppy gain from producing morphine? Not just morphine, thc, psilocybin, whatever...
 
As far as I know it's a defense mechanism, or at least cannabinoids in Cannabis and mescaline in various cacti. I recall reading in one of Jonathan Ott's works that as the cacti was near death (dehydrated, injured, etc.) it would increase mescaline content. This is to my understanding, I could be wrong.
 
Well nicotine is a well known insecticide + pesticide to certain species so I *think* from reading that is it's primary reason for existance. Taking a wild guess psilocybin probably helps disuade animals from munching too often? (or possibly it has an internal use) Not sure about morphine

There will always be logic somewhere down the wider evolutionary path whether we understand it or not. In fact looking at it from an evolutionary perspective it's interesting to note that for example cannabis plants have furthered and possibly guaranteed their future existance through a commensal symbiotic relationship with humans.
 
Last edited:
Seems to make sense, at least for everything except thc. That certainly doesn't deter animals from eating pot plants, as I learned the hard way.
 
Maybe you want to have a look at this thread of mine. The topic was "The Purpose of Psilocybine in Nature?".

Anybody with new insight might post in fryingsquirrel's thread though.


- Murphy
 
@Frying
Well you need to consider not all animals will react the same way to the same chemical. Cannabinoids or THC might be pleasant for some however they could be dissuading to others.

@Thread
Two other aspects that shouldn't be overlooked are; first, not everything involved in the evolutionary process was done with a purpose. A mutation that was "neutral", neither helping nor hindering, could have stuck around over time. Second, it's possible certain compounds once had a purpose but now have been 'outgrown' though not discontinued.
 
Astavats said:
@Thread
Two other aspects that shouldn't be overlooked are; first, not everything involved in the evolutionary process was done with a purpose. A mutation that was "neutral", neither helping nor hindering, could have stuck around over time. Second, it's possible certain compounds once had a purpose but now have been 'outgrown' though not discontinued.
Click to expand...

Entirely agree hence my "wider evolutionary" phrase although probably should have made that clearer.
 
Just a thought - no real science behind it: Just look at what lengths do humans go toward reproducing, protecting, and refining Cannabis, Coca, and poppies? While with things like Tobacco it is clearly a double-blessing that Nicotine is both desirable to animals that domesticate it as well as being a defense against smaller animals, with more vague things like Morphine, I find it difficult to imagine it produced for any reason other than to make the plant more attractive to other creatures... for said creatures, keeping these plants alive and well is of paramount importance.

So what I'm saying is perhaps these chemicals are produced (or, if you prefer, have overtime been selected for) for no reason other than to facilitate symbiosis, when seen from the perspective that the continuity of the whole species takes precedence over the protection of a single individual?
 
Obviously that is a huge advantage now, but I assume poppies were producing morphine long before humans discovered it's presence. Unless people have been in a symbiotic relationship with these plants far longer than I realize.
 
Astavats said:
@Thread
Two other aspects that shouldn't be overlooked are; first, not everything involved in the evolutionary process was done with a purpose. A mutation that was "neutral", neither helping nor hindering, could have stuck around over time. Second, it's possible certain compounds once had a purpose but now have been 'outgrown' though not discontinued.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. Really everything in nature has a purpose; the question is if science has discovered it yet or not. Per definition there can't be something with a 'neutral' value. It's sheer presence is hindering the organism in the never-ending contest called 'survival of the fittest'. For every biological entity you need precursors, energy and enzymes that produce it. If it does absolutely nothing useful, it must be, therefore, useless resp. downright disadvantageous, because it spends resources that could be used better otherwise.

Jamshyd said:
Just a thought - no real science behind it: Just look at what lengths do humans go toward reproducing, protecting, and refining Cannabis, Coca, and poppies? While with things like Tobacco it is clearly a double-blessing that Nicotine is both desirable to animals that domesticate it as well as being a defense against smaller animals, with more vague things like Morphine, I find it difficult to imagine it produced for any reason other than to make the plant more attractive to other creatures... for said creatures, keeping these plants alive and well is of paramount importance.

So what I'm saying is perhaps these chemicals are produced (or, if you prefer, have overtime been selected for) for no reason other than to facilitate symbiosis, when seen from the perspective that the continuity of the whole species takes precedence over the protection of a single individual?
Click to expand...
Nah! Very unlikely. Humans really love to think of themselves as the center of the universe. I can't see any rational reason for human involvement in evolution as described above. We are certainly involved in the evolution of tapeworms and Plasmodium, but Cannabis and Papaver existed long before mankind had discovered their effects. In the Middle East, where Cannabis is widely distributed naturally, it can even be a local pest, growing everywhere.

This was all suggested before and - as I see it - was rejected. Nonetheless I'm glad that this discussion has come back to life.


- Murphy
 
MurphyClox said:
I have to disagree. Really everything in nature has a purpose; the question is if science has discovered it yet or not. Per definition there can't be something with a 'neutral' value. It's sheer presence is hindering the organism in the never-ending contest called 'survival of the fittest'. For every biological entity you need precursors, energy and enzymes that produce it. If it does absolutely nothing useful, it must be, therefore, useless resp. downright disadvantageous, because it spends resources that could be used better otherwise.- Murphy
Click to expand...

Well there are the classic cases of the appendix + tonsils in humans (two organs which are no longer needed but still exist, admittedly needed at some point during our evolution but not anymore). Yes they may well have evolved out of us at some point (I.e appendicitis + tonsilitis infections) but we have got to a stage in our evolution that we are the top predator and can reproduce before they occur. (even taking away modern medicine to cure these diseases). You could theorise that if a plant developed feature X which allowed it to survive a potential problem which wipped out ALL other strains then providing it did not utilise a substantial drain on resources it would be left untouched. Agreed these features would be vunerable to evolution (e.g could be a virulent form of tonsilitis or appendicitis virus that wipes out population) but there can be significant drag between these events or simple luck.

I do agree though in the case of majority of plants inc morphine in poppies. The enzymatic process is FAR too energy dependant and a complete drain on resources compaired to competing plants. Also considering the varying levels of morphine between some species (some poppies produce morphine in trace levels I believe?) there must be some logic as to why the output is driven upwards.
 
Last edited:
Tadeusz Aniszewski said:
Today, the role of alkaloids can be explained by two factors:
the functions of these compounds inside and outside the organism producing
them. The external function of alkaloids is presently a particularly strong and
growing research area. This trend in alkaloid research is based on
the hypothesis that alkaloids are compounds that solely play a protective role
in interaction with other organisms (as some kind of organic bio-weapons).
This seems to be a rather limited oversimplification of the issue. Although there
is strong evidence of this kind of activity, it is not entirely clear if it is a basic
function of these compounds in the organisms producing them. The idea that
this ecologically important role may only be a secondary function and that
alkaloids primarily function in connection with the regulation of metabolism as
the result of gene expression should not be dismissed. It is known that in the
case of quinolizidine alkaloids the total removal of these compounds by genetic
means leads to the death of the lupine plant327. This suggests that alkaloids
are compounds fundamental for cell activity and gene code realization in the
genotype328. This also means that alkaloids basically function in connection
with genes, enzymes and proteins inside the organism. Moreover, it is also
known that quinolizidine alkaloids are able to change their structural chemical
configurations under changing cellular pH conditions. This observation and
experimentally measured effect first noted in the 1990s has unfortunately been
given little literary attention by other scientists. Although this self-regulation
process is still not understood in detail, there are many recent studies which
prove that chemical structural changes influence large changes in the biological
activity of chemical compounds.
Click to expand...

Also it shd be noted: animals have been around longer than plants & much much much longer than flowering plants.
 
It also occurs to me that poppies and pot (not sure about coca or tobacco) make their drug toward the end of their lives, when they are least vunerable to being eaten by a grazing animal.
 
Finally, something in this forum I know about! Well Murphy although I tend to agree with you, if you believe in Darwinian evolution, and I'm pretty sure you do, none of these things were created with a purpose per se as mutation is generally is not thought of as having "intent". They were created by random mutations, so humans propagating a plant for a desirable chemical is no different than any natural selective process for a desirable trait. For anyone to say that any specific chemical in a plant "has a purpose" in the same way a chemical factory in new jersey makes a chemical for a specific purpose is missing the point. Without getting too deep into the subject of evolutionary biology in evolution, the purpose comes after the trait not vice versa. The trait has to first appear before it can be selected for, obviously.

Several biologists have put forth theories about UV protection and anti-dessication aspects of THC but they're all highly flawed. With cannabis it is a plant that is highly versatile and genetically variable in the way of volatile chemical biosynthesis pathways. You have two different types of DNA responsible for this diversity, the nuclear DNA, which is inherited sexually, and the Lipoplasts which have their own DNA that is inherited asexually from the parent which produced the ovum. The Lipoplast DNA is located in the base of head of the glandular trichome which allows frequent mutations from the concentration of mutagenic UV concentrated on the lipoplasts by the lens shape of the gland head.

THC is highly toxic to cannabis leaf tissue so it is contained mostly in the heads of the glandular trichomes away from the leaf surface. What all of this volatile chemical diversity does is allow the plant to adapt different roles in response to dealing with predatory and beneficial insects, some of which facilitate pollination over longer distances, some of the compounds are secreted in response to an insect attack to attract predators which eat herbivorous insects, some act as simple predator deterrents etc. THC is just one fraction of this chemical diversity able to adapt to a wide array of beneficial functions.
 
Phener hit the 'vestigial concept' before I could.

MurphyClox said:
Really everything in nature has a purpose; the question is if science has discovered it yet or not.
Click to expand...

How could you explain the 'purpose' of a mutation though that carries on throughout time though? At some point in the evolutionary process there had to be a 'change' that was imposed on by an external factor (eg. UV rays, etc). I believe everything has an explanation ('who, what, where, when, why, how') but not necessarily a purpose - 'this happened for this benefit'.

I'm not a biologist or anything similar so I unfortunately cannot offer specific examples here. If this is grounds for you to personally dismiss my counter-argument then that's fine. Closest thing I can think of is morphology of living things. I don't believe it is 100% evolutionarily responsible, that some were forced by mutation or such.

Per definition there can't be something with a 'neutral' value. It's sheer presence is hindering the organism in the never-ending contest called 'survival of the fittest'.
Click to expand...

I have to reword my statement then. I agree it cannot be neutral in the respect of 'without any cost', however I mean neutral as in no direct/prominent hindrance or benefit as a result of this. I believe such things could exist without an immediate effect on Darwinism/survival of fittest. I cannot say about plants specifically, my plant biochemistry/phytochemistry knowledge is very minimal.
 
seep said:
Also it shd be noted: animals have been around longer than plants & much much much longer than flowering plants.
Click to expand...

It depends upon how one defines the plant kingdom. Certainly animals appeared before land plants and flowering plants but not before photosynthetic algaes which are sometimes categorized as plants.
 
Certainly some traits can and do have a neutral value as in no evolutionary benefit or detriment, what are you people talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top