{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02543068088597211, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009023789991796555, 'mean_word_length': 5.853932584269663, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF TWO PHOTOSENSITIVE COMPOUNDS ON SUPEROXIDE DISMUTASE ACTIVITY IN SPODOPTERA LITURA LARVAE *

Abstract Superoxide dismutase activity was detected in the fourth instar larvae of cutworm Spodoptera litura and effects of the two photosensitive compounds, α‐terthienyl and the synthesized compound 1‐phenyl‐4–(3, 4‐methylene dioxy) phenyl‐diacetylene (signified as compound No. 5), on superoxide dismutase activity, were compared under the specified condition. Results indicated that the near ultraviolet irradiation (300–400 nm) almost had no effect on superoxide dismutase activity in vivo in the control larvae but could decrease superoxide dismutase activity in vitro. After treatment with photosensitive compounds and near ultraviolet irradiation, superoxide dismutase activity in vitro could be enhanced by the two chemicals, with α‐terthienyl more effective, while in vivo it was hardly affected by the latter compound but could be inhibited by α‐terthienyl. This suggested that the larvae treated by a‐terthienyl were more susceptible to light than that by the latter compound whenever in vivo or in vitro. The possible mechanisms of action of the two photo‐activated compounds were discussed.