Advertisement

Changes in Intrinsic Quantum Yield of Photosystem 2 Observed in Spinach Chloroplasts in vitro

  • Deborah Rees
  • Peter Horton

Abstract

With increasing incident light the efficiency of photosynthesis (Φs = rate of photosynthetic O2 evolution/incident light intensity) tends to decrease. As processes beyond photosystem 2 (PS2) become rate limiting, QA becomes progressively reduced, such that PS2 centres are no longer able to carry out charge separation (closed centres). This is observed as a decrease in the coefficient of fluorescence quenching by photochemistry, qQ, which indicates the proportion of excitation energy delivered to PS2 centres that is captured by ‘open’ centres. Unless a limitation develops at PS2 itself Φs should decrease in proportion to qQ. However it has been found that this is not the case in vivo, and that the parameter Φp (= Φs/qQ), considered to reflect intrinsic quantum yield of PS2, decreases with increasing incident light [1,2]. It has been suggested that this decrease in Φp is related to the non-photochemical dissipation of excitation observed as fluorescence quenching (qNP) [1,2]. In this paper we describe work carried out to determine the mechanism of Φp changes by studying in vitro systems. Although we observe changes in Φp directly related to qNP, we also confirm the observation of Oxborough and Horton [3] that Φp changes can be observed independently of qNP.

Keywords

Fluorescence Quenching Methyl Viologen Magnesium Concentration Closed Centre Spinach Thylakoid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weis, E. and Berry, J.A. (1987) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 894, 198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Genty, B., Briantais, J.-M. and Baker, N.R. (1989) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 990, 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oxborough, K. and Horton, P. (1988) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 934, 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walker, D.A. (1980) Methods Enzymol. 69, 94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quick, W.P. and Horton, P. (1984) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 220, 371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horton, P. (1983) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 217, 405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krause, G.H., Vernotte, C. and Briantais J.-M. (1981) Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 679, 116–124Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilger, W. and Schreiber, U. (1986) Photosynth. Res. 10, 303–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horton, P., Oxborough, K., Rees, D. and Scholes, J.D. (1988) Plant Physiol. Biochem. 26, 453–460Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horton, P. and Hague, A. (1988) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 932, 107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peterson, R.B., Sivak, M.N. and Walker, D.A. (1988) Plant Physiol. 88, 158–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharkey, T.D., Berry, J.A. and Sage, R.F. (1988) Planta, 176, 415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Rees
    • 1
  • Peter Horton
    • 1
  1. 1.Robert Hill InstituteSheffield UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations