The Shape of the Pump-Probe Fluorescence Induction Curves in Chloroplasts is Determined by the Duration of the Pump Light Flash

  • L. L. France
  • N. E. Geacintov
  • J. Breton


It is well established that the fluorescence yield of Photosystem II (PS II) in green plants is a function of the photochemical state of the reaction centers. In dark-adapted chloroplasts, when the reaction centers are all open, the fluorescence yield is low, and is denoted by Fo. When the sample is illuminated under steady-state conditions, the fluorescence rises and ultimately reaches a saturation level Fmax, corresponding to a state of PS II in which all of the reaction centers are closed. The ratio R = Fmax/Fo is generally 3–5 in value, and the shape of the variable fluorescence induction curve is sigmoidal in shape under steady-state illumination (for a review see reference 1). This sigmoidicity is generally accounted for in terms of the model of Joliot and Joliot [2]. In this model, it is assumed that an exciton which encounters a closed reaction center can migrate to another, open PS II reaction center. This propability (p) is in the range of 0.4 – 0.7 [2]. The variable fluorescence yield increases more rapidly than q, the fraction of closed reaction centers, and the steady-state illumination fluorescence induction curves are thus sigmoidal in shape.


Reaction Center Fluorescence Yield Fluorescence Induction Induction Curve Fluorescence Rise 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lavorel, J. and Etienne, A.L. (1977) in Topics in Photosynthesis. Vol. 2 (Barber, J. ed.). pp. 203–268. Elsevier. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joliot, A. and Joliot, P. (1964) C.R. Acad. Sci. 13, 4622–4625.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geacintov, N.E., Breton, J., France, L., Deprez, J. and Dobek, A. (1987) in Advances in Photosynthesis Research. Vol. 1 (Biggins, J., ed.) pp. 107–110, Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geacintov, N.E. and Breton, J. (1987) CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 5, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ley, A.C. and Mauzerall, D. (1986) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 850, 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Falkowski, P.G., Wyman, K., Ley, A.C. and Mauzerall, D.C. (1986) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 849, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mauzerall, D. and Greenbaum, N.L. (1989) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 974, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lavorel, J. (1972) C.R. Acad. Sci. 274D, 2909–2912.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lavorel, J. and Joliot, P. (1972) Biophys. J. 12, 815–831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deprez, J., Dobek, A., Geacintov, N.E., Paillotin, G. and Breton, J. (1983) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 725, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    France, L.L. (1989) Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. L. France
    • 1
    • 2
  • N. E. Geacintov
    • 1
  • J. Breton
    • 3
  1. 1.Chemistry DepartmentNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentBrookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA
  3. 3.Département de BiologieC.E.N. de SaclayGif sur Yvette CEDEXFrance

Personalised recommendations