The Regulation of Synthesis of Chloroplastic and Cytosolic Isoenzymes of Phosphoglycerate Kinase in Barley

  • Nishith Shah
  • J. William Bradbeer


In photosynthetic eukaryotes distinct isoenzymes of phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK EC occur in chloroplasts and cytosol. The chloroplast isoenzyme is the second enzyme of the C3 photosynthetic carbon pathway and is also considered to function in glycolysis by which substrates for fatty acid synthesis are produced. The cytosolic isoenzyme participates in both glycolysis and gluconeogenesis. Both isoenzymes are involved in the regulation of carbon partitioning between starch and sucrose and in the triose phosphate/phosphoglycerate shuttle by which phosphorylating and reducing power are transported across the chloroplast envelope via the phosphate translocator. Both isoenzymes are coded by the nuclear genome and synthesized on cytoplasmic ribosomes (1). In green barley leaves the plastid: cytosol isoenzyme ratio is 90: 10 (2), but can vary from species to species and from tissue to tissue within a species. In this paper we describe the developmental changes in the activities of PGK isoenzymes during leaf growth.


Glutamine Synthetase Continuous Illumination Phosphoglycerate Kinase Chloroplast Envelope Golden Promise 
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.
    Longstaff, M., Raines, C. A., McMorrow, E. M., Bradbeer, J. W. and Dyer, T. A. (1989) Nucl. Acids Res. (in press)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McMorrow, E. M. and Bradbeer, J. W. (1989) Plant Physiol. (Submitted)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradbeer, J. W. (1981) in The Biochemistry of Plants (Stumof, P. K. and Conn, E. E., eds.), Vol. 8, pp.423–472, Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dean, C. and Leach, R. M. (1982) Plant Physiol. 69, 904–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner, B. J., Rapp, J. C. and Mullet J. E. (1989) Plant Physiol. 89, 1011–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viro, M. and Kloppstech, K. (1980) Planta 150, 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tobin A. K., Ridley, S. M. and Stewart, G. R. (1985) Planta 163, 544–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, N. R. and Leech, R. M. (1977) Plant Physiol. 60, 640–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gee, R., Byerrum, R. U., Gerber, D. and Tolbert, N. E. (1989) Plant Physiol. 89, 305–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kawakami, N. and Watanabe A. (1989) Plant Physiol. 88, 1430–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nishith Shah
    • 1
  • J. William Bradbeer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biosphere SciencesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations