Temperature Response of Mesophyll Conductance. Implications for the Determination of Rubisco Enzyme Kinetics and for Limitations to Photosynthesis in Vivo

Clicks: 1
ID: 306295
2002
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #429 of 502 articles by views in Plant physiology and biochemistry : PPB

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 502 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
CO(2) transfer conductance from the intercellular airspaces of the leaf into the chloroplast, defined as mesophyll conductance (g(m)), is finite. Therefore, it will limit photosynthesis when CO(2) is not saturating, as in C3 leaves in the present atmosphere. Little is known about the processes that determine the magnitude of g(m). The process dominating g(m) is uncertain, though carbonic anhydrase, aquaporins, and the diffusivity of CO(2) in water have all been suggested. The response of g(m) to temperature (10 degrees C-40 degrees C) in mature leaves of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L. cv W38) was determined using measurements of leaf carbon dioxide and water vapor exchange, coupled with modulated chlorophyll fluorescence. These measurements revealed a temperature coefficient (Q(10)) of approximately 2.2 for g(m), suggesting control by a protein-facilitated process because the Q(10) for diffusion of CO(2) in water is about 1.25. Further, g(m) values are maximal at 35 degrees C to 37.5 degrees C, again suggesting a protein-facilitated process, but with a lower energy of deactivation than Rubisco. Using the temperature response of g(m) to calculate CO(2) at Rubisco, the kinetic parameters of Rubisco were calculated in vivo from 10 degrees C to 40 degrees C. Using these parameters, we determined the limitation imposed on photosynthesis by g(m). Despite an exponential rise with temperature, g(m) does not keep pace with increased capacity for CO(2) uptake at the site of Rubisco. The fraction of the total limitations to CO(2) uptake within the leaf attributable to g(m) rose from 0.10 at 10 degrees C to 0.22 at 40 degrees C. This shows that transfer of CO(2) from the intercellular air space to Rubisco is a very substantial limitation on photosynthesis, especially at high temperature.
Reference Key
openalex_W2160524323 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Carl J. Bernacchi, Archie R. Portis, Hiromi Nakano, Susanne von Caemmerer, Stephen P. Long
Journal Plant physiology and biochemistry : PPB
Year 2002
DOI
10.1104/pp.008250
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.