4.5 Article

Comparison of the light-harvesting networks of plant and cyanobacterial photosystem I

Journal

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 89, Issue 3, Pages 1630-1642

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.105.066464

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [2 P41 RR05969, P41 RR005969] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the availability of structural models for photosystem I ( PSI) in cyanobacteria and plants it is possible to compare the excitation transfer networks in this ubiquitous photosystem from two domains of life separated by over one billion years of divergent evolution, thus providing an insight into the physical constraints that shape the networks' evolution. Structure-based modeling methods are used to examine the excitation transfer kinetics of the plant PSI-LHCI supercomplex. For this purpose an effective Hamiltonian is constructed that combines an existing cyanobacterial model for structurally conserved chlorophylls with spectral information for chlorophylls in the Lhca subunits. The plant PSI excitation migration network thus characterized is compared to its cyanobacterial counterpart investigated earlier. In agreement with observations, an average excitation transfer lifetime of similar to 49 ps is computed for the plant PSI-LHCI supercomplex with a corresponding quantum yield of 95%. The sensitivity of the results to chlorophyll site energy assignments is discussed. Lhca subunits are efficiently coupled to the PSI core via gap chlorophylls. In contrast to the chlorophylls in the vicinity of the reaction center, previously shown to optimize the quantum yield of the excitation transfer process, the orientational ordering of peripheral chlorophylls does not show such optimality. The finding suggests that after close packing of chlorophylls was achieved, constraints other than efficiency of the overall excitation transfer process precluded further evolution of pigment ordering.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available