4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Multiple Rubisco forms in proteobacteria:: their functional significance in relation to CO2 acquisition by the CBB cycle

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 59, 期 7, 页码 1525-1541

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erm297

关键词

autotrophic bacteria; chemotrophic bacteria; CO(2)-concentrating mechanism; photosynthesis; proteobacteria; Rubisco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rubisco is the predominant enzymatic mechanism in the biosphere by which autotrophic bacteria, algae, and terrestrial plants fix CO(2) into organic biomass via the Calvin-Benson-Basham reductive pentose phosphate pathway. Rubisco is not a perfect catalyst, suffering from low turnover rates, a low affinity for its CO(2) substrate, and a competitive inhibition by O(2) as an alternative substrate. As a consequence of changing environmental conditions over the past 3.5 billion years, with decreasing CO(2) and increasing O(2) in the atmosphere, Rubisco has evolved into multiple enzymatic forms with a range of kinetic properties, as well as co-evolving with CO(2)-concentrating mechanisms to cope with the different environmental contexts in which it must operate. The most dramatic evidence of this is the occurrence of multiple forms of Rubisco within autotrophic proteobacteria, where Forms II, IC, IBc, IAc, and IAq can be found either singly or in multiple combinations within a particular bacterial genome. Over the past few years there has been increasing availability of genomic sequence data for bacteria and this has allowed us to gain more extensive insights into the functional significance of this diversification. This paper is focused on summarizing what is known about the diversity of Rubisco forms, their kinetic properties, development of bacterial CO(2)-concentrating mechanisms, and correlations with metabolic flexibility and inorganic carbon environments in which proteobacteria perform various types of obligate and facultative chemo- and photoautotrophic CO(2) fixation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据