4.5 Article

Coupled HOOP signature correlates with quantum yield of isorhodopsin and analog pigments

期刊

BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOENERGETICS
卷 1858, 期 2, 页码 118-125

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2016.11.003

关键词

HOOP vibration; Photochemistry; Infrared spectroscopy; Vibrational coherence; Chromophore modification; Ligand-protein interaction

资金

  1. The Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research through its Chemical Council (NWO-CW) [700.54.008, 700.98.013]
  2. NEI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With a quantum yield of 0.66 +/- 0.03 the photoisomerization efficiency of the visual pigment rhodopsin (11-cis double right arrow all-trans chromophore) is exceptionally high. This is currently explained by coherent coupling of the excited state electronic wavepacket with local vibrational nuclear modes, facilitating efficient cross-over at a conical intersection onto the photoproduct energy surface. The 9-cis counterpart of rhodopsin, dubbed isorhodopsin, has a much lower quantum yield (0.26 +/- 0.03), which, however, can be markedly enhanced by modification of the retinal chromophore (7,8-dihydro and 9-cyclopropyl derivatives). The coherent coupling in the excited state is promoted by torsional skeletal and coupled HOOP vibrational modes, in combination with a twisted conformation around the isomerization region. Since such torsion will strongly enhance the infrared intensity of coupled HOOP modes, we investigated FTIR difference spectra of rhodopsin, isorhodopsin and several analog pigments in the spectral range of isolated and coupled H-C=C-H wags. As a result we propose that the coupled HOOP signature in these retinal pigments correlates with the distribution of torsion over counteracting segments in the retinylidene polyene chain. As such the HOOP signature can act as an indicator for the photoisomerization efficiency, and can explain the higher quantum yield of the 7,8-dihydro and 9-cyclopropyl-isorhodopsin analogs. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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