Biophysical Journal 61: 1147-1163 (1992)
© 1992 the Biophysical Society

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roelofs, T. A. Articles by Holzwarth, A. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Roelofs, T. A. Articles by Holzwarth, A. R.

Global target analysis of picosecond chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics from pea chloroplasts

A new approach to the characterization of the primary processes in photosystem II - and ß-units

Max-Planck-Institut für Strahlenchemie, Stiftstr. 34-36, D-4330 Mülheim a.d. Ruhr, Germany

ABSTRACT

In this study, we have used the method of target analysis to analyze the ps fluorescence kinetics of pea chloroplasts with open (F₀) and closed (F_max) photosystem II (PS II) centers. Extending the exciton/radical pair equilibrium model (Schatz, G. H., H. Brock, and A. R. Holzwarth. 1988. Biophys. J. 54:397-405) to allow for PS II heterogeneity, we show that two types of PS II (labeled and ß) must be accounted for, each pool being characterized by its own set of molecular rate constants within the model. Simultaneous global target analysis of the data at F₀ and F_max results in a detailed description of the molecular kinetics and energetics of the primary processes in both types of PS II units. This characterization revealed that the PS II pool accounts for twice as many Chl molecules as PS IIß, which suggests a PSII/PSIIß reaction center stoichiometry of close to unity. By extrapolation it is shown that the primary charge separation in hypothetical "isolated" ß reaction centers is slower than in isolated reaction centers: in open centers by a factor of 4 (1/k₁^int = 11 vs 2.9 ps), in closed centers by a factor of 2 (1/k₁^int = 34 vs 19 ps). Despite this slower charge separation process in PS IIß, the quantum efficiency of the charge separation process is hardly affected: a charge stabilization yield at F₀, (i.e., P⁺IQ_A^-) of 86% (as compared to 90% in PS II). Reduction of Q_A (closing PS II) has distinctly different effects on the primary kinetics of PS IIß, as compared to PS II. In PS II the charge separation rate drops by a factor of 6, whereas the charge recombination process is hardly affected. In PS IIß the charge separation is slowed down by a factor of 3, whereas the charge recombination rate increases by a factor of 5. In terms of changes in standard free energy, the reduction to Q_A^- lifts the free energy of the radical pair P⁺I^-, relative to the excited state (Chl_n/P)^*, by 47 meV in PS II and by 67 meV in PS IIß. The concomitant increase in fluorescence quantum yield is the same for both types of PS II. These results show that PS II and PS IIß exhibit a different molecular functioning with respect to the primary processes, which might have its origin in a different molecular structure of the reaction centers and/or a different local environment of these centers. Location in different parts of the thylakoid membrane might be involved. We also applied different error analysis procedures to determine the error ranges of the values found for the molecular rate constants. It is shown that the commonly used standard error has very little meaning, as it assumes independence of the fit parameters. Instead, an exhaustive search procedure, accounting for all possible correlations between the fit parameters, gives a more realistic view on the accuracy of the fit parameters.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Veerman, S. Vasil'ev, G. D. Paton, J. Ramanauskas, and D. Bruce Photoprotection in the Lichen Parmelia sulcata: The Origins of Desiccation-Induced Fluorescence Quenching Plant Physiology, November 1, 2007; 145(3): 997 - 1005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Broess, G. Trinkunas, C. D. van der Weij-de Wit, J. P. Dekker, A. van Hoek, and H. van Amerongen Excitation Energy Transfer and Charge Separation in Photosystem II Membranes Revisited Biophys. J., November 15, 2006; 91(10): 3776 - 3786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Satzger, D. Townsend, M. Z. Zgierski, S. Patchkovskii, S. Ullrich, and A. Stolow Primary processes underlying the photostability of isolated DNA bases: Adenine PNAS, July 5, 2006; 103(27): 10196 - 10201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Vasil'ev and D. Bruce A Protein Dynamics Study of Photosystem II: The Effects of Protein Conformation on Reaction Center Function Biophys. J., May 1, 2006; 90(9): 3062 - 3073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Oxborough Imaging of chlorophyll a fluorescence: theoretical and practical aspects of an emerging technique for the monitoring of photosynthetic performance J. Exp. Bot., June 1, 2004; 55(400): 1195 - 1205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Pospisil, H. Michael, J. Dittmer, V. A. Sole, and H. Dau Stepwise Transition of the Tetra-Manganese Complex of Photosystem II to a Binuclear Mn2({micro}-O)2 Complex in Response to a Temperature Jump: A Time-Resolved Structural Investigation Employing X-Ray Absorption Spectroscopy Biophys. J., February 1, 2003; 84(2): 1370 - 1386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Vasil'ev, P. Orth, A. Zouni, T. G. Owens, and D. Bruce Excited-state dynamics in photosystem II: Insights from the x-ray crystal structure PNAS, July 17, 2001; 98(15): 8602 - 8607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]