4.8 Article

Identification of distinct pH- and zeaxanthin-dependent quenching in LHCSR3 from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

期刊

ELIFE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.60383

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program [RGY0076]
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-1740645]
  3. H2020 European Research Council [679814]
  4. Korea Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2014M1A8A1049273]
  5. Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation
  6. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found two distinct quenching processes, pH-dependent and zeaxanthin-dependent, within the light-harvesting complex stress-related protein LHCSR3 in green algae. These quenching processes prevent the formation of damaging reactive oxygen species and may provide different induction and recovery kinetics for photoprotection in a changing environment.
Under high light, oxygenic photosynthetic organisms avoid photodamage by thermally dissipating absorbed energy, which is called nonphotochemical quenching. In green algae, a chlorophyll and carotenoid-binding protein, light-harvesting complex stress-related (LHCSR3), detects excess energy via a pH drop and serves as a quenching site. Using a combined in vivo and in vitro approach, we investigated quenching within LHCSR3 from Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. In vitro two distinct quenching processes, individually controlled by pH and zeaxanthin, were identified within LHCSR3. The pH-dependent quenching was removed within a mutant LHCSR3 that lacks the residues that are protonated to sense the pH drop. Observation of quenching in zeaxanthin-enriched LHCSR3 even at neutral pH demonstrated zeaxanthin-dependent quenching, which also occurs in other light-harvesting complexes. Either pH- or zeaxanthin-dependent quenching prevented the formation of damaging reactive oxygen species, and thus the two quenching processes may together provide different induction and recovery kinetics for photoprotection in a changing environment.

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

4.8
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