Structure-Based Kinetic Modeling of Excited-State Transfer and Trapping in Histidine-Tagged Photosystem II Core Complexes from <i>Synechocystis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorophyll fluorescence decay kinetics in photosynthesis are dependent on processes of excitation energy transfer, charge separation, and electron transfer in photosystem II (PSII). The interpretation of fluorescence decay kinetics and their accurate simulation by an appropriate kinetic model is highly dependent upon assumptions made concerning the homogeneity and activity of PSII preparations. While relatively simple kinetic models assuming sample heterogeneity have been used to model fluorescence decay in oxygen-evolving PSII core complexes, more complex models have been applied to the electron transport impaired but more highly purified D1-D2-cyt b(559) preparations. To gain more insight into the excited-state dynamics of PSII and to characterize the origins of multicomponent fluorescence decay, we modeled the emission kinetics of purified highly active His-tagged PSII core complexes with structure-based kinetic models. The fluorescence decay kinetics of PSII complexes contained a minimum of three exponential decay components at F(0) and four components at F(m). These kinetics were not described well with the single radical pair energy level model, and the introduction of either static disorder or a dynamic relaxation of the radical pair energy level was required to simulate the fluorescence decay adequately. An unreasonably low yield of charge stabilization and wide distribution of energy levels was required for the static disorder model, and we found the assumption of dynamic relaxation of the primary radical pair to be more suitable. Comparison modeling of the fluorescence decay kinetics from PSII core complexes and D1-D2-cyt b(559) reaction centers indicated that the rates of charge separation and relaxation of the radical pair are likely altered in isolated reaction centers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".