<i>Chlamydomonas raudensis</i> (UWO 241), Chlorophyceae, exhibits the capacity for rapid D1 repair in response to chronic photoinhibition at low temperature<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximum photosynthetic capacity indicates that the Antarctic psychrophile Chlamydomonas raudensis H. Ettl UWO 241 is photosynthetically adapted to low temperature. Despite this finding, C. raudensis UWO 241 exhibited greater sensitivity to low‐temperature photoinhibition of PSII than the mesophile Chlamydomonas reinhardtii P. A. Dang. However, in contrast with results for C. reinhardtii, the quantum requirement to induce 50% photoinhibition of PSII in C. raudensis UWO 241 (50 μmol photons) was comparable at either 8°C or 29°C. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a photoautotroph whose susceptibility to photoinhibition is temperature independent. In contrast, the capacity of the psychrophile to recover from photoinhibition of PSII was sensitive to temperature and inhibited at 29°C. The maximum rate of recovery from photoinhibition of the psychrophile at 8°C was comparable to the maximum rate of recovery of the mesophile at 29°C. We provide evidence that photoinhibition in C. raudensis UWO 241 is chronic rather than dynamic. The photoinhibition‐induced decrease in the D1 content in C. raudensis recovered within 30 min at 8°C. Both the recovery of the D1 content as well as the initial fast phase of the recovery of Fv/Fm at 8°C were inhibited by lincomycin, a chloroplast protein synthesis inhibitor. We conclude that the susceptibility of C. raudensis UWO 241 to low‐temperature photoinhibition reflects its adaptation to low growth irradiance, whereas the unusually rapid rate of recovery at low temperature exhibited by this psychrophile is due to a novel D1 repair cycle that is adapted to and is maximally operative at low temperature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".