Effect of Metal Binding on Electrogenic Proton Transfer Associated with Reduction of the Secondary Electron Acceptor (Q<sub>B</sub>) in <i>Rhodobacter sphaeroides</i> Chromatophores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of metal ion (Cd(2+), Zn(2+), Ni(2+)) binding on the electrogenic phases of proton transfer connected with reduction of quinone Q(B) in chromatophores from Rhodobacter sphaeroides was studied by time-resolved electric potential changes. In the presence of metals, the electrogenic transients associated with proton transfer on first and second flash at pH 8 were found to be slower by factors of 3-6. This is essentially the same effect of metal binding that was observed on optical transients in isolated reaction centers (RC), where the metal ion was shown to inhibit proton transfer [Paddock, M. L., Graige, M. S., Feher, G., and Okamura, M. Y. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 6183-6188]. The effect of metal binding on the kinetics in chromatophores is, therefore, similarly attributed to inhibition of proton uptake, which becomes rate-limiting. A striking observation was an increase in the amplitude of the electrogenic proton-uptake phase after the first flash with bound metal ion. We attribute this to a loss of internal proton rearrangement, requiring that the protons that stabilize Q(B)(-) come from solution. In mutant RCs, in which His-H126 and His-H128 are replaced with Ala, the apparent binding of Cd(2+) and Ni(2+) was decreased, showing that the binding site of these metal ions is the same as found in RC crystals [Axelrod, H. L., Abresch, E. C., Paddock, M. L., Okamura, M. Y., and Feher, G. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 1542-1547]. Therefore, the unique proton entry point near His-H126, His-H128, and Asp-M17 that was identified in isolated RCs is also the entry point in chromatophores.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".