Complex II from phototrophic purple bacterium <i>Rhodoferax fermentans</i> displays rhodoquinol‐fumarate reductase activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been accepted that bacterial quinol-fumarate reductase (QFR) generally uses a low-redox-potential naphthoquinone, menaquinone (MK), as the electron donor, whereas mitochondrial QFR from facultative and anaerobic eukaryotes uses a low-redox-potential benzoquinone, rhodoquinone (RQ), as the substrate. In the present study, we purified novel complex II from the RQ-containing phototrophic purple bacterium, Rhodoferax fermentans that exhibited high rhodoquinol-fumarate reductase activity in addition to succinate-ubiquinone reductase activity. SDS/PAGE indicated that the purified R. fermentans complex II comprises four subunits of 64.0, 28.6, 18.7 and 17.5 kDa and contains 1.3 nmol heme per mg protein. Phylogenetic analysis and comparison of the deduced amino acid sequences of R. fermentans complex II with pro/eukaryotic complex II indicate that the structure and the evolutional origins of R. fermentans complex II are closer to bacterial SQR than to mitochondrial rhodoquinol-fumarate reductase. The results strongly indicate that R. fermentans complex II and mitochondrial QFR might have evolved independently, although they both utilize RQ for fumarate reduction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".