C4 Photosynthesis at Low Temperature. A Study Using Transgenic Plants with Reduced Amounts of Rubisco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C(4) plants are rare in the cool climates characteristic of high latitudes and elevations, but the reasons for this are unclear. We tested the hypothesis that CO(2) fixation by Rubisco is the rate-limiting step during C(4) photosynthesis at cool temperatures. We measured photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence from 6 degrees C to 40 degrees C, and in vitro Rubisco and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase activity from 0 degrees C to 42 degrees C, in Flaveria bidentis modified by an antisense construct (targeted to the nuclear-encoded small subunit of Rubisco, anti-RbcS) to have 49% and 32% of the wild-type Rubisco content. Photosynthesis was reduced at all temperatures in the anti-Rbcs plants, but the thermal optimum for photosynthesis (35 degrees C) did not differ. The in vitro turnover rate (kcat) of fully carbamylated Rubisco was 3.8 mol mol(-)(1) s(-)(1) at 24 degrees C, regardless of genotype. The in vitro kcat (Rubisco Vcmax per catalytic site) and in vivo kcat (gross photosynthesis per Rubisco catalytic site) were the same below 20 degrees C, but at warmer temperatures, the in vitro capacity of the enzyme exceeded the realized rate of photosynthesis. The quantum requirement of CO(2) assimilation increased below 25 degrees C in all genotypes, suggesting greater leakage of CO(2) from the bundle sheath. The Rubisco flux control coefficient was 0.68 at the thermal optimum and increased to 0.99 at 6 degrees C. Our results thus demonstrate that Rubisco capacity is a principle control over the rate of C(4) photosynthesis at low temperatures. On the basis of these results, we propose that the lack of C(4) success in cool climates reflects a constraint imposed by having less Rubisco than their C(3) competitors.
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".