Optimization and Evolution of Light Harvesting in Photosynthesis: The Role of Antenna Chlorophyll Conserved between Photosystem II and Photosystem I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of oxygenic photosynthesis depends on the presence of core antenna chlorophyll closely associated with the photochemical reaction centers of both photosystem II (PSII) and photosystem I (PSI). Although the number and overall arrangement of these chlorophylls in PSII and PSI differ, structural comparison reveals a cluster of 26 conserved chlorophylls in nearly identical positions and orientations. To explore the role of these conserved chlorophylls within PSII and PSI we studied the influence of their orientation on the efficiency of photochemistry in computer simulations. We found that the native orientations of the conserved chlorophylls were not optimal for light harvesting in either photosystem. However, PSII and PSI each contain two highly orientationally optimized antenna chlorophylls, located close to their respective reaction centers, in positions unique to each photosystem. In both photosystems the orientation of these optimized bridging chlorophylls had a much larger impact on photochemical efficiency than the orientation of any of the conserved chlorophylls. The differential optimization of antenna chlorophyll is discussed in the context of competing selection pressures for the evolution of light harvesting in photosynthesis.
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".