MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159484170 · doi:10.1093/jxb/erm283

The biochemistry of Rubisco in Flaveria

2008· article· en· W2159484170 on OpenAlexafffund
David S. Kubien, Spencer M. Whitney, Paige V. Moore, Linley K. Jesson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRuBisCOPhotosynthesisBotanyBiologyC4 photosynthesisCarboxylationChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C(4) plants have been reported to have Rubiscos with higher maximum carboxylation rates (kcat(CO(2))) and Michaelis-Menten constants (K(m)) for CO(2) (K(c)) than the enzyme from C(3) species, but variation in other kinetic parameters between the two photosynthetic pathways has not been extensively examined. The CO(2)/O(2) specificity (S(C/O)), kcat(CO(2)), K(c), and the K(m) for O(2) (K(o)) and RuBP (K(m-RuBP)), were measured at 25 degrees C, in Rubisco purified from 16 species of Flaveria (Asteraceae). Our analysis included two C(3) species of Flaveria, four C(4) species, and ten C(3)-C(4) or C(4)-like species, in addition to other C(4) (Zea mays and Amaranthus edulis) and C(3) (Spinacea oleracea and Chenopodium album) plants. The S(C/O) of the C(4) Flaveria species was about 77 mol mol(-1), which was approximately 5% lower than the corresponding value in the C(3) species. For Rubisco from the C(4) Flaverias kcat(CO(2)) and K(c) were 23% and 45% higher, respectively, than for Rubisco from the C(3) plants. Interestingly, it was found that the K(o) for Rubisco from the C(4) species F. bidentis and F. trinervia were similar to the C(3) Flaveria Rubiscos (approximately 650 microM) while the K(o) for Rubisco in the C(4) species F. kochiana, F. australasica, Z. mays, and A. edulis was reduced more than 2-fold. There were no pathway-related differences in K(m-RuBP). In the C(3)-C(4) species kcat(CO(2)) and K(c) were generally similar to the C(3) Rubiscos, but the K(o) values were more variable. The typical negative relationships were observed between S(C/O) and both kcat(CO(2)) and K(c), and a strongly positive relationship was observed between kcat(CO(2)) and Kc. However, the statistical significance of these relationships was influenced by the phylogenetic relatedness of the species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207