MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530372175 · doi:10.1515/zpch-2016-0825

Triplet Charge Recombination in Heliobacterial Reaction Centers Does Not Produce a Spin-Polarized EPR Spectrum

2016· article· en· W2530372175 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Ferlez, Alessandro Agostini, Donatella Carbonera, John H. Golbeck, Art van der Est

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectron paramagnetic resonanceTriplet stateChemistrySpin polarizationZero field splittingRecombinationBacteriochlorophyllPhotosynthetic reaction centreSpectroscopySpin statesMoleculePhotochemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceElectronElectron transferPhysicsPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In photosynthetic reaction centers, reduction of the secondary acceptors leads to triplet charge recombination of the primary radical pair (RP). This process is spin selective and in a magnetic field it populates only the T 0 state of the donor triplet state. As a result, the triplet state of the donor has a distinctive spin polarization pattern that can be measured by transient electron paramagnetic resonance (TREPR) spectroscopy. In heliobacterial reaction centers (HbRCs), the primary donor, P 800 , is composed of two bacteriochlorophyll g′ molecules and its triplet state has not been studied as extensively as those of other reaction centers. Here, we present TREPR and optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) data of 3 P 800 and show that although it can be detected by ODMR it is not observed in the TREPR data. We demonstrate that the absence of the TREPR spectrum is a result of the fact that the zero-field splitting (ZFS) tensor of 3 P 800 is maximally rhombic, which results in complete cancelation of the absorptive and emissive polarization in randomly oriented samples.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZeitschrift für Physikalische ChemieSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207