MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950086965 · doi:10.1093/jxb/ery355

Temperature response of Rubisco kinetics in <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> : thermal breakpoints and implications for reaction mechanisms

2018· article· en· W2950086965 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan A. Boyd, Amanda P. Cavanagh, David S. Kubien, Asaph B. Cousins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRuBisCOCarboxylationKineticsChemistryArabidopsis thalianaReaction rate constantPhotosynthesisBiochemistryCatalysisPhysicsMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhancement of Rubisco kinetics could improve photosynthetic efficiency, ultimately resulting in increased crop yield. However, imprecise knowledge of the reaction mechanism and the individual rate constants limits our ability to optimize the enzyme. Membrane inlet mass spectrometry (MIMS) may offer benefits over traditional methods for determining individual rate constants of the Rubisco reaction mechanism, as it can directly monitor concentration changes in CO2, O2, and their isotopologs during assays. However, a direct comparison of MIMS with the traditional radiolabel method of determining Rubisco kinetic parameters has not been made. Here, the temperature responses of Rubisco kinetic parameters from Arabidopsis thaliana were measured using radiolabel and MIMS methods. The two methods provided comparable parameters above 25 °C, but temperature responses deviated at low temperature as MIMS-derived catalytic rates of carboxylation, oxygenation, and CO2/O2 specificity showed thermal breakpoints. Here, we discuss the variability and uncertainty surrounding breakpoints in the Rubisco temperature response and the relevance of individual rate constants of the reaction mechanisms to potential breakpoints.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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