The limiting factors and regulatory processes that control the environmental responses of C3, C3–C4 intermediate, and C4 photosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Here, we describe a model of C3, C3–C4 intermediate, and C4 photosynthesis that is designed to facilitate quantitative analysis of physiological measurements. The model relates the factors limiting electron transport and carbon metabolism, the regulatory processes that coordinate these metabolic domains, and the responses to light, carbon dioxide, and temperature. It has three unique features. First, mechanistic expressions describe how the cytochrome b6f complex controls electron transport in mesophyll and bundle sheath chloroplasts. Second, the coupling between the mesophyll and bundle sheath expressions represents how feedback regulation of Cyt b6f coordinates electron transport and carbon metabolism. Third, the temperature sensitivity of Cyt b6f is differentiated from that of the coupling between NADPH, Fd, and ATP production. Using this model, we present simulations demonstrating that the light dependence of the carbon dioxide compensation point in C3–C4 leaves can be explained by co-occurrence of light saturation in the mesophyll and light limitation in the bundle sheath. We also present inversions demonstrating that population-level variation in the carbon dioxide compensation point in a Type I C3–C4 plant, Flaveriachloraefolia, can be explained by variable allocation of photosynthetic capacity to the bundle sheath. These results suggest that Type I C3–C4 intermediate plants adjust pigment and protein distributions to optimize the glycine shuttle under different light and temperature regimes, and that the malate and aspartate shuttles may have originally functioned to smooth out the energy supply and demand associated with the glycine shuttle. This model has a wide range of potential applications to physiological, ecological, and evolutionary questions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".