Re‐evaluating the energy balance of the many routes of carbon flow through and from photorespiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Photorespiration is an essential process related to photosynthesis that is initiated following the oxygenation reaction catalyzed by rubisco, the initial enzyme of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle. This reaction produces an inhibitory intermediate that is recycled back into the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle by photorespiration which requires the use of energy and the release of a portion of the carbon as CO2. The energy use and CO2 release of canonical photorespiration form a foundation for biochemical models used to describe and predict leaf carbon exchange and energy use (ATP and NAPDH). The ATP and NADPH demand of canonical photorespiration is thought to be different than that of the Calvin–Benson–Bassham cycle, requiring increased flexibility in the ratio of ATP and NADPH from the light reactions. Photorespiration requires many reactions across the chloroplasts, mitochondria and peroxisomes and involves many intermediates. Growing evidence indicates that these intermediates do not all stay in photorespiration as typically assumed and instead feed into other aspects of metabolism and leave as glycine, serine, and methylene‐THF. Here we discuss how alternative flux through and from canonical photorespiration alters the ATP and NADPH requirements of metabolism following rubisco oxygenation using additional derivations of biochemical models of leaf photosynthesis and energetics. Using these new derivations, we determine that the ATP and NADPH demands of photorespiration are highly sensitive to alternative flux in ways that fundamentally changes how photorespiration contributes to the ratio of total ATP and NADPH demand. Specifically, alternative flows of carbon through photorespiration could reduce ATP and NADPH demand ratio to values below what is produced from linear electron transport.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".